User talk:RAN1/Archive 2

Koro's RfR

Are you fucking insane? I mean that literally. Are you mother-fucking-puss-eating-Dennis Rodman insane? Your argument was shit. It was. I don't even want to hear it. Your argument was shit because nobody bothered to bring up the elephant in the room, and Shadowcrest played by your rules and your retarded premise that rollback should only be given to people who revert vandalism. Here's a couple things that are unwritten rules but that are pretty much adhered to religiously: (1) the power progression goes rollback-->sysop-->bureau. In that order. It is the cursus honorum of Wikia. That is known to everyone. Just like in the curus honorum you didn't have to be an aedile before you were a consul, but everyone and I mean everyone did it that way. Koro has caused no harm to this wiki, which cannot be said of yourself, in the least. (2) the criterion that 'you must have need of the tools' is bullcrap. It's plastered all over wikipedia and this wiki but it's quite plainly bullshit. It's a lot of feel-good nonsense about having an easy way to restrict a candidate who everybody thinks shouldn't get it. His main editing style doesn't include reverting vandalism, that's true, but for one, we don't get much vandalism on this wiki. Just like a medic's job on the battlefield isn't primarily to shoot the bad guys, if it comes to it, he's got a gun. Koro is the same way. Your editing style on the other hand is to gum up the works and impede the progress of this wiki's best contributor, and I'm not going to let you do that. Your arguments are stupid. Your contributions are meaningless. I don't like you. GTFO. Semicolon (talk) 23:27, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Orly? Seems like you people have a propensity for ignoring certain arguments, which is quite annoying, to say the very least. Let's look at my fourth point in my last post on the RfR talk page: "That argument completely fails now. Your big picture post said that giving it to him would do more good than harm because he wouldn't abuse it, supposedly. Not abusing it indeed. That is one of the worst uses of rollback I have ever seen, but anyways…" I'm not going to even argue why rollback abuse harms the wiki, you should know it yourself already.

That's why we have the undo tool. By your analogy, rollback should be a machine gun, not a pistol. Rollback only gets the job done faster, and undo is more than sufficient to handle reversion jobs. He simply doesn't need the tool if he has undo already. And if you honestly think that the "need tool" argument is crap, then go propose a new version of the policy. Until then, no. R A N1 00:21, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did read that part. I looked over the revert. Please, explain to me what you think the problem is. The irony is that you ignored my arguments entirely. None of what you've said even explains at all why Koro should not get rollback aside from questionable abuse, but seeing as we have one active sysop who abused sockpuppets and has by all accounts made a fine administrator, I don't see what one contentious abuse does to his candidacy except perhaps support it. And if you want policy, then let me hand you some policy, informal or no. You're not a bureau. You don't get to make the decisions about who gets rollback rights and who doesn't. Wikia willing, though, Koro might be someday. I know that you never will. Semicolon (talk) 00:30, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

To answer your first part, the problem is he abused the tool. I thought this would be obvious to you, given that you, as an administrator, should be able to tell vandalism from good-faith edits. Semi, abusing the tool he was supposed to use for the good of the wiki is very different than abusing multiple sockpuppets. I don't think that if those sockpuppets were extremely malicious would he still be a sysop, but abusing the tool he was given right on the very first use of it is simply too big to ignore. As for the "bcrat" part, SW:YAV, anybody? Salad made the decision, but I questioned it, then he changed it. Tbh, stop QQing over it. R A N1 01:07, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

"You are valuable" does not mean "you are equal to every other user in every way, shape and form". YAV less. You're free to voice your opinion, but the opinion of an Administrator or Bureaucrat will most likely carry more weight. Salad only overturned the decision because he couldn't be bothered to keep on arguing with you and all your "ridiculousness". One misuse of Rollback isn't "too big to ignore" - you could just have told him why he shouldn't have Rollbacked the edit, and asked him what possessed him to do so. Let him learn from his mistakes, don't overreact and unfairly punish him for them. You're right, there's a massive difference between one incorrect use of Rollback and using multiple accounts - you can't be permabanned for one incorrect use of Rollback. Why are you fighting so desperately hard to prevent KoRo from getting Rollback? The wiki stands to gain a lot from having him around, and if giving him Rollback will encourage him to stay, so be it. Also, don't tell Semi to "stop QQing over it" - he may have trolled you, but that gives you no excuse to not be at least civil to him. Penguin of Death 01:26, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

