User:Rotaretilbo/Janitor

Figured I'd just make a nice little compilation of the argument between myself (and a few other administrators) and H*bad, since it is all so chaotic in his little proposal thread.

Leading Up To Policy
On October 8, 2007, H*bad makes a threat over the site notice saying "All pages that are marked as Not Canon Friendly have a week to get fixed."

On November 12, 2007, the Bureaucrat H*bad, who had been generally inactive since August that year, deletes 47 articles that were marked with NotCanonFriendly templates. He does not review the articles before deletion. He does not read the talk pages before deletion. The only reason given for the deletions in the deletion log is "Given a chance." The site notice was also changed (for the first time since early October) to "The Admins were nice enough to allow a little bit longer on the Not Canon Friendly stuff. It's being delete presently."

On November 19, 2007, I receive a message on my talk page asking why the administration deleted someone's pride and joy article. The person was rather upset. This was the first time I had heard about the deletions. I promptly undeleted the article, where I came across 46 other articles, all deleted.

On November 20, 2007, I confronted H*bad on IRC about his mass deletion. At first, he didn't see any problem. He told me to "take any complaints to RR and the Staff." When I pressed, he described the deletions as no big deal, as "only a minor renovation". I became angry, yelling "minor renovation!?" indignantly. He lied to my face, claiming that he "read every talk page" to make sure the articles deletion. I called him on his obvious lie, since many of the articles had no talk pages, and thus no reason given for their marking. He offered to restore a few articles and "look into it [the matter]". I told him that I would only settle for all 47 articles restored. In the end, H*bad told me to "take any complaints to RR and the Staff" and then logged off before I could reply. .

On November 21, 2007, I contacted a Staff member (CatherineMunro) about mass restoring all articles deleted on November 12. As is often the case, I was ignored. It is my understanding that Staff is very busy with out more pressing matters than some accidental deletions.

On November 23, 2007, I restored all 46 (having already restored one on the 19th) deleted articles and added to the site notice "Because procedure was not followed, all articles deleted on November 12 will be restored.". Later that day, H*bad messaged me on my talk page saying "I told you I was looking into it." (scorning me for taking matters into my own hands, since I knew he would take little to no action). He later messaged me asking me to get on IRC.

On November 24, 2007, I got on IRC and was confronted by H*bad. He was not happy about my restoring of the articles, claiming he was going to handle it. I told him that, whether he believed it or not, he had to follow proceedure. H*bad claimed he didn't know proceedure, so I outlined it for him. H*bad asked me to write this all off as a miscommunication. H*bad also told me that one of the reason's he picked me was because he saw me as his "janitor". At the time, I felt like the conflict was over, and was ready to clean up the mess and stamp it a miscommunication.

On November 25, 2007, though H*bad finally reluctantly gave Relentless op power in #halo-fanon, he had been antagonizing Relentless, reminding RR that he had inherent rights that would allow him to revoke RR's op rights at any time, Relentless went over H*bad's head and had a Staff member create #wikia-halofanon. Meanwhile, I opened the site, ran through my usual routine, and logged into IRC. I left IRC running, but went to eat dinner. I returned and spoke with Relentless about a fan fiction project we're working on. Then, I opened the site again. There was a new policy being fronted by H*bad. "Freedom of Thought" had not been discussed by any administrators, and upon reading it, I found that it was full of half truths, flowery words, and misconceptions. I was the third to oppose it. I posted a lengthy bit about how this entire policy was based around misconceptions and deceit, and that it was intended to undermine the site and its administration. This sparked wild discussion, and much debating followed.

