eRepublik Official Wiki:Bar/Debate 4

From eRepublik Official Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Edit Wars

Repeated Vandalism (by astroRANGER)

Yesterday, I posted a very long and well-thought-out complaint that seems to have been lost without the slightest sign of the matter being seriously taken into consideration. Or even taken into consideration at all. Thus, here it is again...

User Aryamehr has been repeatedly attaching deletion templates to Pakistani-related articles without a sufficient explanation as to why, and repeatedly attaching the same template after its removal for a total of four times, the majority of the times being hidden under the description of a minor edit, with much blatant abuse.

In addition, user Aryamehr has been repeatedly making deletions off of articles without discussing it on the proper discussion page, still targeting Pakistani-related pieces and blatantly ignoring templates put into place.

Ultimately, user Aryamehr has taken the liberty to edit at will in very dishonest and petty manner, repeatedly acting unilaterally to mold the Wiki on a basis entirely in reaction to the nation of Pakistan. Could you please put an end to this?

Related links:

In addition, user Aryamehr has taken repeated edits against the three edit rule and against an 'Editing War' template in another Pakistan-related article.

Related link:

Thank you. --astroRANGER Pakistan 16:54, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

Explanation - astroRANGER

We kindly ask you to explain your behavior in these cases:

We will wait for your answer for 24 hours and after this we will take a decision based on your response. --Admin 10:43, 27 September 2008 (PDT)


Hello Admin, I first off would like to apologize for my delay in responding to you. I have had exams this week prohibiting me from extended stays on the computer - I hope you can understand. Now for the real matter at hand, I would like to say that others are more than welcome from adding grievances or clarifying matters - a Wiki is supposed to be a democratic matter after all. Please read user AgentChieftain's explanations, as they are exactly in lieu of the complaints filed. I would also like to place an emphasis on user Aryamehr's acting unilaterally to alter articles without properly holding discussions first, and his abuse of the rules in doing so. Thank you. --astroRANGER Pakistan 10:54, 3 October 2008 (PDT)


Explanation - Nicolae Carpathia

We have banned your Erepublik citizen for using insults.

Also, we kindly ask you to explain your behavior in this case:

--Admin 10:43, 27 September 2008 (PDT)

Aryamehr has continuously vandalized that page. I've been reverting his edits. I'm sorry that you're taking his side because he buys gold and not my side even though I'm backed by facts and consensus. —Nicolae Carpathia | Talk 10:56, 27 September 2008 (PDT)

Explanation

We kindly ask you to explain your behavior in these cases:

We will wait for your answer for 24 hours and after this we will take a decision based on your response. --Admin 10:43, 27 September 2008 (PDT)

My Response

  • God Emperor

I remember when there was a page called "God" which was deleted by the staff, because it's not approriate to use something like that when there are people who believe in a real God, they get insulted when someone has this. This is just at the same level as when people insulted Ataturk. God Emperor is therefore wrong. You can't just say someone is a God when he/she is not and there is a God that a lot of people believe in. Emperor, is also wrong as Emperor is a word and should be disagentiusmed (spell, I know it's wrong but I think you understand.). I kept adding the deletion template after they removed it, and according to the Deletion Policy at that time, "If any user objects — usually by removing the tag — then the article may be taken to that article's talk page for further discussion" which they didn't, they just removed my deletion template (astroRANGER and a few others). The "God Emperor" page also lacked the "religious template", but a few of the /v/ers used it as a execuse, "We have religion template and we can have this page!" Read more about this on the next one.

  • World war I

I asked JohnDaker for evidence for his statement that how PEACE knew that that Romania would declare war, and he said that he does not have anything to prove it so I removed it because it has no source or anything else that can give a hint or back up the fact that they knew before. Johndaker on the other hand got very angry at me for doing this, I tried to discuss with him on the talk page but he just kept reverting and removing Neutrality template put by Minibill, insulting me, ignoring edit war templates etc. He later went to my Aryamehr (citizen page) and removed a lot of things, he asked for a source on stupid things (such as my Birth date) the day before and he gave me one day to find sources and I didn't because one day is not enough so he went and deleted the majority of the text on my Aryamehr page, which is against the rules as you can see on the User_talk:Admin page: "Citizens pages/User pages of the Authors/Editors in the Wiki - only owners and the persons that receive approval from these owners are allowed to edit these pages. If you want to add a template in one of these pages that does not belongs to you, ask the approval of the owner or the Admin." He changed my page 3-4 times and even insulted me. What punishment for that will he recieve?

