User talk:Ac2k/Archive 2

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

A bunch of things

I'm taking this over here because I gotta keep this argument off the other user's talk page.

1. Using Rollback for a self-reversion is perfectly acceptable. This has been established with the other admins time and time again. I'm getting sick of people telling me I can't do that, because I can, and I have been told by the administration that I can.
2. I am ignoring what you say and, *ahem*... 'strawmanning' what Serpent said, because you have been told not to butt in on other people's conversations, and you are still doing it. I don't care if you think it is for a valid reason, you are still causing harm.
3. What I said on there is not a warning. Only admins can issue warnings. What I gave was just a reminder. I was also looking at the big picture when I gave that reminder, and considered the fact that the user in question has made no mainspace edits despite being a member for some time. The number of edits they have overall is small, but would still be a concern for the administration. If I discussed this with an admin, I am sure I would be agreed with.

Finally, LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. I am OFFICIALLY sick and tired of you harassing me over everything I do on this wiki. You are bullying me over things that are too small to matter over, and are seriously getting on my nerves. If you do not stop, I will be making an official complaint to the administration against you on the grounds of harassment. I will not engage with you further over any matter on this wiki, unless it has a constructive purpose and is not another nitpick on me. Good day. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 06:09, 2 March 2018 (EST)

Well looking at your talk page, it looks like you have been warned by other users not to use rollback for good faith edits, which was not the case with your latest reversion. Besides, allowing rollback for minor things like that just leads to a slippery slope, where eventually everyone thinks it's okay to use rollback because "everyone does it."

As for the butting in on conversations thing, actually take a look and read what I said. I'm butting in because you are falsely accusing other users of policy violations and/or needlessly threatening them with administrator action, which is unacceptable. You are the one "causing harm" here by carelessly throwing out accusations of NPA and other policy violations.

Probation is reserved for cases when a user's edits are being clearly disruptive to the wiki. That would mean something like disrupting the flow of Recent Changes with multiple edits on a daily basis. Six edits in six months is nothing to complain about, and if an admin hasn't already warned a user about probation, you should probably just leave the issue alone.

It's so disappointing to see that any hint of negative criticism is passed off by you as "bullying" and "harassment", instead of you actually reading what I'm saying and attempting to imrpove off of it. And falsely/needlessly accusing people of violating policies is nothing that is "too small to matter over." These carry serious consequences (by giving users the false impression that they're in trouble) that cannot just be thrown around whenever you like. Instead of whining at me for "harassing" you, read what I said and think about actually fixing the problems, or at least challenge why you think I'm wrong, don't call me a "bully" for issuing constructive criticism.

For future reference, here is the link to the old conversation. Awesome Cardinal 2000 07:37, 2 March 2018 (EST)

If I might chime in here, theres a couple things I'd like to say on the matter. Firstly with regards to rollback the rules are very hazy when it comes to reverting your own edits, and while it's not technically permitted by SW:RB, it is something that people have been doing for a while, and has become somewhat of an unspoken rule. In terms of NPA, perhaps the rules have changed a little since you were last here, but as it currently stands, using aggressive language towards another user is generally frowned upon, so warning users about NPA in these circumstances is acceptable. Probation as it currently stands is often used when a user primarily or solely edits their own userpage, and makes little or no effort to make actually constructive edits towards the wiki, which the user in question was doing. Finally, while admittedly Black Vulpine historically doesn't take criticism all that well, and is likely being rather melodramatic here, he has a point. You have been constantly complaining about things he has done, despite him not actually doing anything wrong, which is highly frustrating and counterproductive, so I would recommend you take the time to update yourself on our policies and refrain from doing so in future. That is all. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 07:49, 2 March 2018 (EST)

If it's not technically permitted by SW:RB, then it needs to stop. Allowing people wiggle room to use it occasionally for good faith edits is setting a really bad precedent that gives people the idea to abuse it. Rollback has always been used exclusively as a vandalism tool, and it should be kept that way. If you want to go further into that, go ahead, I'll happily debate it with you.

Rudeness has always been frowned upon here, however there is a major difference between telling someone that they're being rude and accusing them of violating them of NPA. Probation has always worked that way as well, but in this case I think it's unnecessary for a regular user to warn someone about probation if an administrator has not addressed it yet as a problem.