Battle of the Bureaucrats

 * Because of recent events I have now restarted to take into account the problems of our wiki. We have a major problem, the NotCanonFriendly template. It has taken away from freedom of thought. If we keep within the confounds set by the Halo Universe, we will have ever changing rules and ever changing ideas. Thus I am calling for a disband of the NotCanonFriendly and am proposing an Overboard Template. This idea will allow more freedom to thought and ideas. This means that Fanon will be allowed to go beyond the set canon. Star Wars Fanon has this sort of thing, now they allow more, but this is a step in process to allow Freedom of Thought on this wiki. Others feel that this will allow for more users to be able to write how they want. More on that template, template overboard will be placed on pages that go over board. This template will, if voted yes to allow, will only be able to be put on pages by users that we determine to be allowed to. Also with this new template, new users won't feel discouraged to write because we deem them as rule breaking. As we can tell from the United States freedom of Thought allows the US to move forward in the world, is this true for all countries that allow for this. If we allow this, I can only see a brighter future for Halo Fanon. Thanks H*bad (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This language is extremely misleading. The administration of the Halo Fan Fiction Wikia does *not* condone manipulation of thoughts at all, and we will never restrict of thought. This sounds dictatorship-like and Nazi-like, how the two aforementioned entities often attempt to distort the minds and thoughts of their subordinates. At Halo Fan Fiction, however, we reserve the right to maintain Halo-related and canon-friendly articles in the article namespace and users may host non-Halo-related and canon-contradicting articles under their user namespace. We do not condone restriction of "Freedom of Thought". Furthermore, your example with the US is completely biased - the US does not force its citizens to maintain a certain pattern of thought, and neither do we. However, using your example, the US also does not allow us to yell out that we are terrorists in the open public, although it is perfectly legal to think that but not express that superficially. We maintain a similar policy here; you may think whatever you want but you may not post whatever you want in the article namespace. When I posted a non-Star Wars-related fiction at SWFanon, a StarCraft fiction, it was immediately deleted. I could not even move it into my own user namespace. Thus, we are even being more liberal here. An elucidation in my comments below. Regards, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 19:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My message was not from an Administrator point of view, it was from a user point of view. It's something that you need to learn, no offense. But the contradiction rule was so that everyone could be happy. I used to think the way that you do and then I had an epiphany that not every agrees with what I have to say. And same for you. Again I mean this in the highest of respects, but it's just something that has to be done. Oh and sorry I didn't point out that it was from my user point of view, but I figured that me not writing we the administration, since if I did that then it would show that we had talked it out. Sorry for any confusion, thanks: H*bad (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Had an epiphany? You created the rule. We abolished it. When I became aware that the rule was not an agreed upon thing, or something Relentless was even aware of, him and I got rid of it. At the time, you were no where to be seen (I hadn't seen you on in some time), so we didn't have the chance to talk it out with you. And before you go handing out lessons, I think you would do well to learn that we administrators are a team. That means that rather than, on a whim, coming on and doing whatever the heck you feel like, you need to talk to the rest of the administrative team, or maybe, I don't know, one of us? And I don't want to hear the excuse of us not being on. I was on IRC almost all day, and RR was on most of the day. Certainly, this little epiphany of yours could have waited for a few minutes. You spent so much time posting and explaining to each initial response, but you didn't spend more than a few minutes in IRC to say "this is going to be dealt with" and then leaving again. I grow tired of coming to the site, wondering what to expect. I can no longer come onto the site expecting the day to go normal, because every day, H*bad might have done something else without telling anyone what or why he was doing it. This is just another example. I am porposing that this policy be immediately rejected until what time that the administration has had time to talk it out and refine it. And the next time this is proposed, I want no flowery words or false analogies or red herring, just the straight up proposal. If you want this passed, H*bad, I want you to do it without manipulating the users.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh some team, yeah so RR making people admins without asking me. Oh and it's called email. I am not manipulating the users, RR has done that, no offense in the highest of respects. I never said, we the administration in my speech. I never said that RR, Rot and I, or whatever, did I? I did all of this in the view point of a user. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Email is a beautiful thing. Strange you should bring that up, since I have received no correspondance from you about any of the changes made to the site, such as this little piece of work. And when I said manipulating, I meant the use of false analogies and half truths to make the rest of the administrative team sound like opressors. And yes, some team. The rest of us talk about moves we make, and coordinate. But we never know if you're going to be on or around, and since you have never made an attempt to contact us, we make no attempt to contact you. All of the people Sysoped since I became an administrator, RR and I discussed prior to making them Sysop. Which means that the only people that could possibly have not been passed by a majority vote of the Bureaucrats (because of Relentless not talking to you) would be Leon and Spartan-091. Of course, comparing this with the lack of effort you put into communication, I would say that the two of you are even from before I was a Bureaucrat. Its just funny (ironic really), that all of the things you condemn Relentless and myself for not doing, you do not do yourself. You have just as much power to email me as I to email you. The difference is that you know that I was active when you made these decisions, but God knows where you were when we abolished the fanon contradiction rule. You still had the "I'm away until August 26" or whatever thing up on your userpage. Why would I delay the abolition of a rule that I loathed, that I found out Relentless was not aware of, so that a Bureaucrat who hadn't bothered to update his user page in three months could have his say in it? On the flip side, you came on IRC for a few minutes, and thus knew that I was on (as was Relentless), and you this policy making came as a complete surprise to the two of us. The thing is H*bad, I know you think we need to act more like users, but in reality, you need to act more like a Bureaucrat. I appreciate your point of view as a user, but acting on that without talking to any of your fellow Bureaucrats, when you knew that they were online, is unacceptable. Just like deleting 47 articles on a whim to follow up on a two-month old threat that virtually no one saw is also unacceptable.