User talk:Derivative

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Not editable

Save Complete Monster on Allthetropes.org

32
Summary last edited by Derivative 05:19, 13 October 2019 7 months ago

Topic left open but deprecated for sake of continuing CM situation.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

You've shown here that you were uncertain that the proposal being made by Robkelk was the right call since there were other options we could visit in order to help amend the troubles with this trope. You also said "it's sad that we aren't able to get the users who care about CM so much, to also contribute elsewhere to ATT." I do care about CM a lot, and I have zero intention of seeing it's contents nuked.

So if you could, please give a firm "Nay" vote to the proposal? There are ways we can work things out for the trope without opting to take the most extreme solution (Or as Geth put it "burning down an entire wheat field just because of a few recurrent tares in the wheat.")

Derivative (talkcontribs)

When I mentioned the users who care about CM, I'm talking about all of your CM "friends" who seem to be equally as passionate as you, and who seem to be in a constant state of conflict with you on various wikis over the years. Both these IPs and registered users unfortunately don't seem to want to contribute elsewhere, which is saddening personally. Single-issue editors are a thing as rob did correctly point out, but I would have preferred that they contribute more than just edit wars with you. I also have stated before that the CM issue for reasons both in and out of your control, took up nearly all of your ATT time, which didn't help you establish and maintain relations with other users, particular certain admins, which you know who they are.

I think my responses on Example Sectionary state clearly I want my original subpage proposal implemented preferably (especially since it somehow was not after consensus was reached to do it) at least on a trial basis to see if that helps clean up some of the issues, but if consensus decides/changes to that the deletion of CM is the only cause forward; I've got bigger battles to fight.

TL;DR: Subpage or bust. I think that's your last hope, especially since Rob stated that the problems would "go away" if it was implemented, at least to my interpretation.

Also fuck 503's.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I don't really have any such "friends" on this site, though. I went it alone for a long while and now suddenly there's this idea being put fourth that the trope as it is now and has been maintained as for a while now isn't good enough, which, I won't lie, does hurt me quite a bit. I do hope I can make things right with Rob and get him to understand my position. I really want us to be united in maintaining the trope as it is now, with perfectly good and "not overly strict and objective but just strict and objective enough" criteria in place for what characters can and cannot qualify as examples, as opposed to being divided over whether or not all edits should be irrevocable and near lawlessness with a trope like this ought to be encouraged by the precedents set by the users who aren't me.

Rob held off on implementing that because he felt it would be kicking me whilst I was down and had no power to add any input on it. And personally, I still don't agree with it. There is literally nothing wrong with the set-up of the trope, it's examples, and it's subpages as it is right now - the problem is that some users are having trouble grasping that this isn't a purely subjective opinion-based trope, but a subjective trope that's nonetheless ruled by objectively defined criteria that must be adhered to when making new entries (if a character too notably fails to align with the criteria, they have no business being put down as examples.)

And no, the problems would not "go away" if that was implemented. People like that ban evader will always be trying to apply messy edits in order to have things their preferred way.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Friends was my sarcastic way of saying that CM and your previous stewardship has attracted a lot of users who engage in heavy drama with you over it, it wasn't a serious suggestion that they were genuinely your friends.

The status quo doesn't work because it got us to this point, hence why the entire moderation staff are repeating the same shit that we debated last month, only this time some want the entire problem removed like a tumour, I'm merely arguing chemotherapy.

He held off also because he had other wiki priorities to attend to first. Not just to let the dust settle, which seems to have been re-surfaced now.

The problem going away is also the current problem that you have of CM being deleted, if my subpage idea goes through CM stays, if it doesn't; it seems like it is bound to be deleted.

I don't care about how the result goes stay/delete wise, currently CM is a mess that never ends, if the subpage idea doesn't work, i'm happy for it to go; i'm only arguing that we give it one last shot in a different format, like YMMV.

I'm not a hard CM deletion advocate, but I'm not someone who cares about it staying either; I'm giving you a chance at saving it in a way that doesn't get it removed; because it's obvious that Rob and LT are not going to keep CM in the status quo. That's your choice how you deal with it.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

Ah, okay. XD

No, what got us to this point was someone's flimsy grasp on how the "rules" for this trope worked and how, despite being subjective, examples are determined only if they objectively fit with the given criteria for being an example of the trope ('cause otherwise people could throw in any old villain, including ones with clear redeeming qualities or sympathetic factors), and that same person unknowingly taking the side of a serial ban evader when said ban evader made wild, personally motivated edits (which included adding and DELETING existing examples as she saw fit) and it was rightfully deemed vandalism by Mark and Geth, which got the ban evader blocked on all three of her sock accounts.

Which is why I will accept your subpage idea over flat out deletion if it does come to that, even if I don't agree with the idea either. It's the lesser of two evils in my book.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

You have to understand that your creation of Examples NOT to go here etc etc and almost immediate reverting of examples you deemed wrong has been lasting years on this wiki, and I don't think it made the right impression on other admins; especially when those admins don't know who is right or wrong. Your problem with the Tales of Berseria situation and the need to use the term veto, was what set this all off initially, they don't like the concept of one admin have control over an entire trope/subpage.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I'd be willing to work that out with the other admins were they only to approach me about it. I only did those things to keep the trope from backsliding into the mess of chaos it was when it was first ported, where examples like Peter Griffin, Mr. Krabs, Eric Cartman, you name it were still seen listed as examples even when they do not match up with the criteria. Believe me, I don't WANT to have control over the entire trope. I want us to all start managing it better and recognizing that what controls which characters do and do not get listed as examples is THE CRITERIA. I cannot stress enough how it important it is to weigh things by that rather than by personal taste and opinion like your average subjective trope.

LilyNadesico (talkcontribs)

I am opposed to nuking the page and deleting all examples as well. It would only anger people who come here expecting something different from TvTropes. I just think we should have a set of rules determining how a character does (or does not) qualify as a Complete Monster, so that we know how to proceed.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Who said anything about nuking the page?

Either somebody is confused, or somebody is spreading misinformation.

Anyway.

The discussion is being held here where everybody can see it, not on a random mod's Talk page out of sight of other users.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

The "nuke" talk has been going around based on your proposal. Looney Toons and Mark D. Gordon seemed to be confused on that too.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

I'm not at all confused. You and other other obsessed Complete Monster wonks have turned it into something so toxic that I'd rather see the whole thing burnt to the ground than have it poison the rest of the wiki, and good riddance to it.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

That's a little extreme and overly harsh, don't you think?

