Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-1450483-20191111135641/@comment-14250-20200117080323

Wow, what a read... or skim anyway. If there was any sort of legitimate point to be found in that series of complaints (not sure I'm up to reading DeviantArt and comparing different editions of rules) engaging in antics like making pig sounds seems like the perfect way to get such points overlooked.

It appears that TelloSimian640 who contacted me December 15th at Thread:1779100 (neglected to check their registration date, same day!) was a sock of some previously blocked user? Is TheSimianKing64 of any relation? Usernames seem somewhat similar... ah suspicion confirmed minus a zero at the end...

Whoever you are: implying someone oinks, calling them scummy or weak or nuts, these aren't good behaviors to engage in. Even for those who we believe to have behaved badly in certain edits, often engage in good behavior during many edits too, so we should instead specify which edits we take issue with rather than attempt to characterize their entire person. I think conflicts are much less personal/inflammatory when engaged in that way.

What's perplexing about this is that when I look at the log, HF didn't actually enact any of the blocks, it was Peony (April) and Shay (July) with POF extending 6m to indef 46m later.

What it seems to date back to is this reversion and this warning ? It is fascinating to see how clashes can escalate over something as simple as discussing which major carnivores are villainous.

I would object to the addition of that bullet point on one simple basis: "commonly" is vague/subjective so it's really not clear what is meant by that. An exact numerical breakdown of the number of villains per carnivorous species would be a lot more work but ultimately have avoided the subjectivity. Simian could've tried to discuss this on the Forum to mull over possible ways to note such a tally on an article, rather than battling it out on the article itself when there is a disagreement about it.

At the same time, Peony definitely could've been more polite about confronting Simian, instead of immediately warning about an impending ban for reverting an admin edit, and then making a vague put-downs like "unnecessary" or "not constructive" to the edit. These face the very same problem as Simian's edit: subjectivity and vagueness as to parameters of meaning.

Peony's "could change at any time" basis of refusal was similarly wrong, since that could prevent making any kind of statement. Like for example "Celestia and Night Mare Moon are the only winged unicorns" DID eventually change, but it would not be wrong to add that prior to the later reveal of other winged unicorns.

Even when admin decisions are given priority it's usually good to talk out the issue. The subsequent follow-up at w:c:LionKing:Thread:87325 seems to have more of this. Rudeness often leads to more rudeness. Even something so simple as:
 * a lack of edit summary when adding info
 * a lack of edit summary when reverting info
 * a lack of summary when re-adding info

Probably the better response Simian should have done when the edit was reverted would be to politely contact HF and ask about the removal, rather than re-add it. That would be a good thing to do even if it wasn't an admin who reverted the edit.

Along the same line of thinking though, Simian might not have re-added it if HF had engaged them to explain the reasons for removal. Instead, we have Peony coming along and inexplicably speculating as to HF's reasons.

Simian clearly (eventually) engaged in worse language/behavior, but admins should understand that wielding their powers against non-admins can lead to hurt feelings and that they come with a responsibility to try and be polite about it, to not be dismissive about what someone wants to add.

Phrases like "not constructive" when someone is ADDING information which someone admits is TRUE, are simply wrong to do. Deconstructive edits are stuff like removing info and vandalism. It's an insult that was undeserved in the initial exchange.

In the case of adding info which some view to be trivial and others do not, that could perhaps be a dispute about whether or not 'trivial' information is 'disruptive' or not, in the sense of making pages longer than they need to be...

But the entire nature of Fandom is pretty much to be respectively 'trivial' in respect to places like Wikipedia, since we can have entire pages about episodes/articles which are considered trivial in a grand sense to deserve that attention. There should definitely be a stronger attitude of tolerance towards the inclusion of subjectively trivial matters.

I wonder if admins would admit they fell short of ideal in engaging this user, in accepting some responsibility for this downward spiral of behavior, perhaps there is a potential for a change of heart that might eventually lead to reformation and the ability to discuss contributing these ideas in 2021+?