For the record I did not and do not agree with you RAN, I just got tired of arguing with a brick wall and having nobody back me up even when I ask them personally. ^^ Shadowcrest 03:06, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

General Response: See my user page. You can give KoRo back his rollback, I really don't care, Just another example of how SmashWiki fails to be a "community," so I'm leaving. Bye, all. R A N1 03:22, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously guys, you made a user quit. If it was bothering you this much you should have checked with the admins or something. KoRoBeNiKi (talk) 04:23, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

For the record, we are admins...all three of us. And having a user leave SmashWiki is not like killing a person. It's a lot cleaner to have a user quit than to induce or fudge reasons for banning them. Semicolon (talk) 04:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

RAN1: Your most recent edits to this discussion and your user page were, to say the least, disappointingly Parthian. You could have at least had the dignity to respond to some of the points I raised instead of just ragequitting. I thought you were more mature than that, but clearly I was wrong... If you really are leaving, and you meant everything you said on your user page, you need to fix this. Penguin of Death 11:35, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Er...wow. Quitting a wiki just because you disagree with an RfR? Yeah, it's more than that, but that's how it started. Here's how things looked to turn out from my end:

RAN1 opposes KoRo's RfR because he hadn't make enough vandalism reversions, and those that he did revert were accompanied by other edits (which couldn't be done with rollback). This is a resonable argument, as SW:ROLL states that users should have a history of vandal-reverting, but a user can learn to seperate reverting and addition edits.
At the tail end of the RfR, there are 3 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals (all with slight support). It looks overall like a slight support, but RAN1's opposing argument is the most in-depth (even convincing another user).
Shadowcrest passes the RfR. As he said on the RfR's talk page, he actually went against the grain by doing so:

"I could have done what has usually been done, which is to oppose/fail the request if the user had little/no rollback reverts. But here's the big picture part: what good would that have done for the wiki? None. KoRo is a pretty good contributor and I fully trust him not to abuse the tools; granting him the tool would almost surely have caused no harm and will most likely do good in the future. Unless you can present links to edits that would lead me to believe KoRo is going to abuse rollback and never use it properly (in which case I would happily revert my actions), stop pretending that promoting KoRo wasn't in the best interest of the wiki."

While I agree with the idea of this, it does go against the general principle of discouraging "why-not" promotions. Yeah, rollback is much less important than something like adminship, but I think it's relevant enough to be noted.

The argument falls into the standard SmashWiki format, where both sides end up using increasingly convoluted arguments and counter-arguments.
- KoRo making a bad rollback was somewhere in here. RAN1 proceeded to use this as an example why he didn't deserve the tool, whereas I believe most users would say it was a beginner's error.
Shadowcrest undoes the RfR because he was sick of arguing with RAN1. A terrible misstep in my opinion; it was almost certain to explode into something like this.
Semicolon wakes up and gives RAN1 his opinion (with his usual style, of course).
More arguing.
RAN1 decides that everyone's against him and ~~ragequits~~ quits the wiki.

So, from what I can tell, there were three tings that caused this to go off:

Shadowcrest passed the RfR even though there was no precedent for doing so.
RAN1 assumed that one bad use of rollback merits not deserving to use it (as opposed to giving a pass and letting the user learn from mistakes).
Shadowcrest undid the RfR because he didn't want to argue his decision.

So there you have it. From my analysis, Shadowcrest took a risk and tried something new, while RAN1 stuck to his argument even though the circumstances had changed (that is, instead of arguing against giving KoRo rollback, he was now arguing for having it revoked).

DISCLAIMER: Toomai has little if any social skills and may have gotten this entire summary completely wrong. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 14:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you got it pretty much right as far as I can tell. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 01:23, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

You know, I find kind of abusive the use of "ragequit" as applied to people who have calmly made the decision to finally leave this wiki. Anyways, I have better things to do. R A N1 01:28, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if a user quits because of a heated debate, "ragequit" is the only thing most people will think of. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 01:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, it is in no way abusive. It just means that you left during an argument that you knew you no longer had a chance of winning, then tried to ignore anyone who attempted to bring the argument back up. You didn't leave calmly, you ragequit, and whether or not you think you did is immaterial. And your irritatingly Parthian comments (things like "Anyways, I have better things to do.") don't exactly back up your "I left calmly" argument... Penguin of Death 14:06, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

User Editing

Dark Templar is my sibling, and I don't feel like logging out. DT wanted me to edit it. ~Hyper Zergling