User talk:Serpent King/Archive 15

User:Serpent King/TalkGuide

current talk page

Archives

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10
11. 11
12. 12
13. 13
14. 14
15. 15

Excuse me?

Is it not a bit of an abuse of power to completely protect a page and refuse to let anyone discuss it just because you don't think it should be dealt with right now? Admins should not have the power to refuse to allow users to have discussions, even temporarily. If certain members of the community want to deal with Vergeben, they should be able to. Obviously the vast majority will not respond until more pressing matters have been dealt with, but that's their choice.

Also, protecting the page was completely uncalled for and now makes it impossible to update several sections that are relevant to this announcement. TheNuttyOne 13:13, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

It's for 3 days, chill. SerpentKing 13:14, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

That doesn't answer any of my concerns. The amount of time an abuse of power is in place does not make it an abuse of power. I would like to hear an explanation for how your actions correspond to the wiki's policies. TheNuttyOne 13:17, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

I gave my reasons for protecting in my summary, that's all there is. I don't want a discussion like that getting lost underneath the mess a new release will get. SerpentKing 13:20, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

I completely agree. However, using your admin powers to forcibly prevent it from happening is abuse. In fact, it is very specifically listed as something you are not allowed to use your powers for: "Administrators should not use their administrator powers to settle editing disputes; for example, to lock a page on a version he or she prefers in an editing dispute that isn't vandalism." TheNuttyOne 13:42, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

Technically there's no edit dispute here, and especially not one I am involved in. I reverted one time to prevent lost info (as it was to be moved to leaks) and that's it. SerpentKing 13:45, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

But you also protected the page. The reversion was, I suppose, technically fine, although the edit summary was phrased a bit too authoritatively for my taste. Protecting the page when there was no edit war nor vandalism is unjustifiable. TheNuttyOne 13:47, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

(Reset indent) The whole Vergeben fiasco is one that many, many people argue about - we don't really want those people to be fighting over here (and, to be quite frank, I'll owe up to the fact that we've done kind of a shitty job at preventing that). For now, the page will be locked so that we can gather all of the information without any biases. Aidan, the Rurouni 13:50, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

So you're preventing normal users from participating in the gathering of information because you do not trust them to handle editing, so only admins should be allowed to.

Yup. Sounds like abuse. TheNuttyOne 13:51, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

Admins will not be editing them either. SerpentKing 13:52, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

...so we're literally just postponing new information on a fairly popular page out of fear that someone might start an edit war? I'll admit that's not as directly abuse, but I'd still argue it's dumb. TheNuttyOne 13:55, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

Correct me if I am wrong, but between the two, "is vergeben a real leak" is the only new thing the direct would add right? That being the case, I don't see the issue. That being said, I've shortened the protection to this time tomorrow. SerpentKing 13:58, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

I'd like to point out that protecting articles when an event occurs which throws its subject into controversy is standard practice on wikis as a whole. It's a preventative measure against masses of emotionally driven edits among other things. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 14:15, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

Another food for thought: The Vergeben conversation had been going on for a long time, and the section had already been moved around a few times. Protecting it, now for a day, would prevent anyone else from doing that while we try to update the wiki with the new information.

Also, as far as I know the talk pages aren't blocked. so the Vergeben discussion, or any leaks/rumors as a whole, can still go on. CookiesCreme 14:22, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

A rename

My current persona at the moment is Scorbunny, so after waiting 6 months, I would like to get a rename please. -- Pancham (talk • contributions) 08:51, June 12, 2019 (EDT)

As per SW:NAMECHANGE, please write back here in a couple of days to confirm. SerpentKing 12:52, June 12, 2019 (EDT)

Back here to confirm the change. -- Pancham (talk • contributions) 07:08, June 16, 2019 (EDT)

Fighting Mii Team split

Hi, sorry for bothering you again for moving another page where a redirect already exists (since a crat has to do it), but could you please move the Fighting Mii Team Page? With 6 people voicing support and absolutely no mention of opposition, I think the page could be moved now. Lou Cena (talk) 01:13, June 16, 2019 (EDT)

Here’s AwesomeLink’s draft for you to move. Lou Cena (talk) 01:39, June 16, 2019 (EDT)

Explanation of my edit

My apologies if you mistook my edit to the admin noticeboard talk page and its archive as vandalism, what I intended on doing is since it was only 15 KB, it didn't need to be archived, and thus I put all that stuff back in the main talk page. I remember you did something similar when I archived the admin noticeboard one time. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 19:26, June 16, 2019 (EDT)

I realize what was going on now, didn't realize I was dealing with the talk page at first. Still though, no harm in leaving it archived. SerpentKing 19:27, June 16, 2019 (EDT)