Talk: Rolandius/Mentor

Old usage of Rolandius/Mentor

Look at the page. Rolandius/Mentor. This page is for me to use the template for my ideas. Why would I need to sign the post? We know it is me. If Sky tells me to sign every entry of mine on this page then I will. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because when other people (like me) are trying to read, which indents and outdents all over the place, it's getting very hard to find out who wrote who. It's not an excuse to not sign your posts. g0urra[T҂C] 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will sign my posts on the page called Rolandius/Mentor in which everyone knows that I am writing things in the first place. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine if you were the only one writing on it. Which you're not. g0urra[T҂C] 02:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the intention of this page was that I would be the only one writing on it. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Review

This is a review of Rolandius' mentorship arrangement originally stated here and reiterated here, to decide the best course of action in dealing with Rolandius. It is stated in rule six that "These arrangements will be subject to review at the end of November, or at any time if we see them to not be working quite as intended." November 2008 is long gone, so these arrangements are past due for a review. Rolandius' mentor was contacted here about this.--SWM24 48 01:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I approve this review. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Overview of rules

Edited for tense. See User_talk:Rolandius/Archive2#Welcome_back. for the original rules.

1. Sky2042 was to be [Rolandius'] only admin source of contact (mentor); the other admins were to work with Sky if any problems arise or if Sky requested their help. All admins should be aware of this - if [Rolandius] encountered any problems, you were to talk to Sky about it. This does not mean admins - or others - cannot edit [Rolandius'] contributions appropriately; simply that no action should have been taken against [Rolandius] without consulting Sky.

A couple months ago, Sky2042 asked [Fandyllic] to take over as mentor (see User_talk:Fandyllic#Indeed.), so from here on Sky is replaced by... [Fandyllic] ...unless someone else wants to do it that the admins agree upon.

"only admin source of contact" was not explicitly defined. Rolandius talks to several users and admins, and often spreads discussions out over several pages. This may be to get multiple opinions or play admins against each other, as he has done in the past. "no action should have been taken against [Rolandius] without consulting [the mentor]" has come to mean Rolandius is unbannable and WoWWiki is his playground. I feel I should mention that with Sky's previous inactivity, the "without consulting Sky" part was nigh impossible, so action was taken when bureaucracy failed. If Sky was consulted before the last ban, I am confident the outcome would have been much different.

2. [Rolandius] will not create a new article under any circumstances, unless its format has already been approved by your mentor.

Few problems here, Fandyllic seems to have Rolandius' page creation chained rather nicely. I disagree with some of the pages he let through, but that may be a matter of opinion of quality and not method (Though Rolandius' mass creations leaves this very open to exploitation).

3. [Rolandius] will discuss all major page edits with your mentor.

"major page edits" was not explicitly defined. While he does discuss some things, actual editing that does not involve page creation is rarely discussed with his mentor. Even rarer is when he both heeds and fully comprehends these discussions. He edits a lot of pages. This has gotten to be a problem.

4. [Rolandius] will not initiate blanket reformatting across several articles without discussion.

Same as three. Wording should be self-explanatory. Pointed out to be blatantly violated at least once[1].

5. Any questions you ask on [Rolandius'] mentor page will be given a plain answer.

Seems fine. Handled by Fandyllic. "plain" is a matter of Rolandius' opinion, which he has not complained about.

6. These arrangements will be subject to review at the end of November, or at any time if we see them to not be working quite as intended.

There really was no review.

There really was no review in November. That is what we are doing now. The last ban was the closest thing that came to that, but that was very informal.

Proposal

A change in the arrangement (Do not touch infoboxes, cited info, ect.) or a permaban is needed. Bans are prevention, not punishment. Something needs to be resolved.

Last ban of Rolandius

While I feel that violations of the above rules should be only noted here if they were after Fandyllic took over, I am adding this for context.

