FANDOM


Clarification

May I ask what constitutes "Very small details"? It seems ambiguous to me.-Verdatum 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Slightly Smaller Details

In the section where we talk about Thailog applying the new skin, should we also list his gaining of rollback rights? Vaznock - Talk 22:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

History

Should be added to the section of History in this page the matter of Luvingazula?? Because I think that was important, or not? Dcasawang1 - Talk - Contributions 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How can that be important to warrant a mention in the history of this wiki? He was a spammer and a vandal. He got banned, like many other alike. End of story. I don't see references to the editors who actually put in some content on the site. They don't deserve mentioning because they didn't act like idiots and didn't get banned? Any kind of reference to vandals would only besmirch the page and validate their actions. And giving important to their idiocy, only inflates their egos. ― Thailog 20:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Kevin is mentioned because he had a large impact on the wiki. It's the same as Luvingazula, and his vandal attacks were the causes of of me, Flash, and Dcasawang gaining Rollback. If something has a large impact on something, good or bad, it should me mentioned. Vaznock - Talk 20:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, otherwise we'll be celebrating stupidity and incivility instead of congratulating good editors and endorsing quality contributions. In fact, this whole page should be reviewed. Explaining the evolution of the site and the admin promotions is one thing, but documenting the vandals and even the rollbacks seems excessive, and encyclopedic. ― Thailog 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

But we are not celebrating it. It may not be fair, but in life the deranged serial killer will always get more fame than the average, hard working blue collar worker (I'm exaggerating, but still). Luvingazula used to be a good contributor here, he had the highest amount of edits over any autoconfirmed user, yet he was a problem user and even had a big discussion about him on the administrators talk page. He also was blocked in two other accounts months ago. 888 also thinks it should be added. His vandal attacks gave three users Rollback. This is also why it should be added. Kevin and LA were both very major parts of the wiki, and its not like we mention every vandal attack. This is page about our wiki and its history, it isn't an honorable mention page, its a page that tells about the wiki's history, and as much as we hate to admit it, problem users were a major part of it. Mentioning a user does not mean we are celebrating what they did. Vaznock - Talk 19:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I think everyone needs to cool down here. I think the best approach to take is to add more to the history about the positive contributions, to balance it out. I wrote the current history based on Wikia Statistics. In fact, I'll add to it now. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 23:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Vaznock, let's not bring edits count into this. LA used to make 25 edits to change something that could be done with 3 or less edits. Not to mention all the image talk pages he spammed up. All of this to boost his edits count. Also, you can't weigh the amount of edits against good contributions. Perhaps from his contributions only 2% are constructive and good. As for the admin talk page, of course he had a section about him. Admins use to discuss potential problem users, but that doesn't make them more important than anyone else. It makes them less credible and respected, in fact. And he actually boasted about that. Also, stop claiming you were given rollback because of him. You would have been given it if it were because of any other vandal.

As for the serial killer analogy, that's an unfortunate real world reality, but this wiki is not ruled like that. We decide what conventions should avail the community. LA was a spammer who went on a rant because he was bored, and got banned like many others, regardless of the scant productive contributions he ever did. Plain and simple. While that may not be an honorable mention page, it sure will look like it if you keep bringing up names of vandals, conveying importance to their actions. They relish with that. You can pretty much say what you want without being so specific. Saying “the wiki experienced large amounts of vandalism and three users were given roolback rights” is very different from saying “because of LA's vandalism users were given roolback rights.”