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 05:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let us make a clarification. H*bad was not active on Halo Fanon when I believed that Ajax_013 and Dragonclaws should be administrated. Thus, I asked Rotaretilbo (a bureaucrat) and SPARTAN-091 (an administrator), both of whom were active, and both strongly agreed. After I administrated them, I even PMed H*bad on IRC to inform him that both had been administrated when H*bad become active again. Furthermore, I have recieved no email correspondence from H*bad regarding this change, and neither has Rotaretilbo. What about "communication"? Cheers, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 05:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was around, I haven't communcated with you because of the fact I felt no reason to. If you want to consult others okay, but it would just be nice to just email me just to notify me. I was away in another state and just got back to the US from Britain. Now I am sorry I haven't been on, but I had to be away because of band stuff as well. I am only a little, a little/molecule, upset about this. I can see now that you are trying to ruin my status on here by showing stuff that I did wrong in order to change the user votes. I know that you have more control because hey you're smart, you can't be wrong right? Wrong. Furthermore, let's stop getting off subject, okay? Thanks, H*bad (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You just managed to make no sense at all. We'll start with "I was around" then move to "I was away in another state and ust got back to the US from Britain" and "I had to be away because of band stuff as well". You say you were around, then that you weren't. Moving on, "I haven't communcated with you because of the fact I felt no reason to", then you say "but it would just be nice to just email me just to notify me". So basically, we are all obligated to serve master H*bad. You don't have to email any of us about these drastic changes you want to make, but we need to notify you, the guy who says he'll be back in August and resurfaces in November, an email summarizing every little tidbit we do or change? Who do you think you are? If nothing else, you are equal to RelentlessRecusant. If you expect him to email you every time he makes a change, then you should hold yourself to the very same standard and email him when you make a change. How does that make any sense? You make no attempt to contact any other administrator of the site, and make all sorts of drastic changes, yet Relentless, who contacts the active administrators before making changes, and tries to fill you in when you're around, is some kind of bad guy for not emailing you? That's what I like to call an epic double standard. And off subject? The issue here, besides that this entire policy is flawed, is that you are acting without communicating, then falling back on miscommunication as an excuse. By pointing out things you have done wrong, we are only strengthening the argument that you posted this out of turn, and that you have a history of almost complete lack of communication with the administration, as far as anyone can tell. That is actually right on topic. What is off topic is you inferring that RelentlessRecusant feels mentally superior to you, whether true or not. That is poisoning the well. We are only bringing forward examples that are pertinent to the subject, that you are not communicating with the administration. If your status goes down the drain as a result of your actions coming into the light, so be it. If users change their votes because a few of your actions are visible, so be it. Now cut the crap, and start responding to our points rather than trying to act victimized. We're not doing this because its fun. I am sick and tired of cleaning up all these messes. I am not your janitor.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 03:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * RR didn't email me, so why should I feel obligated to email him? I was around, sort of and I was away: 1.At a different state, couldn't log in. 2. Band stuff was in another state. 3.Away in another country, sort of on, but not really. Hope that helps. I am victimized by the fact that this site has RR supporters only. 1.He gets you and some others as admin, since you agree with him on most things. 2.Now he can get whoever he wants as admin, don't deny it, I know. Also stop attacking me and getting off subject, this isn't helping. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say he emailed you. I said that he tried to catch up with you on IRC. I said that why should we be the bad guys for not emailing you when you never email us? Doesn't the same logic you fall behind that says that since he doesn't email you, you shouldn't have to email him apply to us, or is that a special rule for you? And only RR supporters? I see the site torn in half. If there were only RR supporters, we wouldn't be having this issue in the first place, because everyone would have voted against you and the policy would have been crushed. And of course the administration is against you. You are doing everything in your power to undermine it. Why would you expect the administration, regardless of how we feel about you personally, to side with you when you are trying to undermine the core foundation of the site, and then call it no big deal? RR gets what he wants done because he follows procedure. Perhaps if you tried that, you would get stuff done without all this opposition. Perhaps if you attempted to be part of the team, rather than act like you own the site, we could go back to being a productive site without all this arguing.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 04:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Initial Administration Response