Baggins was discussing Rolandius' edits with Ragestorm (One of several discussions about and with Rolandius at the time).[2] Rolandius added a retort to this discussion below it, and this section was cited as the reasoning for the ban (It was one of many rude comments against Baggins and other users).[3] This was followed by a call to stop Rolandius (Without asking his mentor).[4] Then, while banned, Rolandius wrote a section bemoaning his ban, an explanation was given to him, and then he rudely ended that discussion by archiving his talk page early.[5]

Issues of Rolandius

A) Ineptitude/Lack of research. Did not realize that leaving a message on a user's talk page creates a yellow bar for that person to see.[6] Thought that "Scourge" and "Scourged" were races because the words are in front of some mobs' names.[7] Wanted to create a category that already existed.[8]

B) Insulting comment towards others; An insulting comment to baggins which is obviously false as the article is cited.[9] Insulting Baggins while adding nothing to the discussion.[10] Back to insulting Baggins, at a much later date, but this time it was more or less relevant.[11] Rolandius insults Gourra by saying he "sounds like Baggins" (a shot at both Gourra and Baggins)[12][13] (Pre-Fandyllic)

C) Wants to create duplicate pages based on model names. Different model is not equal to different race, which he has been told about before. Also an example of rudeness and making demands.[14] Seems obsessed with model names (Mechagnome is mentioned in-game, while clockwork gnome is the model).[15]

D) Hard to work with (Refuses to get what is being discussed), rude and ironic comments ("Your support for your actions is weak."-Sandwichman2448 countered with "Okay your support for making things more complicated sure is strong..."- Rolandius). [16] He often does rude "comebacks" like this, attacking in the stead of defending himself.

E) Rudeness/Intimidating/Harassing behaviour:

("I guess you missed the Speculation section which explains...), irrelevant support (the name was not what Sandwichman2448 was talking about).[17]
Recently, after comments by g0urra about his editing practices, Rolandius responded in a rude and ironic way (things said by both sides were called "petty" by his mentor).[18] Rolandius asked Ragestorm to deal with "his" admins in response to what g0urra said. Wants to be paid for his "work".[19] Then added a rude comment on his user page in regards to it. Wants pay.[20]

F) Being repeatedly reminded of the same good editing practices, which he eventually ignores. Such as linking things in context and adding dead links.[21][22][23]

G) Repeatedly uses vague edit summaries (When Rolandius writes things like "(Corrected spelling/grammar)", it can mean anything, as long as what he sees as a spelling or grammar change was in the edit too) when asked not to. This makes it very hard to go through his flurries of edits.[24][25][26] When asked, his mentor at least got him to stop editing policy pages.[27]

H) Misinterpreting comment said by admins.[28]

I) Throwing discussions around over several talk pages, which can breed confusion.[29][30] And this one: [31][32][33][34] Baggins started this one, but it is still part of this.[35]

J) Taking things out of context, little if any sense of relevance, takes things too literally or only halfway. Wanted to list everything called "fiend" on the "fiend" demon page. A disambiguation may have been needed, but not like that.[36] "Reading between the lines",[37][38] and irrelevant support.[39]

K) Basing page creation and actions on other pages he dislikes. He is at a point where he should know what things should be, not just match pages.[40][41][42] And on mistakes of others.[43] The following is an older example, but one where this was explained to him:[44] He continued this even after told not to do so by Ragestorm. (This talk page was deleted when the page he created was, so this point may not count.)

L) Using real world info to classify things. Saying creatures are related/unrelated when never said to be in WoW.[45][46]

M) Creating pages/blanket edits without approval.

Creation of Marshal Expedition and Marshal Expeditions (given warnings by Gourra and a warning from Fanddylic about about making "marshal's Expeditions" without citations)User:Rolandius/Mentor#Marshal.2FMarshal.27s_Expedition
Gourra deleted; "Strand of the Ancients Battlemaster" (Housekeeping: content was: 'Strand of the Ancients Battlemaster, who may be a titan, was found in Wintergrasp Fortress in Wintergrasp during the Wrath of ...' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/Rolandius)
Changing and modifying this list while under review (taking actions into his own hands)][http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Rolandius/Mentor&action=history.

Confirmation or Refutation of above issues

These comments will be direct refutations of the points above with added links like above. They won't be added all at once, but will accrete over time. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:42 AM PST 5 May 2009

Changing section to make it more balanced.Baggins (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of issues

A) Ineptitude/Lack of research.