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Not at all. It's approaching Fetish Fuel levels of toxic, in fact, and I would rather amputate the limb than have the wiki die from the gangrene.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

The wiki is not going to die because one trope attracted one ban evader. Otherwise, the trope will only be toxic if we choose to make it toxic rather than compromise on how to manage it best. Which I thought we did before that ban evader's accounts getting blocked and her edits getting reversed triggered Robkelk into wanting to raze the whole garden just to get rid of some weeds.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Rob isn't wanting to raze the garden -- he wants to apply carefully distributed herbicide. Me? After getting my attention pulled unwillingly into this whole clusterfsck, I want to raze the garden -- pull Complete Monster out of the wiki stem and root, lock away anything that looks like it, and evict the autistic wonks who use it as a dick-measuring-by-proxy contest ("My villain's biggest!" "No! Mine is!"). I've not formally suggested this, but the longer this goes on, the closer I get to doing so.

And given my history with TV Tropes and All The Tropes, consider what it has to have taken to bring me to that point.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

OK, you need to take some time off from this site. You are clearly very emotionally distraught, hyperbolic, and confrontational about what has gone down in regards to this trope. And talking about evicting people and using autism as an insult is absolutely out of line. Please, for your sake and all of ours, back away from this site and calm down.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Responding to LT in that way isn't going to calm him down, if anything the opposite.

If you're going to have a spat, please do it off my talk page so I don't get an email notif every time.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Sorry, LK, I lost track of the fact that this thread was on your talk page.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

There's god knows how many different threads about this at this point, a decent few were started by Doc.

Also you might want to note he's talking about you on Geth's talk page.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

This thread is pretty much dead now, if that helps.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I'm done attempting to reason with LT. I can only hope he takes my advice.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I'm sure some people could say the same in your direction. Swings and roundabouts.

Also if using autism as an insult was banned here, we're all fucked.

Some people want the problem to go away permanently. I guess we will have to wait until the vote either way.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

You can consider this talk resolved now. We've no further use to keep it around or keep.it going.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I appreciate the gesture, but I would prefer the flow extension resolving of topics on my talk page to be left to me on principle. Just a personal space thing, nothing deeper.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

Fair enough.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

The thing is...we DO have that set of rules. Right here: https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Complete_Monster/Criteria

The problem we're facing now is that some users have confused how other users dealt with three user accounts that turned out to be sock accounts for a single serial ban evader who was legitimately messing up subpages by adding and removing examples to their heart's content without regard to the criteria for being unfairness in regards to edits that can or cannot be made by regular tropers.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Lily might want to introduce herself, being a very new visitor here.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I recall her from TV Tropes and other websites. Thankfully she's not that ban evader, and her input can be welcomed and trusted.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I would really prefer if she introduced herself and to the rest of the ATT staff. How do we know she is not that ban evader and she is to be trusted?

DocColress (talkcontribs)

Again, I've seen her activity and even interacted with her on other websites. And yeah, we'll have to wait for her to introduce herself properly.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

That's all well and good if she is even that user she is claiming to be, and not impersonating Lily.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I think an IP check would have to be done to confirm that.

Summary by Derivative

sometimes looking a bit closer reveals secrets to all. forced/ascended

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Basically I'm thinking of a trope where the world is literally portrayed as a stage vis a vis Paper Mario, but All the Worlds Are a Stage already exists as a trope title, and nothing else occurs to me as a possible name to look up the trope (because I'm reasonably sure it exists here).

You have anything on that?

Derivative (talkcontribs)

If I can find anything that fits, I'll let you know

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Sure thing.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

More questioning along that line: What would be used to describe a thing where someone tries to create a new catchphrase/meme/what-have-you in-universe or otherwise and it never catches on (on top of optionally not being all that funny to begin with), which serves as a joke in itself?

Think Team Three Star, BROOKLYN RAGE, "Milhouse is not a meme", etc.

Derivative (talkcontribs)
Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Well, yeah, but I was thinking there was a subtrope where the fact that the meme was forced itself became a meme. Seems not. :B

In any case, thank you!

Derivative (talkcontribs)
Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Huh. Seems I was overthinking the matter. Thank you again!

Derivative (talkcontribs)

No worries, trying to fit pegs in holes here is always a task, especially lagging behind the other one.

Question about an article

12
Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

I started up something in my sandbox that I like the look of, but before I proceed any further, I'd like to know if it would "clear the threshold" and be 'worthy' enough of an article in the first place.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I think the ROM hack would pass, because we have several dozen articles on them, being published works, I can't say the same about the self-imposed challenge.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

If that's the case, then I can probably just fold tropes specific to the self-imposed challenge into the ROM hack's description as a means of explaining its origin.

Hopefully I can get a bit more input on that, but this is still a great answer to have. Thank you!

Derivative (talkcontribs)

That would be my personal approach to, feel free to get a second opinion however on this.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)
Robkelk (talkcontribs)
Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

This was admittedly a force-of-habit question I posed, yeah.

I'll continue working on it in that event, then, though LT is still free to give input regardless if he wants.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

It's reasonably well written, but I can't see how it fits into our classification schema. It's not a work, it's not a fundamental of story telling. it's not a creator. Would it be a Useful Note? Or Just for Fun? I'm not saying don't refine it, just that I can't see a place for it.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Per LT, if he focuses on the ROM hack, we can classify it as a work and be done with it.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Yeah, I'd already decided the route I was going, just that in the midst of paring it down to just the work, I didn't respond as immediately as I should've. Thank you all.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Judging by the edit history, the problems with the submit problem are likely connected with the 503 problems, which we are trying to solve.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Huh? No, I didn't have any problems submitting, I just left the window open forever like an idiot. :B

I thought we had agreed to take the protection off of the Complete Monster pages...?

