User talk:SkrittmanCometh

Archive

---

Archive 1

Choya race

I'm not sure about the Choya as a race thing, but changing all of them is a bot task, and should be requested at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Bots. - Do_odleplex 03:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, if a type of creature like the Dolyak, which is clearly a type of animal, both proven by NPC talk and achievements in-game isn't included in the Animals page and instead delegated to a page of its own, there's no reason why the Choya shouldn't. They at least have a lot more of a reason to be excluded, given that they are more than just simple plant creatures. They have somewhat of a background to them that make them more distinct. And I don't see how a task as simple as that that can be quickly done a in couple minutes should require to be requested and done by bots. Skrittman (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I dunno about the race, you can take that up elsewhere, all I was asking is if you're gonna do a bunch of edits like that, please bring it up on the bot page. Nothing more. And it's because mass edits like that nuke the recent change log, basically, it's very spammy. - Do_odleplex 03:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how editing on a wiki can be spammy, no matter the amount, unless it's done in a malicious way. People always have the option to expand the number of recent edits. No harm done. Skrittman (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Treants and Choya both progress Plant Slayer. So why did Treants get moved to their own race? They're plants, that's their race. Konig (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and while I dunno why rabbits are categorized separately, dolyaks are because of WvW I think and their commonness as a lore-relevant species. Honestly both can (and arguably should) be removed as categories. Konig (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and Category:Choya was put under Category:Organizations because people wanted to categorize Choya but they're not a race. That was the compromise, and you take the category name too seriously SkrittmanCometh. The category just refers to affiliations or army. Not "an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc." Konig (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So, if that's your reasoning, when are we moving Dolyaks, sharks, jellyfishes and such to the Animals and Fish pages then? That argument was brought up before and the complete opposite argument was given. Some consistency would be nice. Skrittman (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sharks and Jellyfish got their own categories because of the pets, IIRC. I'm also not sure if they progress Fish Slayer. Dolyaks, like I said, are a different situation than Choya or Treant, though they could be merged into Animals by all technicality, but if so then they should get the same treatment Choya were.

And seriously, firstly, don't take the name for Category:Organization so literally. And even more seriously, ask for why things are done the way that it is when you see an odd inconsistency before making a mess of things. Konig (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nah, I'm just done with this. I'm tired of trying to contribute or shape things up a bit and just getting people breathing down my neck in return. This wiki is so inconsistent and most of the people on it are so condescending/unreasonable in the way they approach things it's just annoying. I'm out. Skrittman (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The wiki has inconsistencies because ArenaNet is constantly creating inconsistencies. Konig (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It seems I'm pretty late to this discussion, given the recent comments, but I have a few thoughts I wanna get out there. First of all, I have to say I am pretty disappointed in how this entire thing was handled, as well as the tone of the users involved, especially the ones who should know better. In the span of less than two hours, a wiki user quit over something that could have been handled in a much more friendly, open minded and communicative way.

Beginning with Doodle's comment, which basically told the user that changing them all was a bot's task (which could've been conveyed in a more friendly manner, by telling the user if they want to do such large edits in the future, there's a bot request page, so they don't have to go through excess effort for something a bot can do in three clicks). That set the tone wrong right from the start, because it segwayed into the second comment that marked Skrittman's posts as 'spammy'.

You're an admin, Doodle. A sysop, and you should really know of a better way to let a user know how their behavior can be perceived, especially for someone who has a little over a year of editing experience. Skrittman did 30 edits related to choya — only 30, not counting other ones. That could hardly be perceived as spam, or a bot task, and it probably would've taken longer had they requested it on the bot page. Once again, only 30 edits related to choya, that were all concluded by the time the user replied to their talk page. You only posted twice on their talk page, but it certainly did not help in keeping the conversation civil going forward. Skrittman's reply to your second comment is one I agree wholeheartedly.