 * Let me remind you all that this is Halo Fanon, not Halo Fan Fiction. There is a difference. Fan fiction is fiction based around something you are a fan of. Fanon is fan fiction that is written within the confines of canon. You may think differently, but that is the way it is. We don't just write about Halo, here, we write in Halo. And in order to write in Halo, one must not directly contradict Halo. When you directly contradict Halo canon, you are writing something that happens to mention Halo. If you want to write some story about how the Master Chief is really a girl who lives on Saturn and can fly, take it somewhere else. Halo Fanon is restrictive because there are a thousand or so other websites where you can write your acid-trip Halo-like writings other than here. And, if you must write them here, you can always write them on your user namespace. User namespace articles do not have to follow canon, or even be about Halo. Now, I know Star Wars Fanon doesn't want to be our friend because we're "restrictive", but as far as I am concerned, some other Wiki should not have nearly as much pull on us as this. Sure, "Freedom of Thought" sounds nice because it uses words like freedom, but look at it this way, Halo Fanon in no way restricts Freedom of Thought, it just asks that you take your crap somewhere else. Halo Fanon is, and will continue to be a Wiki where, at the very least, we try to maintain an integrity in our articles. I want to take pride in the fact that I am a Bureaucrat at Halo Fanon, the site that only rights canon articles. Those of you suggesting this "Freedom of Thought" are merely masking a suggestion for anarchy, and that I will not have.-- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 06:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Telepathic army commanders, back water outer colonies geting fleets of hundreds, soldiers that can tear the arms off Spartans, gunships that carry whole regiments, ships with drills. Where will this end? I joined fanon to write halo fan fiction, not whatever the hell i can think of then worm it into halo canon by displacing common sense. I'm all for freedom of though, within the halo universe. People seem to forget that the UNSC, Covenant and Flood along with the Forerunners and Precursors still haunting the halo universe. Why do people have to go beyond Halo and insert new Covenant crushing factions, Flood eating infections, Spartan destroying super soldiers. Just write your fiction within the Halo universe, that is the point of this site. --Ajax 013 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In this, Ajax is completely correct. While, I don't mind the introduction of new races, one must be aware not to overstep the limits of canon-friendliness. Having RP'ed against these drill ships and psychic commanders, I can say that too much freedom of thought is no freedom of thought. And the RPs, usually quite fun, become reduced to a petty squabble about which new non-canon weapon can top the previous non-canon weapon. If you want to make all the Spartan-owning supersoldiers and Flood-eating parasites you want, do so on a different site. This is Halo Fanon, as Roteratilbo said, and it is supposed to be within the bounds of the established Halo universe.

By the way, H*Bad, this is a complete turn-around of your masss deletions of not-canon friendly documents... Why the sudden flipflop?

