User talk:Rottingflesh

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Removing content from talk pages is a big no-no. Deleting an entire 32k+ page isn't too kosher either, but really the talk page is the problem here. That and the self-fellating clan declarations. Now I've gotta learn how to delete and partially restore pages. --Flargen 10:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Hmmm.. So, even though he's clearly putting in a lot of work, trying to make the wiki better, you block him for one week? I may not be an admin who has to deal with people spamming or whatnot, but it's quite clear that he's not some riffraff that's trying to vandalize. --MindlessGames 11:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand the reasoning behind the policy, and all...but this seems like a pretty strong "warning", given that the info in the help page states: "Also, editing or deleting other people's comments is generally not appreciated, although discussions may be archived." There's no mention of or link to information about how to archive, and certainly no warning that you'll be banned for deleting comments. --Kirkpatrick 12:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I've deleted his "edits" to that page, so you probably missed the part where he said something like "THIS PAGE DELETED BECAUSE THE HOGS HAVE CLAIMED IT FOR A REWRITE". Not exactly going to ingratiate you to...well, me at least. If some other admin wants to reduce/remove his ban duration, I won't complain, but I hope it suffices to say that he didn't exactly go about his rewrite in an appropriate fashion. --Flargen 16:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
        • He said "THE HOGS OF DESTINY CALL DIBS ON REVAMPING THIS WIKI ENTRY". --CG1:t,c,e 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I've gotta say, I think this is a little harsh. RottingFlesh was clearly working hard to improve things-- I watched last night as he gave a ton of attention to the old and outdated Hardcore Skill Analysis page, a page that nobody had revised in ages. There might have been a few missteps here and there, but blocking him for a week? When you fire a warning shot, it's generally across someone's bow, to alert them, not square in the middle of their hull. --Southwest 18:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • One week is a warning shot. Blanking a page and saying you (and you alone) are going to revamp a page is not in the cooperative spirit of a wiki. If the admins wanted to sink them for good it would have been a permanent ban, not a one week suspension. --Lordebon 18:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Deleting entries (whether Talk or otherwise) and 'claiming' them for editing purposes later is neither constructive nor helpful. If revisions want to be done, then just do them. If you're doing a major revision, stick it in the talk page for debate over whether the change was helpful or not. Also, if standards dictate you don't delete talk pages, then you don't delete talk pages. The ban is both warranted and just.--Mr. Green 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Standards dictate that you can't do that? Where? (seriously, where). Tradition dictates this, but I see no standard. He probably could have been a bit more diplomatic about it, sure. However, there are many pages and re-writes that do a lot better when it's one person, or a small group of people doing the re-writing. Especially when it's a focused page, or one that's incredibly out-of-date. Collaboration may be what the wiki is theoretically about, however, there are many pages on this very wiki which are best written by people who have full knowledge of the thing at hand (It can very readily be the case that there are only a handful of people that fully understand the subject!) And banning someone like RottingFlesh, who has clearly shown that he wants to help with the wiki is only setting the precedent that if someone wants to help too vigorously, they can and will get banned, even if they do an admittedly non-tasteful thing like "lol, this page is ours, we're going to make it awesome." A User Talk-page warning would be better for people that are clearly avid editors, and do something "out of line." Just a simple thing like "Hey, we can see that you're being helpful, but <whatever> is unnecessary, please refrain from doing that." If it were a spammy noob, sure, go ahead and ban them. But someone knowledgeable and willing to help clean up old/incorrect pages? Seems excessive. --RoyalTonberry 19:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I shortened the block to 3 days. I'm not much of a fan of using blocks as warnings, but that's mainly personal preference. Even so, blanking a page and adding in {{rewrite}} is a bit overboard: usually you leave the page intact and add the template. --CG1:t,c,e 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck you, Fred. --Rottingflesh 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • What's that, you say? "Yes, sir, I'd like another"? Because I can oblige you. You seem a glutton for being punished for crossing the line between "amicable joker" and "braying jackass", all the while professing yourself to have been ignorant of the distinction. But enough of personal histories. If you seriously intend to continue in this vein, you will soon find yourself at the end of a more lasting ban hammer, just like the douche-of-the-month recipients preceding you, and it won't even have to come from me. But I'm going to cross my fingers and hope you were making an earnest attempt at "amicable joker" just now, and just couldn't make out that line again. Welcome back to the wiki, RF, ol' pal. --Flargen 02:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Fred, this is his user page. He should be able to control what is on it. And expressing his personal opinion about you on HIS USER PAGE seems perfectly fine. You, on the other hand, are abusing your power. Motherfucker.