RuneScape talk:User of the Month

Alright, I have a question. When it means never offended, does it mean: A. You have not been banned, muted, etc. on RS. B. You have never gotten a black mark on RS. C. You have never offended anyone on RS or RSW. D. You have never banned, blocked, or etc. (except for those blocked by Shadowdancer, they are excluded) on RSW.

Someone tell me! ДҖ-- Huanghe63 talk 03:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems difficult to determine if there has been some in-game formal action against a wiki author. Hence, my assumption is that only offenses on the RSW are being considered. Nice initiative btw. --Miw 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Offended means never have broken any of our CVU rules and been banned for it. --Whiplash 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that's necesary... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Criteria
I don't have a problem with the idea of a featured user, but I do have a problem with the criteria:


 * This user must never have offended before.
 * Why? If he's not a good enough editor to be featured, he won't be featured. If he is, then he's obviously either never offended, or fully repentant.


 * This user must have been here for over 1 month.
 * Why? If one user writes quest guides for every quest remaining, doubles our item databse, and categorises every uncategorised image and article, as well as coming up with the perfect image to sort out our logo debate, in three days (It's possible), and we nominate the next one the day after, why can he not be eligible?


 * You must not nominate anyone who has been already given the spotlight.
 * No problem with that.


 * The user should have at least 750 edits.
 * See two up from here....Number of edits does not equal quality of content. And entire quest guide could be written in one edit, or multiple edits; going by that, more edits suggests less suitable for featured user. Number of edits is an extremely bad way of representing a user's qualities.


 * You must notify the user you have nominated them as they may wish to withdraw.
 * Sounds good to me.

Ok, that's me done. Discussion? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

=O I see your point Vimes this is still new so do any changes you wish :P. --Whiplash 16:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps instead of putting no offences, we can use no Ip addresses as we don't know if they're shared and may vandalise. --Whiplash 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll leave off editing for tonight, I'll do it tomorrow, after some more discussion has happened. Or has not happened. Either way...lol. And I agree...Nominated users must be registered. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * K, duly changed. By the way, I think we should archive the old nomination pages every month; that way we can re-nominate someone (who wasn't featured before, obviously, lol) without having two entries for them on the same page :) JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  17:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Requirements to vote?
Well, I'm hoping it doesn't come to this, but should we have a certain number of days for an editor to be around to prevent Sock puppetry? I don't think it would be long... 2-5 days? Then again, they do have an entire month to vote, so it may not have much of an effect other than deter lazy/impatient sock puppeteers... 08:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

glad to see you took up my idea, 10:33 5 March 2007 (UTC) RuneScape:Requested Featured Articles/Vimescarrot
 * Feedback? Perdy pwease? 07:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about no IP addresses. The User needs to have made a few contributions, whether on the forums or the pages themselves, doesn't matter, but they're at least doing something.  On for at least a week?  Then they might have some time to actually see someone well enough to vote for them.  Dunno.  19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The voter should be a registered user, not a nameless number. Dtm142 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww..
Man...too bad i'm not active anymore :'( 05:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow down!
Am I the only one that's noticed that the latter two of the Featured Users have recieved Featured User status halfway through the month? The Featured User page should run more along the lines of the Requested Featured Articles page. I mean, there's no hurry to recieve so why the rush? Chaoticar 09:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's first to five votes. It's not like Requested Featured Article (which waits until the end of the month, I think). Sorry, a little late. 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gangsterls
Why is his signature (or part of it, at least) at the top right hand corner of the page? I can't seem to find the code for it, but it definitely seems it's there for me. 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yleron... Gangsterls is a he, not a she. 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Corrected, but that still leaves my question. I've attached a screenshot, just in case you don't know what I'm talking about: 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'll look into it. He uses template sig? Does he subst it? If I can't find what's wrong, we'll get someone better at HTML. 15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it. 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup - I can no longer see it 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

