User talk:CzechOut

Infidel's Comet
See Thread:191574 again. --Pluto2 (talk) 01:00, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Thread:206566
Your input would be nice in Thread:206566. It would be best if you read the entire thread before replying. Fwhiffahder ☎  19:32, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

... in light of recent events, I think the thread could use a different representative on your talk page! So I'd like to second the request for your thoughts in Thread:206566 :) NateBumber ☎  00:29, December 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should reread. An enormous amount of evidence was given in favor of inclusion, and you ignored it in favor of a software issue. At this stage, it's worth it. You ignored the fact that the authors elsewhere confirmed that they were who they said they were, and that plenty of evidence, such as the Cwejen, was given to support validity. It's entirely worth the effort of merging, and your closing statement reads more like as bizarre advertisement for Wikia software than a rebuttal. I'm in no way attacking you. I just want you to reread the entire thread, as that closing response feels like a slap in the face. --Pluto2 (talk) 09:29, December 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's this: If the FP Wiki wants to cover Doctor Who stuff, let them. Or we could import the new pages and rewrite the combined ones. --Pluto2 (talk) 09:55, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Pluto2. What's particularly galling is that it is you, personally, and your policy of not allowing anyone on the FP wiki to actually post anything useful because of your unsupported views of "canon" (along with your unwillingness either to update the front page to acknowledge that the last five years have happened or to allow anyone else to do so), that has meant that the FP wiki is completely useless. Saying "use the FP wiki", when it is not usable specifically because of your own decisions, is just insulting. The copyright "issue" is also a non-issue, given that the vast majority of the FP wiki is currently just stubs. By domain-squatting the FP wikia and filling it with outright lies like "it is not a part of the DWU" and "the odd novel or short story does occasionally surface, as most recently happened in 2011" you are doing an immense disservice to anyone who actually cares about Faction Paradox, as you clearly don't. Your personal animosity towards FP is obvious, despite a pretence at objectivity that's fooling no-one. Give up your administrative role at the Faction Paradox wikia and hand it over to someone who is an actual member of Faction Paradox fandom (I'd be more than happy to take over the role, as would several other people who posted in that thread) or admit that you are actively trying to harm FP fandom. AndrewHickey ☎  14:41, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Just two posts above yours Tangerineduel said that: "The "too hard basket" argument for re-integration isn't a valid one, not for this discussion. The FP Wiki's state of disarray is not something that should affect this discussion here."

As was said many times in the thread, there's no rush. By popping in for a few hours to get rid of everything you didn't like, you didn't give the thread the time that it deserved. You just threw out a non sequitur and stopped everyone else from responding! From what I understand, none of the problems you brought up are impossible to solve. Couldn't one just import the pages here as separate pages and then merge them afterwards? Couldn't the legion of non-admin who support reintegration deal with the other problems? Perhaps we could even start from scratch?

What I'm trying to say is: could you find the time to make a response to the points brought up in the thread? CoT    ?  15:25, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Becoming an Admin
http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Adoption:Doctor_Who_Answers

Doctor 25 ☎  18:53, December 25, 2016 (UTC)

Your thoughts
I don't know if this is how one goes about it but, what are your thoughts on my nominating User:OncomingStorm12th. See link.

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tardis:User_rights_nominations - Sir DENCH-and-PALMER   ☎  23:27, December 27, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Closing the Faction Paradox debate
Hi! Thanks for your response to Thread:206566, although it wasn't quite the one I was expecting. Don't worry, this isn't an angry rant! I just want to address a few of your points and propose a compromise.

First, I'm confused whether you plan to change the four little rules to highlight what you said re:balancing in that thread. Those were the grounds on which I conducted the discussion: I saw FP listed as a Rule 4 violation, so I detailed the many, many reasons why it is not. You mention that the matter of authorial intent seems to have stemmed from Vienna, but in reality I got it from the text of Rule 4 ("if a story was intended to be set outside the DWU ...") and your past quoting of a Lawrence Miles interview to justify the removal. Please note that no one "had" authors come to the thread; per the Facebook link, it appears that they found and posted in the thread of their own volition, and frankly, they weren't needed: I had already procured ample evidence that Rule 4 wasn't violated from Lawrence Miles' own words and actions as well as others' properly-sourced statements.

Second, you reference that you're remembering the opinions of extreme exclusion fans, but those guys aren't who's using this Wiki! Based on the posts in that thread, the TW's current editors either (1) want FP, (2) don't care, or (3) realize that it won't affect them. And for readers, any wiki that includes Iris Wildthyme is not going to lose readers based on inclusion for Faction Paradox. In contrast to the exclusionists, the Faction Paradox fandom has exponentially increased in size due to Obverse's new range. I, for one, am a user who gives a personal, on-my-word guarantee that I will do the majority of the editing, if need be; I've already begun revamping multiple existing articles that relate to the Faction Paradox series. Just waiting for your go-ahead :)

Finally, you said “there's no reason why you can't make a great, well-linked article over there”, but throughout the thread we mentioned several times that it's futile to write a Faction Paradox article without referencing Doctor Who, something that the rules of these two wikis make completely impossible. I see three different users in that thread who discussed their experiences trying to contribute to the FP Wiki and realizing it was pointless for that reason. I don't think this is something a new admin could fix; even changing the rule would still lead to unnecessary duplication of content! (We ended this train of discussion in the thread when an admin said technical matters were irrelevant to inclusion.)