12
Robkelk (talkcontribs)
Derivative (talkcontribs)

it was temporary protection due to the multiple account case that @Mark D. Gordon was talking about I.E, WalrusGuy/Valkerone/etc, if you want to handle it from here on out, I have no objection.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I don't really understand the whole Complete Monster trope - I didn't see anything wrong with the edits that Mark D. Gordon called vandalism. Better to let somebody other than me review the specific edits.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

@GethN7 blocked them, the claim was they were vandals on the Wikia/Fandom ATT, so I assume due to Geth being the main guy on both, he knows what he is talking about.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

I'm familar with this, they've gotten into edit wars and sockpuppeted on Wikia, they just hop to another wiki that covers this topic to keep going if their edit warring on one gets them kicked off.

It's asinine, I know, but these fools take this topic WAY too seriously.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

As an observer, I have to agree. It's ludicrous how much of the drama I've witnessed seems to orbit that set of pages.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

Sorry I'm late for this - what edits did Mark consider vandalism? Who were the vandals?

Derivative (talkcontribs)
DocColress (talkcontribs)

Thanks.

And by the way, Robkelk...

"since DocColress's definition of "vandalism" didn't match the definition that everyone else uses?"

I do not have my own "definition of vandalism." Me selecting the "vandalism" reasoning for taking down that one page that one time was an ERROR. I'm amazed you've still not let it go. And seeing as you "didn't see anything wrong with the edits that Mark D. Gordon called vandalism", it shows you were unable to recognize a serial ban evader and vandal when you were monitoring and interacting with them, on three different sock accounts no less. That particular person is exactly the reason I became so defensive of the Complete Monster trope on this Wiki in the first place, so I would really not AT ALL care to see lax administration allow users like that to have their way with the trope just to suit their own wants rather than weighing examples by the criteria we have in place.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

The user was not a serial ban evader at this wiki until he or she started getting banned after my interaction with the user.

What happens on other wikis is irrelevant, and I'm surprised you keep trying to use it as an excuse to get users banned here.

If the "Compete Monster" pages are really this much of a time sink and this divisive, maybe we should do an Example Sectionectomy on them - amputate the mess for the health of the wiki as a whole. EDIT: However, a single mod's User Talk page is not the right venue for that discussion. I'll take that to the Complete Monster talk page.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Rob, I'm gonna have to disagree.

The idiots in question started crap on our Wikia branch, then once they got caught, they came here.

Doc is vindicated completely in this instance, and if you don't believe me, you can feel free to check the block long on our Wikia branch and follow the breadcrumb trail.

One of those fools even tried to sock as an imposter account (Valkerone) of an admin on Wikia wiki where they started garbage, and I'm in touch with the admin of the real account there to keep tabs on further nonsense.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I didn't even realise the Valkerone connection.

Beta Log 86 (talkcontribs)

As you know, I'm the brains behind the Wattpad fic Final Stand of Death, let having trouble looking for a larger set of viewers. It's rather needed to continue on the works. I have posted links but more needs to be done.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

In terms of my edit, I was just doing some work reducing backlog for Pages Needing More Categories, it was not a judgement of either the article or your work in any capacity.

Beta Log 86 (talkcontribs)

Nah, I'm just wondering how can I get more traffic towards the works.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I've never gotten really viral with anything. @Looney Toons writes fics and seems to be doing well so i'll tag him in

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Do it for 21 years, eventually people notice you. <grin>

Seriously, just circulate it. My stuff originally appeared on the FFML (Fan Fic Mailing List), and I put it up on my own website. I also have my own forums where readers can gather and discuss the fics and other topics. Fast Eddie originally recommended Drunkard's Walk (my fic) on TVT, and it has several mentions there and here.

That's really what it boils down to: The more places people can stumble over your fic, the more likely people who might be interested will find it.

A barnstar for you!

4
Robkelk (talkcontribs)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For putting in so much work on the Heartwarming pages. Robkelk (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Derivative (talkcontribs)

We're not even three letters of the alphabet through yet, you and I got a lot more fun to go through. I'm not even automating it. :)

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

This is true, and I've been doing almost as much there as you have... which is why I know how much work you've already put into this.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

One day in 2030, we will have done this and the categorisation of all images.

John (talkcontribs)

I do read the forum and I wish to clarify a few things here. "remind John that the community has spoken" I have at no point ever said the community is wrong or ever attempted to override the community. The view of the community is exactly my view.

"If he decides to then throw another fit" I haven't thrown a fit - I'm reacting to labster releasing private logs on a public forum in an attempt to discredit me and make it look like I'm the anti-community person here. I am 100% for the community, labster is against giving the community a voice and prefers being the one to make decisions in banning people and then feeds the lies to everyone else.

Going further back to this, "basis of telling John to grow some genitals" the fact I am speaking up against labster's ideals of being a dictatorship shows I have more guts than anyone else in the sysadmin team.

"Labster, John is now blaming you for this whole situation, which is really nice of him considering how much work and money you provide to Miraheze." Again, lack of facts. I have given far more time and work to Miraheze than labster does as from Day 1 I have continuously made an effort to keep the site up and running. Contribution graphs also show this respectively: .

So please actually check facts and understand what people want before you go around blindly accusing people of wanting to overrule the community and revoke their say as sometimes its the people you least expect.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

He didn't release the logs to discredit you, he released them in a show of transparency and an attempt to try to get an understanding of what you were trying to say.

You seem to have this conflation of "the community" with one/two people. Community driven is when everyone gets to talk, which is what happened. Dictatorship is when DQ tries to get global policy changed just to suit him.

There is a difference between stopping a user from going overboard and dictatorship. My experience so far the last few months is that Brent has always been willing to hear the views of others. My only experience with you so far is that you don't.

I'm not interested in playing the game of who has the biggest cock when it comes to who contributes more. Brent contributes a lot, i'm sure you contribute a lot, I believe you should be grateful of those who do and work alongside you. Note how you can't refute the financial aspect. You contribute a lot on the code side, I get it.

I'm almost 19. You're likely at least a decade or two older. The fact that you are engaging in even more emotion than I am is not on. Calm down. You're in the process of causing a massive upending of major progress in terms of Miraheze on something that is a complete non-issue. I want ATT to stay with Miraheze for the record. I don't like how you are making ultimatums.

Sort your differences out with Brent in a civil and calm manner. Just a week ago everything was peaceful. Don't let your hubris get in the way.

John (talkcontribs)

DQ attempted to change the policy through the community - labster however over the past few weeks has been trying to change it by just getting someone else to agree to his actions. I've told him for several weeks now that if he wants to resolve the situation then he should do it through the community but he has refused to do so and instead continued to attempt to handle it through a dictatorship.