R0FL!! I love that screenshot, thanks for taking it Yleron! I know it's screwed up, it used to show up that way on a bunch of talk pages, but I think Ilyas fixed it. Thanks Ilyas and lol I'm saving that picture. Wow my sig got me my own section on a talk page... =). I thought people were actually talking about featuring me, lol =P. 04:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A little early?
isnt it a little early to decide who is Uotm? I mean, its only the 5th and we have already decided on what next months UOTM is? doesn't anyone find that a little odd? Tesfan 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if the voting is complete then it's finished. I mean, we can't start it over so we'll have to wait until July to vote for August. 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The voting's not complete. Not even half of the wikians here have voted! 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did find it a little odd... even Katshuma thought that it was a little rushed. =/ 03:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it can't be until the end of the month, really. Oddlyoko talk 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Chia (and everyone), you've read the criteria, right? It used to say first to five votes and now first to ten. It's not about how long it's been there, it's about how many votes. It still is, first to ten now. 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Flame Wars
If the flame wars which have plagued this page the past few weeks don't stop, I'm going to have to suggest that we either do away with the entire system, not allow comments during voting, or dish out some hefty blocks. This entire page has become a spectacle where people go to spout their hatred. We don't need this crap on the UotM page. Honestly, I expected more of you guys. Small disagreements are understandable, but not when they escalate into all-out war. Some of the behavior and comments shown on this page are just plain ridiculous, and it isn't funny any more, it's just plain pathetic. 06:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like some sensible responses and calm discussion from the sysops and people involved in the flame wars. Further suggestions are welcome.
 * I agree Gangsterls. Suggestion: this has already started to take effect somewhat, but it was an idea that would allow the most fair voting.  We are only given one vote, for the geniuses that can't figure out why here's the reason: THERE'S NO NEED FOR ABUSE ON THIS PAGE! You are given the chance to vote for the people who have been recommended.  Vote for one of them, and whichever of the two gets the majority of the votes wins in the end.  No comments, just votes should be the way to do this...  16:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, here should be no comments (except the person nominating, and maybe a short phrase while voting like "Oh yeah" or "congrats" or something), and no Oppose options. There should be a "Vote Count" rather than number of supports and opposes.  Remember: This isn't like it's voting for Sysops/Admins/Crats or anything like that.  It's just something fun that can help people enjoy the wiki a little more and help people get to know a little about the other editors.  It's certainly not for (as suggested) "Flame Wars".  17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Tirrian. Has anyone realized that opposing does absolutely nothing to the voting, because only supports count? 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just striked the comments in the voting sections (I'd delete them but I might here some complaints ). So, no more oppose options.  Vote for the person you want to win.  At the moment Christine is ahead.  That may change, which is fine, that's what the votes are for.  Please vote responsibly and please refrain from comments that are inappropriate for this page.  21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. I think the formatting should be changed to be more like RuneScape:Votes for deletion/Slang articles. 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some comments should be allowed. However, it should not be a flame war/personal attack warground like it has been the past little while.  I propose that you can only vote once, and that you may explain why you're voting.  I'm sick and tired of it becoming a flame warground.  It must stop, or else there will be some blocks handed out. Dtm142 21:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone remember me? As you know, I quit this Wiki a while ago, and for good reason too. As some of you may remember (doubt it, but anyway...), I said that I will still use the Wiki for looking up stuff like skill tips, quest walkthroughs, and things of that nature. I only quit the forums.

Well....anyway, while using this wiki, I couldn't help but noticing that on the news section of the main page, you had your User of the Month page closed due to arguing and insulting and other crap like that. That's the exact reason I left the Runescape Wiki in the first place. =p So, I clicked and read the entire page.