Konig, you've had controversies in the past on both wikis. You've been blocked before, on both wikis. This was highly inappropriate, and I think you're aware of that. You requested a revert to this user's edits while the discussion was still ongoing. You assumed the discussion was over because you thought you were in the right, and that Skrittman would just concede. Well, he did, by leaving the wiki. He did so by giving up trying to navigate the thorny discussions that can be found all over their (now archived) talk page. Your last comment shows a lack of understanding, a fundamental flaw in communicating with the users on the wiki — Skrittman was complaining in the inconsistent way we do things — and can you blame him? You admitted yourself that the game is inconsistent, we're all aware of that, but that's precisely why we must see eye to eye with each other. Your first part of the comment, where you explained why sharks and jellyfishes get categorized as this and that was good, but you just couldn't let it slide, your opinion on how you feel about their edits.,

"And even more seriously, ask for why things are done the way that it is when you see an odd inconsistency before making a mess of things."

I'm not disagreeing with you here (although your wording leaves a lot to be desired), but do you think that is really something to say once a discussion has clearly turned volatile? That it's something that will cool the fire? It's not, and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that. Skrittman did not create a mess. A mess is something that's unorganized, something that is lacking in order, and that's not what they did. They made edits, that can be undone, as we're all aware, to shape the wiki articles in a way they thought was correct. Worst case scenario, the reverts are a click away. The wiki is not ruined. Was a discussion prior to this necessary? Perhaps, and I'm sure had Skrittman known it would create this, they would not have gone forward with the edits in such a quick manner, but what was done is done. The edits were made.

I'm disappointed in you two because you should have known better. Doodle, you should have cooled the situation right from the get-go, not describing their edits as spam, and maybe it would have ended different. Tanetris told me this, back before my adminship that "[e]verything an admin does has a bit extra weight behind it, even if you're acting no different than you would as a regular editor, y'know?", and it's something that stayed with me, during all of my sysop years, and it's something I hope you'll learn to accept, too.

Konig, you've behaved in the past, and you most certainly misbehaved in the past as well, and that was something I hoped you finally learned to differentiate, but it seems I was mistaken. Reading this pretty short discussion, I hoped it would reach a consensus, but all the wiki "got" was another user gone. The wiki, which has often been described as beginner unfriendly lost another good editor due to a lack of understanding, communication and civility, and it's something I'm very sad about.

After Mora, Louise, and now Skrittman, I think it's really time that we take a look at how we deal when issues arise. Out of ten, twenty, or even fifty arguments, how many end in one of the users leaving because of the aforementioned mistakes? I think the answer to that question is not a very fulfilling one.

As for Skrittman, I contacted them to (hopefully) discuss this further, and I'm hoping they'll accept. —Ventriloquist 22:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

First, I would like to apologize for being overly hostile. I should have made sure to word my comments better. I do admit every fault there. I won't be petty about explaining my choice for the bot request, I doubt others would agree with my thinking at the time, but it was hardly intended to be "twisting the knife" (as it was worded on Discord) or "highly inappropriate".

More importantly, however, I want to say that this isn't the first time that Skrittman had done this very same thing as well as similar things regarding NPC race categorization. And I think that's been overlooked by those not part of the discussion (I know Doodle was involved at least once before). I believe this was the fourth time I've seen this, and the second time it's come up on their talk page. I said the same thing before as I do now: "If the NPC can be tested to fall under a certain slayer achievement/potion/sigil, that's its race, otherwise it's best guess", which I think we can all agree with, and Skrittman never showed that they listened to.

I understand that they're trying to "fix inconsistencies" but when you come across something that has had a disputed issue before, rather than doing the exact same thing as before that sparked the dispute, it is always better to ask someone who may know why it's done that way before deciding to make edits. Otherwise you may end up making the situation worse rather than fixing it and create more work for everyone involved - which was, in my humble opinion, what was done here and the prior times. I think the repeated topic is why I ended up being hostile in my response, because I find I am repeating myself while without a counter viewpoint presented besides "I just want to fix inconsistencies and people get in my way", which is nothing but self-victimizing. "Fixing inconsistencies" is not an excuse to not checking why things are done a certain way, especially when we're documenting a game that itself has so many inconsistencies, that ArenaNet being consistently inconsistent is a running joke among the community.

