Forums: Index Freedom of the Thought
Note: This topic has been unedited for 702 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

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 GDI2.jpg TALKMESSAGE 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 IVCOMHalo: 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 IVCOMHalo: 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 GDI2.jpg TALKMESSAGE 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 IVCOMHalo: 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 IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 04:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


For (8/1 admin)

  1. This will allow for Freedom of Thought.--H*bad (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. I'm in --Photoshop attackSpartan-064,≈≈Ω≈≈Demakhis progress-wheel.gif ReportingPrivate first class Contributions 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. I always thought that the idea of "Your fanon doesn't follow the exact canon (which often contradicts itself) it must be killed" was a way too severe restriction on creativity in general, and I agree about how it can scare away the newbs sometimes. ((Wikipedia:WP:BITE might be a good guideline to adopt) Tesfan 04:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Give the newbies a chance! ;D -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)ROY! 04:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. I am with you guys.Eaite'Oodat 05:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. I am for, but I think that things that already exist (say, a specific SPARTAN,), or very important canon (e.g.: the Human-Covenant War starting, Master Chief's gender, the destruction of Instillation 04) should not be allowed to be broken, unless stated that the fanon takes place in an alternate universe. Chiafriend12my works
05:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC) (Double conflict)
  1. I am for--Spartan-118 11:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. I am for as well, as soon as i made my first article i was bombarded, if someone goes overboard then explain IN DETAIL cause my article got hit with the noncanon and i had no clue what i had done. Spartan 112 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Err.... Just for the record, we did tell you what was wrong with your article.--Petty Officer First Class Spartan IIISPARTAN-G023 Comm Channel Mission History 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

G-23's got a point, we always tell.--Bugger| Bug Me| My Bugging devices| Bugged 03:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. Just as long as it's for Halo. --A GIANT CHEESE ROLL WILL COME AND CRUSH YOU DOWN TO ITTY-BITTY PIECES! ZOMG!Save us from the Cheese roll!The cheddar horror! 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral (4/0 admins)

I'm unsure. As long as theres no really wacky stuff in it (ie, telepathic armies, giant space drills, races better than the forerunners, huge breaches of canon (stuff established by bungie), stuff completely unrelated to halo (cough, ISSC, cough), etc.) then I'm in. However, I need to know before I vote yes.Spartan 501 04:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User changed his vote.--Petty Officer First Class Spartan IIISPARTAN-G023 Comm Channel Mission History 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That's why I created the idea of Overboard. Basically what you mentioned won't be allowed, but like more Spartan's and taking away the idea that nobody can have the same spartan #. Basically. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you created the fanon contradiction rule (the one that said there could only be one Spartan for each designator) and I enforced it because I figured that it was established by both Bureaucrats, and then Relentless and I abolished it when I found out that he was not even aware of it.
--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 07:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I created that rule, because I thought everyone would then be happy, but apparently not. Oh and the SWFanon has had experience on this stuff already. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition to our managing of unrelated stuff, can we please keep the articles that are "the best", or "the most elite", under control, we do not need Gary/Mary Sues/Stus! -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)ROY! 15:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ya know 077, maybe you should spend more time trying to stop the creation of articles like the ISSC as opposed to insulting people who you think are "too perfect". There may be a line, and no offense, but I think your time could be well spent in ways other than yelling at articles that are too perfect, and after that, yelling at us for trying to stop the creation of articles like the ISSC. Again, no offense.--Petty Officer First Class Spartan IIISPARTAN-G023 Comm Channel Mission History 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1. there is a subpage policy... so I'm neutral. -- -- Sergeant Major Arnold Lewis, UNSC Naval Special Warfare Development Group[COM] 22:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

2. I think it depends more on the content than every single little detail. If it is something drastic, like something that would be surreal to the time period, then it would be unacceptable. Otherwise, it would be okay. --Dubtiger 00:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Well, I'm a bit torn. For one thing, I really dislike articles that make no sense whatsoever, as well as articles that have absolutely nothing to do with Halo at all. However, I'm also not exactly into being completely strict with canon.