B) Insulting comment towards Baggins.

B) Let's look at the first link... here is what I presume is the "insulting comment" by Rolandius (since it is the ONLY comment by Rolandius): I hope this qoute, "appear throughout various points in RPG lore", does not mean a single reference only like I have caught before.
- It doesn't directly follow a comment by Baggins.
- It doesn't name Baggins.
- No one else responded to the comment, including Baggins.
- It points out how "various points" should not be justified by a single reference, which most of us can agree is a valid point and similar to the reason for not creating categories with only a single member.
So in my mind the first piece of evidence is very weak. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:18 AM PST 5 May 2009

While it is a weak argument for being "rude", he could have said it a bit nicer. A bit of wikiquette is assuming good faith. Associating "seeing it before" means he thinks the use of vague cites to address multiple sources is a theme commonly seen in a particular editor's contributions. He could have added the sources himself or added the {{fact}} template instead. --Pcj (T•C) 17:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

He could have added the sources himself or added the {{fact}} template instead. How do you know he didn't? You've already judged him guilty. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:12 PM PST 5 May 2009

I just checked...he didn't. --Pcj (T•C) 20:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did both. I added fact tags and also fixed some others. But after running into 5 or so in a row, I saw a trend. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I guess you're talking about on other pages, because I didn't see it in the page history of that one. --Pcj (T•C) 04:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant as a whole not that particular one. I ran into like 5 or so articles and I didn't want to say in each talk page the exact same thing. Plus, I would have gotten complaints of "spamming" if I asked the same question on like 5 pages. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

C) Wants to create duplicate pages based on model names.

D) Hard to work with (Refuses to get what is being discussed), rude and ironic comments.

E) Rudeness.

E) How rude is rude? Is it a bannable offense? I point to this comment from Zeal made at WoWWiki:Requests_for_adminship/archive1#Pcj: "You seemingly pick and choose what few people you care to give the time of day and be courteous towards, everyone else gets a dismissive and rude treatment from you..."
We looked past this and made Pcj an admin. If you look at the vote, he got no support, but here we are today.

The results of this "review" perhaps are to change the rules regarding the treatment of Rolandius, but past handling has been arbitrary, hypocritical, and unilateral, so I think the standard of rudeness has been treated similarly. We can be critical, but we also need to be fair. How can we say Pcj got fair treatment when compared to Rolandius? --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:40 AM PST 5 May 2009

Rudeness by itself is not a bannable offense, it just serves to agitate people. This seems to be a continuation of B) above. I will ignore the personal attacks if you will stop now. --Pcj (T•C) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how you see my reiteration of a quote by someone else and just pointing out something that happened in the past as a personal attack. Perhaps I should have added more comments about how Zeal's comment was considered in error by others, but I think it illustrates the point that Rolandius should not be singled out, if he sees such similar treatment as personal attacks and reacts accordingly. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:11 PM PST 5 May 2009

Digging up dirt on someone to make them (and thus their argument) look bad is by definition an ad hominem argument. There is nothing "interesting" about it. I don't disagree with you that "rudeness" should not be a factor in determining to ban someone (though it can be evidence of his not assuming good faith, which creates a negative wiki-spirit) but do not bring up other users as examples. --Pcj (T•C) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Rudeness is not a bannable offense by itself as far as I know. However, intimidating/harassing behaviour has been used as a justification for banning individuals. Yes, PCJ is right, avoid the ad hominem arguments, PCJ is not the one on review here.Baggins (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

F) Being repeatedly reminded of the same good editing practices, which he eventually ignores.
F2) Such as linking things in context and adding dead links.

G) Repeatedly uses vague edit summaries.

H) Misinterpreting comment said by admins.

I) Throwing discussions around over several talk pages, which can breed confusion.

J) Taking things out of context, little if any sense of relevance, takes things too literally or only halfway.

K) Basing page creation and actions on other pages he dislikes. He is at a point where he should know what things should be, not just match pages. And on mistakes of others.