And now for the compromise! :) I propose that nothing be done about the FP Wiki and that TW's inclusion policies simply be updated (per the Four Little Rules) to not explicitly exclude Faction Paradox. This satisfies your two criteria of "posing no problem to the quality of contributions" and "avoiding technical challenges of re-merging" while simultaneously satisfying the wants of the editors (as expressed in that thread). Furthermore, avoiding reintegration would allow FP material to grow here naturally and not force it onto this community; as you said, the articles on the FP wiki aren't a gold standard, so why would we want them transferred here? Instead, let's passively ignore them and move forward. The FP Wiki would (eventually) become like the Sarah Jane Adventures Wiki: existing as a source, but completely redundant to its better-quality cousin. I personally pledge to do any and all edits to Tardis Wiki concerning FP material without looking at the other one, and I offer to check others' edits to FP-related pages here to make sure they're not copy-pasting (or that if they do, they link to the edit history of the FP article to satisfy CC-BY-SA).

I think this is an amenable compromise that simultaneously upholds the Four Little Rules and allows for growth. Please let me know if it's okay; I just want to see this sorted! NateBumber ☎  14:30, December 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this solution can (or ever will) be implemented, but I'd like to say that I'd be willing to help as much as I could (even though my knowledge of FP is not very broad). A little question though: wouldn't the Wikia Staff be able to help importing these articles back? Perhaps they could get around those technical difficulties of re-importing articles. OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:40, December 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * I just came over to make a very similar suggestion to what NateBumber said. There are two distinct issues here: the policy issue of "does FP violate our Four Little Rules?" and the technical-and-policy issue of what can and should be done about the relationship between this wiki and the FP wiki. Your comment addresses the latter, but not the former.


 * Also, closing the discussion after making one comment, and not allowing any response from those who have previously participated, is a bit bad form. I'm sure that this wasn't your intention, but it gives the impression that you're coming in with a Judge Dredd-style "I AM THE LAW" decision with no possible appeal. As I'm sure you know, that's not how wikis are supposed to work. You're better than that, CzechOut. —Josiah Rowe ☎  05:16, December 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm no talking about FP's inclusion he he.


 * Though I will say that FP have changed their opener.


 * Take a look at this on their website


 * Which they have updated, since our thread. This at least proves identity. Best wishes. - Sir DENCH-and-PALMER   ☎  12:45, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Faction Paradox
Hello pal. You probably won't want me but I might as well ask.

I'm interested in becoming a caretaker at the 'Faction Paradox wiki. I'm interested in making the wiki organised, formatting it properly, undoing any vandalism and keep everything in order.

Best wishes. - Sir DENCH-and-PALMER  ☎  21:54, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Faction Paradox
Look...

Essentially everyone is infuriated at the decision. You interjected, posted a non sequitur, and closed it without letting anyone reply. Several people have suggested alternatives. For instance, importing the articles exclusive to the FPW to here and adding information for the ones that would have conflated histories via starting from scratch. There is no hard basket. You didn't let anyone get a word in after you intervened. Please, PLEASE reopen the debate so that people can reply to you there. I think everyone would be happy with the idea of accepting Faction Paradox back into the wiki as a valid source, but starting from scratch. Can we do that, at least? This way, the FP material can be valid sources, but without the technical trouble of importing - we just start from scratch. Everyone's happy that way. --Pluto2 (talk) 02:21, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

OK, to reply to your message on my talk page:

''I don't really understand most of your message. But I appear to have made you angry. So let me just apologise up front and say that it was never my intent to make anyone mad.''

Possibly then rather than coming on and unilaterally dismissing everything everyone said, and in the process calling Simon Bucher-Jones, Philip Purser-Hallard, Stuart Douglas and myself liars for saying we are who we are, you should have *at the very least* read the discussion and responded in terms of those "four little rules" you keep quoting? You know, the rules you apply *in every single case EXCEPT Faction Paradox, which you exclude for no good reason at all*?

''You know, I've never tried to harm FP fandom. How could I? I don't have that kind of power. One of the aims of the original split was always to create an environment that would foster the growth of articles about Faction Paradox -- which is a pretty long way from hurting FP fandom.''

It does exactly the opposite, for reasons that were explained, at length, by multiple people, in posts you gave no indication of having bothered to read.

You've stated that I've deliberately prevented new editing and new ideas, and that's just so demonstrably false it dumbfounds me.

Imposing rules that say that references to "DWU" stuff is verboten does exactly that. It makes it literally impossible to talk sensibly about Faction Paradox. Saying in the canon rules "Nothing which bears a Doctor Who logo, or is otherwise judged to be a part of the DWU by the TARDIS Datacore, counts" immediately makes that wiki useless, and therefore rather than "create an environment that would foster the growth of articles about Faction Paradox" you have essentially domain-squatted what could otherwise be a useful domain name.

