From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

User:TheNuttyOne/Challenger Pack Concepts

User:TheNuttyOne/Smash Taunts

User:TheNuttyOne/Assist Trophies

Yeah, no, this place still isn't worth the stress. As usual, I'm allowing myself to hinder my credibility by forcing arguments that have no productive or relevant usage for the principle of it when it is beyond clear that the powers that be have no intention of changing their ways.

While treading as lightly as possible to avoid this getting deleted under grounds of violating SW:NPA, I would like to, one last time, state my strongest issues with this community as it stands in hopes that someone with more ability to change things than I will read it and make a difference.

Simply put, this wiki is a massive, toxic, high school clique.

Admins are judged not on their leadership skills but instead how well they fit in. Users consistently solve issues are denounced for being rude or troublemakers when all they do is stand up for what they believe in, while users who consistently cause issues are praised for their ideologies that match the crowd. (This paragraph was made with no particular admins in mind but instead a generalization of what I've seen from several RFAs -- that said, if you thought before reading this sentence that you knew who I was speaking of, it may be a sign that you need to change your perspective.)

The core members of the community have apparently decided that the more menial rules do not apply to them, breaking ones such as SW:1RV with loose justifications and citing other technicalities in policies to avoid having to properly argue their point, then turning around and breaking the same policies when it benefits them. The admins, having been either groomed or terrorized into agreeing with this train of thought, do nothing about it and hand out harsh warning and even blocks like Oprah handing out cars when new users get in the way of established users' reigns.

I've yet to see a single user on this site fully admit they were wrong. Usually, when rebuffed in an argument, they either drop out of the discussion fully, leaving it to either die or be resolved by someone else, or will claim a flimsy excuse. Even when the excuse changes very little, it's as if people have an inability to say "whoops. yep, I was wrong." They have to say "I must have been doing [x] when that was said." or "I didn't watch that part of the video." The latter way of getting out of accepting fault is less damaging than the former, but is a sign of arrogance -- "I cannot be mistaken, so there must have been a reason."

As touched upon above, rules are only followed when they benefit the user citing them. Speculation is fine unless it was added by someone else. The policy doesn't outright state that, but it's heavily implied. Sure, it's technically a guideline, but people follow it like a rule anyway, so you should, too. I was only reverting him again because he didn't give me a good reason; it wasn't really an edit war.

Despite not being kings, there is a seemingly unspoken rule that certain admins are not to be questioned. Users will almost always blindly agree with them. However, other admins do not hold the same power and will be endlessly derided for stating disagreement. (This comment was made with specific admins in mind.)

A slightly outdated one, but I've seen policies be implemented seemingly with the sole purpose of weeding out users who do not fit the core community's ideals. Users are harshly treated and blocked for honest mistakes simply because a few key users don't feel like bothering cleaning up after them and properly teaching them. Users are discouraged from increasing the quality of certain elements of the wiki because it's not productive enough and creates too much work for the admins.

Many users do not feel the need to give any reasoning at all. Edits can be made with summaries as simple as "Really?" or "Nope." and what is anyone going to do about it? Revert them? Yeah, that would be a violation of SW:1RV, so don't you dare think about it. (And if you do, expect to be reverted back. They obviously couldn't let that injustice stand.) When questioned on this decision, they will usually completely ignore the comment, never participating in any discussion on whether or not their edit was proper. The edit stands, regardless of its accuracy, because removing it would be a violation of SW:1RV.

And yet, despite all of it, this remains one of the most accurate and easy-to-read wikis out there. It's honestly impressive how such a dysfunctional community can somehow manage to function.

Is there a way to undo the toxicity that has seeped into this website? Honestly, I doubt it. Obviously, it's not by trying to determine Birdo's gender. I'm not certain that even self-awareness can help (even if I doubt any of the users who fit the descriptions I gave above will read through this whole thing, much less take it to heart) -- old habits die hard, after all, and very few of the above actions seem to be made with malice. It's more like latent arrogance, or even cluelessness. But it creates for an unbearably negative atmosphere that I can't, in good conscience, expose myself to.

I have no intention of locking myself out of my account this time -- seeing as that got me banned for sockpuppetry and stirring up drama last time -- so I will likely pop back in whenever there's a new announcement related to Ultimate to fill in some basic information, fix up grammar and formatting, and upload any images I can get my hands on. Talk pages and recent changes, however, will be a strict no for me. My hardheadedness can't bear seeing an argument without tossing my two cents at it.

So yeah.


TheNuttyOne 20:33, 8 August 2018 (EDT)