L) Recently, after comments by g0urra about his editing practices, Rolandius responded in a rude and ironic way (things said by both sides were called "petty" by his mentor).
L2) Rolandius asked Ragestorm to deal with "his" admins in response to what g0urra said. Wants to be paid for his "work".
L3) Then added a rude comment on his user page in regards to it. Wants pay.[42]

M) Using real world info to classify things. Saying creatures are related/unrelated when never said to be in WoW

M) G0urra and Baggins basically did the same thing and it was pointed out by Rolandius. See Talk:Mountain_lion#Merge_with_cougar. Also, the justification was weak, but since the shoe was on the other foot, the rules seemed to have changed. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:42 AM PST 5 May 2009

In the above topic I don't see how Baggins is involved in the way you say. The reasoning for the merge which did happen seems to be based on in-universe citations. --Pcj (T•C) 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Baggins: "Also on a related note, panthers are another name for mountain lion in real life." --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:00 AM PST 5 May 2009

Next sentence "Doesn't really apply to warcraft though." (and the rest of his post there) which seems to be more of a justification as to why to not base the merge on real-world reasoning and instead use an in-universe cite. --Pcj (T•C) 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse me of something, I'd like to point out that what is discussed on a talk page doesn't = adding material or subtracting material from the article itself (I had no intention of merging panther into mountain lion, cougar or whatever based on any real world definitions)... No one should be put on notice for editorial discussions made in a talk page. Except for what Ragestorm deems as non-editorial discusison of course. Now adding definitions from real world that have no support from official information is a problem... I think fandy you have been guilty of that at times. I've had to add fact template to number of generic profession pages, where you added in some real world definition. MOst of those pages I turned into disambigs since they really aren't that noteable. Not blaming you in particular there are number of people guilty of it, and we have deleted a number of the least notable ones (that served no purpose at all, not even in a disambig sense).Baggins (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius is constantly being pre-judged for comments on talk pages that are not always connected to actions. When you suggest something, regardless of whether you take action, you suggest your intention. To pretend you never had any intention is false, since you wouldn't have suggested it. Rolandius is impulsive. He often takes action as well as stating intention, but many of SWM's accusations fault Rolandius for things said on talk pages and intentions he supposedly expressed. If "No one should be put on notice for editorial discussions made in a talk page" than you should be supporting Rolandius against many of SWM's accusations, but I don't see that.

I made my bias clear. Will others stand up and make their's clear and not just try to maintain the pretense of trying to argue impartially and pretend to be fair? --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:18 PM PST 5 May 2009

Woah back up the truck Baggins. "No one should be put on notice for editorial discussions made in a talk page." SWM's "corpus" is at least 50% if not more of links to things I said in a talk page. Even me just asking questions to someone was linked by him as "evidence" of my "ineptitude", "lack of research", etc. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

With exception of any insults you might or have tossed at others (not including those directly pointed at me) yes its very difficult to use what you say in a talk pag against you, except where you might have diverged into what Ragestorm calls a "non-editorial discussion"(what counts as a non-editorial discussion might vary depending on personal interpretation). Any situation in a talk page where you tried to pit one administrator against another without going to the administrator you had a problem with first, could also be used against you. Also the creating same discussion on more than one talk page issue is still a problem issue. Another issue where talk page could be used as evidence is if you initiated an edit war to a page, and the talk page material is supporting evidence to that edit war, or if something in the talk page was supporting evidence towards a poor edit you made of some kind. These are some of the few examples of exceptions to the don't punish someone based solely on what is in the talk page rule. Yes its complicated and each edit would have to be looked at on a case by case point.