 SPARTAN-091  |Admin|   HelmetComm  19:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongest Possible Opposition - As aforementioned, Halo Fan Fiction does not, will never, and does not even purport to restrict "Freedom of Thought". However, I have been speaking to Rotaretilbo and Forgottenlord last night - the approximate concensus is that all non-Halo and non-canonical articles shall be moved to the user namespace. As per Forgottenlord and myself; deleting *any* author's work would be an insult to them and a loss of a considerable expenditure of time. For example, Sgt.Johnson hosts his modern warfare fiction on his own user namespace, and I believe I host a few of my own non-Halo fictions on my user namespace. All Halo-related and canonical articles will remain in the article namespace. Thus, we do not support the deletion of any articles - offending articles shall be moved to the article namespace . Regards, RelentlessRecusant  'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/rainbowsix/images/7/73/GDI2.jpg TALK • MESSAGE 19:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Explaining It All Away

 * You guys seem to think that this is a huge change, but it's not. Actually this change will only be minor only. This change is not something huge, it's just minor. So those of whom thought it was, are incorrect. Just so you guys know. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't you go dragging the Myth class into this AJ! lol. Anyway, personally, i think the 'Freedom of Gary-Stus' is going to cause a massive influx of articles that the admin team has spent quite some time trying to stop. Things with no or little relation to Halo, things that are quite stupid and should never have seen the light of day, etc. This is also, somewaht double standards as well, as early pointed out, you deleted all the NCF articles, now your trying to protect them from their eventual fate of user pages? --Ajax 013 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything I do is to try and make everyone happy, but I was wrong about that. I will admit it, something that most of you guys, admins, won't admit to being. I also previously stated that we are only making a minor change, which would mean articles like the ISSC will still be deleted. I am not proposing this massive change, like life changing. I am suggesting something that we can try out and I can promise you that it will help us out in many ways. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * HBad, your an admin, a bearucrat, and the pretty much founder of this site, I think you should be able to shape it your way -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)[[Image:ROY!.jpg|25px]] 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I almost had that power, but decided to be nice and asked RR to be my co-founder. I listened to him, no disrespect to RR, but that's what got us here. Unfortunately SPARTAN-077, I would do you what you said, but can't because we have more than one admin here. Thanks though :), H*bad (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Oh and RR, we are co-founders whether you like it or not.