John (talkcontribs)

That is not my reason for commenting here anyway. My reason is that you (and others) are basing your arguments on what labster has said - which distorts reality and doesn't check up with facts.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Well, from where I'm sitting, community has spoken, and I will go along with the majority on this.

FYI, John, I wanted to hear both sides before I even weighed in on any of this, and having fully examined this situation, I am ever so grateful the community has decided to reject DQ's changes.

Assuming DQ is willing to honor that and this doesn't turn into another reheated debate that causes another firestorm, I just hope this all becomes water under the bridge so we can all get back to business.

John (talkcontribs)

We should all hope that.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I basically vote for NDKilla to become to go-between between ATT and John.

Labster (talkcontribs)

"I'm reacting to labster releasing private logs on a public forum in an attempt to discredit me and make it look like I'm the anti-community person here." I'm going to ask you to explain that in more detail. If my asking and you explaining a policy could discredit you, what does that say about the policy?

"the fact I am speaking up against labster's ideals of being a dictatorship shows I have more guts than anyone else in the sysadmin team."

Jesus Harold Christ, dude.

John (talkcontribs)

I'm not going to discuss specifics anymore as my point has been made. The request that you don't post private IRC logs without permission is common decency.

John (talkcontribs)

We're back at square now with http://drunkardswalkforums.yuku.com/sreply/142127/All-The-Tropes-Wiki-Project-Part-VIII#.WO-tNoWcHxM

If you view is clearly I am not welcome here, then what is the point in staying here. My time will be much more valued elsewhere and I'm sure Miraheze will be fine, considering as of late I'm the only one who has been putting time into keeping this service up. If that is you view, please write it clearly and I'll make you happy and get out of your way of abusing volunteers. Thanks.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Stop with this ego-serving self-pitying, LP impersonates and continues to abuse you and your colleagues while you continue to bargain and validate his/her/their attacks by doing so.

Threatening to take your toys home is an attempt at emotional blackmail which has become your hallmark trait and I'm not interested.

Also the fact that you hover around the thread just waiting for someone to mention you shows a lot to your own emotional maturity.

I get along with every other volunteer.

John (talkcontribs)

I am not at all validating their attacks. The ban has done nothing helpful but has done a lot of damage to Miraheze. Since the ban was imposed, three volunteers have had no time or motivation to be here, over the past few weeks 100% of our time has been dedicated to enforcing an ineffective RfC's decision which doesn't even ban the user but just locks their account.

I do not hover the thread for your pathetic attacks, I hover it because in the past it has been extremely useful in debugging issues on one of the largest wikis here.

I am not threatening to take my toys home, I asked a simple question to you. Maybe you do get along with every other one, but you clearly don't with me and chose to attack and question me at every opportunity you get.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

To Lulzkiller: My advice is to let this go and let John go on with this decision, for good or ill. If it works out, fine. If not, then that will be for John to handle. There is no need to lose your cool over this, John does have final say here.

To John: Frankly, I personally feel this is headed for nothing by disaster and sympathize with LK on how this is an ill wind that will blow no one, least of all you, any good whatsoever.

However, you're the boss. I will not try to oppose this, but I must add if this turns out badly, I hope you will be prepared to deal with the fallout. That concern aside, do whatever you feel is best for Miraheze, you do have the final word here regardless of my concerns or anyone else's, but I repeat I consider this move ill advised.

Regardless, follow your conscience, I can ask nothing less of you or anyone else regarding this matter.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

There's a lot to say. I'll let Geth's words bounce around though.

John (talkcontribs)

Reading your comments again, you're not getting an apology just because my views don't agree with yours. If anything, I em expecting one from you for the countless comments you've made about me which classify harassment and how you still think it's smart to continue doing it.

Emails are private and will remain as such until both parties agree for public release of them. Amanda's emails were public with mine and NDKilla's permission so your continued statement of private collision is null - what do you expect someone who only has emails to do?

Further, you are free to demand me to resign but I wont under any circumstances that aren't my own and arent final for the sake of miraheze. If you want me out, there's a process so follow it.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

The fact that you continue to hold yourself unaccountable to this entire situation and refuse to even give credit to the fact that multiple people were trying to protect the very wiki farm that you lead and to not even apologise for the way in which you conducted yourself shows a lot of your own "smart" and inability to take responsibility for your own actions.

You know perfectly well what I meant by emails, I mentioned the other individual by name.

The separate case with the emails with Amanda weren't published until people actually asked for them. The initial conversations were held without the prior knowledge being given to the community, that is the fucking definition of collusion, you disingenuous liar.

Back to what you and I both know what I meant; I like to call bullshit in how you and Reception hold that view on emails. If they are private between two people, why the fuck did Reception think it was perfectly acceptable for himself to give what was a private conversation to your own personal unauthorised viewing so that you could then try to silence dissent. "You now understand the situation better". Yes I did understand the situation better, I understood that you were both fucking slimy backhanded cunts who think that it's perfectly understandable to willingly lie to someone in order to gain more information in a claim that your lackey said it was his own personal "curiosity" when he sent me an unsolicited email pleading me to "tone down attacks" AKA call you out on your bullshit. Utterly spineless, how fucking dare both of you.

Your reply to the fact that I am not interested in tolerating this happening a third time and that I would recommend action taken if it does proceeds to make it absolutely clear that your previous messages here, where you having a bruised ego based on one person's opinion of you threatening to fucking resign from you entire duties here shows that they were utterly toothless from the beginning and was your attempt at trying to pull muscle and force others to carry out your fucking will and shut up. I am free to state my position on what I will demand on you if this happens again, one of the few sentences you've ever said that actually is correct. Congratulations.

Well done on displaying exactly the kind of personality that led to the actual downfall of your previous project in Orain once you abandoned that as well.

This is my victory lap, fuck you.

John (talkcontribs)

I am not going to hold myself accountable for a community consensus. I made a proposal, it got accepted. I am not responsible then, the community is. Just because the RfC closed against your view does not give you the moral ground to act like you have.

"initial conversations were held without the prior knowledge being given to the community" I do not have to tell the community who I email or who emails me at all. The community was told when it become relevant to the community.

I had nothing to do with Orain in the end, it demised 6 months after because of the current staff. I do not appreciate you leading into blaming me on that under any circumstance.