'' The front page is completely editable. You yourself have edited the only policy page about sources. You know firsthand that if you don't like what it says, you can change it. If you don't like what it says at Template:Main Page/What is FP -- again -- you can change it. And there's never been even a single hour where you couldn't. So if you don't like what it says, is it reasonable to blame me?''

Except that the instructions that are on that main page are so badly worded it is impossible for anyone other than the most dedicated user to follow them and actually even find out what it is they're meant to be editing. And that wiki *has* no dedicated users, because of the policies you imposed.

''Finally, it's deeply unfair for you to quote words I wrote in the Spring of 2012 as if I just said them. Honestly, I haven't thought about the things you're quoting since I wrote them. You're holding them up as if they're things I said yesterday -- as if they're some deeply held personal conviction.''

You've given no indication that your views have changed. And given that you're the person who sets policy there, and you repeatedly argued, vociferously, in forums both there and here, against anything that might make that site usable.

''Would I like to appoint someone like you who appears to know something as an admin? Absolutely. The fact that you care passionately about the subject does make you a more attractive candidate than your 25 edits between the two wikis would otherwise suggest. I'd like to see more proof that you're serious about it, of course. It's standard procedure on Fandom that people with no admin experience edit for at least a continuous week, have created at least one new page, and are still editing the wiki while the admin nomination is considered.

But we have to be able to work together and trust each other. You wanna give it a shot?''

No. You have given no indication that you even begin to understand the problems people have with the decisions you made -- decisions that make any attempt, at all, to do anything useful on that wiki with you as the owner, utterly pointless. You've also given no indication at all that you are willing to listen to any disagreement. You're not someone it would be possible for me -- or, I think, for anyone who's actually a member of Faction Paradox fandom -- to work with constructively. AndrewHickey ☎  17:33, December 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to agree that the only way an FP wiki would work is if CzechOut was NOT an admin. His behaviour on this Wiki demonstrates clearly that he's not someone suited to collaborative effort.

fwhiffader's block
Hello,

fwhiffader has countered your reasons for blocking here: link. He didn't break the rules to the extent of warranting a block. Please unblock him. --Pluto2 (talk) 02:57, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Fwiffhader
Dear Mr CzechOut,

I respect your decision to block Fwiffhader however may I have my input?

Three of the reasons he was blocked concerned myself. One - the "Don't make the grammar worse" statement, two - the "Don't just make stuff up" statement and three - the final ask to see the removal of the Facist statement over at the Paul Magrs wiki.

I just wanted to say that the first two didn't, to me, come across as nasty - and if those two are main contributors to his being blocked, then please reconsider.

The reason I'm asking for reconsideration is primarily due to FP's reintegration. He seemed to know more than most on the subject and we could really do with his help.

I'm just asking if you'd reconsider not only does he display signs of upset, not through text but way of reply, but he has apologised to me off his own back. He didn't have too - but he did.

I mean we have editors that vandalise pages and add gibberish to pages that have never received a block.

I'm asking you not to unblock him but to shorten his "sentence". As a year block can damage the amount of user's contributions they make. Take OttselSpy as prime example.

I wish you all the best. Thanks for your time. Denchen 23:56, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Fwiffahder, again
Hi, CzechOut. Fwiffahder contacted me on Facebook to ask whether I would review your block of him. I told him that since I'm not really very active here, I didn't feel comfortable changing a block without running it by the blocking admin (in this case, you) first.

I've looked over Fwiffahder's edits, and I do agree that he has violated T:ATTACK more than once. And even though the "FASCIST BASTARDS" business wasn't technically on this wiki, I do think that it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of our no personal attacks policy. I believe Fwiffahder when he says that that comment and the #occupywikia bit on his user page were intended as jokes, but the fact that he didn't listen when multiple people expressed offense and asked him to change the "FASCIST BASTARDS" line, and indeed reverted changes to that phrase on the wiki's front page, indicates a stubborn streak that is at the very least unhelpful.

That said, I think that his apology and block appeal shows a willingness to attempt a change in his behavior. I think that a reduction in the length of his block might be in order — if and only if he agrees to moderate his tone, and to refrain from broad-swath attacks on admins, or on the wiki as a whole. I would suggest changing the block to perhaps two months, to allow feelings to cool, and then make it clear that when and if he returns he will be "on probation".

I haven't used the admin functions at Wikipedia in years, but when I did I remember people used to talk about blocks as being like an electric fence — providing a shock to make somebody realize they have gone out of bounds. A year-long block is more like the sort of thing you would give a recalcitrant problem user who has failed to get the message after previous blocks of shorter duration. Obviously, this isn't Wikipedia, but I'd think that a similar level of response would be reasonable.

As I said at the start, since I am not really very active here any more I don't feel comfortable changing the block duration myself. But I hope you'll consider what I've said. Feel free to respond either here or on my talk page, especially if there are other factors at play that I might not be aware of.

Oh, and happy new year! —Josiah Rowe ☎  04:27, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

Front page
On a more pleasant note, is there any particular reason why Class doesn't have a pretty circle on the front page and a corresponding Transmat page? —Josiah Rowe ☎  05:42, January 2, 2017 (UTC)