Personally speaking, if I find inconsistencies, I always check revision histories, see who made the edits resulting in inconsistencies, and if it was done on similar pages. Even if I stop myself halfway through, once I notice something was done intentionally on multiple cases, I always do my research and see why things were done that way and reconsider my edits before making them consistent or reverting myself to bring it up with others. I never expect more from others than I do myself, but, especially in repeat situations, I tend to expect nearly the same out of others as I expect out of myself, and I don't think that's wrong.

Again, my hostile tone was uncalled for, and I apologize. But this isn't this first time this topic has come up, either, and that should be noted too. Konig (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If that's not the first time this topic has come up, shouldn't it be noted somewhere in Wiki space? One should not expect others to follow practices agreed upon in User talk space. This issue should be noted somewhere on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Practices and processes or a similar article. ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I wish it was made when Skrittman said they were done with editing, instead of a throwaway sentence, but an apology is always appreciated in situations like these.

I'm aware of Skrittman's edits over the past year, and they're not being overlooked. But, given yours and Doodle's many contributions, and experience in the wiki field, they're a lot more faint in comparison. I think many of us made mistakes our first year of wiki edits, and yes, even some revert wars, either because we weren't prepared to cooperate (given that the wiki is very much social) or that we just weren't very experienced in contributing to something, and having that something critiqued. I know I struggled to understand that the first months, but eventually you realize how and why certain things are done on the wiki. That's something I think is missing from Skrittman, but I am absolutely sure they would eventually "get" it.

Looking through their edits, it's hard not to recognize the great work they've done, right from the start. Eventually they did, as all of us, run into some arguments, either regarding the use of 'the', or concept art on bestiary pages, the latter of which Doodle participated in. I think all of their work speaks for itself, and they were deserving of a more appropriate response than they one they got.

I think Skrittman was confused by the way we document dolyaks and similar animals, and the way we documented choya. In their eyes, those deserved the same treatment, which is why they made the related edits. I don't think that shows a lack of understanding, I think that shows an inconsistent way we do things which creates a roadblock for people trying to add sensible and consistent information. Too often do we have to explain why things are done the way they are, and it's completely unfair for us to berate users who see an issue in that. When we start editing the wiki, we do things we feel are correct, and sometimes they get reverted or challenged — that's part of the way the wiki functions. Discussing an edit should be a teaching moment, not a moment in which a user can exercise their experience and knowledge over an editor who's been doing this for less than a year. That's not how cooperative work is done, and it's not the path I will allow the wiki to take.

"Personally speaking, if I find inconsistencies, I always check revision histories"

That's great, but that's also the result of a 10 year old wiki experience and knowledge. You're not giving yourself enough credit for that. I don't know if Skrittman saw your revision note before doing their edits. I wished that was something you opened your arguments with, instead of focusing on the way things are done. Giving the user a proof of previous history of an article is much more concrete and acceptable than stating "this is how things are done, change it back".

Another important aspect of what happened here is the users involved. Both you and Doodle have been more than active on Skrittman's talk page, and it's not surprising that the two of you were the first to post on their page. However, if a user has had bad experience with certain users, it's almost to be expected that the default tone of the discussion will be set to negative. Had another user started the discussion, I don't think the same thing would've happened, and it's principal that we recognize that. It's a fact that you've had arguments with them before, especially on a related subject, but it's also clear that it ended on a very bad note, that I'm sure left a bad taste in their mouth for a long time. Because of that, Skrittman felt cornered, "people breathing down [their] neck" due to their edits on a wiki. A wiki that's written and maintained by the players. The same wiki that Skrittman came to in hopes of improving it is also the reason they left it.

I want us, and you as well, to be more open minded and accepting of other users' mistakes, even if you have to explain it to them five times, it's worth it because that user will be molded into something that the wiki will most certainly be better for. —Ventriloquist 12:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)