While this page was 888 Avatar's initiative, like any other page, its content can't be disputed and improved. I'm expressing disagreement about the mention of vandals, and you are supporting its inclusion. Let's go from there and hear from others. ― Thailog 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unfair< I admit. LA did do a lot of bad stuff, but he did have an impact on this wiki, nonetheless. That's worth mentioning. 888 agreed and Dcasawang1 also thought of it. LA was a better version of Kevin. His multiple blockings here did affect the wiki. Because of him, forums that were being thought of being created were created, along with a bunch of other things. Oh, and lets not let this get too heated, I don't want this to effect the way we work together. Vaznock - Talk 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's true. He had an impact on the wiki. I think we would not be celebrating what he did, only worsen it, as Kevin in the actual History of the page. History never mentions only the good aspects of an organization, it doesn't mention only the bad things. It process all the importants and relevant aspects. Dcasawang1 - Talk - Contributions 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it's no big deal. We don't even need a history section. I'm going to have to side with Thailog on this one. LA was a vandal, disrupted the wiki, and got blocked. No big deal. It happens all of the time. This information won't really help a new user. What would help a new user would be things like the members of our administration, our best designers, our most frequent editors, things like that. Every wiki has vandals. I think we shouldn't include LA or Kevin in the history. Who cares. They broke the rules and were blocked for it. Mattkenn3 Talk 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the information won't help a new user. Dcasawang1 - Talk - Contributions 22:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. Having that information on the Main Page will not help any-one. Mattkenn3 Talk 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not the Main Page. Dcasawang1 - Talk - Contributions 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, it will not help any-one. Mattkenn3 Talk 22:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And the old users won't need that. Dcasawang1 - Talk - Contributions 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not only to help users. Oh, and Matt, there were other accounts of LA. You kinda just missed him, so it may not seem as important to you. You came back like a day after he was blocked. LOL, what a coincidence. Vaznock - Talk 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It would help only old users that have been inactive. Dcasawang1 - Talk - Contributions 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, I don't think it was a big deal. I was gone. I returned. I hear about a vandal that got blocked. I didn't need to know that. It doesn't matter. It's just my nature to want to know these things. I want to know just for the sake of knowing. If I would have returned and no-one told me about LA, it wouldn't have mattered. He did not have that big of an effect on the wiki. You guys are making this a big deal. It's not. A user turned into a vandal and was blocked. It doesn't need to be on the history. Mattkenn3 Talk 23:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but this is turning into opinion. Oh, and LA is a "he". Vaznock - Talk 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I know. Did I say "she"? I'll fix it. But, seriously, vandals don't need to be mentioned in the history. Vandals are common. Great users need more recognition than vandals. Mattkenn3 Talk 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but problem users who stayed at the wiki for a while, and affected it are worth mentioning. Vaznock - Talk 23:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as a response to Thailog, I brought the edit count into it just to show how it seemed like LA contributed a lot. Oh, and I found it a little rude at how you kind of ordered me to stop saying that LA is the reason why I gained Rollback. Any other vandal attack would of given it to me, its true, and thanks for saying that, but LA's attack is what open the R for R earl. Oh, and by rude, I just mean that there was no "please", or "May (or) Can you?" . I didn't necessarily mean rude. Sorry to make it sound like I'm mad at you, because I'm most certainly not. Vaznock - Talk 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. This conversation has gone off on a tangent. It no longer relates to the article at hand. There should be an appropriate forum for discussing problem users, but that doesn't exist yet. Could someone do the honors? --Energybender 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not out of control. We are just discussing/debating about how we feel the vandals and problem users being mentioned in this pages history section. I just feel that the users aren't worth mentioning. Mattkenn3 Talk 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would. Vaznock - Talk 01:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion (or argument?) has certainly surprised me, in both length and ferocity. Look, I mentioned problem users in my original account for a reason. While problem users are certainly controversial and many people don't want to hear about it, I think it's worth mentioning. This is because many of the policies, the feel and the general character of this wiki and its community has been shaped, and is shaped, by how it reacts to such users. Every single problem user has made an impact on the wiki - not necessarily positive, but still an impact, because of the new policies written to limit such problems from happening again. So I think it is very much mentioning. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Vaznock, I didn't mean that to sound like a command. I apologize. Why is everybody saying this discussion is getting heated or out of control? We are simply expressing our opinions. No one has insulted anyone else as far as I can tell. Anyways, I stand by my opinion: vandals don't need to be mentioned (by name, at least). The 888th Avatar, you can say that policies were shaped because of vandals, but I don't think anyone benefits from knowing which vandals specifically – that's my point. ― Thailog 07:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I know what you were trying to say. Oh, and I don't really think this discussion is heated, I mean, I've seen some other crazy ones. Vaznock - Talk 10:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, we've mentioned many good users, so can we add the LA thing? Vaznock - Talk 23:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I still oppose mentioning vandals by name. ― Thailog 23:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fair, oh, and maybe we should remove Kevin. I mean, he has been excellent latl;y. Vaznock - Talk 23:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, take that back, he hasn't been excellent (see one of his past edits to this article), but he's been good. Vaznock - Talk 23:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


Well, that was interesting to read. I thought I'd check in on the wiki again, seeing as I still have it bookmarked, and I read this. Thanks to whoever put the effort into writing that. I did notice the "confusion" over Wak'd. I happen to be able to clear that up, if anyone cares. He was my friend from Wikipedia back then, and I thought to myself: "Hey, no wiki should only have one administrator. And we need more editors. Here's someone I trust who knows about Avatar!" I think he was an admin before he had 5 edits. There really wasn't much need back then for a thorough process, because if he had gone on a power abuse rampage, there would have been maybe five editors to ban and twenty pages to delete. Howabout1-(Talk) 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for that clarification. You may also be interested in Forum:Removal_of_Inactive_Admins on a similar note. Good old Failipedia ;) Joey aa 04:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin Policy and Others

Should we include the major changes in policy in the "History" section? Vaznock - Talk 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And now we're going to need to update this page. This has some good information and is a nice overview of everything. I'd do it, but we all know I'm a nub. Joey aa 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes, another writing project... Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 23:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I nominate 888. :P Vaznock - Talk 00:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny enough, I just did it. Enjoy... Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

adding rollback

Shouldn't the new new rollback users be added to the rollback section? VJavatar The Last Wikibender(AR) 00:35, November 3, 2010 (UTC)