I've decided to log in once more (luckily I still remember my password) to say that some of you peeps are really immature, have anger management problems, or are just plain stupid! I see that lots of people, like me, have also quit; no doubt that it's because of you lot and your arguing. I'll give you my advice. If you don't feel good about the wiki, then just leave and live your own life. So, how does this signature stuff work again? 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree...but you can't blame me entirely for this. It's not all my fault. I was the one who stopped arguing. Btw, anyone notice I was gone for 3 days? I went to Washington DC! 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not blaming anyone entirely. Nobody is completely innocent or completely guilty in the feud that was going on.  I don't care how it started.  I just want it to end, and I want it to end now. Dtm142 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it should be closed for the month. 02:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps temporarily ban the offenders from RFU? Dtm142 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ow my eyes!
Can I have permission to take away the strikethroughs now that voting is open again? This kinda hurts my eyes... 12:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. 16:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, don't. Those were placed there because comments should not be added, so a flame war doesn't ensue. Christine Talk 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We could always just delete the comments... 15:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes or no? My eyes burn! 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No-oppose rule
I think a minimum of one week is kinda' harsh. Why not a minimum of 12 hours? 24? 72? If a user comes along and sees someone that they don't think should be featured, but did not notice the new rule, opposes, but does not do so in a rude way, they'd get blocked for a week, not knowing that what they did would end up with themselves getting blocked. Perhaps if they intentionally disobeyed the rule it would be a week, but only 12 hours if it was by mistake. 07:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And what about neutrals? Will those votes be punished too? 08:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The rules are simple, you cant vote oppose...what is so hard about that? Nobody is forcing anyone to vote, if you dont want someone, or find someone else is more deserving, dont vote for them[[image:Scythe.PNG|25px]] Atlandy 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the minimum punishment was supposed to be 24 hours. --Whiplash 14:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean, no offense to the person who thought up this rule, but a week? 7 days? 168 hours? It's a bit hard, isn't it? According to Chia, a user (such as himself, which already happened) could not notice the rule and then vote. Even now that the rule is rubbing in and we won't have mistakes such as Chia's, a week is a bit harsh. The most should be 2 days and the least 1 day. 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the rule never set the punishment though blocking should go according to the RuneScape:User treatment policy in my opinion. I didn't make the original blocking >.>. --Whiplash 14:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why people can't oppose? I'd assume the UotM nominee has the maturity not to get into an argument (or hold grudges) over an oppose, and as long as it's valid (no "woodnt giv mah phr33 items," or "you never play RuneScape" votes). If you really don't want an oppose, then remove the vote and kindly explain to the user that you cannot oppose (in other words, don't block them). 19:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That hasn't been the case lately. There was a massive flame war on this page recently because of opposes. Dtm142 20:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Darn, two edit conflicts in a row. Reason for no-oppose rule: It makes sense! Have any of you ever participated in any sort of election? Vote for a class president or something? Did you get the chance to oppose the people you didn't like? Probably not. Rather, you put the name of the person you wanted to win on a piece of paper, and when all the papers were tallied up at the end, the person with the most votes won. How difficult is this to understand? Maybe I'm just weird likethat or something. I do, however, think there's no reason for a block of any kind. 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is a no oppose rule, then it should be one vote per qualified user.[[image:Scythe.PNG|25px]] Atlandy 20:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we be allowed to support multiple users? 20:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read Tirrian's response: "any of you ever participated in any sort of election? Vote for a class president or something?  Did you get the chance to oppose the people you didn't like?  Probably not.  Rather, you put the name of the person you wanted to win on a piece of paper, and when all the papers were tallied up at the end, the person with the most votes won.".  To me that sounds like one vote per person.  [[image:Scythe.PNG|25px]] Atlandy 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not always. Sometimes you get to vote for more than one person. Dtm142 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a purpose in voting for more than one person? It would be the same as not voting at all, so yes, we should only have one vote per person (and no sockpuppets either!). If I vote for both Cashman and Chrislee, neither would get an advantage, my votes would be worthless, so again, what would be the point of doing that?  The nice thing about this wikia is that you can always change you vote is you want to.  21:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's more than two candidates, yes it does matter. Dtm142 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't have more than one winner though, so no, it doesn't. I think we should only have one vote.  21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this got kinda' far from the original topic. What would happen if someone voted neutral instead of not voting? 22:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it would be the same as not voting, there's no real purpose in putting a neutral, it doesn't help the person your voting for. If you're not sure whether you should vote for that person, don't vote until later.  Really, we only have one vote, which is only a Support vote.  Again, maybe I'm the one who's confused but I don't see the purpose in any other type of vote, and I don't see the difficulty in figuring this out.  14:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the voting page
I'm going to delete the information that no longer pertains to the current "election". If anyone objects, they are welcome to revert it, but I think the page needs to be cleaned up. Ilyas and Christine are out of the running for different reasons (Ilyas declined, Christine quit the wiki), and the current candidates deserve a clean page at least. Again, if it's a problem, just revert, but I think it's the best thing to do at the moment. 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't do that. See, when they go on the archive, they have to BE an archive. If you take stuff off, it's users wont be able to see the entire month's worth when they view archives. 15:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the worthless garbage that doesn't need to be there anymore? Don't see why we'd need to see it really, but if you want to revert it, go for it, and sorry for deleting it.  16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No I don't mind, whatever is fitting, just before we archive we will restore it. 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good :o) 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to create the archive, then add the dead nominations to it. When the month is over, we can add Cashman286, Chrislee33, and whoever else gets nominated. Dtm142 19:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome, even better, we won't have to worry about it later. You should probably get rid of the strikethroughs I put there too, although you could leave 'em if you prefer.  19:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit one-sided...
There's only one candidate right now! Should I nominate someone, or leave it to someone else. The month is almost at an end, people! Cashman286 talk 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You could, but if you felt someone was worthy, I would wait until next month.  [[Image:Sysopcrown.PNG]]  Tes     Fan   [[Image:Sysopcrown.PNG]]       22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Criteria (2)
"If one of the nominees or anyone else on this page causes a large amount of disruption or participates in a flame war, they will immediately be disqualified from that month and may be given a temporary ban from this page under discretion of the community."

I have some questions about that:


 * 1) What if the user participates in the flame war, but does not flame?
 * 2) What if the user started it, but did not flame?
 * 3) Are edit wars considered to be flame wars if there is no flaming? 03:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As the writer of the guideline, I say: 1.  No, especially if they're trying to resolve it.  2.  Depends on the situation.  If they're just a UOTM candidate and did nothing wrong, no.  3.  Yes.  That's a bad example to be setting if you want to be UOTM. Dtm142 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "you" as in "Chiafriend12", or "the reader"? 03:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he meant the reader. Skill 03:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean the reader (whoever it applies to, I don't know or care whether that includes you). Dtm142 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Voting format
Well the main page says there is a discussion to change it, but there hasnt been any change in quite a while. I for one am hoping that it can end up with one vote per person, because it makes sense to me. yes, I understand the arguements for letting people vote for everyone, but it seems to much like wall sititng IMO. So if there isn't any more discussion on changing the format of voting, the link ought to be bounced out.--Degenret01 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)