FANDOM


  • I need details on the block, or I will have to assume it is a false block.

    Edit: It has been 14 minutes since I posted this. I am beginning to assume it is false.

      Loading editor
    • I'm sorry. My blood sugar is at 45 right now and isn't coming up. I need to take care of myself before I pull up the contributions us admins were concerned about.

        Loading editor
    • "Excessively undoing other editor's good-faith edits (without explanation and thus frequently causing edit wars to occur), personal attacks, continuous and excessive fighting with administrators over trivial or resolved issues (and necroposting). Overall, we've communicated with you multiple times about the wiki policies, but your recent contributons over the past month have not reflected any behavior changes in order to follow our wiki policies."

        Loading editor
    • Anzu-TLK wrote: "Excessively undoing other editor's good-faith edits (without explanation and thus frequently causing edit wars to occur), personal attacks, continuous and excessive fighting with administrators over trivial or resolved issues (and necroposting). Overall, we've communicated with you multiple times about the wiki policies, but your recent contributons over the past month have not reflected any behavior changes in order to follow our wiki policies."

      I meant PROOF that it is true. For me, that looks like a false block because there's nothing to prove it.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry if this looks like a mess. I'm going to go section-by-section and give evidence of what we're seeing as admins:

      Good-faith edits that are undone with no reason

      Revision as of 12:41, January 20, 2018 on Scam
      Revision as of 12:40, January 20, 2018 on Scam
      Revision as of 12:15, January 19, 2018 on Forums
      Revision as of 16:36, January 18, 2018 on Community:Alexnewtron/Meep City
      Revision as of 11:38, January 19, 2018 on Community:Aesthetical/Prison Life

      There are also more edits like these that have occurred recently. Many edits that you have recently made seem to be undoing good-faith edits without any reason. We have discussed with you previously to talk about editing conflicts on a page's talk page or with the editor him/herself until an agreement on what should be included is made (and talking with an administrator if the conflict cannot be resolved).

      Undoing edits that led to edit warring

      This edit on the Youtubers page that eventually sparked an edit war with LocustWorld, even though his initial edit was in good faith. Afterwards, you got involved with my conversation with him about his block. I was trying to talk to him about the block, while you appeared to be interjecting into the conversation to talk about why the editor was wrong in the first place (and deserved to have his first edit undone).

      Personal attacks

      Please refer to all the warnings you have received about personal attacks, as we have highlighted numerous examples of you personally attacking other editors.

      Excessive arguing with administrators

      Please see this thread on LocustWorld's message wall that I have discussed earlier. While it is alright to disagree with administrators, it felt like you were frequently arguing with us for the sakes of arguing. Please also refer to your final warning about personal attacks made a few days ago where you argued with us about why we were removing inappropriate contributions instead of editing the inappropriate stuff out.

        Loading editor
    • Please take a look at the bold text and consider it.

      Acebatonfan wrote: Sorry if this looks like a mess. I'm going to go section-by-section and give evidence of what we're seeing as admins:

      Good-faith edits that are undone with no reason

      Revision as of 12:41, January 20, 2018 on Scam
      Revision as of 12:40, January 20, 2018 on Scam
      Revision as of 12:15, January 19, 2018 on Forums
      I was fixing grammar

      Revision as of 16:36, January 18, 2018 on Community:Alexnewtron/Meep City
      MeepCity is not fradulent.

      Revision as of 11:38, January 19, 2018 on Community:Aesthetical/Prison Life If you shoot or punch guards in Prison Life, you can get arrested, even in a safe zone.

      There are also more edits like these that have occurred recently. Many edits that you have recently made seem to be undoing good-faith edits without any reason. We have discussed with you previously to talk about editing conflicts on a page's talk page or with the editor him/herself until an agreement on what should be included is made (and talking with an administrator if the conflict cannot be resolved).

      Undoing edits that led to edit warring

      This edit on the Youtubers page that eventually sparked an edit war with LocustWorld, even though his initial edit was in good faith. Greenlegocats is clickbait since he advertised a free robux website', even though free robux doesn't exist, and also for promoting rumors. Afterwards, you got involved with my conversation with him about his block. I was trying to talk to him about the block, while you appeared to be interjecting into the conversation to talk about why the editor was wrong in the first place (and deserved to have his first edit undone). Same thing with the bold text above

      Personal attacks

      Please refer to all the warnings you have received about personal attacks, as we have highlighted numerous examples of you personally attacking other editors. Didn't even know they were personal attacks

      Excessive arguing with administrators

      Please see this thread on LocustWorld's message wall that I have discussed earlier. While it is alright to disagree with administrators, it felt like you were frequently arguing with us for the sakes of arguing. Exact violation of people's free speech. This is not North Korea, this is FANDOM. Also you could have closed the thread like I said near the end of the thread to prevent this block what I think of as useless. Please also refer to your final warning about personal attacks made a few days ago where you argued with us about why we were removing inappropriate contributions instead of editing the inappropriate stuff out. That editor probably didn't know about the economy system, since that user was saying that 'Roblox removed tickets because they were greedy'

      I also left a message on your wall that LesterGreen might be a sockpuppet of LocustWorld, because his edits were similar to to LocustWorld's, but I didn't get a reply from you, so it could be that you ignored it?