Your entire attitude is poor and if anything, echos back what this whole situation is - the incitement of hatred and distrust all because your view isn't what is happening. You have no victory lap - if anything the behaviour of you and others have taken away any meaning of victory of making matters worse and destroying the friendly aspect of the community. You insist on blaming people and you chose the easy method of blaming the person who made the proposal that passed.

Again, stop the abusive language directed at volunteers. It is disgraceful and only reflects poorly on yourself. It is also unacceptable and will not be tolerated any more.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Notice how you skirted around the entire issue of the shared email (because you know you have zero defence for that) and then just used the almost entirety of this comment to just morally lecture me on language.

The RFC was made with your specification that number of votes didn't account and your own personal view of what was best would pass. You admitted to such on the RFC. Your attempt to than absolve yourself by blaming everyone else shows your utter inability to be a community leader.

Because the way you let Amanda act and alienate other users and drag them into this mess really helped build the "friendly aspect" eh? My attitude towards you is fully justified and has been based on the way you have acted. Your constant interventions have been nothing but self-serving, and now you want to talk about my attitude? LOL.

I'm a "volunteer" too. This bullshit that I have to brownnose you because you DO IT FOR FREE (congrats on falling right into that meme btw) just like everyone else; is ludicrous and I treat it like such. We both hold each other as malicious.

This is my victory lap because I helped contribute to saving this place from your own hubris.. twice.

Again, as a matter of principle, fuck you.

EDIT: nice "won't be tolerated any more" that you edited in while I was making this response, nice attempt at trying to censor again. Will work really well in your favour.

John (talkcontribs)

I didn't skirt around it. How Reception acts is none of my business. If he shares an email with me and asks for a response/opinion - I'll give it. Any reasonable request for another person I will respond to.

The number of votes never account - its a discussion where arguments are what matter not how many people say something is good. The best proposal will always pass - I didn't force it through at all. I share my view and others share their view. If other believe my view is accurate then that's up to them.

I never let Amanda act like anything I wouldn't let anyone else act like. If anything, the constant interventions from people like you which have always lead to trouble and entrapment by pushing Amanda into doing something wrong. Hounding works well at getting your way, but not at letting things go how they want to go.

You did nothing to save this place - no one did anything to save this place. In fact this place doesn't need saving. It needs people pushing it in the right direction which can't happen when people are in the back constantly pushing harassment around and always trying to make their view the normal. Amanda was being dealt with as appropriate - it didn't need people like you getting involving escalating matters and driving the project further away from a welcoming place.

Again - stop with abusive language. This is the final warning I am going to give you now. As I said before, it's unacceptable and it is doing nothing to save the place like you so claim you're doing.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I'm getting tired of giving long responses that you'll just ignore and deflect with vacuous bullshit anyway so i'm just gonna respond with curt points relating to paragraphs

#1 so when it's me acting with the community it's wrong but when it's Reception it's cool? nice double standards

#2 you're not addressing https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Requests_for_Comment/Allow_exception_to_LP_ban&diff=prev&oldid=20686 , but I don't expect you to, we know your track record here.

#3 So I forced LP to do all the bad stuff and you never gave special treatment. LOL OK.

#4 Various people did, that's why I said helped contribute. Letting run amok is not appropriate dealing. Your charges that I am not making this project welcoming are purely how I deal with three people; you, a person who shared private communication of mine to others without my permission; and LP/Amanda.

#5 Stop making threats and just fucking leave me be to work on ATT, which was what I wanted all along, and what the initial attempts by LP into installing security-threatening extensions was putting at risk. If conversations with me are so toxic for you, go through a middleman.

John (talkcontribs)

1. No, I never said that.

2. I indeed said that. SPF closed it when he wanted to. I can not control what he does and I find it funny your using his actions as a way to negative portray me.

3. I never gave special treatment at all.

5. I am not making threats - you are. If you wanted to just work here, why then barrage and attempt to force us to ban someone who isn't where you want to be and has no affect where you want to be. LP didn't install anything - anything being installed has to go past Labster. There were no deliberate attempts to do anything to compromise security or anything else. Clearly you only care about manipulating things to make it look like you're are correct.

Derivative (talkcontribs)
  1. You make claims that you can't control what other people do and then try to control what I can do when talking with you. Of course when they do things it happens to benefit you. Oh well.
  2. You continue to dance around the point that the institutional nature means that those who report under you will naturally side with you and see your arguments more favourably.
  3. Compare the actions of LP to myself without rose tinted glasses. I don't create socks calling for your death, or impersonated you. I don't claim i'm going to hack you either, I could go on. You're threatening to ban me for using language you don't like.

5. You made the clear inference you were threatening to ban me. The rest of your paragraph is shit we've been through endlessly before, and is approaching the banality of talking to a brick wall.

John (talkcontribs)

1. I am not controlling at all what you can do. 2. No one reports under me. 3. I am not threatening to ban you at all. I am simply asking you to stop using abusive language contrary to the Code of Conduct and harassing language and statement contrary to the Terms of Use you agreed to.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Define what you mean by final warning then, if there is no control or ban.

If no one reports to you, why should I care about following you or better yet, why are you designed a bureaucrat?

John (talkcontribs)

Final warning means what it means, a final warning that your behaviour is unacceptable. It's in no way a threat of a ban at all just a warning that the behaviour is contrary to expectations, fall sub-standard of what is expected and ruins the friendly aspect of a community.

I am a bureaucrat on Meta so I can implement any community consensus on meta. It is not a social standing - it is a role of extra privilege to use as the community expects. There is no social order at all expect ones people fabricate. If people want to respect me and listen to me - they can. Again I don't tell people what to do they just listen if they want.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

You're not answering the main point. What happens after the final warning.

The other point remains, why do I have to consider you an authority on anything then, wouldn't I merely be able to talk to and get along with the other bureaucrat and stewards? Why are you giving final warnings to non-staff members? Why have the vast majority if not all of your communications to me been demands of one kind or another or making statements about what Miraheze is or isn't?

There's this funny post-modernist sense radiating from you where any word can mean anything.

John (talkcontribs)

If behaviour continues, then it will be dealt with by someone else as appropriate. I'm not going to intervene on a matter where I am personally involved. So you are free to disregard that if you want - doesn't bother me.

