RuneScape talk:User of the Month

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:User of the Month page.

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--Huanghe63talk 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[edit source]

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 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?[edit source]

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... --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 08:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

glad to see you took up my idea, Green partyhat.png Bob2006ty(RUNESTORM333)  talk Green partyhat.png 10:33 5 March 2007 (UTC) RuneScape:Article of the Month/Vimescarrot

Feedback? Perdy pwease? --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 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. Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK)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..[edit source]

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

Slow down![edit source]

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.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gangsterls[edit source]

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. Yleron - (Talk)(Contribs) 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yleron... Gangsterls is a he, not a she.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[[File:Talk contribs editcount.png|thumb|Gangsterls' Signature]]

Corrected, but that still leaves my question. I've attached a screenshot, just in case you don't know what I'm talking about: Yleron - (Talk)(Contribs) 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.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup - I can no longer see it Yleron - (Talk)(Contribs) 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. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk04:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A little early?[edit source]

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.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The voting's not complete. Not even half of the wikians here have voted! Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I did find it a little odd... even Katshuma thought that it was a little rushed. =/ --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 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.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Flame Wars[edit source]

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. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk06:53, 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... Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 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". Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Tirrian. Has anyone realized that opposing does absolutely nothing to the voting, because only supports count? Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I just striked the comments in the voting sections (I'd delete them but I might here some complaints <sigh>). 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. Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 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:Requests for deletion/Slang articles. Sysop crown.svgTes FanSysop crown.svg 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?  Tien  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! 100% made by monkeys. talk|editcount16:26, 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. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 02:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps temporarily ban the offenders from RFU? Dtm142 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ow my eyes![edit source]

Can I have permission to take away the strikethroughs now that voting is open again? This kinda hurts my eyes... 100% made by monkeys. talk|editcount12:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 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. ChristineTalk 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
We could always just delete the comments... Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 15:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes or no? My eyes burn! 100% made by monkeys. talk|editcount19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No-oppose rule[edit source]

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. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 07:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about neutrals? Will those votes be punished too? Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 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 themScythe.png 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.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 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). --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 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. Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is a no oppose rule, then it should be one vote per qualified user.Scythe.png Atlandy 20:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we be allowed to support multiple users? 100% made by monkeys. talk|editcount20:32, 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. Scythe.png 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. Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 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. Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 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? Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 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. Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 14:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the voting page[edit source]

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. Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 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.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 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. Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No I don't mind, whatever is fitting, just before we archive we will restore it.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good :o) Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 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. Hunter TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 19:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit one-sided...[edit source]

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. Sysop crown.svgTesFanSysop crown.svg 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Criteria (2)[edit source]

"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? Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 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"? Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 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[edit source]

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)

Category placement[edit source]

Why should the category be placed before the candidate section?   az talk   17:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I usually see the category near the top of the page in a discussion page. Sometimes the category accidently gets deleted or moved in the middle of a discussion. I just think it's easier to find this way, but I guess it doesn't really matter. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 17:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Good point about it being deleted accidently. But I almost added a category because it seemed to be missing at the end of the page, and had to look all over the page to find the "invisible" category... The easiest way to find a category is at the end of a page, not in the middle, LOL.   az talk  
But the problem is (epecially in large discussion places like the Yew Grove), if a category is placed at the bottom of a discussion, more people keep posting, and the category ends up in the middle of the page. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. If you insist...   az talk   19:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hall of Fame[edit source]

Why don't we have a hall of fame (hof) for all the featured users with a short description about them?

Guthix symbol.png Theg721chatAudio Me! I feel the power.

Yes, I think we should archive all the UOTM descriptions. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 02:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2 UoTM?[edit source]

This is becoming really sick... someone has to revive RuneScape:Votes_for_deletion/Archive_7#RuneScape:Requested_featured_users Second-abyssal-whip.pngPatheticcockroachGuthan's platebody.png(Talk) 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand it back then, but i definitely understand it now, i'm right there with you... ~kytti khat 21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple votes[edit source]