--117649 Arrant Render

4. Well, I was against it, but now I'm split. I don't want the overboard template, cause that's overboard itself. But I don't like the name NCF template, because all of this is really not canon friendly. And also, everyone against this decision wants strict canon, which I don't want. We need some freedom, but not enough to run amuck with. Basically, I have the same sentiments as 117649 AR here. --Master Chief Petty Officer James Davis "Ready for orders, sir" "Sure shooting out there!" "That one was my kill"

Not entirely true. An article can be canon-friendly. That just means it doesn't contradict canon. None of our articles are canon, but many of them are canon-friendly. And while I prefer strict canon, the site policy is to allow bending canon. Even I, in my desire to keep strict canon, bend canon now and again (such as that there were surviving Frieden rebels that founded the planet Arizona III, and that the planet is technically an eighteenth UNSC colony world but is not part of the UN Council because it was founded by rebels, and is thus not part of the seventeen star seal). Those opposed to this suggest policy are not opposed to bending canon a little, but this suggested policy is proposing that we remove canon as a factor at all (whether or not H*bad proports that it is a minor change; I see no such evidence anywhere that this would only slightly remove canon as a factor in an article staying on the mainspace), and that I am vehemntly opposed to, along with the fact that this policy was suggested without any sort of discussion, which is basically H*bad cutting all of the other administrators out of the decision process, which deeply offends me (especially when he proports to have been the one who chose me for an adminstrative position, though I see little evidence of that either).--Rotaretilbo (I'm at school and can't be bothered to log in)

Against (16/4 admins)

1. Although I support some of the ideas of removing the NCF tag, I do not support some of the things either. I support users being able to have a little more freedom in what they right but some things are just too absurd for us to ignore. For me, I hate it when people make their guys god-modded or SPARTAN-IIs that have a tag higher than 150 or made up ranks that are super high because people can make their characters a higher rank than anyone else ect. I do support however, other things like the ability to make things such as new species, new planets, new factions (As long as they are not some massive Imperial human force) ect. Unfortunately the pros aint enough to outweigh the cons in my view so I must vote against.--Petty Officer First Class Spartan IIISPARTAN-G023 Comm Channel Mission History 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I created the idea of Template:Overboard, basically it will replace Notcanonfriendly. Oh and God modding is overboard, thus it won't be allowed. Now the idea of like Super Shielding, but it has to be able to drain after getting hit and it can't be a huge amount of power.If we allow for Spartan tags to be over 150 then we can have more creativity in this area. Thanks for your comments, H*bad (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Actually, I am now against it. Let me explain why: I like most of it, but the thing about Spartan tags going over 150 and same spartan tags are big things for me. For Spartan tags, thats thouroughly established canon, and why can't they create another project of their own? And for same tags, I don't like, it creates to much confusion. What if two people with the same tags get into an RP together, and then you have two spartans with the same number participating together and screwing the whole thing up.--Spartan 501 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying and will take it into consideration, big time. I have been toying with the idea, but have set myself on it, because of the fact that remember this, something that I was told: "everything [we] create, whether "canon-friendly" or not, is never going to be canon friendly, because any fan fiction is not canon friendly."--H*bad (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

3. 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 IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 06:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Cant b bothered writing a paragraph of explanation, but it would sound a conglomerate of the ones above.Just Another GruntConverse 06:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

5.I now am fully unsupportive of this. I'm just too afraid of what people might start writing. If everybody starts writing articles like the "ISSC", then where will all the articles that fit into canon go?-Anno 'Rhculee(Recieve Commands from me)(My lance)

6. 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)

7. 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| UNSC HelmetComm 19:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

8. 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 GDI2.jpg TALKMESSAGE 19:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

9. I don't see any joy or future in the deletion of the NCF template, all I see is angry users, quitting users, more ranting, and shit. This will be the end of Halofanon if this happens, if you want freedom, go to, where we can do WHATEVER WE WANT. And what the hell does Star Wars have to do with us? Star Wars, is not a series to take inspiration from. And for all you giving chances to newbies, kick them, nobody goes anywhere without criticism, its how the world works, we make the rules, you follow it, nuff said.--Bugger| Bug Me| My Bugging devices| Bugged 03:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