It's dubious to claim that Black Vulpine has "done nothing wrong," when I've outlined the issues above, and as you said, some of the things technically aren't permitted by policy. What is more counterproductive is a user making the same mistakes, and refusing to listen to what other users tell them. Awesome Cardinal 2000 08:05, 2 March 2018 (EST)

And upon looking back, it looks like BV has already been critiqued about issuing probation reminders. Awesome Cardinal 2000 11:31, 2 March 2018 (EST)

Alright I have notes for both of you.

• Black Vulpine: I have warned you before about settling down with the needless warnings for other users, and also the rollback abuse. I'm not sure why the RB abuse part got brought up, but whatever. Point is I want to see both of these behaviors cease. Also, if you have a problem with another users' conduct, bold and capslock is not the way to go, no matter how frustrated you are.
• ac2k: I have a problem with your "wiki users should be prepared to deal with anyone, no matter how they communicate themselves" comment. It is true that Vulpine has pointed out several false cases of personal attacks, but rude or snarky comments also have no place on a community project like this. It's in the wiki's best interest for its users to at least attempt to get along, and comments such as these go against this goal. A second point, when you want to critique another users' behavior, you'll get further if you do it in a less condescending way. Your style is very blunt, and that can be very off-putting, to the point where the user will ignore (or in this case, lash out) your comment entirely, leaving whatever problem you are trying to solve still present. Serpent  King 20:21, 2 March 2018 (EST)

The rollback issue was brought up because BV used it on the talk page of the other user. I will concede that I probably could've reworded things to get a better response. However, I feel that the idea of requiring proper attitude from everyone does create its own problems; it results in people becoming overly sensitive whenever they communicate with someone who doesn't necessarily follow the same attitude as them (to the point where users falsely accusing others of personal attacks, or attempt to dismiss someone's negative critique because they're being "mean"). And if someone disagrees with the majority, they could often be afraid to speak out in the name of maintaining a peaceful environment. As for the line you quoted above, while it's reasonable to expect other users and newbies to display a certain standard of behavior, that should not justify a user outright unwilling to negotiate with someone else because they're not a 100% clean sheet, nor should an established user be tolerated for lashing out simply for communicating with someone who doesn't treat them with the level of respect they think they deserve. Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:36, 2 March 2018 (EST)

Pot and kettle

If you want to continue to niggle me for breaking policies, how about you stop edit warring then? Doesn't matter whether you think you're right or not. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:48, 4 March 2018 (EST)

"Power rankings" is not solely a proper noun. Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:52, 4 March 2018 (EST)

Okay, I will concede that. But that's not what we are talking about here. If you care so much that you want me to be a high-quality user, start by setting an example, not a double standard. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:57, 4 March 2018 (EST)

If you want to go into the semantics of 1RV, it says that in cases of false information, this does not apply. Your claim that "power rankings" is universally a proper noun could be considered false information, when it's untrue and it goes directly against the article title. Awesome Cardinal 2000 01:07, 4 March 2018 (EST)

I knew you'd try to make that distinction, and I'm here to tell you that the wording of the policy is 'obviously false information', and I strongly argue that this is NOT obvious. Furthermore, while I did concede over the name, I could have easily turned around and said "Then it should be moved to 'Power Rankings'". Then it turns into a battle of opinions, which is the very thing that 1RV seeks to prevent.

Putting all that aside, I do not appreciate being accused of adding false information, as that implies an assumption of bad faith. I will concede that my edit may have been erroneous, but to call it 'false information' is very bad, especially in cases where the error is not cut-and-dry. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 01:20, 4 March 2018 (EST)

Alright then. If you want to debate whether the term "Power rankings" is exclusively a proper noun, you should put a move tag instead of leaving the bolded text inconsistent with the title of the page. Awesome Cardinal 2000 01:27, 4 March 2018 (EST)

'ey

Perhaps you should take a step or two back from the recent discussions and criticisms for a bit. It seems to be getting out of hand and a few days of winding down would benefit everyone involved.