  • Diosim

The delete template was added by Carradine with a vaild reason. Both me and him along with many Iranians, Swedes and people from all over the world are sick and tired that the /v/ers have the privilage of saying and doing anything as long as it's part of their so called "religion". They are allowed to insult others, make fun of others, write offensive content and destroy the repupation of others just because it's part of their "religion". They have had almost a week now to change Book of Dio even though they have not done it, admin told them that they should do it. This is what happened: Carradine added the deletion tag, 17:01, Debildevil removed it without saying why so I added it back and this continued, he refused to give valid reasons to why because that is the point of this, you just don't remove it you must also say why you removed it so we can discuss about it. Some people, like Touchdown thurman thomas made a fun situtation out of this and removed the tag because it had a little Time Error on it, which is due to Carradine was unsure of how it works and there was no need to make fun of him.

  • Dio Brando

Again, here we go into this. A lot of people are sick and tired of these /v/ers being able to write anything and everything they want against everyone, insult, fight, make fun of ,write offensive content because they have religious template. On the Dio Brando page, they wrote that their party Stardust Crusaders were the best party in the whole Erepublik, which is incorrect and I wanted to change it and asked for source and other things in the édit summary place but they refused to give any. In the end, they told me that since it's "religious template" on the Dio Brando page, they can write whatever they want even if it does not make sense. So basically, they can write that Dio is the best, all loving people, better than admins, creator of this game and give false information to the people, spread doubt and fear between people using this "religious template". Later, as I saw that I have no way to win against this because of the "religious template" I stopped reverting and decided to take this up with the admins later. These fake religious page bring down the quality of this wiki and make it a playground!


Exactly 24 hours! ;) --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 10:43, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

Comments

Admin, would you mind if I commented on his responses? He's not really representing our opinions very well on the matter, and I'd like to clarify our side of the argument (Although I refrained from taking part in the edit war). --Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star“PPP!”B / C / D / F / P / S 12:13, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

Before Admin responses; I would like to say the question was directed to me and not anyone else and I don't want to start a big discussion which will put more fuel on the fire. I answered the question and I don't really want to argue and fight with someone that does not have anything to do with this (Well, a bit but I will forgive him for now). I already had to put time away to answer to this from my busy schedule. --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 13:25, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

You're using superlatives and saying that we made excuses. If you didn't want an argument, you should at least show respect and show our side of the argument in equal light to yours without trying to make it look wrong. You're employing a debate tactic known as "poisoning the well"; that is, making the other choice look bad before Admin makes a decision. Giving us the short end of the stick is practically inviting me to the discussion to clarify our side. --Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star“PPP!”B / C / D / F / P / S 13:34, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

This is where you are wrong. Admin asked me questions on my userpage, I answered. This has nothing to do with you or anyone. I am not debating on this and I am going to ask admin to remove these comments. --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 13:39, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

I understand that Admin's asking for your motive for why you took part in that edit war, but you're forgetting that this involves pages that I have been working on. You didn't really represent why we think the pages should stay very well (Although Admin's admittedly right about God Emperor's redundancy), and I don't want them to misinterpret that as our actual opinion. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star “PPP!” B / C / D / F / P / S 15:14, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

Alright, thank you for allowing me to express my views.

God Emperor

{{Dioism/Views}} is entirely useless for this page, since it was a redirect. If I changed it to an actual article to describe the meaning and origin of the title, then the template would be appropriate. Otherwise, putting a template where it will not be seen is entirely pointless. Also, Aryamehr's statement that the title is "offensive to people who believe in God" is a joke; he fought to keep Dioism misspelled in The Church of the New World's page, so this only proves that this dispute was more a retaliatory effort for the Erepublik Official Wiki:Factions page than a serious issue being addressed.
However, I agree with Admin's notion that the page is redundant, since it is most commonly used alongside a link to Dio Brando. There is no need for two links to the same page to be right next to each other on every page.

Dioism

Carradine's reason was not valid; the page has nothing to do with 4chan apart from it being our board of origin. Were I to nominate Aryamehr's biography for deletion because it was "A playground for IranMilitaryForum", it would quickly be dismissed as a joke.

Dio Brando

We did not say "LOLOL SC IS THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST". I added the notion that the Stardust Crusaders have been the dominant party in Pakistan since their inception, and that Dio has served seven terms as the President of Pakistan. This is a fact, but there is no record of past presidents available for me to use as a source. No other president has served as many terms as Dio has, and the only other party to have consistently stayed in power is Flashback Sweden, even though they do not hold an absolute majority like we do.

That's all I have to say today, I just wanted to make sure that our side of the disputes were noted in your resolution. Now, if you don't mind, I have a birthday to celebrate. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star “PPP!” B / C / D / F / P / S 10:40, 29 September 2008 (PDT)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php?title=eRepublik_Official_Wiki:Bar/Debate_4&oldid=697103"