10. What the freak - you guys don't do bullet points? Anyways, I'm a big fan of letting Fan Fiction residing on Halo-Fanon regardless of contradiction of canon or not or even common sense and god-modding. However, I think it should be moved off the mainspace and instead reside in the user-subspaces. If it is kept in the mainspace, article titles, information pages, bio's, etc will be first-come, first-serve. These pages violate the stated purpose of the wiki. I don't think individuals that have a story they want to post and share with the world should be censored and should be allowed to call this site home, but that doesn't mean it should be permitted to be displayed prominently across HF, that it should be eligible for recognition, or that information pages about the characters and such should be welcome anywhere where the user feels like putting them. For example, I consider my work, thus far, to be much more fan-fiction than fanon. Why? Because my work is about the Night Sisters existing within the Halo Universe. Now, I don't want it to contradict stated Halo canon, but that's just because of the kind of person I am. As such, my writing, my character bios, etc, will all remain within my namespace because that's where I think it truly belongs. --forgottenlord 17:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

11. I like the concept of having more freedom to write slightly less canon orientated articles, however, this presents a problem, and although before when I first joined HaloFanon, I may have voted for this proposal, I disagree with it now. The problem is, that the more freedom users have to write stronger non-canon related articles, the more "wacky" they will be, and could even eventually be completely unrelated to Halo. The "overload template" at this moment sounds too confusing and needs much refining, whilst we already have a good system to deal with fanon. So long as users are given a warning before any drastic action is taken, and are allowed to argue their point of view on the situation, I'm happy with that. At the moment I have no problem with the way HaloFanon is working. The Alternative Banner is a wonderful creation. -TheLostJedi 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

12. To be honest, it's a really stupid idea. Çya, Møuse 03:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

13. Not sticking to canon will ruin good Fan Fiction. I am AGAINST deleting the NotCanonFriendly template!! --UNSC Trooper Unsctrooper small TalkMy Work 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

14. Yeah I dont want ISSC like articles anywhere or this wiki will go to hell in a hand basket easily we already have a huge faction epidemic now SPARTAN-089 06:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

15. As written in my article "this is pointless thing" you will find my resoning. The whole idea of Freedom of the Thought is stupid. Its like Anarchy with no rule on our canon, and, I alredy find the power of the rebel forces are far, far, far too great. I say we just have to improve on the current system and everuthing will, back to normal...If its possible. :>P SPARTAN-118

16. I'm now against this. This entire discussion was kind of useless. I think the system is good as it is. No need to change anything. And the "Freedom" thing sounds like some kind of fake nationalism (and that's not what this site is about, is it?). It's not freedom to be allowed to break more rules. Spartan Tags over 150, god-modded characters, stuff that has nothing to do with Halo....I hate it.

--Chief Petty Officer Jonathan SPARTAN-039T COM Link Mission Log 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Glad to see something constructive coming out of the little spat between you guys and Vic. Though I'm sure my opinion doesn't mean anything at all to anyone here since I'm not a member, I was pleased to see this proposal. - Brandon Rhea
  • I'll point out (I don't want to get into the discussion outside of comments here) that Wikis really aren't supposed to be for role-playing anyway (referring to the comment about how two characters with the same name could get into a role-play with each other), but rather for making encyclopedic articles. - Brandon Rhea

Contrary to common belief, the NCF template does not mark an article for deletion. Its just a notice so that people know that their article could use some work. If a user chooses to disregard that notice for a month or so, they become rule breakers. Thus, the abolition of the NCF template in exchange for the Overboard template makes no sense at all.

