User talk:Alex the weeb/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

m
Serpent King moved page User talk:Trainer Alex/Archive 2 to User talk:Alex the weeb/Archive 2: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Trainer Alex" to "Alex the weeb"
m (Serpent King moved page User talk:Trainer Alex/Archive 2 to User talk:Alex the weeb/Archive 2: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Trainer Alex" to "Alex the weeb")
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archive box|1}}
{{archive}}


== [https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Edge-hogging&curid=1493&diff=1029384&oldid=1029382 This] ==
== [https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Edge-hogging&curid=1493&diff=1029384&oldid=1029382 This] ==
Line 94: Line 94:
:::When it boils down to repeating yourself to the same two users over and over and over again, yes. This negative attitude towards them is far more harmful than anything that you've yelled at them for yet. <span style="font-family:Algerian;font-size:10pt;background:#000;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083">Serpent</span>]]&nbsp;[[File:SKSig.png|12px|link=]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0">King</span>]]'''</span> 12:57, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:::When it boils down to repeating yourself to the same two users over and over and over again, yes. This negative attitude towards them is far more harmful than anything that you've yelled at them for yet. <span style="font-family:Algerian;font-size:10pt;background:#000;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083">Serpent</span>]]&nbsp;[[File:SKSig.png|12px|link=]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0">King</span>]]'''</span> 12:57, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:::In the past month, amongst user talk pages, you have only edited your own and that of two other specific users. Before that, you have been seen jumping into user talk page conversations involving those two users and doing (what a quick search looks to be) much the same thing (i.e. only speaking negatively about them). Several admins agree that, at this point, you are targetting them specifically. Knock it off. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] Le Grand Fromage 12:58, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:::In the past month, amongst user talk pages, you have only edited your own and that of two other specific users. Before that, you have been seen jumping into user talk page conversations involving those two users and doing (what a quick search looks to be) much the same thing (i.e. only speaking negatively about them). Several admins agree that, at this point, you are targetting them specifically. Knock it off. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] Le Grand Fromage 12:58, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:::There's nothing necessarily wrong with reminding other users of policies - the users have a set of rules to follow, and if they break them, they should be told so. However, when one user in particular is consistently keeping a watchful eye on one or two particular users, barking at them for supposedly breaching a policy, even when people who are, in the hierarchy of the system, higher than them are disagreeing with what is being said, then it becomes a problem. It especially becomes an issue when this process has consistently repeated over time. [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: cyan;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: pink;">'''the Springing Rurouni'''</span>]] 12:59, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
::::If they don't want to be "targeted," they should avoid making counterproductive edits that go against the goals of making a more complete wiki. And I've seen plenty of other discussions on user talk pages, but I haven't commented on them because I agree with what the person was saying and the discussion doesn't need further input.  
::::If they don't want to be "targeted," they should avoid making counterproductive edits that go against the goals of making a more complete wiki. And I've seen plenty of other discussions on user talk pages, but I haven't commented on them because I agree with what the person was saying and the discussion doesn't need further input.  
::::There's nothing necessarily wrong with reminding other users of policies - the users have a set of rules to follow, and if they break them, they should be told so. However, when one user in particular is consistently keeping a watchful eye on one or two particular users, barking at them for supposedly breaching a policy, even when people who are, in the hierarchy of the system, higher than them are disagreeing with what is being said, then it becomes a problem. It especially becomes an issue when this process has consistently repeated over time. [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: cyan;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: pink;">'''the Springing Rurouni'''</span>]] 12:59, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
::::If you don't want this shit to happen again, why not actually take a firm stance on what is going on? Why not say something like "Listen to XXX, he's right" or "That was actually a correct usage of rollback," instead of giving vague, wishy-washy mediations that run down the middle/don't agree with either side? If you agree with my accusations, but think I'm excessively targeting certain users, why not say it outright so the user will stop? If you think it's not my job to go around enforcing minor things, then how about stepping up, doing your job, and agreeing with me, instead of doing stuff like this and making it more complicated? Minor issues should not simply be cast aside, because they're still issues. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 13:30, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
::::If you don't want this shit to happen again, why not actually take a firm stance on what is going on? Why not say something like "Listen to XXX, he's right" or "That was actually a correct usage of rollback," instead of giving vague, wishy-washy mediations that run down the middle/don't agree with either side? If you agree with my accusations, but think I'm excessively targeting certain users, why not say it outright so the user will stop? If you think it's not my job to go around enforcing minor things, then how about stepping up, doing your job, and agreeing with me, instead of doing stuff like this and making it more complicated? Minor issues should not simply be cast aside, because they're still issues. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 13:30, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::"''If they don't want to be "targeted," they should avoid making counterproductive edits that go against the goals of making a more complete wiki''"
:::::"''If they don't want to be "targeted," they should avoid making counterproductive edits that go against the goals of making a more complete wiki''"
Line 108: Line 107:
:Exactly. If the staff are disagreeing with what you say, no matter how you explain it, you just can't win. Please let it go, Ac2k. [[User:Unowninator|Unowninator]] ([[User talk:Unowninator|talk]]) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:Exactly. If the staff are disagreeing with what you say, no matter how you explain it, you just can't win. Please let it go, Ac2k. [[User:Unowninator|Unowninator]] ([[User talk:Unowninator|talk]]) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:But no one here's actually disagreeing with the main accusations that I'm making here, which is that people need to stop using rollback for things that aren't vandalism. While constantly nitpicking at people is not desirable, it has to be done if you aren't going to do anything about it. On the contrary, does that mean users should be allowed to constantly use rollback for things that aren't vandalism and receive no repercussions for it whatsoever? '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 15:34, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:But no one here's actually disagreeing with the main accusations that I'm making here, which is that people need to stop using rollback for things that aren't vandalism. While constantly nitpicking at people is not desirable, it has to be done if you aren't going to do anything about it. On the contrary, does that mean users should be allowed to constantly use rollback for things that aren't vandalism and receive no repercussions for it whatsoever? '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 15:34, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
::Rollback is for bad faith edits. Said edit was bad faith. End of story. ''[[User:Alex Parpotta|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Alex Parpotta|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 15:38, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
:::You clearly don't know what bad faith means. If you have to make an explanation as to why you think something is bad-faith, it's not a clear-cut case that deserves rollback. '''[[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Awesome</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">Cardinal 2000</span>]]''' 15:47, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
::::No, it is you who does not understand what a bad faith edit is. Ignoring an admin's warning deliberately is bad faith. ''[[User:Alex Parpotta|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Alex Parpotta|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 15:57, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
::::You really need to stop pissing people off over small issues like this. Look at how many people you have annoyed with your disruption. [[User:MHStarCraft|'''<font color="skyblue">MH</font>''']][[User talk:MHStarCraft|'''<font color="blue">StarCraft</font>''']] [[File:Mega Man X SNES sprite.png|19px]] 16:00, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
24,486

edits