Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/DominatorMatrix

Archive 1 Archive 2

Re:Age

I noticed that my (old) behavior has be dragged in the mud. It is unfortunate that a misunderstanding of the event (August) has led to some of you to think less of me, I apologize if people took it the wrong way, I was not being an rude, I was simply asking for clarification. I have changed a lot since August and my edits have reflected that. Please for once don't torcher me with past events. --Dominator Matrix 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Some can't let go of the bad in the past to see the good of the person. They always judge by what they want, instead of the truth in front of them, the good especially. -- riyen ♥ 02:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would help if you could link us to edits of yours that display your sysop-worthiness, or perhaps past mistakes you made, explaining what you would do different today. Basically, what Xeeron posted on my and Jon's RFA talk pages. I've gone through your contributions quickly and while you are a very good contributor, what I found hasn't been able to convince me to support you yet. You contribute positively and with good intentions, however I don't really get an image of the person behind the keyboard and mouse clicks, not even from your userpage or previous candidate statements. So pointing me (us actually) in the right direction might help your cause. You could be worthy of the sysop tools, but I just don't know yet. — Why 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry DominatorMatrix, but those "old" behavior-based edits are within your last 50 user:talk-space edits. That means (I speak for only myself here) that your actions since that haven't been voluminous enough to overshadow that behavior. -- FreedomBound 11:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no hard feelings towards Dom for that. It was a small thing, even at the time, that left me bemused more than anything. However, it does worry me that he now claims that it was only about "clarification" when the conversation in question clearly shows otherwise. I would be quite comfortable changing my neutral to support if he in stead had owned up to the mistake and explained how he would handle it differently today. As it stands I am more inclined to change my neutral to oppose. Now, I also make my share of stupid mistakes and let my temper get the best of me, no doubt about it. But I am also not running for sysop. --Lensor (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I could have done that event differently, I did state above that I did apologize. It's unfortunate that everyone is putting me in the janitor closet so to speak. My personality does come out on IRC, just not on the wiki as much. --Dominator Matrix 13:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be nitpicky, but you apologized if people took it the wrong way, not for you being wrong. There is a difference you know. Anyways, not frequenting IRC myself I cannot base any voting on what goes on in there. And frankly I hope that even people who do only base their votes on wiki contributions and nothing else, since anything else would be highly undemocratic. --Lensor (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly dislike this "oh I am sorry, it's because I am oh-so-oppressed" attitude, if you want to sincerely apologize, don't play a guilt trap afterwards by shifting the blame like this: "It's unfortunate that everyone is putting me in the janitor closet so to speak." This only convinces me that opposing your nomination was and is right.Pika Fan 14:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any bad behavior at any point in time on this wiki. We are all human beings and don't always show our best. --Dominator Matrix 15:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate as to how your personality on IRC has any relevance when you are applying for adminship on this wiki? Misery 15:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My personality on IRC is relevant to adminship on the wiki because it shows how I react to different situations. Granted it has no value on this wiki, it just shows more of my personality that you may not see. --Dominator Matrix 15:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that if you were going to show a different side of your personality on this wiki that would be useful as an admin that you would do so before becoming an admin, rather than that side of you spontaneously being shown once you gain a sysop flag. I am aware that promotions can induce behavioural and personality changes, but asking us to depend on such a thing ending in favour of the wiki sounds like madness to me. If that side of you is never going to manifest on the wiki, then it is not useful whether you have a sysop flag or not. Misery 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said that, that side would never been shown, I just thought that IRC could be used as an example since the wiki doesn't always provide what your personality is like. It's a supplement not a replacement. --Dominator Matrix 15:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually covering both possibilities in my earlier response. Either you believe you have not displayed this side of your personality yet and will display it after becoming a sysop or you will never display that side of yourself on the wiki. There may be a third option that I am not aware of, but obviously, I am not aware of it. Misery 15:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"..you believe you have not displayed this side of your personality yet and will display it after becoming a sysop". --Dominator Matrix 15:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's sad how someone thinks you'll play a guilt trip. From talks, I can tell otherwise and I just think more conversations of the humble you that I do know on here on discussions of things, even things shown in RFC would help people with their judgmental views or attitudes. You can show who you are on IRC on the wiki as well. It's not hard and I know you can do this now. We've all had our mistakes and I've had mine, but to show the honesty and helpfulness and what we can and would do is, in my opinion, the best thing. I don't believe in the you're bad just because you looked at one mistake in the past, and by looking at what you see with personal views or public views of the past doesn't help. I think if one would look at the contributes as well as the discussions as well as the person, to judge from that of what they think, not from one incident that has never repeated. Since then, none other has and I don't think of that one as an incident nor a problem as the parties just had an oops and it was merely a discussion that has obviously been taken out of contest then and is being used out of context now. That's my opinion. -- riyen ♥ 16:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Honestly Ariyen you are not helping by saying that people with quite warranted concerns have "their judgmental views or attitudes". Skirting PA if I ever saw one. Also, you fail to realize that the problem is not the argument as such (and no, it was not just a "discussion", it was a confrontation, albeit not a serious one), the problem was Dom's refusal to admit a mistake, something that many feel does not bode well for someone wanting to be sysop. Now, he has swallowed his pride and offered an unconditional apology, which I applaud him for. This is what I expect from sysop candidates, not that they don't do mistakes at all.--Lensor (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) In which case you can refer to my previous response in its entirety with the exception of the final sentence. If you want other examples, Entropy is held in high regard on GWiki, but here, Vili's behaviour is quite different, hence people were not comfortable with her becoming a sysop here. If she still wants to become a sysop, she is going to have to demonstrate that she is willing to behave more like "Entropy" here. Originally I was a responsible sysop on PvX while a lot of my actions here were not really becoming of a sysop. I adjusted my behaviour here which led to moderate success in a bureaucratic election followed by victory on my second attempt and recently I passed an RfA. I admit there were changes in how I acted after becoming a bureaucrat and there will likely be other changes now that I am a sysop, but I wasn't elected or promoted in either case because of the possibility for change, but because of where I currently was. As such, I am suggesting that your personality on IRC is irrelevant and doesn't convince me to support you. If you believe that your behaviour on IRC is more suited to being a sysop here than your current behaviour here, you should change your behaviour here to match that on IRC before seeking adminship. Misery 16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's sad that you have to talk about me so indirectly like that, Ariyen. You are afraid to directly tell me things even with the internet in between us that I must be so intimidating now. Feel free to prove that his apology to Lensor is in no way bitter. Feel free to show that trying to shove off his blame with "people treating him like a janitor" is perfectly fine and "humble" as you call it. Many users have a problem with your lack of logic in your posts. You have been banned for it multiple times for not listening to the advice of other users. However, you do not learn your lesson even though many cordial sysops like Wyn and Misery have repeatedly talked to you about it.