--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 06:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If a user does, in fact, disregard the notice for a month or so and become rule breakers, what happens to the article that they refused to fix? - Brandon Rhea
  • Depends on the admin that handles it. For me, its case by case. I'll hold off marking a lot of articles as rule breakers if the breach in canon isn't too major. However, a lot of the articles that end up being marked are just too over the top (like the ISSC articles, which I found creative, until I realised that the author had done nothing to connect it with Halo, that there was some serious god modding going on, and that there was a general lack of Halo knolwedge). Articles that I handle often get deleted. However, we are beginning to put a new policy into effect where articles that refuse to fix their errors are moved into user namespaces. And, of course, if a user believes his article should not have been deleted, he can always message an admin. If a user actually shows interest enough in their article to message me after its deletion, chances are I'll restore it with a NCF template on it, and give it another run to see if the canon issues are fixed.
--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The State, I understand that RPs are your encyclopedic entries. However, I was pointing out that articles on an encyclopedia based on RPs generally come from other RP sites rather than something RPd on that wiki. While this may just be my opinion, RPs on a wiki get very messy, very hectic and will eventually cause such a headache that no one will want to do it anymore. - Brandon Rhea

"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."
Actually, you can yell it in public. It's called freedom of speech. However, if you do yell it, it will have extremely bad effects for you. I would not suggest it. --Kebath 'Holoree 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly. ;-) Actually, you can yell anything anywhere as long as you have lungs, larynx, and the associated hyoid muscles and thoracic diaphragm, but it's the consequences that determine Freedom of Speech. However, even look at Wikipedia: you can't write articles on anything you want; they must fall in specific guidelines, no matter if it's Star Wars or stem cell biology (I know personally :P). Regards, RelentlessRecusant 'o the Halopedia Team GDI2.jpg TALKMESSAGE 20:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I may not like it when people make up dragons and huge cruisers with 4 Super MAC guns and 8 MAC Guns for point defense, but they have all right to make that stuff. That is what imagination is. The freedom to make up stuff. -- -- Sergeant Major Arnold Lewis, UNSC Naval Special Warfare Development Group[COM] 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)ROY! 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.

I will drag the myth class into it. That is an excellent example. 7 Kilometers long (at first, it was 19) with 4 Super MAC Guns (now 2) and 8 Regular MACs... now if that isn't godmodding or a massive breach of canon... I don't know what is. -- -- Sergeant Major Arnold Lewis, UNSC Naval Special Warfare Development Group[COM] 20:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Johnson has a point -- The State(Our Decrees and Law)(The State Alchemists we've enlisted)ROY! 20:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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 IVCOMHalo: 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 IVCOMHalo: 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)

I think halo fanon is great but it has many defects like characters i was told that i could not use my character 16807 Rampant gear, by 117649AnnihilativeRepentance because there already 2 moniters with that had 16807, and same with Spartan-110 who's original number was supposed to be Spartan-115. this site is first come first served. Eaite'Oodat 15:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when I found out that H*bad had implemented the fanon contradiction rule (first come first serve status) without consulting Relentless, or anyone else, Relentless and I spoke about it, and then abolished the rule.

--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 22:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


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 IVCOMHalo: 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 IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that, on a Wiki, calling Adminship a "position of power" is not the best term to use. Syops are supposed to be equal with all members, other than the fact that they can delete articles and such. - Brandon Rhea

With great power comes great responsibility. Administrators are users that we have entrusted the security and well being of the site to, and thus allow them to have certain powers that, while they do not elevate administrators above users, set them apart. It is my belief that an administrator on no website, Wiki or otherwise, is better than a user. Administrators are those who we trust to take on the responsibilities that can't be given to everyone.

--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 05:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying that, as an Admin, there are better choices of words you could use. - {{SUBST:User:Brandon Rhea/sig}} 05:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rot here, HBad has been undermining the rules laid down and the efforts of the other admins as a team for some time and then undermining their efforts with new rules or in this case, purposely launching a campaign to spite the other admins, a campaign agaisnt rules he helped lay down and enforce (point the past of the rules). --Ajax 013 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The REAL meaning of "fanon"

I saw some mention on the definition of fanon above, and just want to clarify what "fanon" means.