 * According to the logs, Relentless founded the site, and H*bad was brought in later (within 24 hours). So please, let's get the truth. And Bureaucrat or not, you're right, there are other admins here. That being said, I am sick and tired of surprises. H*bad, you need to realize that you speak for the Bureaucrats, whether you think so or not, and therefore, you need to talk to the other Bureaucrats of the site. Relentless and I shouldn't be caught by surprise by a new policy being voted on. Relentless and I shouldn't be surprised to find 47 articles disappear. It wasn't a miscommunication, though I know H*bad sorely wishes I would say it was. There was no communication. Before I will consider any policy for the site, I want to hear about it in private, where the three Bureacrats, and possibly the Sysops, can sit down, discuss it, refine it, and then present it to the community. I should not have to condemn a piece of policy brought forth by a fellow Bureaucrat, because if one or more of the Bureaucrats aren't on board, then it should be talked out even further until they can either come to an agreement, or agree to disagree. If, for example, H*bad had been so kind as to talk to Relentless and I about this policy, I would not so vehemently oppose it. I'd oppose it, to be sure, but the fact that I heard about it after 13 or so other users, that deeply offends me. When users join this site, they are agreeing to follow a set of rules. In the real world, there will be rules, and there will always be people who don't like those rules. But, in the real world, we will learn to deal with them. Writing stories that adhere to Halo canon on a Halo fanon website, how hard is that? Especially considering that if you make a mistake, there are plenty of knowledgable people here to help you work it out. I make mistakes. Ajax makes mistakes. Relentless makes mistakes. H*bad makes mistakes. We all make mistakes. But to say that our mistakes shouldn't be mistakes, that we should be allowed to write whatever the heck we want, that goes against common sense. Sure, it sounds nice. "Freedom of thought." Oh no, we're all being opressed by the dirty cabal! When the site fills up with articles that make no sense, when the RPs fill up with Gary Stus and Mary Sues, when all order is lost, that is your "freedom of thought." You have plenty of freedom here. You are free to follow our rules. And you are free to write stories at the thousands of other sites that are less restrictive. And you are free to write your stories and not post them on our site. And you are free to say that writing is dumb and go play Halo 2. We aren't going to stop you. Furthermore, you have absolute freedom of thought here. I can not and will not tell you what to think. I won't even tell you what to write. I will merely dictate what you can and cannot put on this site. Across the entire interwebz, you could choose any site. If you think you are being opressed because we ask you to write stories that make sense, then go somewhere else where you won't be opressed. I'm not going to stop you. Go write at Star Wars Fanon. You can write whatever you wish, as long as you mention some sort of Star Wars thing. ;)
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You do know, I am not talking about a major change. Just a few little things. This is the second time I have asked for a change: Forum:Non-Canon?-If you can remember, that was just minor and so is this. So I don't know where you get off with blowing this out of proportion. I am not asking for a huge master of a change, just a small one. This way makes more sense. Thanks H*bad (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a major change? You mean like when you told me deleting 47 articles wasn't big either? News flash, attempting to abololish one of the core foundation rules of this site without so much as speaking a word of it to anyone until you went public is a major change. You are suggesting, with your "Freedom of Thought," that users should no longer be limited by canon. What then should they be limited by? Common sense? Whose common sense? Canon is a pretty defined line that we can apply to any article. Common sense is an opinion. And pretty soon, someone is going to think that the bound of my common sense or your common sense is opressive, and they'll cry a little river, and (assuming that I have stepped down from my position, in the event that this policy has passed) then, there will be another movement for "Freedom of Thought." "They just want to write what they are thiniking!" someone will cry out. And someone, whether it is you, H*bad, or someone else, will write a nice little flowery message filled with false analogies, half truthes, and other such subliminal messages, and they'll manipulate some of the community behind them, and there will be another huge mess. And then, if the common sense boundry falls, what will limit the users' writing? Why, nothing! And you might as well just close the Wiki, by that point, because there is hardly a difference between it and Fanon Wiki. What defines the difference between this and Fanon Wiki? Halo. And what are you trying to remove from the process of making articles? Halo. See a problem? I do.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 05:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between how hard the change is to implement and how major the change is. This is a very easy change to implement, but it changes something fundamental about this site - therefore it becomes major. You are talking about a change that would allow hundred of previously to-be-deleted pages to be permitted. That makes it major. Deleting even one article is a fairly big act - it takes all of 5 seconds and can be reversed in all of 20 seconds, but the symbolic gesture of doing such - to the user who's having his article deleted, to the users who enjoyed reading the article, to the users curious how the NCF policy is applied, etc - is much greater. If the deletion of one article is major, the non-deletion of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles based on a single "minor" change is HUGE. This is a major change.

Oh, and H*Bad - I now have my answer. Thank you for providing me with it. --forgottenlord 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A Team Apart

 * Had I known SWF pulling it's partnership would have turned into such a big deal, I would have just privately contacted an Administrator instead of doing this publicly. Though my opinion means very little, if nothing at all, at this Wiki, I would recommend that you guys just reject this proposal flat out and sort out your administration issues. Something like this shouldn't pull a team apart, but that's exactly what it's doing. - Brandon Rhea