How a sysop handles conflicts is very important, especially when the nonimee in question has stated it in his sysop scope, however, you fail to notice how DominatorMatrix has failed in this regard. P.S. I haven't even gone into DM changing his reply totally without striking it out. Pika Fan 16:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pika, stop assuming. Lensor, I'm saying that some judge only by what happened at that one time, instead of looking into the contributes as most use to do, and I've looked into the past Rfa's, btw. However, I think it's sad to judge on one incident a mistake that so many of us make, whether offensive or not, (how i view that is not relevant), but it seems like a few have jumped into conclusion over one thing instead of looking at the contributes at the things this person has done even since August. Now I do agree with Why in that I would like to see Dominator point out some of his best as well as worse, but on the worse explain what he would have done differently. I think this would help more than harm. -- riyen ♥ 16:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to "assume", from "It's sad how someone thinks you'll play a guilt trip." and the fact that I am the only one accusing DM for playing a guilt trap means you are clearly referring to me. If you wish to tell a lie in what you post, please tell a better one so as to not insult others' intelligence. I did not bother to reply or question your opinion of DM, because even if I do disagree, you are still entitled to your opinion. However, since you chose to overstep our status quo and make sardonic remarks about the opinion that I am entitled to, so I will kindly do the same unto you.

So what if it is a "one time" incident? It's clear that he did NOT handle the situation properly THEN, and he still did NOT handle it properly NOW until just earlier. I fail to see how it is a "mistake" on our part to judge him based on the fact that he is unable to handle a "small" situation like you said. If he can't even handle a small situation after given more than one chance to, how is he supposed to handle BIG situations? Pray, tell me how any user is supposed to see past his faults and give his/her approval? Pika Fan 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