On the internet, beyond the confines of Wikia communities, the term "fanon" is used to refer to non-canonical things (stories, events, information) that is widely accepted by a large group of fans and even often confused to be canonical.


  1. You can't just sit down and write fanon. Whatever you write must be wildly accepted by other fans in order for it to be considered fanon. Analogy: a writer doesn't just write bestselling novels. He has to write first, sell them, and have the novels sell extremely well, before those novels can be called bestselling novels.
  2. Fanon may be entire fan fictions (extremely popular ones that pretty much every fan has read), or just random character trivia ("character X learned skill Y from place Z").
  3. If a certain information (say, "character X's mom died 10 years ago") introduced in a fan fiction become used by many other successful fan fiction authors to the point where most fans can just assume that info to be valid in a randomly encountered fan fiction, then that piece of info has become fanon even if the originating fan fiction as a whole is not fanon (the originating fan fiction itself was not successful).
  4. Fanon can contradict canon. If a large sector of the fandom consider a character to be xenophobic, even if in the canon that character is explicitly said to be not, then the info "character x is xenophobic" is fanon. (This can happen of the canonical characterization of that character is quite weak or even self-contradictory at different times, and/or several successful fan fictions by different authors all depict that character as being xenophobic).
  5. Fanon can also be consistent with canon, and supplement additional information the canon does not provide.

Now, while this site is called "Halo Fanon", I'm pretty sure the usage of the word "fanon" here was originally meant to be something different from the general usage of the term on the rest of the internet. And if the Wikia communities/founders are making up their own usage/definition of the term fanon anyways, it's kinda pointless to debate policy based on what the term "fanon" means.

The community should decide what type of articles go in the main article space and what types go into user space without taking the definition of fanon into consideration. I also encourage the use of positive encouraging wording for the template marking articles in the main space that should belong to the user space.

Just personal opinion of someone who's into technicalities. -PanSola 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, you have no idea how many technicalities come up on this site. I personally knew this information, though I still use the terms interchangably. --Master Chief Petty Officer James Davis "Ready for orders, sir" "Sure shooting out there!" "That one was my kill"

Another idea (already mentioned by several people above but I want to emphasis) that makes this site much more friendly in the spirit of the original movement (and less drastic a change): Instead of deleting the rule-breakers, move those articles into the user namespaces. If I created article Blah Blah Foo Bar and it breaks NCF or whatever and I do not come and fix it after a month, move the article into User:PanSola/Blah Blah Foo Bar. This is something even normal users can help out with, and you'd only need admin intervention to delete the redirects or if the user in question challenges the move to userspace. -PanSola 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Up until now, I had no idea Fanon and Fan Fiction had different meanings. -TheLostJedi 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the fifth definition is what we were shooting for, since much of the others would require fan fiction to be established prior to being on the site. And yes, I can see the moving of articles to user namespace as a much better compromise than deleting them. If it makes everyone feel better, I'll run through the deletion log and restore articles that were deleted on the premise of canon, and then move them to user namespaces. The only thing is articles written by anonymous users will be deleted for breaking the rules. If they write an article and it cannot be determined the user who wrote it, or if there was no registered user who wrote it, then it will be deleted.

--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't five different definitions. Those are five implications of one definition. None of the implications individually or together qualify as a definition. This community has the right/freedom of choosing to keep only articles that are consistent with canon in the main article space, but please do NOT confuse that with the real definition of fanon. -PanSola 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Misread the post. I see now the word implications above them. My bad. I figured this might come back to bite me, anyway. I knew that fanon and fan fiction were different, but I couldn't for the love of me be bothered to find the exact definition so, to be perfectly honest, I BSed that bit about the definition based on the word (which is like fan canon). I see how the definition makes more sense than mine did, though.

--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Against Deleting the Template !

I personally am against deleting the NotCanonFriendly template. Too much freedom of thought and expanding beyond the limits of the Haloverse ruins Fan Fiction. We HAVE to stick to canon. If we won't stick to Canon anymore, what's the point of writing Halo Fan fiction, we might as well just create a universe of our own. All I'm saying is that Halo Fan Fiction has its limits, and yondering beyond the limits ruins good Fan Fiction. --UNSC Trooper Unsctrooper small TalkMy Work 18:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So, What To Do Now?