(You're not the only one being told to do this; much discussion was had with others off-wiki already.) Toomai Glittershine The Prismatic 18:40, 6 March 2018 (EST)

Fair enough. What should happen, however, is that the administration should better enforce the rules here; users are more likely to listen when a sysop, rather than a non-admin, informs them of their mistakes. Seriously, BV straight up ignored the two messages I left about his edit summaries, and those should not be allowed to happen again, considering he made an RfA and is in theory well aware of the rules put in place. Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:09, 6 March 2018 (EST)

I have an opinion about this comment but think it is better to leave things be for now. Toomai Glittershine The Metroid 19:16, 6 March 2018 (EST)

SW:1RV

Stop violating it. St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 22:17, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

I'm not too happy with the attitude Iron is displaying, but I have more that needs to be said. You were going after me for (very minor) breaches of policy here and there at every turn, but I for one am sick of your double standards. As I said earlier, if you care so much that you want me to become a role model in this wiki, then you should be setting an example. You keep breaking 1RV, you gravedig old discussions, and yet you expect more from others, particularly me, than you practice yourself. You want to know why I ignored you the last time you posted on my talk page? It's because you are a hypocrite, lecturing me and others on what the policies are, without making the proper efforts to practice them yourself. Answer me this: How can you possibly expect me, or for that matter, anyone else, to take you seriously when you set such a repulsive double standard? I personally do not believe that you have the right to lecture people on this wiki's policies when you do not practice them yourself. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 23:09, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

What's wrong with my attitude? St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 01:23, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Talking about there being a problem without actually explaining the problem. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 02:17, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Ah. St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 10:37, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Except your "very minor" breaches of policy involve falsely accusing other users of personal attacks and insulting newbies in your edit summaries, which are far more consequential than non-antagonistic violations of 1RV will ever be. In addition, that is a blatant example of the tu quoque fallacy, by attempting to discredit what I'm saying because I violated a completely unrelated policy. Just because I said something myself doesn't make what you did any less wrong. Honestly I don't understand why you brought this up in the first place when it's completely unrelated to Iron Warrior's original post. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:01, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

In addition, Iron Warrior's post/attitude was perfectly fine here, and at any rate was better than what you did by needlessly bringing up irrevelant shit on my talk page. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:21, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Look, it’s obvious you and I are never going to agree on the way things are done here, so how about from now on we never bring that up again, and go our separate ways? If there is a problem, let the admins deal with it. As far as policies go, you’re never going to listen to me, and I am never going to listen to you, so we should just never talk about them again. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 18:40, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Agreed. Ac2k, if you have an issue with him, just leave him the hell alone and forget about it. St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 18:53, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Except I wasn't the one who brought it up here in the first place. In addition, pretty much every established user here has violated 1RV at some point, but these violations have never turned into all-out flame wars, which is why the policy was put into effect. Awesome Cardinal 2000 01:56, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

I wasn't talking about that, I was the one who brought up SW:1RV. St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 02:25, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

Policy

So recently you have been inserting yourself into a lot of talk page conversations, which in itself is fine, however you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not understand our policies. If you are going to contribute towards a discussion involving policy, you must make sure you properly understand the policies in question, so I would ask that you take the time to re-read our policies and brush up on your understanding of them. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 18:29, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

If you are going to make accusations like that, you should probably provide examples or at least be more specific as to what policies ac2k is supposedly breaking. The worst I've seen is minor breaches of 1RV. Serpent  King 18:31, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

No no, I'm not accusing him of violating policy. My problem is that when he inserts himself into discussions involving policy, his comments are generally unhelpful, and he does not appear to fully understand how the policies work. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 18:33, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

What policies do I not fully understand how they work? Or are you just incapable of handling criticism? Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:59, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

To take a recent example: SW:NOTABLE Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 21:00, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

If I may step in for a quick moment, there's a difference between "not understanding a policy" and "not being there for a policy's introduction and therefore being unaware of its existence altogether". Aidan, the Irish Rurouni 21:02, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

Except the user actually did provide additional information, labeling the player as "the best active Dr. Mario main in the world." That is definitely enough evidence; if you ask any player in the Smash community to name the best players of a certain character, they'll list off a few names of the top players. That's your own problem for lacking knowledge of the Melee community, not the user's fault for providing explanations like the policy requires.