One word, that you're over stepping. AGF. You haven't shown that since your first post in here. Good day. -- riyen ♥ 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's one thing to Assume Good Faith; it's another to Assume Blind Faith. You are exercising the latter. Good day to you too. Pika Fan 17:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk about the Kettle burning black. Lensor, I sent you an email. I'm hoping for an answer. It's in regards to the context in question that's being used against Dominator. -- riyen ♥ 17:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen I have answered your e-mail. If you have anything else to say on the subject, please take it to my talk page.--Lensor (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Pika fan why are you taking things so personally?. Go for a walk or something as your acting like a locked up animal. --Dominator Matrix 17:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Resorting to name-calling are we? I can choose to post whatever and wherever I want, please, continue to amuse me by taking it personally that I am taking things personally. Irony always amuses me. Pika Fan 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't name calling. Just take it else where, please and thank you. --Dominator Matrix 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Chill pill says "Hi! Take me! I'm yummy *nomnom*" --JonTheMon 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no name calling. Dominator, It seems to me like we have someone who has to try to make it be from about you to about him. When this Rfa is about you and this talk should be about you, not anyone else. @Jon, that's cute. -- riyen ♥ 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Does everyone tell really bad lies these days? Also, I was always on-topic until you derailed the discussion, so you should take this elsewhere by your own initiative. @Ariyen How is talking about DominatorMatrix all this while suddenly talking about me? I am curious.Pika Fan 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen, being judgmental in this context is completely appropriate. RfAs are specifically requesting the participating users to judge the candidate in question. It's the entire point of the process. You judge his character one way, I judge it another, but nobody here is being more or less judgmental than anybody else.

Secondly, you still very clearly don't know what GWW:AGF means, so please don't link to it or quote it to justify your actions. By your bizarre interpretation of AGF, we couldn't block any vandals or bots, because we should assume their next contribution will be positive.

Finally, for what it's worth, I agree with Pika Fan, and DM's responses in this thread have very much solidified my oppose.

—Tanaric 17:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

sup topic! Dom, your personality on IRC mostly consists of posting interesting and relevant links that help to enlighten the discussion at hand. I don't see how that plays to your favor on the wiki. Vili 点 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"DM's responses in this thread have very much solidified my oppose." Besides putting salt on old wounds care to explain? --Dominator Matrix 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"I honestly dislike this "oh I am sorry, it's because I am oh-so-oppressed" attitude, if you want to sincerely apologize, don't play a guilt trap afterwards by shifting the blame like this: "It's unfortunate that everyone is putting me in the janitor closet so to speak." This only convinces me that opposing your nomination was and is right.Pika Fan 14:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)" —Tanaric 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So your following in the foot steps of someone else rather then taking a solid look at things? This in general is a misunderstanding. I was not guilt trapping. Can we please move onto some other topic rather then aruging about how the sun doesn't shine in the winter? --Dominator Matrix 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm just not going to retype something that somebody else has already typed to my satisfaction. It is very likely a misunderstanding, but people aren't really judging you about the misunderstanding, they're judging you based on your reactions to that misunderstanding. This is a subtle but important point. —Tanaric 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright I accept that. --Dominator Matrix 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Seqence of events

1 misunderstanding, has led to more misunderstandings. I apologize for any poor behavior. I will let this rfa run, but it's already decided that I won't be a sysop. I thank you for your comments, but it's made no process besides a huge text wall. --Dominator Matrix 18:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You know Dominator, almost everything a sysop or bureaucrat does or says is questioned or criticised by someone. It kind of comes with the territory. I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, but it is, so knowing how to deal with it is kind of important. You need to be prepared to explain your actions, defend them and when you screw up, apologise for them. Misunderstandings happen all the time when people communicate purely through text, being able to clear up those misunderstandings in an amicable fashion is a pretty important skill for a sysop, even when there is no way you are ever going to come to any agreement. Misery 21:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I did do pretty much what is explained above to do. Did defend, and did apologize. That is what is in my book as a misunderstanding. Guess we can agree to disagree. --Dominator Matrix 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but people feel you did it badly apparently. Misery 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it was executed more dramatic then a sysop would have. Oh well. --Dominator Matrix 21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Drama is fine if it achieves a goal. If you're trying to enact a rather new guideline or formatting change or something, and people get bent out of shape about it, so what? You're still there to improve the wiki. If people are getting bent out of shape over you making a mountain out of a molehill, that is a totally different story - that drama is pointless and unneeded.

To echo Misery's points, in that particular case from a few months ago, you didn't defend your actions nor did you apologize. When people called you on your math, you didn't catch on that it was wrong. When they literally put the math in front of you, you just said "w/e." "Whatever" isn't an apology.

