Board Thread:New on Candy Crush Saga Wiki/@comment-3225604-20130829021903/@comment-27028390-20130901153059

Imamadmad wrote: Ok, coming back here again. First of all, Wildoneshelper, it is much easier to just continue the same thread when discussing things over at w:c:community than creating a new one every couple of days. It helps keep the conversation in one place, and means people don't have to go trawling through the boards to find what you have previously said on the subject. Just a word of advice. Ok, now onto giving outside help since you so desperately seem to want it (and, no offence, need it). Lefty7788 wrote: If you desysop me, this wiki shuts down. I will ask storm to shut it down. Umm, sorry, but you physically cannot do that. A founder has no more power over a wiki than a normal Bureaucrat, and they just have a few fancier buttons than regular users. To shut down a wiki, you have to go through Wikia, and Wikia don't generally like shutting down wikis, especially ones with as many pages and as much activity as this one. Do not use this as a threat, it is simply false.

Now, I can only judge this situation by the little of it I've seen, but there seems to be a lot of valid arguments stacked up against Lefty7788 and not many valid counter-arguments supplied by the defending party. Lefty, if you would like to see your side of the story heard, you need to actually say it. Otherwise, it does honestly look like you have been abusing your power.

For starters, wiki pages should be open for everyone to edit, and page protection should only happen in cases of extreme vandalism or edit-warring. The standard for an edit war is usually 3 reverts. If the page has had less than three reverts in a row, it isn't counted as having been edit-warred on and shouldn't be protected. Now, you guys are free to change that standard, but I can't see any written policy going against it.

Actually, your wiki doesn't have any written rules whatsoever, so there is no real justification, as far as I can see, for any of the events which Lefty has been accused of for having happened. How can you block somebody if they aren't violating a rule, and how does one violate a rule when there are none? Because of this logic, until you have something written down by community consensus, there is no justified reasoning for blocking other than obvious vandalism.

Same goes for deleting people's personal pages. Was there any reasoning behind deleting Wildoneshelper's sandbox page? Was there obvious profanity on it, or was it just in violation of another of this wiki's unwritten rules? At least have the common decency to leave a delete summary telling the person why their personal page was not allowed. However, unless obvious profanity is present, users' own subpages should be left up to them to do as they please. If you would like to change this, again, start a conversation about rules and if there is a community consensus regarding the changing of this standard, you can make it so. However, until then, there is no reason obvious for you to have deleted his sandbox. If you would like to argue that the deletion was fair, please state why in a reply here, providing photo evidence from the delete logs if needed to prove your case. However, without a counter-argument, this act looks like a blatant abuse of power. You can restore the page through the delete logs. Just follow the instructions on the page.

Also, you know what would be the smart thing to do here? Take a hint and get rid of the difficulty level option! Honestly, wikis should not contain subjective content. Do I need to explain why? In case you missed it, this is why. Get rid of all content which can't be backed up by indisputable facts! It just encourages argument and creates an administrative nightmare! Get rid of that section, please! You will find all your troubles will instantly fade away when you can fix on the definites. And make some physical rules around here which everyone can agree on! I can see you've started a thread on that already, although I haven't read it yet but will do in a moment. With concrete, indisputable rules decided on by the community and artices based on fact, there will be no need to argue, and if there is, take it to the forums instead of trying to block the other person to shut them up (that just creates more agony for everyone and achieves nothing apart from pushing avway everyone around you and leaving a bitter after-taste in their mouths).

Lefty, I will ask you to provide counterarguments right here, all in the same spot, to all the above accusations given by all your peers. If you cannot satisfactorily justify your positions, or agree to be calmer and more consultative in the future, then I agree that you have shown an abuse of power and should be desysoped. However, on the other hand, if you acknowledge your faults and agree to work better in the future, then you should be given a second chance. But in the end, it is up to your community to decide.

If you would like me to give any more opinions or advice, feel free to ask on my talk page. Equally, if you think I should butt out of this, leave me a message as well, but stop going to Community Central for help if that's the case.

Good luck with the wiki, and remember, communication is key, and that nobody owns this wiki. Sysops are just regular users with a few extra buttons. Oh, and there's nothing wrong with having a founder who's been desysoped. On many wikis where the founder has gone AWOL they have been demoted, including on my home wiki, w:c:drwho.answers. So you don't have to worry about that, Wildoneshelper. I did not delete his sandbox, I have no idea what happened to it. And if I did it would have been purely accidental without realising.

There have been numerous edit wars over the "Difficulty" section on the level pages.

Most blocked pages have been unblocked anyway.