Again, you're free to. I am talking to you because you insist of continually abuse and harass me specifically for my views simply because they do not match yours. And now you decide to do the same to Reception without even attempting to talk to him you just launch into abusing him because it suits you.

All of my comments about what Miraheze is or isn't is based on what Miraheze does stand for. Abusive language directed to others is strictly not one of them. If you're expecting me to not ask you to stop creating a negative environment then I don't know what you expect. If you want to ignore then, then do so. But don't talk abusively about me or make comments that are designed to harass me on a forum and not have the guts to make them to me.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

As I note below, you're a member of that very same forum, and have the same ability to post there that LK does.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

I'd like to reply to both John and Lulzkiller here, because someone has to be the mediator.

Lulzkiller, you've more than made your point, I think the glass has been ground in enough and John is bleeding from every pore of his flesh at this point. Throwing salt on the wounds is just sadistic at this point, so I suggest you just let it drop here.

John, I think a nice way to put what LK has been trying to say is that you've made some errors in judgment and that he doesn't buy your stance you are not responsible for letting someone even I knew was a troublemaker in a bad disguise a second chance. Granted, this is not all entirely your fault, I'll give you credit, but you did go to bat for someone that turned out to not be worth the trouble at least more than once. It's an error in judgement, but I'm not a vindictive person, I forgive you for that, and I hope you accept at least my acknowledgement I consider this matter resolved.

As for the both of you, please, let the matter drop, it's over, and hopefully will not repeat itself for a third time.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

So you are going to make someone else ban you for me? So you're threatening my ban by proxy. I'm sure getting other people to do dirty work for you is a completely perfect practice with no consequences or downsides.

I am free to. If I posted private communications that occurred between you and me to someone else without my permission, you wouldn't like me very much, same counts reverse wise per Reception; if he merely disagreed with me like he did with the initial email and decided to keep private convos private, you wouldn't hear a peep out of my mouth. I let him knew privately at the time what a disgusting human being he was for doing so. I just waited for now to make it fully public, once LP got dealt with. I didn't say anything to you for your views but your actions. Because they are more clear cut than words, especially in your case.

Lack of guts?, I've said a lot about you that you are well aware is publicly viewable, like here or on Yuku. I stand for principles and transparency, neither seem to be present in what I'm being shown here. You and I have a difference of opinion in what harassment is, and remember that I don't make you come into conversations with me, you're the one who comes here based on your ego being wounded by my forum posts to other ATT members.

John (talkcontribs)

I have never said someone will ban you. I just said I will let someone else review this and act how they see fit.

I am not coming here because of a wounded ego - I am coming here to correct facts. From the discussions I've seen I'm seeing very little facts in the Amanda/LP discussions but rather made up points to justify everyones actions and thoughts. I've been waiting for months for evidence to over half the statements made and to date people only skirt it. Example being the security issues. There has been none but everyone uses it as argument number 1.

John (talkcontribs)

I do not think it is an error judgement at all. I made a proposal, I was happy with it. It ended badly, but my judgement was 100%. However this is no longer a topic about Amanda much rather a topic of "how much can one get away with harassment" one which seems unanswered and is still getting pushed a bit.

I am still expecting at least some small sign of remorse of acknowledgement of the comments made by LulzKiller with complete disregard to others which they made because they were unhappy with others. Disagreement isn't an excuse for harassing people.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

A note to everyone involved: In my opinion, All The Tropes is not the place for a discussion that affects all of Miraheze. This should be taking place on Meta, where everyone can see and participate.

Please, let's stop having such discussions where people don't know to look for them. That indicates we want the conversations to be kept secret (whether that's what we really want or not).

Conversations on the forum are for the people on the forum. Conversations on Meta are for Miraheze.

John (talkcontribs)

This isn't a discussion that affects Miraheze at all. This is the only way I can reply to LulzKiller's comments on the forum. This is the only place I know where he actively looks.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Then perhaps you should come to the forum and discuss the matter there, in a neutral space where LK can express himself without worrying about falling afoul of Miraheze language standards, and you don't have to worry about your perfectly innocent phrasing being misinterpreted as a ban threat, because he can't be banned for violating Miraheze standards in a venue well outside of Miraheze.

In fact, as the owner and host of said forum, I offer an express invitation for you to do so in the interests of keeping all communications here at the utmost level of civility. We certainly know he's actively reading the very thread he's posting in there, after all. After all, I gave you proper contributor access to the forums a month ago.

John (talkcontribs)

I acknowledge the invitation but gratefully reject. Based on how this has gone, I don't feel like accepting an invitation to be harassed is a smart idea to me.

This isn't falling sort of language standards, it's rather falling short of the agreed Terms of Use for using the platform which explicitly states harassment isn't permitted on wiki. Plus the Code of Conduct states guidelines for engaging in discussions.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I have two public comments to make.

First, to LulzKiller and the ATT admin team:

I am not happy about somebody gloating about being correct.

I am doubly unhappy about being associated, however indirectly, with someone who would gloat about being correct.

In my opinion, LulzKiller crossed the line.

If I had bureaucrat rights here, I would have removed myself from the admin team in protest.

Second, to the Stewards:

I see that LulzKiller has been globally banned on all Miraheze wikis.

https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&user=&page=&year=2017&month=5&tagfilter=&subtype=

This is exactly what I was worried about when I asked what I did during the RfC for Miraheze's Code of Conduct.

https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Definition_of_Harassment:_Who_decides_what_is_.22Offensive.22.3F

There was only one reply to my question and proposal, in which revi stated "Enforcement section says System administrators decide on case by case. Also this is mostly targeted towards Meta (where the coordination is happening), IRC, and Phabricator, so each wiki community is free to have their own standard on their expectation for their users."

As I pointed out earlier, All The Tropes is not Meta. ATT does not have any policy against strong language, and does have a published policy encouraging users to call out the people in charge when users think the people in charge have erred.

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/All_The_Tropes:Policy_for_Wiki_Staff

In my opinion, banning LulzKiller appears to be a violation of Miraheze's Code of Conduct.

John (talkcontribs)

NDKilla's lock rationale was "Terms of Use lock for repeated harassment after several warnings." which means he's backed it up under the Terms of Use and not the Code of Conduct specifically. Also to clarify, it is not a ban to my knowledge (NDKilla has said he will fully clarify).