The bigger problem here is... you just don't get it. At all. Edits like these two are rather telling in that regard. Firstly, you hadn't apologized for jack, and all of the "apologies" I've seen you give were half-assed, so your first post seemed more of a blatant lie than anything else. Your second post (or... edit) is another half-assed apology, not aimed at any particular person, and not sincere in the least. If you consider that an apology, then the problem here is clear - everyone except you can see it's obviously fake. Instead of sincerely saying "I'm sorry for fucking up and I'll try not to do it again," you always have an addendum to your posts. "I'm sorry except we're all human so you're mean for being mad at me" isn't an apology. "I'm sorry but you really shouldn't consider me a janitor sysop" isn't an apology. "I'm sorry" is an apology, and you haven't been able to stop there as far as I've seen. That is my problem with you as a sysop. There are a lot of little things that go into civility, internet communications, and wiki-ing, and you miss them all. Playing the "I'm oppressed" card doesn't get you out of jail free when it comes to sysophood - all it does is convince people you aren't ready for it. -Auron 15:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I did apologize, and I didn't mean it "half ass". I would have ZERO reason to lie. The thing is, I am very capable of a sysop, but everyone misinterpreting my emotions like I am some fucking jerk that wants to play catch 22. I have sincerely apologized on multiple occasions, and it's not my problem if you can't comprehend that. --Dominator Matrix 16:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dom as a person who has nothing against you mate, terms like "everyone misinterpreting my emotions like I am some fucking jerk" and "it's not my problem if you can't comprehend that.", probably aren't the biggest aid to the point you are trying to convey. -- Salome 16:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly yes, but it's the only way to clarify the point. --Dominator Matrix 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Their are other ways to get your point across which do not involve accusing people of misinterpreting you and being too thick to work it out. You could have said "I apologize if I am not expressing myself clear enough in this instance", that shows that you are taking responsibility for not clarifying the point, rather than shifting the responsibility to the community for not gettign your point. It is subtle differences such as these which are essential in being an effective sysop and as Auron said, you don't seem to have a handle on them at the moment. Sorry mate, not trying to kick you when you're down but with some personal development in these areas you could make a fine sysop eventually. -- Salome 16:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I am not apologizing on that point as well I don't know any other way to explain myself in a more clear fashion. The name calling though is mutal. Granted it needs to stop there is nothing in my power I can do. I am simply responding to the questions giving to me. For the record, I have not been sarcastic, liar, or the like across this whole RFA talk, I have been very honest. The problem is that my words and the way its being read are the exact opposite as the way I indended it to be. --Dominator Matrix 16:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please link any instance where anyone has labeled you with a derogatory term on this page. Oh wait. You can't, because you were the only one other than Ariyen doing the name-calling. Really, you don't get it why people are onto you for the smallest things - it's because you can't handle small issues like this that disqualifies you from being a sysop. P.S. It is NOT mutual if you are the only one doing it. Thanks.Pika Fan 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well no one has labeled me. I retract my statement on the mutual name calling. What I meant to say is that the misunderstanding is mutual. Small issue yes turned into a rather large issue. I apologize for my actions since I clearly was misreading them/poorly responding. I feel in my opinion that I can capable of being a sysop, while this talk page shows the exact opposite. The small issue was with Lensor and what I have been trying to explain is that I felt that I was not responding/reacting in that way. With the small issue I was asking for clarification and obviously had a disagreement. I said w/e not in the fuck off stance but in the alright your right and I am wrong. Given I can't change any of your opinions now since I have done all the damage I can seriously do, all I can do is try to untangle the mess. --Dominator Matrix 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) " I said w/e not in the fuck off stance but in the alright your right and I am wrong." I think this your first successful attempt to explain how you felt. Couple that with a, "Apologies for being curt, I should have explained myself better at the time," and all this goes away. —Tanaric 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I should have explained myself better at the time and not drag it up months later, and I do apologize for that. --Dominator Matrix 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:Ariyen

Isn't this a RfA talk page?

I'm just confused. Ariyen seems to want it to be something else :/ Karate Jesus 18:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You ec'd me, but what I'd originally written isn't even worth posting after this. However, I wouldn't entirely blame Ariyen, if much at all. ··· Danny Pew Pew 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, I tl;dr most of the page. Obviously, it's not all Ariyen, but the majority of the off-topicness seems to be her. Karate Jesus 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR

Less Wiki-drama plz. :D Briar 03:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

less trolling plz. --Dominator Matrix 13:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh -- Salome 13:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

take your own advice m8. ··· Danny Pew Pew 15:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)