Also Fandyllic while using my post as an example took my post oway out context, I only brought up the real world definition to point out that a warcraft definition to show that Warcraft ignored ignored the real world definition (thus showing real world definition aren't always reliable). In the case of that page I wasn't "supporting Rolandius" I was just pointing out that Gourra made a mistake of utilizing real world definition, which may not necessarily fit (and should be avoided in the page unless there was some kind of support). On later research I discovered one quote where cats of mulgore which are called cougar in game are generically categorized under mountain lion in rpg. That was support for a merge much in the line of the crayfish/crawdad type situation. As for Fandy using an example where Gourra was wrong and putting Gourra on review. This page is not about Gourra, if he is to be put on review, then the review must be be started on his talk page. This discussion is about a review of Rolandius' behaviour. ot a "let's review everyone else" discussion. As PCJ pointed out, avoid ad hominem towards other users just because you disagree with them in order to support your side.Baggins (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I will start if I am allowed. Why is "ironic" bad? Why is "rude" thrown around for only one side of the argumenters? I was told that I have "read between the lines" in some things I thought were told to me. Well it seems like it is the same for others. Everytime I comment on something I am "threatening" the person somehow. When I ask another admin a question I am "turning admin against admin". Pretty much I have to not edit and stand still just to make everyone happy. Even that does not work. I have had info in my subpages deleted by Gourra without me tagging it. Why? Subpages are not main pages so why would things be removed from them? I think some of this is much ado about nothing. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't reply to all the accusations against me since it would take a whole day to write and then it would end up being used against me somehow like "Oh no, Rolandius is trying to defend himself and that is outrageous" or something. Vague reasons for editing? Okay, tell me what I should write in the edit summary if I correct a lot of spelling errors like changing "paladen" to "paladin", "night elfe" to "night elf", etc? I write "corrected spelling/grammar" and that is vague somehow? If people are not going to follow WW:MOS then why even have it? A lot of "problems" occur when I do something that a rule or guideline like WW:MOS says to do. Instead of the person looking at WW:MOS or fixing it or whatever makes them happy, I get a warning because they don't know the rules themselves. I find it ironic that an admin can "warn" other users, yet not know the rules themselves, and therefore not realize they are "warning" a user not to do something which is stated in the rules that it is correct in the first place. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually plan to address each point, but not in the next few days, since I have a life outside of WoWWiki. I generally agree that Rolandius' paranoia is justifed, but he has also over-reached in many cases. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:00 AM PST 1 May 2009

To add a source for some of the things Rolandius says he was told: "read[ing] between the lines" likely comes from here and the "threatening" likely comes from here.--SWM24 48 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of note, if A), B), C), D), etc. are "issues", then there are a lot of users on here with "issues" including some admins. A) I have corrected dozens of articles on here edited by users including admins which I would call "ineptitude/Lack of research". B) Do you ever read Baggins' comments to me or do you skip those? He has said far worse things about me and others than I ever had about him. C) I am not the only one who has run into the "Wants to create duplicate pages based on model names." issue. D) I can say the same about some other people. E) Same.

I have to point out M). That is funny. I have seen others and admins use "real world info to classify things" on articles. Some examples are: changing something a source says to something found in the "real world", adding support for a term on here by pointing out the term in a poem found in the "real world", etc. Also J). "Taking things out of context, little if any sense of relevance, takes things too literally or only halfway." So I guess doing things like changing a race in lore to a different race, putting citations which when you actually go to them don't match, etc. is not out of context? The best part is: pointing out to someone something you read on a page and them telling you that citation is wrong and so you are wrong, but then looking at the history of the page and seeing that they are the user that put that in the article in the first place and listening to a user threaten or warn you multiple times and when you try to reply saying "how would you feel if you got warned for some other user's wrong edits" being accused of threatening, intimidating, scaring, and frightening them somehow.

I haven't even talked about the "Rolandius archived his own talk page", "Rolandius asked a question...that he didn't know", etc. that I have seen as "support" that counts "against" me. Most of the "issues" brought up are shared by others, so if I am "at a point where he should know what things should be" then wouldn't that mean some admins are "past the point" where they should know how things should be? I could make a list of issues too which would go from A) - Z) and not be half done. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 13:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

About the B) in the second accusation, although Rolandius was rude, he may meant that Baggins left many cite errors [47].

I don't really get the I), Rolandius obvioulsy didn't want to cause confusion, he just presented sources and good reasonaments. About the Tarshesite he just wanted to get a conclusion but appearently it just caused a fight with Baggins and from the one of Azeroth there is obviously a retcon and also wanted to get a conclusion, however the speculation went to great and Baggins had to cut off all of it.