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Speaking of clarification, then, how does a lock differ from a ban, since absent an extension of which I might not be aware, there is nothing called a "lock" in MediaWiki that I can find?

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Let's not resort to sophistry, John. Can LulzKiller post, or is he banned from posting? There is no middle ground. A lock is a ban.

John (talkcontribs)

While a lock and a ban are technically the same, the difference is a lock can be undone without any discussion while a ban is designed to only be overturned by a decision by the community. A ban is taken as a more permanent "you are not welcome here anymore" while a plain lock is a preventative measure taken on a steward's own intuition.

They're not "banned from posting" by wording.

@Looney Toons, the lock is a part of CentralAuth. There is nothing in MediaWiki called a "ban" likewise however. A lock is a block, just on every wiki. A ban is deemed an indefinite prohibition from contributing to Miraheze and using all services for an indefinite period of time until it is reversed.

Labster (talkcontribs)

I'm certainly not going to defend LulzKiller or John in this thread, both of whom acted extremely dumb here.

The problem with NDKilla's lock is that it's a violation of Staff Policy #2, which means we're in a whole new ballgame here. We're going to need to decide if we're going to willing to accept this, or move to a new wiki host. Or change our policy, but that's doubtful given the circumstances in which we all got here. A circumstance in which a member of our community is permanently banned for disagreeing with site policy is not tolerable in my point of view.

@RobKelk: Well, there is ATT:SLUR but it doesn't 100% apply.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

I think we need to discuss this off the wiki, back in the forums. But I thoroughly dislike the idea that one of our users can be banned from the wiki for behavior the wiki explicitly permits, just because it rankles someone higher up. It seems to me that perhaps Miraheze should have looked at our policies and told us what they did not find acceptable before letting us settle in here and start feeling comfortable with the place.

@John -- Potato, potahtoe. A ban is a lock is a block is a denial of participation. You're putting lipstick on a pig and claiming it's Angelina Jolie.

John (talkcontribs)

@Labster However the circumstances of NDKilla's decision is through the Terms of Use. Which means ATT policy can not override it under any circumstance. Everyone using the service is bound by the Terms of Use - one which you made official and enacted.

@Looney Toons Section 8, point 2 of the Terms of Use I believe is the basis of NDKilla lock which overrides all policies on all wikis.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

While I cannot speak for the other administrators of ATT, to me this smacks of the very same high-handed authoritarian behavior which led us to leave TV Tropes to begin with.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Section 8, point 2 of the Terms of Use: "Posting illegal content or harassment on a Wiki".

How were LulzKiller's comments covered there? Disagreement is not harassment. And, as I already mentioned, we don't have a policy against strong language.

EDIT: Asking for clarification, not disputing. I will check back later. Right now, I'm taking a break from this whole mess.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Nor is gloating, even if it was excessive.

Labster (talkcontribs)

@John: Right. And we're not disputing Miraheze's ability to do this, we're talking about possibly asserting ToU 9d because we don't think following Miraheze's ToU is the right fit for this community. (Yes, I realize I wrote both documents lol.)

EDIT: Well, I guess some people are disputing ^

@Looney Toons: Right. Wouldn't want another admin to get banned for disagreeing here.

John (talkcontribs)

@LabsterUnderstood.

@Robkelk There has been a lot of on-going harassment from LulzKiller directed towards me and NDKilla looked at this discussion and decided some statements amount to harassment on the wiki. I'll leave his full rationale to him however.

Reception123 (talkcontribs)

I've decided that I should provide my version of the story. If you're wondering, no I was not "asked" to write this or "encouraged", I have decided to write this upon reading a few things which I don't find to be fully correct.

First of all, I will address the email situation that was pointed out. I agree that I should have not forwarded the email without permission from the author, and that was a mistake. Just to point out, I was in no way trying to cause more tensions between users, I was just trying to get the situation understood in the best way possible, which obviously turned out to be a big mistake. Despite it being my mistake, I do not appreciate and I don't think it was at all necessary for me to be called a "disgusting human" and insulted based on assumptions.

For the whole Amanda thing, I will give my view. As you can see on the RfC, I proposed a version where Amanda would not be able to interact with the community for 6 months, but that proposal did not pass. I have to admit that I did not particularly like that decision, as I thought my proposal was the best option, but I accepted the decision based on votes and arguments that were presented. I am not trying to take anyone's defence here, but I personally don't really understand where the issue with John was. What he proposed was something proposed a user, not as a steward and I don't really see much influence from a "staff" point of view. Southparkfan is the one that made the final decision from the RfC, so any remarks or concerns should or should have been directed to him, not to John. I had concerns about Amanda too, and I did not appreciate what she did, and how she removed comments but I think despite any problems I tried to be calm, and especially civil.

I see that the issue now is "Why did LulzKiller get locked, but not Amanda". (I might be repeating myself, or other user's comments) but the main reason is that Amanda was already locked, until the community voted for her to be unlocked. I personally think it would not be fair for staff members to simply override the community vote and lock her. For LulzKiller, he was not locked permanently (as said above) and the lock was simply because of clear harassment and violation of the ToU. As Justin said above, this lock can be lifted at any time, and we'd be happy to under the conditions stated above.

Maybe this is out of place, but I don't understand why we are still dwelling on the past here, since Amanda has been permanently locked now. Mistakes were made, that doesn't mean that grudges need to be help. This argument is based on something that no longer is put in question, as nothing can change now anymore, she is locked/banned and she will not be returning at any time. What is the point of this argument? What does anyone achieve by continuing this discussion back and forwards?

"And if I get banned because I won't risk getting banned, well, maybe that just means Miraheze wasn't a place I should have been in the first place." - I understand that LulzKiller getting locked was a surprise, but I think we can agree that it was not a "random" lock, and that it did have some sense. From what I saw, stewards don't just go banning people for no reason, all bans are issued under some policy, so maybe LK should have been familiar with the ToU before he went and insulted users. Users should not fear that they will get locked, as that will not happen without a good reason.

Finally, I respect the people here at ATT that expressed their opinion civilly and who kept a calm tone whatever the situation was.

Reception123

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

I have a been in communication with Lulzkiller, and he would like to discuss the ending of the lock, but he wishes to do so in a manner that is public and transparent.

He has two rationales for this, both of which seems not only reasonable and ethical, but in line with policy of Miraheze.