 * Don't feel bad, Brandon. While I disagree with you, I respect you. Besides, the administrative problems all existed before SWF pulled its partnership. This has just brought to light all of the frustrations that I am feeling because H*bad has done everything in his power to undermine the rest of the administration.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 05:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not undermining the administration, in fact I am not doing anything different then what is happening to me. Oh and Brandon this "team" has been pulled apart long before you came. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not undermining the administration? So doing whatever you want without ever bothering to acknowledge that anyone else is even in a position of power, as if you own the site, isn't undermining the administration? So trying to abolish one of the core rules the site was founded on, and call it no big deal isn't undermining the administration? So trying to abolish the boundries that keep this site organized is not undermining the administration? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that that is exactly what undermine the administration looks like. To you, this may never have been a team, but apart from your complete disregard for the rest of us, I like to view the other administrators as a team. But you are right, there have always been issues. You and Relentless can't seem to get along, and while Relentless chooses to follow procedure to obtain what he wants, you have deemed it necessary to flagrantly disregard all forms of order in an attempt to obtain what you want through shear chaos. It isn't pretty, it isn't nice, and it certainly isn't productive. Here we all are, arguing over an inherently flawed policy because an administrator, one who has taken on the responsibility of upholding the site and working with the rest of the administration as a team has denied the very tennants of his position.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Existentialism

 * You do see that is whole discussion is pointless. You see, it is clear the admins will win, and it is for the better. I, personally, dislike outrageously stupid and/or uncanon frendly ideas. Not to say I did not make a couple of mistakes regarding the uncanon thing. For example, my Yorktown-class Battleship article was given the uncanon frendly template because it was overpowered, 6 MAC cannons, and far to small to be even a frigate. It was then changed to be longer, had 3 MAC cannons... and then it was deleated on November 12th and restored later. I was quite angry. That, in itself, shows the error in the system the admins have running. The admins never recheck to see if articles are fixed, or its just that one article. Anywhay the point is that we don't have to have freedom of thought, we just have to improve our current system.SPARTAN-118