Hapi007 asked me if voting for more than one UotM is reasonable, i searched around some and came up short of an answer, so I'm posting his question here. Anyone? Bueller? ~kytti khat 21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think we should be allowed to vote for one person. I brought this up with Hapi because I was torn between voting for him and Degenret, and ended up voting for both of them. Later, I removed both votes because there was nothing about multiple votes being allowed or not. If multiple votes aren't allowed, some people might not vote for anyone.... How should I explain this.....
Ok. Pretend there are 5 ppl that have been nominated for Uotm.
Each nominee has 2 votes.
A user comes along and wants to vote for 2 of the nominess (which he feels are deserving) but there is a rule against it.
The user ends up not voting.
The 5 ppl are still tied, compared to 2 out of the 5 ppl being tied. (Coming no closer to determining who the Uotm is)
Thus, I just feel that multiple voting should be allowed. C.ChiamTalk 11:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems from the parts of the talk page above, when people were against multiple votes (including myself, yes), it was based on their being 2 nominees, in which case voting for both was really a waste. There is really nothing in policy that says you may only vote for one person. But I can't really be the the one to say it is ok because then it looks like I'm after a vote.=) I would recommend waiting to see if anyone else can provide any other input, then cast your vote(s) on about the 25th or so. So anyone with a problem with it has ample time to respond. Seems fair to me anyhow.--Degenret01 11:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I did teh exact same thing yesterday, between Bonziibob and kudos 2 u. I've striked through kudos's support, until further notice. I personally think you should be able to do a maximum of 3 votes if there are 4 nominations, a max of 4 if there are 5, etc, so that you can't vote for everyone, as thats completely pointless.--SmithingZilenserztalk! FishingJoin the RSWP today! 12:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Why multiple votes should be disallowed. "Oppose votes are not acceptable." Suppose four people are nominated for UotM and you are ambivalent about three of them but you think that one of them is a complete jerk. If multiple votes are allowed, then voting for the three you don't have strong feelings one way or the other has the same effect as opposing the jerk you don't like. Since "oppose votes are not acceptable", then multiple must also be unacceptable. --Hatchenator 19:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But aren't the votes supposed to be explained? Because then they would not be able to randomly support everyone except the one person (that you mentioned in your reason). C.ChiamTalk 05:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, "explained votes" is supposed to be for things like RFAs and discussions in Yew Grove. UOTM and Article of the Month just go by a count, not reasons.--Bob quest 06:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No opposing?[edit source]

I don't understand why we aren't allowed to oppose a nomination. What's the point of voting if we can't voice our opinion in an oppose? OK, I admit often opposes are accompanied with flaming, but trolls can simply be blocked and their comments removed (oops that violates RS:DDD, so just censor anything that needs censoring). Can this be reviewed? ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think a user deserves it, then just don't vote for him. Easy as it is :-P Miasmic Blitz icon.png Hapi007 Talk! Sign! . 11:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The merits of a nomination should be determined by the number of people who WANT the person to win, not by the number of people who don't want them to win, or the number of people who don't care. --Psycho Robot 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow.[edit source]

Wow. It's hard to believe Merovingian never got UotM. OMG!. --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

18:42, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Merovingan stopped editing in 2005. AOTM was started March 2007 so he would not have had a chance to be nominated. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:24, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
UOTM, evil. This is happening commonly with you isn't it? Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 08:31, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is. I mean UOTM, but say AOTM. You know what I mean... Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 09:50, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Calebchiam has already been UOTM! Youdead00 17:53, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

The UotM box on the main page shows the last 5 UotMs randomly. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 19:01, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Voting for yourself[edit source]

Why is this not allowed? I don't see any harm in someone supporting themself. FHSHBucket detail.pngrwojy 02:37, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Practically, you sort of endorse yourself when you accept the nomination. I don't believe vote-wise it would really affect the outcome of a nomination as everyone would vote for themselves anyways? Right? --Whiplash 02:39, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict with a 'crat) Because the criteria (read the third to last bullet) expressly forbids it. Besides, we do not want to feed people's egos. Voting for yourself would generally encourage narcissim, something we don't want. Look at the Feb 2009 UotM for an example of selflessness. Degen and Bonzi voted for each other instead of themselves. --LiquidTalk 02:39, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
I know it says that, the point of discussion is to change stuff. Also, the kind of people likely to be nominated are very unlikely to vote for themselves as an ego-booster. And the example shows nothing, except 2 people voting for each other. QHEGTSBucket detail.pngrwojy 02:43, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? This is just silly. I don't often say this, but, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". It is completely fine the way it is now. C.ChiamTalk 02:46, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict again, and Caleb stole my quote <.<) You are unlikely to vote for yourself as an ego-booster, but look at the page history during the month of January 2009 (for electing February 2009's UotM). Degen had me go through this edit-by-edit the other day. I have to say, if Hapi could have voted for himself to advertise, he would have. Degen claims that he actually brought other people in (who haven't edited) to vote for him. I'm not sure if that's accurate, though. By the way, I realize that's a crappy argument, but it's the best that I can come up with. I think the best reason for keeping what we have is, "if it ain't broken, then don't fix it." --LiquidTalk 02:49, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Admins can only be user of the month[edit source]

sure seems like that after being here for several months i havent seen a single user of the month who wasnt an admin --Defence cape (t).png Rabbit FearArmadyl godsword.png 14:48, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

That's mainly because once a user has been making great contributions for a while, then they do get administrative rights. There is nothing wrong with that; admins are just normal users with extra tools. Ajraddatz Talk 14:51, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

true but it means the work of others gets overlooked in favour of picking an admin instead Defence cape (t).png Rabbit FearArmadyl godsword.png 21:22, May 6, 2010 (UTC)