Or, you know, you could have looked up the name of the player on reddit or Smashboards, or left a message on the talk page of the user asking for more details, or asked a more knowledgeable user to verify the information for you, instead of straight up removing the information? Imagine if the user hadn't come back and re-added it in, then the wiki would be missing encyclopedic information. A name being added with absolutely nothing is a different story. But if you don't know enough about competitive Melee to verify the information for yourself, you should honestly just let other people patrol the notable player sections instead. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:10, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

Now see this is exactly what I'm talking about. You clearly don't understand the notable policy at all. Claiming that a smasher is the best Dr. Mario smasher in the world is not the same as proving notability, as I could claim that I'm the best Dr. Mario player in the world, but that doesn't make it true. You must back up your claim with evidence of why said smasher is the best Dr. Mario player. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 05:14, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

Except any player who remotely follows the Melee scene will be able to tell you who the best players of a certain character are. And if someone adds in a player claiming that they're the best in the world, go look it up first instead of automatically assuming they're not telling the truth. The point is, there are better ways of handling the issue than just straight up removing the content without leaving a message on the user's talk page. And if you insist on moderating the "notable players" sections, you should actually familiarize yourself with the competitive community so that you don't make counterproductive reversions of encyclopedic information like this. Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:19, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

Look I get where you're coming from but, that's not how our policies work. Most of the editors on this wiki cannot instantly tell which players deserve to be in the notable players section unless they're extremely well known, and the problem of invalid additions of smashers to these lists is too big to ignore, so our policy is a compromise, and absolutely should be followed, as policies are not to be ignored simply because you disagree with them. If you really have a problem with this policy, take it up on the talk page of that policy, but as it stands now, it must be followed. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 15:23, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

If you can't tell which players deserve to be in the notable players section, then ask someone else to do it for you, or ask the user who wrote it for more information. Or use Google, and it takes a couple of seconds to verify that the player indeed exists. The competitive sections of this wiki should not be brought down to a lower standard simply because the users who are so insistent on moderating it don't put in the effort to learn about the scene. Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:28, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

Look, I didn't invent this rule, I'm simply following policy. Again if you have a problem with this policy, take it up on the talk page. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 15:31, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

"Smashers in the "notable players" section of character articles must be accompanied by a brief description detailing the smasher's most notable feats with the character and/or their contributions to the characters meta-game. Edits adding a smasher to the "notable players" section without this are to be reverted on sight."

Being considered the best in the world meets that criteria, and does not qualify for the reverted on sight clause. You're not "following policy," you're just being counterproductive by refusing to look up a verifiable claim. Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:36, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

No. "Best active player" is not a description, it's a claim. It does not state any measurable feats or contributions that said smasher has made, and anyone can make such a claim. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 15:40, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

Anyone can make a claim, but why not take a few extra seconds to look it up? Worst case, if they're making things up, then you remove the player, and if they're being legit, then the wiki now has another line of encyclopedic information.

Consider another case then: players add in tournament results for notable players all the time as well, and these need to be looked up and verified as well. If you're gonna moderate these sections, you would ideally be looking up all the tournament results to verify that they're true. Why not put the same amount of effort into other non-tournament claims as well? Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:45, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

Now you're back into the territory of disagreeing with policy. Again, take it up on the policy talk page. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 15:48, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

All right, so this is my main point:

• If you see a potentially factual but non-objective claim, such as "best player in the world," you should look up the player yourself or ask the user in question for more information before immediately reverting it
• If you wish to moderate the "notable players" sections of articles, you should be willing to put in the necessary effort, in order to protect the right encyclopedic content and be as constructive as possible, instead of half-assing it

Is there anything that you disagree with me on here? Awesome Cardinal 2000 16:00, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

After reading through this wall of text and reviewing the policy in question I can confidently say that ac2k is following policy. The user did leave a summary (half assed though it may be) which I think does not require a reversion per the "Edits adding a smasher to the "notable players" section without this are to be reverted on sight."" rule. The whole reason we decided to start requiring these summaries was to give us a claim to make weeding out the nobodies a bit easier, not to discredit possibly legitimate smashers because there is no proof. In a perfect world the burden of proof does fall on the original editor, but should that editor fail to do so, the burden of proof should fall to the reverter. Serpent  King 16:34, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

I strongly disagree with you on that one. "Best active player" is not proof of notability, it is a claim. SW:NOTABLE specifically states "a brief description detailing the smasher's most notable feats with the character and/or their contributions to the characters meta-game", and so some form of measurable evidence (e.g a power ranking or results) must always be provided. I have seen time and time again random IPs or new users claiming that a certain smasher is "the best", but without actually providing evidence, this statement means absolutely nothing. Remember that opinions or speculation is frowned upon on the wiki, and unsolicited claims of a player being "the best" falls under opinion until actual evidence is provided.