About the L), he obvioulsy doesn't want pay, to put: "Wants pay." can cause many misinterpretation. What I think is that he put that because he was angry about the discussion, not the he really wants pay...

About the M) I've seen many articles of animals, that also exist in real life, that are linked to the wikipedia article, have cites from a dictionary or are clasified like their real life counterparts; maybe that's the reason why Rolandius wanted to clasify it that way. However I am not sure if that references of real life should be left in the articles, so if someone can answer me if we left that real life references or if they should be completely remove them. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to elaborate on all these points, I guess. I styled them as a Violations list entry.--SWM24 48 19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, nice corpus, though.

I'll agree with Benito that M) is a bit much, it isn't that big of an issue, and I remember the draenei walk digitigrade vs. draenei walk ungulitrade or whatever it was.

As for the pay issue in L, I cannot tell you how insulting is to be told, "I don't know if you realize but I am not getting paid to fix WoWWiki. Making the "I need a raise, lol" is all very well and funny, but not when

And let's strike the term "ironic" from these points, it's not really the issue.

Let's see... I guess we're all guilty of A and J from time to time, so set those aside... F) and H) are my big problems. The dead links thing was just absurd, and that's probably the third time he's been told. I thought we were over H, but the Aspects discussion proved me wrong.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't remember the full discussion, I didn't remember the "I need a raise..." part, a link to that talk could be useful. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to finish the sentence there. I was trying to say the pay bit would have been funny in another context. The "I need a raise" bit is at the end of the talk to your admins discussion, as a joking outgrowth of an earlier comment. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much what Benitoperezgaldos said is what I meant. "I need a raise..." obviously was me "trying" to be funny. I guess I was not. I wrote that after I was bewildered as to why I was "warned" for not correcting an article "enough". I was "warned" because I didn't correct an article's grammar from another user's edit. So I thought to myself, when did it become a rule that you could get in trouble for another user making bad grammar edits and not correcting an article "enough"? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Question. Why is this posted on Village Pump? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, this isn't a conversation for the contributors at large. I've removed it.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 05:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry if this discussion wasn't supposed to be for everyone and just for the admins, as I saw it in Village Pump I thought everybody could discuss. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Benitoperezgaldos' points in his earlier posts above match what a lot of what my actual thoughts were so I don't mind. :) Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin opinions are fine, but this isn't a general user discussion. Benito can stay, though.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, what does J) mean? That article is supposed to have the category I put. It is in the RPG. What is up with all this keeping source info out of WoWWiki? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out User_talk:Ragestorm/Archive9#Magical_beasts_and_Racial_terminology in which the "magical beasts" category was on many articles with no mention of the term in the articles, yet it was okay. I do the same thing and I am "reading between the lines" and SWM adds more "evidence" against me. Another example of bad evidence. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what is a good piece of evidence showing someone violating the rules? When they make false information about someone. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite false.

Sandwichman, don't add continuing discussions to this please. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I made a separate section for refuting points specifically. Please put comments there that specifically address issues listed by SWM. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:46 AM PST 5 May 2009

As a general point, the list above was clearly designed to make Rolandius look bad. Hopefully in this discussion counterpoints will appear, but I'm not the only one who has supported Rolandius in the past. If I were Rolandius, I would feel besieged. As many people know, several of the other admins see me as the "other guy", so I sympathize with Rolandius' situation.

I just wanted to get that out of the way, so my bias is clear. I'm not going to go around saying, "I support Rolandius, so you can just stuff it." But, on the other side, as I've said before, I believe for all Rolandius' faults, his positive contributions vastly outweigh the negatives. I just wish more people agreed with me. I may just be more alone than I think. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:07 AM PST 5 May 2009