1. Lack of transparency is something he finds abhorrent because he believes this whole sorry state of affairs was aggravated by parties on all sides not being fully transparent, and he would like to have everything on public record so no one on either side can accuse the other of doing things in secret to backstab anyone.

Speaking for myself, this seems not only reasonable, it's also ethical and sensible.

2. He would prefer to have the discussion of his return put to a vote. Given LP/Amanda was given the same process, and since he was unceremoniously and without warning thrown out by contrast, he would like a vote as to whether his lock can be undone in full, and if so, what prohibitions, sanctions, and whatever other requirements might be necessary spelled out in a public fora where all can comment would be desired because, again, transparency should be pursued to prevent further accusations of power plays and acting in violations of the rules by either side.

Again, I find this reasonable and sensible, and in the line with the policies of Miraheze.

To this end, I propose, for the purposes of having this RFC, a limited unlocking on Meta takes place so he can comment there on the RFC, if nothing else, and per the results of a transparent discussion via said RFC, whether the lock is undone in full and under whatever restrictions are applicable or not can then take place afterwards, we can have this affair put to rest in a manner all can call fairly discussed and voted on, and we can put this sorry affair behind us.

NDKilla (talkcontribs)

I'm going to go ahead and unlock LulzKiller's account with the following things in mind:

  1. Sanctions directly regarding the Terms of Use or Privacy Policy are not left to community discretion
  2. If the community (ATT or global) wants to place sanctions on LulzKiller, such as an interaction ban, to decrease the likelihood of future violations, that can be brought up in an RfC

Additionally, future violations can still result in sanctions. Like I've now said several times, even a few people from ATT agree with the fact that how LulsKiller was acting was unacceptable. It will continue to be unacceptable.

LulzKiller is welcome to come back and edit on ATT, or any other wiki, including Meta Wiki to discuss the lock, so long as he does not return to harassing any users (whether it be John, Reception, myself, or anyone else). Note that 'harassment' is still really Steward discretion, but the specific examples quoted above qualify in my mind. If you want an uninvolved look, anyone can request that Void or Southparkfan review this, or you could go ahead and start a vote of confidence against me.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)
NDKilla (talkcontribs)

FWIW you guys are talking about forcing John to step away but he has already resigned and given up his operations access (ongoing removal) and Steward access (gone).

Me and Void are basically the only active Stewards. Can't speak for him but I probably won't be continuing the discussion off of here.

As far as I'm concerned *this* particular matter is resolved.

However I do possibly like the possibility of proposals drafted after the fact, and may support them depending on what they are.

No need to make a change to a page and them immediately revert it

2
Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Just edit the page, scroll to the very bottom, then delete the final blank line. That will refresh the categories without adding two edits to the page history.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I guess that's a less cumbersome way to do it. I'll give it a shot.

Let's be friends

1
Ariz (talkcontribs)

I want to be friends with you. You have to accept.

NDKilla (talkcontribs)

Hi all, NDKilla here.

TL;DR:

  • I feel that LK was harassing multiple people and locked him because of what I read on his talk page, not because of anything john said to me.
  • Also, I see no reason the lock should be permanent, but I think something obviously needs to be done about this that nobody seems to be doing
  • GethN7 and Robkelk seems to be the only ones at ATT that are acting decently even though they still disagree with me/John/etc.

Longer post:

Time for an explanation regarding the locking of LulzKiller's account. I'll be giving my opinion of the situation as a user, and my opinion as a staff member which led to the lock.

Opinion as a user

Since in the long run this doesn't matter, I'll keep this short and sweet. A lot of people have been creating a lot of global drama ever since MatthewPW showed his face around Miraheze. I think a lot of people handled this badly. However I think it's very important to realize that people can disagree (even about locking accounts) without things having to get heated or get personal. I think that LulzKiller crossed a few lines in his discussion with John and others.

I was pretty irritated reading about him dragging Reception123 into this situation, when Reception123 is a (more or less) uninvolved system administrator who has contributed more to Miraheze than most.

Also, I understand that LulzKiller is, probably, a respected contributor on All The Tropes. I however feel that this situation got entirely out of hand, and I'm personally putting most (but not all) of the blame on him.

Also, there are venues for removing access from people. I'm not just going to turn around and lock John's account if a conversation with him gets heated. If you want John's rights or my own rights removed, follow the procedure.

Opinion as a staff member

Although the posts on the Drunkard's forums weren't taken into consideration when deciding what actions to take regarding LulzKiller, I would like to say that it's ridiculous to think that you can hide there. Just because we can't remove you from that forum, and probably won't remove you from Miraheze because of things said there, doesn't make it any better. If you look like a bad guy over there, we're still gonna think you're a bad guy over here. (Not calling LulzKiller a bad guy, just saying we're aware of whats going on there and it doesn't help things).

About the actual lock: The following are things that I consider unacceptable to be stated towards other people:

  • "Again, as a matter of principle, fuck you."
  • "This is my victory lap, fuck you."
  • ", you disingenuous liar. "
  • "Utterly spineless, how fucking dare both of you."

And although "I'm sure getting other people to do dirty work for you is a completely perfect practice with no consequences or downsides." isn't really going into the 'harassment' label, I wanted to point out that's not how things work. I locked LulzKiller's account of my own volition after reading User_talk:LulzKiller on ATT wiki.

Also, miscellaneous point: I read and love ATT's policy for staff. However, by using Miraheze, all users agree to abide by the terms of use and all other global policies. So the whole thing about 'violating ATT policy' is moot as Global > local policies always.

Moving forward

Although I cited both the Terms of Use and the Code of Conduct in the global account log, there is no indication or requirement that the lock remains permanent. However I would like a few things to come out of this:

  1. LulzKiller should seriously take a moment to go over all of Miraheze's global policies, as excessive violation (of which repeated harassment after several warnings may constitute) of global policies is grounds for 'restricted access to services'
  2. I would also like to see either:
    1. LulzKiller unlocked but restricted to just editing ATT and commenting on Meta (RfS, RfC) on things *started by other users*
    2. LulzKiller unlocked, but an interaction ban placed between LK and John
      1. Obviously the interaction ban will be ignored for time-critical situations that John is handling in his capacity as a Steward or System Administrator

NDKilla (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC) System Administrator & Steward