While I know most of the site policies, I am a tad new to this whole administrating business. When a policy is two away from having twice as many against as for, and has been open for five days, what do we do? Does this mar our site notice for week? A month? Multiple months? Until it somehow gets enough power to pass? Do I have to opt another policy to shoot down this proposal in order to remove it from the site notice? What do you all think (this is mainly a question aimed at the informed, as guesses will get me nowhere and only serve to confuse me).

--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 07:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave it for a week and if it doesn't pass by then we close it. It is already 12 against to 8 for, plus 4 admins on the against side so that should be all that is needed for it to close now without it being passed.

--Petty Officer First Class Spartan IIISPARTAN-G023 Comm Channel Mission History 14:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We're actually 15-8 right now. One more and the opposition will double those for the policy. And with 5 people not taking sides (which I believe is due to the fact that H*bad misrepresents more than a couple things), the number of those opposed could easily go up.

--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 19:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The opposition officially has doubled those in favor (which double those neutral), 16-8-4.

--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 06:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just close this discussion. H*bad, the proposal, erm, proposer, hasn't really given any new arguments for this being accepted, there's twice as many votes against as there are for accepting the policy, the only admin accepting the proposal is the proposer, and there are 4 admins against it. Çya, Møuse 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is kind of pointless...

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)
I'm going to have to agree with Spartan-118 on this... same kind of things happen at halopedia and nothing ever changes. -- -- Sergeant Major Arnold Lewis, UNSC Naval Special Warfare Development Group[COM] 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that your up agains't 9 to 19. We already won, it's hopeless, give it up.--Bugger| Bug Me| My Bugging devices| Bugged 19:19, 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 IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, The Yorktown-class battleship was deleted? I don't understand that, i personally saw to it getting fixed, that was no longer NCF. Most... strange.......--Ajax 013 19:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

When H*bad went on his 47 article deleting spree, the Yorktown-class was one of many articles unjustly deleted. I restored it, along with the other 46 articles, and then reviewed the article and, if I remember correctly, removed the NCF template. Its deletion does not atest to a flaw in the administrative system, but a flaw in H*bad's sporratic, unpredictable decisions that none of the rest of us are ever aware of.

--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Thank you. SPARTAN-118

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 IVCOMHalo: 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 IVCOMHalo: 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 IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 05:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Again you are trying to make me the enemy, I don't even know why I come on here anymore with people like you. You guys say, yeah we talked about these guys becoming admins, but no emails from any of you. You even said yourself that we are the leaders. You guys don't even consult the wiki to see what their opinions on things are. That's the difference between you and me. And since this is done with, I don't think you will mind me protecting this page. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We did not consult with you, H*bad, because you did not consult with us when making this page. Don't you think you should have consulted us, especially now that almost all the other administrators are opposing this proposal? There is no difference and you are no more righteous -- while I tried to inform you regarding the new administrators while you were away, you didn't have the courtesy to privately give us a head's up. That's the problem. Cheers, RelentlessRecusant 'o the Halopedia Team GDI2.jpg TALKMESSAGE 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, H*bad, I am absolutely making you out to be the bad guy in this because you are. Look at it this way. When we made the new admins, those of us who were active talked about it, and we attempted to fill you in, though you weren't active. When you made this page, Relentless and I were both in IRC, you had just come in and spoken and thus knew we were, and yet you made no attempt to communicate. You make us out to be bad because Relentless and I weren't actively trying to communicate with an inactive Bureaucrat, yet you are somehow of no guilt for not contacting two active Bureaucrats, both of which you knew were on IRC at the time?