I think more or less the same, some of the points up there are designed to make Rolandius looks like a bad guy, most things he does are taken as evidence to this list. While some are good points a few have weak arguments, also other points include mistakes that many people (including me) have made at one time. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to point out the obvious but when someone is on review evidence concrete and circumstantial is going to be presented both for and against the one being reviewed. Specific evidence is vital. It’s difficult to even review someone if evidence isn't presented. It’s not a sign of stacking the odds, but just being thorough, and following the general rules of justice. Vague statements like "positives outweigh the negatives" should also be backed up with its own evidence. After the case is reviewed then a decision can be made. Yes there will be both defense and critics of the case but all accusations and statements of defense need to be backed up with solid evidence if possible. Sorry but this is only way to make the review fair. A jury/voting type system should needs to be used as well. One person taking dictatorial action which ignores the judgment of others and which prevents mass decision from being made is a sign of being too self-involved with the issue. People may not all agree, but some kind of majority consensus should be reached as best as possible.Baggins (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing that strikes me is that many of these point are based on discussions, and it appears that Rolandius's attitude is the main problem. As annoying as this is, it isn't really a bannable offence, as he hasn't resorted to much problematic editing. This is my main reason for generally staying out of things- for all my issues with Rolandius, few of them are what I consider full offences.

I don't agree with the way Rolandius has been treated in the past, but I don't agree with Fandyllic that the positives are outweighing the negatives.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel Rolandius' main problems are a mass breakage of rules three and four, an underutilization of the mentorship, and a childish rudeness that violates guidelines such as Wikiquette and assuming good faith (As much as you can "violate" a guideline, which you can not). Can anyone honestly look upon Rolandius' talk pages and say he does not have problems? I think he does, and Rolandius has not shown the improvement expected of someone under such guidance as he is. That is my "bias", but I am not 'black and white' about this issue. I expected anyone who has a complaint against Rolandius to swarm this page, then everyone who feels he does good defend him, but there seems to be a taboo about this issue, and a general lack of care. I tried to create a decent review. I did not intend for my comments to be completely solid. Some are not even violations of the arrangement, just things that should not happen in the amount he edits. I expected them to be added to by other users, but because of my format, alterations would throw off discussions in a few possible ways. I notice the offending addition Ragestorm mentioned is still present. Also, below my generally negative comments, Fandyllic creates a 'Refutations' section that says "These comments will be direct refutations of the points above with added links like above. They won't be added all at once, but will accrete over time." What about support for them? That is also worded one-sidedly.--SWM24 48 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandwhich makes a good point, the fact that Fandyllic made the section a "refutation section" rather than a "support and refultation section" shows that he created the section under obviously biased reasons, and has a certain level of personal involvement and attempt to malign only the accusers opposed to trying to make the review a neutral discussion of both support or refutations of each point.Baggins (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you notice, the only users that are complaining about me are ones that are "always" mad at me. I have had none to minimum complaints from any users except a small core group who are pretty much always complaining. Also, the "corpus" against me is pretty long already. It is already 50% nonsense. Things like "Rolandius asked a question...that he didn't know" is a bit weak. People ask questions. That is not allowed? So I am guessing I am the only user on all of WoWWiki who has ended a sentence with a question mark? I don't think so. I know this review is about me, but I could point to a dozen examples of other users doing things in the "corpus" just this past week that have overlooked. Like Fandyllic said above, when users who are accusing me of doing something wrong do the exact same thing I am "accused" of doing, the rules change a bit for them. Also, I wouldn't have this "attitude" if I didn't have to fight all day to add "sourced" info into an article. It is like some people just do not want real info in an article, yet they also leave false info in an article. I don't know why. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