        Loading editor
    • As for undoing edits, we cannot tell your intentions behind an edit if you leave the edit summary blank. If you're fixing grammar, say that (though the grammar was technically correct on that edit). The wiki encompasses hundreds of games that not everyone may have played, which makes it important for you to explain why an edit might be false (and why you are undoing it). In general, if an edit can be improved​ on versus undone, then don't undo the edit. For the Prison Life edit, you could have said something along the lines of "You can only handcuff prisioners who are in safe zones only if they shoot at or punch a guard". For the MeepCity page, it could have been rewritten to say "Players frequently criticize the game for being unoriginal due to it heaviliy being influenced by Club Penguin and ToonTown. Meeps are similar to Puffles from Club Penguin...". We can't read minds, so all that saw when you were undoing edits was you undoing edits that I thought were in good faith (and they still are, in my opinion. Remember that assuming good faith means that the person is trying to improve the wiki, even if they might unintentionally include inaccurate info).

      I included that link to you undoing an edit that led to an edit war, because it was also an edit that you did not include a reason for undoing. If you wrote something explaining your rationale behind undoing the edit, then maybe the conflict could have been resolved instead of that editor resorting to vandalism. It frustrated me that you were using the block conversation I was having with LocustWorld to talk about how you believed you were in the right. I felt like that made the conversation more tense, like LocustWorld was being interrogated instead of me trying to investigate into the issue and offer a compromise to the page. I explained in that thread how I did not find either edit to be biased, but it felt like you were continuing to argue with me and him. You requested closing the thread, but I personally don't like closing block threads, as it's one of the only easy ways of communicating with an admin about the block.

      I provided the link to that final warning as an example of you arguing with us, not to debate the reason for you making that PA contribution in the first place. Some admins edit the content to say [Removed] while other admins delete the entire comment. It depends on the situation and if the contribution can contribute to further discussion if the inappropriate comment is removed. It felt like you were arguing with us, because we deleted the contribution instead of editing it to remove the inappropriate stuff (when if we did that, the comment would be pointless. Removing it, in my opinion, was the best option).

      I remember seeing your post about the sockpuppetry concerns, but it completely slipped past my mind. If I'm remembering correctly, one of the other administrators/moderators handled the concerns? Just because someone is making similar contributions doesn't mean they're a sockpuppet of another editor. Please remember that I have obligations outside of the wiki and that just because I don't respond to something that is already taken care of by an admin/mod doesn't mean I'm ignoring you.

        Loading editor
    • Acebatonfan wrote: As for undoing edits, we cannot tell your intentions behind an edit if you leave the edit summary blank. If you're fixing grammar, say that (though the grammar was technically correct on that edit). The wiki encompasses hundreds of games that not everyone may have played, which makes it important for you to explain why an edit might be false (and why you are undoing it). In general, if an edit can be improved​ on versus undone, then don't undo the edit. For the Prison Life edit, you could have said something along the lines of "You can only handcuff prisioners who are in safe zones only if they shoot at or punch a guard". For the MeepCity page, it could have been rewritten to say "Players frequently criticize the game for being unoriginal due to it heaviliy being influenced by Club Penguin and ToonTown. Meeps are similar to Puffles from Club Penguin...". We can't read minds, so all that saw when you were undoing edits was you undoing edits that I thought were in good faith (and they still are, in my opinion. Remember that assuming good faith means that the person is trying to improve the wiki, even if they might unintentionally include inaccurate info). Well you don't need to block someone just because they don't follow quality standards.

      I included that link to you undoing an edit that led to an edit war, because it was also an edit that you did not include a reason for undoing. If you wrote something explaining your rationale behind undoing the edit, then maybe the conflict could have been resolved instead of that editor resorting to vandalism. It frustrated me that you were using the block conversation I was having with LocustWorld to talk about how you believed you were in the right. I felt like that made the conversation more tense, like LocustWorld was being interrogated instead of me trying to investigate into the issue and offer a compromise to the page. I explained in that thread how I did not find either edit to be biased, but it felt like you were continuing to argue with me and him. You requested closing the thread, but I personally don't like closing block threads, as it's one of the only easy ways of communicating with an admin about the block. In the edit the summary clearly said that greenlegocats is clickbait.

      I provided the link to that final warning as an example of you arguing with us, not to debate the reason for you making that PA contribution in the first place. Some admins edit the content to say [Removed] while other admins delete the entire comment. It depends on the situation and if the contribution can contribute to further discussion if the inappropriate comment is removed. It felt like you were arguing with us, because we deleted the contribution instead of editing it to remove the inappropriate stuff (when if we did that, the comment would be pointless. Removing it, in my opinion, was the best option).

      I remember seeing your post about the sockpuppetry concerns, but it completely slipped past my mind. If I'm remembering correctly, one of the other administrators/moderators handled the concerns? Just because someone is making similar contributions doesn't mean they're a sockpuppet of another editor. Please remember that I have obligations outside of the wiki and that just because I don't respond to something that is already taken care of by an admin/mod doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. Then explain how you find sockpuppets of other users.

        Loading editor
    • You're clearly avoiding any sense to justify that we're lying, so we won't be responding to this anymore. It has been explained in detail why you were blocked. Trolling is prohibited. You're fully aware of your inappropriate behaviour.

        Loading editor
    • RobloxFan1103
      RobloxFan1103 removed this reply because:
      a
      14:41, January 21, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Anzu-TLK wrote:
      You're clearly avoiding any sense to justify that we're lying, so we won't be responding to this anymore. It has been explained in detail why you were blocked. Trolling is prohibited. You're fully aware of your inappropriate behaviour.

      I am not trolling. 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.