Let's review both parties arguments, shall we. (My commentary will be in bold)

  • H*bad:
    • This site restricts freedom of thought. False. This site in no way has the ability to restrict any person's thoughts. We restrict what goes on the article namespace. Thus, we maintain integrity.
    • The NotCanonFriendly template is harsher than the proposed Overboard template. False. The NotCanonFriendly template serves the same purpose of the proposed Overboard template, but does so in a way that implies that, while there is a dispute, the article is not necessarily in the wrong. Thus, the Overboard template would just be a harsher version of the NotCanonFriendly template.
    • The NotCanonFriendly template marks articles for deletion. False. The NotCanonFriendly template was created because I felt that the Rule Breaker template was overly harsh to new users, and decided that I would make a specific template that could be used as a softer blow for people who might slip up with canon, since not everyone knows everything about Halo. The NotCanonFriendly template is a sort of friendly warning, saying "hey, some people think you made a mistake; check out the talk page, and if its true, you might want to fix that." In the event that there is a mistake and the author refuses or neglects to fix it, then the Rule Breaker template is applied. Articles marked by the NotCanonFriendly template are not at risk for deletion (at least, not by administrators who understand and follow proceedure). They are at risk of being declared rule breakers. At what point that they are, they will then be at risk for deletion, or in the present time, having their articles moved to a user namespace.
    • This policy is not a major change. Half Truth. You might have intended for only a minor change, but everyone else saw this as going from canon-based regulation to not canon-based regulation, which is to say, those voting in favor either glanced over this, saw it fronted by a Bureaucrat, and saw the word "freedom" in there and voted yes, or they voted in favor because they believed that canon should make no difference in this site. You yourself said you wanted canon to have as little to do with this site as possible.
    • America allows freedom of thought, so we should too. False Analogy. America allows freedom of thought, and so do we. America, however, does not allow us to do whatever we want. Neither do we. America has laws in place to protect its integrity. So do we.
    • The other administrators don't email me. Half Truth. It is true that they don't email you, but considering that you are very often inactive, and have never made any attempt to email us, we have worked around you, since you can't be rellied upon to be active when we are making decisions. A decision should not be put off for a month because we're waiting on you to show up. Furthermore, we try to fill you in on changes when you are active.
    • I'm just an innocent victim. False. You are a Bureaucrat who has neglected his duties.
    • I'm being backstabbed. False. No one ever agreed to protect you from your own mistakes. It would be backstabbing if I told you I wouldn't tell anyone about something, and then I told them. I have done no such thing. On the other hand, when you took on the responsibilities of this site, you agreed to work as a team with the other administrators, yet you have done everything in your power to undermine them. That is a backstabbing.
    • I'm being flamed. False. H*bad, you and I both know that there are things that have not been said here that could have been said here that would be counted as Poisoning the Well. Pointing out that you don't communicate at all with the admin is not one of them. It is completely relevant, because this is a prime example of such.
  • Rotaretilbo (and possibly the rest of the administration team)
    • Halo was the basis on which this site was founded. Halo is the difference between this site and any other fanon site. If Halo established canon no longer restricts writing, what will? What will set us apart from Fanon Wiki?
    • This policy is filled with half truths and misconceptions. Just look at my commentary of H*bad's arguments. Much of what he says isn't entirely true.
    • This policy was not discussed at all by the administration team. H*bad considers the rest of the administration as a "foundation of corruption", and has made absolutely no attempts to communicate with them (except to be angry at me for restoring the deleted pages). He expects us all to email him, but doesn't expect to have to email any of us? That is hubris. H*bad is not the lord and master of this site, and the rest of the administration team are not servants to bow at his every whim and conform to his every thought.
    • H*bad is avoiding the subject. After a short debate in which his arguments were one by one defeated, H*bad slowly drew the discussion to other things that would allow him to play the victim. It's a backhand strategy. H*bad begun to draw the discussion off the topic when he responded to my rebuttal (which was about RR and I both being on IRC at the time of the creation of this page) by saying "Oh some team, yeah so RR making people admins without asking me." Later, he would accuse us of drifting when we responded to those accusations and began calling him out on his backhand tactics. He now plays the "backstabbed flamed victim", trying to convince the community that he is without blame, and that us "big bad backstabbers" are being mean to him.
--Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.