 * This isn't useless at all. In fact, as much as you guys see this thing as something failing, I see it as a whole collective of users voting and participating in a discussion to better this wiki. This shows that we have caring users and what not. Thus proving to me that this wiki is truly a wonderfully operated wiki. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * H*bad, there are a million different ways to have gotten the users discussing that didn't involve undermining the administration or trying to abolish fundamental rules of the website. This forum, while generating discussion, is generating negative discussion. I would rather no discussion than this split bickering. (Oh, and O'mally, it is actually 8 to 15; the second number is just how many admins voted, but the first is all of the users including admins).
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep making my name sound like this horrible thing? Go ahead and end this vote. I have something to deal with that is greater than this vote. I have to write a page of stuff. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because as part of the administration, the group of users here responsible for upholding order at this site, your attempts to undermine said administration at every turn bother me. It is easier to maintain the order that most regular forummers desire when there isn't an administrator, a Bureaucrat no less, one who has elected to take on the responsibilities of the site that we cannot be trusted with everyone, is trying to, whether purposely or by accident, bring this site to its knees, to "end the foundation of corruption", as some might put it. What you and your kind don't seem to realize is that, even assuming the foundation is corruption, a foundation of corruption is better than a lack of foundation altogether. Fascism will always be more productive than anarchy. Order, brutal or benign, is always going to be better than chaos. I do not condone fascism, and I do not see the administration of this site as corrupt, but I cannot understand the actions of those who do. That is why I so vehemently oppose this policy. That is why I use your name as a negative label. Because your logic seems inherently flawed to me, and I believe that it is beginning to seem inherently flawed to others besides myself. I can't speak for them, but I think this is a good representation of how the site feels about this policy. four sevenths against, two sevenths for (many mislead by the inherent half truths in the policy's main description), and one seventh neutral (many mislead by the inherent half truths of the policy's main description). A majority of the site is against this policy, and a majority of those neutral or in favor do not actually understand the policy well enough to know what they are voting in favor of because of the way you worded your post, and your own lack of understanding of how things work.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So do you like to flame other users? I mean seriously: "your own lack of understanding of how things work"-I have tried to be nice in this process, I haven't said much, other than the corrupt part. But you guys come at me from every corner. How about you guys tell them about my darkest secret. How about that? You should be seeing a new thing popping up soon, just fyi. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Flaming is baseless criticism or insults. What I state is what I see. You suggested we strike down the NCF template in favor of an Overboard template. Why? Because Overboard wouldn't mark articles for deletion, you said. But NCF doesn't either. It was never intended to. I created the NCF template as a buffer between the Rule Breaker template, which I found to be overly harsh, and a regular article, because I felt that marking an article that had slipped up, or even messed up big time with canon with the Rule Breaker template was too hard and would scare users away. Furthermore, your proposed Overboard template implies that the article stepped way over the bounds of canon (that is, after all, what the word overboard implies), whereas my NCF template simply states that someone is disputing the canon-friendliness on the talk page, and that the author should see discussion, see if changes really do need to be made, and if they don't, appeal to an admin about having the NCF template officially removed (usually, when an author removes the NCF template, it is seen as an attempt to dodge the template and users put it back up). Thus, we can conclude that your Overboard template was proposed either in ignorance of the way the NCF template was supposed to work, or in spite of knowledge of how the NCF template was supposed to work. And, if we are truly to believe that this is a minor change (though the only real evidence of that you gave me in IRC), then the template change would really be the only thing proposed. However, if we are to believe this to be a major change, like most of the evidence in this thread (other than you saying it was a minor change, which meant little since you considered deleting 47 articles without hardly any warning to be a "minor renovation"), then we can at least see that the core foundation of the policy, which is the striking down of the NCF template in favor of another template is inherently flawed, since the new template would only be a slightly harsher template filling the exact same place. That, right there, isn't flaming. That is logic. And again, you can play the victim all day long, but I'm not buying it. Your darkest secret isn't some trump card I am lording over you in case I think I am losing ground. My lips are sealed. But that does not change the facts concerning this your recent action, your past action, and your involvement in the undermining of this Wiki site.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 03:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No no, you see it's something that were you bring up all this crap about me and tell everyone. I count that as flaming, actually it's more of a backstab. I have seen your opinion enough already. Oh and I have a new idea in place already that will end this thing. Now I have already said to end this discussion, but you continue to talk bad about me. Now I don't know how else to put it, but you are backstabbing or flaming me(which ever) left and right. Thanks, --H*bad (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Continuely bring stuff up about you? You mean like undermining the administration? Because I think this is the perfect place to bring these things to light. And I don't want you to even talk about backstabbing. I personally consider your attempts to undermine this site as a backstabbing, as one who has taken on the responsibilities of this site. I personally consider the fact that you treat this site like its yours, like the rest of us do not exist, that our opinions don't matter, as a backstabbing. And then you try to write it all off by playing the marter, by appealing to our emotions by playing the victim? That offends me. You go around, doing willy nilly as you please, and when the consequences come back to bite you in the rear, your suddenly this victimized soul being crucified by his corrupted coworkers for being the valiant rebel. Obviously, using a policy to undermine the site has nothing to do with H*bad undermining site, and thus undermining the site should not be mentioned on a policy that is attempting to undermine the site. Does that make any sense to you? Any at all? Because it makes absolutely no sense to me. Anything I have said about you that has negative connotation on this thread has had to do with the deeper matter at hand, you undermining this site. I am not poisoning the well. You and I both know that. I refuse to compromise my integrity and fall into poisoning the well, no matter how much you play the victim (which, by the way, is relevant to this discussion; your argument against most of what I am saying is basically by playing the victim, and I am calling you on it; that isn't flaming, that is calling out an appeal to pathos so that others don't fall for it). I am sick of you writing off your mistakes as miscommunications, I am sick of you using flowery words and half truths to deceive, and I am sick of you playing the victim. These are all relevant to this argument, because they are all tactics you are currently using or have used in the recent past to attempt and defeat logic and order. And if this thing you keep alluding to that will be coming soon, if it is another policy that blindsides all the other administrators, so help me God, I will see to it that your reign as a rogue agent working against what you perceive to be a corrupt order end. The 47 articles were forgivable, even if you don't see why it was an error, and this monstrosity that has so viscously torn the public you claim to be trying to free from corruption and unite in discussion, for this I believe there is retribution. But I am grasping at straws to find it in my heart to offer you any sort of personal forgiveness. Do not make another policy proposition without discussing it with at least one Bureaucrat, or several Sysops, and refining the idea. I will not see this community torn in two because you refuse to submit to order.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 05:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)