On cited info. Just because something has a citation does not mean it should not be checked on. I have seen "cited" info in articles and looked it up just to find out A) There is nothing at all there at the source that has been put in the article. B) The info in the source has been taken out of context. C) The info has just plain been changed from the source to something different in the article. So just because you see something in an article that says for example "Stormwind City is the capital of Outland" and it has a citation does not mean it is correct. So saying things like "Rolandius messed around with cited info" when I was trying to actually correct it is silly. Also, if I run into a few from the same user I just correct it or fact tag it. When I run into a trend though where it is now the fifth in a row I have had to correct, I then start asking questions which of course gets "some" people mad with the whole "Rolandius is trying to make that admin fight with that admin", when in reality it is more like "Rolandius is trying to correct some false info and I am so mad". Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Each point will have to be looked at case by case. They need to be checked relevency, validity and accuracy. Final decision will have to be based on the findings. Each point will need to include any support or opposition and any additional evidence.Baggins (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I, at least, am not "always mad" at you, Rolandius. It is not personal. This "small core group who are pretty much always complaining" is a good part of the core group of WoWWiki. "Rolandius asked a question...that he didn't know" is weak, but not a quote from what was written, so I fail to see why it matters. Do you have any examples (In context) of these contested factual additions that you see as the root of the problem? While everyone makes mistakes, you Rolandius, edit a lot of pages (Not an inherently bad thing) and spread the several mistakes you make quickly.--SWM24 48 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is a good part of the core group of WoWWiki, how many users are part of WoWWiki? I thought there were a ton of users on here. Even counting just the users who edit on WoWWiki, I thought there were a high number. So to me it looks like a small core group of users, most of whom are admins. I of course don't have any stats on WoWWiki numbers so I am just going by user names I notice. I am just saying that "complaints" in my talk page and things like that are numerous, but from a small group of users whose numbers have not really changed much. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 02:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Special:WikiaStats lists the numbers of editors with more details...in the main namespace in April there were 2100 unique editors total, 611 of which had over 5 edits, 28 of which had over 100 edits. So you can see that there really aren't that many people in the "core" of WoWWiki. --Pcj (T•C) 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Well even taking the lowest number, 28, I still am getting complaints from around 15% of the users, which to me is a small core group. Especially when I am using the lowest number possible, 28. If I used the 611 number it is a very small core group. If I use the 2100 number it is a very small, tiny core group. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 03:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You also are not taking into account that most of the people getting on to you are admins, or the most active users whose role is to facilitate policy compliance and keep the wiki clean. --Pcj (T•C) 03:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I mentioned that above. I said "...most of whom are admins." It would be hard for me not to miss the admins. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I am seeing your point, you are complaining that admins are getting on to you for being in violation of their interpretation of policy? --Pcj (T•C) 04:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I am saying the "group" is made of mostly admins. Pretty much I am trying to say is that it is not 100%, or 50%, or even 25%, etc. of users that think I am a "problem". Some of the wording in the "corpus" above makes it sound like I have made a majority of WoWWiki users mad when I have not. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's use a WoW analogy (substituted as appropriate, denoted by underlines) for how I see what you are complaining about. You are complaining that it is "only" the GMs who are giving you a warning about inappropriate behavior (and occasionally a 3 day ban). You apparently want everyone on your server (or 50%, or even 25%, etc.) to come knocking on your door with a complaint before you think it isn't just a bunch of elite snobs cornering you until you break. Do I have it right? --Pcj (T•C) 04:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It is more like the "complaints" about me mention that I have run into problems with many different users. Pretty much to me the wording makes it sound like I am having problems with every other user on WoWWiki every other day. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. You are not running into "problems with many different users". You are running into problems mainly with the users who are in management positions of the wiki. That is my sentiment, I don't hold anyone else to that but that's the way I feel. If you want to hold against what someone else wrote above about how everyone else on the wiki is against you, go right ahead...but I wouldn't take it too seriously (and I doubt many people would). --Pcj (T•C) 04:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 05:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Baggins, I thought it was said that "Recent issues of Rolandius" was closed as in don't add more to it. Also, what is wrong with creating an article for Strand of the Ancients Battlemaster? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing review page

Ok Rolandius, during this review, you are not to edit anything above the Discussion of issues section. It will be up to the admins to remove or add new issues, or wrong information. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, I was told this list was closed and not to be added onto. Second, the info is false. Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, you make a note here, it can then be corrected or left there. You don't remove info added under an circumstance, especially creating edit wars against an admin. If you remove it on your own again... I'm afraid I will personally give you a small temporary ban while this review continues.

(^Sssss/_Slithered) 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Note: I wasn't "warned" by Fandyllic. He even moved one of the two articles I had made to the main article space. Also, both articles have citations so I don't know what Baggins means by no citations. Also, what does Gourra removing a page, "Strands of the Ancient Battlemaster", have to do with my review? Rolandius

(talk - contr) 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wowpedia