Furthermore it is not, nor has it ever been the job of a reverter to do the editor's job for them. If an editor has claimed a smasher to be notable with no actual proof, the reverter's only responsibility is to enforce policy, not to do their job for them. And adding to this, if it really is as easy as Ac2k claims it is to find evidence of a smasher's notability, then that's all the more reason why there's no excuse to add a smasher to the notable players section without providing proof. Overall it's far too dangerous to simply allow users to add players to these sections under the guise of "they're the best", as this will inevitably lead to malicious or vain additions to these sections. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 16:46, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

While it is true that the burden of proof lies on the person who added the information, it's important to remember that the overall purpose of the "Notable players" sections is to provide a more complete account of the history of each character in competitive play. If a moderator removes a truly notable player's name simply because they're too lazy to properly look up the player in question, that's being counterproductive and going directly against that goal. While the original purpose of the policy was to weed out nobodies, if legitimate players are getting removed simply because the editors aren't as familiar with the rules, then more attention should be taken to ensure that the players being removed are in fact not notable, especially if the user leaves something like "Best player in the world" instead of just nothing. While it's the moderator's job to enforce policy, if it ends up being counterproductive, more effort should be put in by the moderator so that policy is enforced in a productive manner.

In addition, while SW:NOTABLE outlines guidelines stating the requirements that a player should meet, nowhere does the policy say that the player must be accompanied by tournament results, power rankings, or other statistical data, and in many cases subjective data define's a player's impacts with the character.

I'm not arguing against removing random players who say "they're the best", but in this case you removed a "they're the best" player who actually is the best player right now, so more careful inspection would have prevented that from happening. Awesome Cardinal 2000 17:06, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

Consider this: Most people who add to the "Notable players" sections probably aren't very familiar with the rules. A moderator is an editor who has been around for an extended amount of time, knows the rules, and spends countless hours every week patrolling the wiki. Both the newbie and the moderator are working to improve the wiki and make it as complete as possible. As such, it should be the responsibility of the moderator to put in as much effort as necessary to make the wiki as best as it can be. Immediately reverting an editor who writes "best Dr. Mario main in the world" reflects extremely poorly on the responsibilities of the moderator. A better course would be to take a few extra seconds to either look up the information on your own, or communicate with the user who wrote it, rather than carelessly removing things to make your already easy job less difficult. Awesome Cardinal 2000 17:26, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

In addition, while SW:NOTABLE outlines guidelines stating the requirements that a player should meet, nowhere does the policy say that the player must be accompanied by tournament results, power rankings, or other statistical data, and in many cases subjective data define's a player's impacts with the character.

If these things are required for smasher articles, they need to be required for this as well. The notable players sections are supposed to list players who are historically notable, in other words, these players are to meet a higher standard than they would have to to get a smasher article. Serpent  King 19:24, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

This is another issue with the current standard procedure of "place in a tournament or be on a power ranking" that is being enacted on all the Smash 4 character pages. It creates the idea that any player who manages to get a certain placing is considered "notable," when, as you mentioned, the players listed are supposed to be historically notable, i.e. revolutionizing the metagame or being known as the best in the world, not just getting a good placing or beating a certain player. Getting ranked Xth on a PR or beating X player details nothing about the traits of historical notability that I described above.

Ideally, the notable player summary sections should all be subjective, rather than quantitative and objective, as the other competitive history sections of the wiki are. The Brawl notable players sections are a great example of this, as they were meticulously patrolled and edited to keep the actually historically significant players and remove the "placed Xth at X tournament" players. This was discussed here.

Anyhow, I firmly believe that purely statistical data should not be immediately required for the notable players section, as long as the subjective analysis provided is verifiable. Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:39, 18 March 2018 (EDT)

If I may intervene, it might be time to archive this page, Ac2k. Iron Reggie, the Easter Bunny Warrior 02:54, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

u right Awesome Cardinal 2000 10:26, 26 March 2018 (EDT)