--DarthDud 23:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Hey. Stop. The second block was my fault - I have removed it. Both sides are probably guilty of not following wikipedia standards for civility, but there's no need to continue the profanity. --CG1:t,c,e 23:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      • He can control his user page within reason, yes. And the talk portion of his pages is more...sensitive than his main page, and not subject solely to his editorial whim. But I'll go with CG here and assume both sides have crossed a line and try to chill a bit. --Flargen 00:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • And, you removed talk once again. Removing something an admin said is usually not a good idea. Acting like an asshole right after a shortened ban length is not a good idea either. Come back when you've matured. --CG1:t,c,e 03:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Can someone show me a standard or policy that says "we will ban you for deleting talk?" And no ex post facto thing either. I would really like to see that that was in place beforehand. You guys seriously lack a sense of humor. Flargen is also clearly too close to the situation to be objective, as he notes in his post. I do not know what the entire history is there, though I can guess at it from his in-game clan. Perhaps you guys should re-think your own adminships if you feel like treating users this way? I don't care that he antagonized you a bit. If you guys really want to powertrip because you're supposedly admins, fine, whatever, but you guys are clearly very bitter, and enjoy going overboard. Why should people like RottingFlesh help out the wiki as much as he has, when he's just going to get stuff thrown in his face, like arbitrary bans from people who have a poor history with him? If this is the behavior that the ADMINS want to show the people that are being helpful, then why should any knowledgeable person that wants to totally revamp old and useless pages help out at all? Stop being ridiculous. You are the ones who need to grow up and mature, not RottingFlesh, who was simply responding to a ridiculous overreaction on the part of the admins. I know a bully when I see one, and you are one, coolguy00001 (#1080670), as is Flargen [Fred Nefler (#1235115)]. --RoyalTonberry 03:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm really curious about that too, actually. I just went and actively looked for the policies regarding bans, and couldn't find anything, let alone anything about deleting talk. So a user's talk is off-limits as well, then, just like a page's talk...but that's not mentioned anywhere that I can find. Where are the rules for the wiki, anyway? All I can find is "Please post in/start a discussion somewhere before initiating large scale changes on your own." and "Mark a page for deletion, or for discussion about being deleted in TheKolWiki:Pages for deletion.". Or maybe "Also, editing or deleting other people's comments is generally not appreciated, although discussions may be archived.". I'm not sure which one of these, or the item I haven't found, implies "you will be banned for deleting talk", let alone spelling out the standards. I also couldn't find any Terms of Service or such to indicate how two users are allowed to interact. I'd appreciate a link to these policies so that I don't run into the same kind of discipline for violating these invisible standards. Or even a KoL-like "don't be a jackass", which I've yet to see either. --Kirkpatrick 04:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • First block aside, coming back and insulting someone (and then deleting their comment) is not a civil thing to do, regardless of whether or not the original block was warranted or not. With that said, this wiki doesn't have any formal block guidelines -- and this case shows the issues that arise when such guidelines are not in place. At this point I think everyone needs to take a step back from things and clear their head; wiki-editing done in hot blood is generally neither helpful to the wiki nor to the editor. Then I'd suggest we start work on some guidelines for ban reasons and corresponding ban durations, so this situation can be defused and prevented from reoccurring in the future. --Lordebon 04:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, senseless arguments can not possibly be helpful to the wiki. Rather than assigning blame, we just need to fix the problem and move on with it. The problem being that Rottingflesh has supposedly deleted talk in direct violation with a policy (or something similar to that, which is up to interpretation of the mod. That's why he's a mod). Was deleting the talk a jackass thing to do? No. Was it appreciated? Here's a quote from http://kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/index.php/Help:Contents: "editing or deleting other people's comments is generally not appreciated, although discussions may be archived". So how can we move on with this? RottingFlesh needs to stop the argument without getting in the last word, by just continuing to edit without pissing off a mod. On the mod's side, excessive bans only prolong the conflict, encouraging the accused to continue the debate. Which leads to more bans. Which prevents someone perfectly capable of improving our wiki from doing so. Which defeats the entire purpose. So, I fully support the idea to take a step back and clear everyone's heads. Hopefully, we can unban RottingFlesh and put this all behind us. Until in inevitably happens to someone else. --Mr. Green 04:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      1. Although the KolWiki generally doesn't do things exactly the same way as Wikipedia, we tend to follow some of its basic policies. Here, Wikipedia states that violations, especially repeated violations, may lead to the offender being blocked.
      2. If you point out "No personal attacks" on that same page, Flargen and I are probably at fault in the latest two talk comments. "jackass" has been a popular word used by admins to describe people who edit other people's talk.
      3. As I mentioned earlier, I thought a warning would have been more appropriate as a response to the initial blanking of the talk page at Combat Style. However, I halved the amount of time he was banned, after which he continued to remove talk.
      4. Bully? In retrospect 1 month may be too long. Here is a guide for appealing blocks for Wikipedia - I felt the first block wasn't necessary, which is why I halved the duration. However, he didn't demonstrate the block was no longer necessary, as shown by his actions.
      5. Most KolWiki standards are located at Established Standards, which assumes a basic knowledge of wiki editing. Granted, it probably doesn't assume knowledge of every wikipedia policy, but which is why a warning was issued.
      6. I'll start a discussion --CG1:t,c,e 07:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)