FANDOM


  • The recent actions of Lefty make me feel surprised and shocked. This post is to check Lefty's actions and also makes sure he does not do this kind of action again. There are ways to solve the problems or "punish" Lefty. We are welcome to hear Lefty from explaining his actions. Here are the list of items which we do not think a normal admin should do:

    "Protecting pages because there are edit disputes"

    A lot of pages has been blocked to prevent us from playing the difficulty. This never happens and I also take difficulty very seriously. To solve edit disputes, we should talk and negotiate with others to make a compromise, not protecting pages and ban users from expressing their opinions (this act is graded selfish). Some pages are even protected by no reason, e.g. level 70 and Target Score Levels. This means Lefty is overusing his powers in this wiki. The one who is changing the difficulty is Lefty. He does not ask us about the difficulty and then conduct the change. I have to revert his edit to show that he has to ask us before changing. I've also demonstrated to him how to ask someone's opinions. All the pages blocked do not experience vandalism.

    "Interfering sandbox pages"

    Lefty has been interfering my sandbox page, under my name. Sandbox pages are not allowed to be interfered. They are used to practice edits, propose edits and express opinions. Unless the sandbox page contains words that slander others, it should not be interfered and deleted. For the template (Level), I've also been testing to link to other pages with a different page name and it works.

    "Block users with different opinions"

    Lefty blocks me because I have different opinions. I've asked some of the users in Wild Ones Wiki and they agreed that Lefty should talk with me about the situation.

    "His possible reactions"

    "I own this wiki":

    This wiki is under "Wikia", which is available for everyone to edit. Despite you founded this wiki, you agreed to let others to edit your wiki, you agreed to let others to monitor the wiki, including you. This means the community owns the wiki and has the right to say your edit is not good enough.

    "Wildoneshelper does the wrong thing":

    You may get a point of this. I do apologize for my aggressive act previously. However, I reverted your edit because you did not ask us for opinions. This is my reason why I did it. For the sandbox page, I did not slander you. This means I've done nothing wrong with the sandbox page. I create it because I want to be heard and I want to express my opinions.

    "I protect the page because I don't let others to edit the difficulty":

    To solve edit disputes, you should talk to others about it. Wikis should be freely edited. Pages which are protected means you promise to improve the page. The reality shows you did not. Level 100 is lacking a template you know and it will look really strange if level 99 and 101 own one and level 100 does not have one. Pages are protected because they experience excessive vandalism which our pages do not, except for List of Levels. Also remember that I created the difficulty system, I do not let you to own it. This means everyone is free to suggest changes.

    "I do this for the wiki's sake":

    Do you have an evidence in proving that your act represents everyone? I've received a message in a page complaining your edit. The complaint refers to the sudden downgrade of levels without consulting our opinions. This message also urges us to upgrade it back immediately. Your act represents everyone? I don't think so.

    "What actions should we take?"

    "Desysop Lefty":

    Protecting a lot of pages without a reason means you overuse your powers. You deleted my sandbox page because you don't want me to express opinions. I've consulted opinions about this act and they generally agree with this idea. I will consult more in this thread and see if we send a report to Wikia to desysop Lefty.

    "Give him one more chance":

    I consider this also and I also want to see Lefty becoming friendly again. However, if things like this happen again, what we do is "desysop Lefty". Also, this wiki will be stereotyped by the fact of no bureaucrat or an "orphaned wiki". (Of course you may say I can adopt this wiki after he is desysoped but if the founder is not a bureaucrat in this wiki, it looks so strange, isn't it?)

    Please tell us what you think about the actions we should take. It matters to this wiki and the freedom of editing to every users in this wiki.

    This thread will be photographed.

      Loading editor
    • Soo.. you're threatening to get me kicked off my own wiki just because you don't agree with the level difficulties I put up?

        Loading editor
    • No because you overuse your power in blocking every page to solve edit disputes. I do not disagree with all the level difficulties you put up but you did not ask us before you do so.

        Loading editor
    • I decided to propose desysoping you not because we disagree with your edits but because you did not respect us.

      Blocking pages

      You block pages even though they do not experience vandalism or any edit disputes. You block them to prevent it but do you know you have blocked a lot of pages and we do not receive any messages that a terrorist attack will take place in this wiki. Pages should be blocked if it receives heavy vandalism.

      Deleting sandbox page

      You deleted my sandbox page because it violates your idea. Sandbox pages are not to be interfered. I do not slander you and definitely you have no right to delete my sandbox page and block it.

      At last, you change difficulty level without asking us. I respect your grading in level 116 and I do not grade it as "considerably easy" but I ask for doing so but you do not respect us in level 123 and you edit by yourself. Do you know this act can cause a lot of disagreements again? Please respect our grading and it's not yours to interfere. The majority of pages on all Wikia should remain publicly editable, and are not to be protected. To that end, no single user owns a wiki, even if it was you that created the wiki or if you're an administrator. Wikis are owned by their communities, and everyone is welcome to edit and contribute.

        Loading editor
    • If you desysop me, this wiki shuts down. I will ask storm to shut it down.

        Loading editor
    • Don't shut down the wiki ! It is too awesome to be shut down !

        Loading editor
    • yes you may, but you need to ask a staff to do that.

        Loading editor
    • Lefty, we don't want to see everyone cry and leave. I'm welcome to see what improvement you want to make. Lower your temper and talk.

        Loading editor
    • Here's a suggestion for us to ponder about. With regards to difficulty, would a poll be better? Not everyone is going to find, say, Level 65 as easy as Lefty does, and not everyone will find 18 as hard as I do.

      As for shutting down the wiki, that is the one thing I hope I will never have to undergo. To be brutally honest, I'd rather have EVERY SINGLE PAGE protected on this wiki than have it shut down entirely.

      Now Lefty, I can't get round why you protected so many pages. Short term protection can help settle a dispute, but that isn't the type of protection you applied. The only reason that I can assume is you protected the pages to stop other people changing the difficulty. Well, I'm telling you here and now: just because you founded the wiki doesn't mean you can dictate the difficulty level which is usually inaccurate for the majority of players. If I were in your shoes, I'd have started a discussion and after an appropriate period of time we can select the difficulty the majority wants. You need to remember that wikis are about community, and the community voice is the strongest one.

        Loading editor
    • Poll is a good suggestion

        Loading editor
    • I strongly agree with the poll

        Loading editor
    • This is my another suggestion:

      Start a proposal of any levels and give 3 days to respond. Review the comments and change the difficulty, if requested generally, to their requested one. However, if there is no general trend, a poll is requisite. This can make a consensus and demonstrates the power of the community. How should we define "general trend"? If either side consists more than 70% of all comments, then it is a "general trend". This explains "level 65" has a general trend of downgrading the level to "very hard".

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks for your reply, you don't have to bug out. You are professional and I should hear you more. Please feel free to negotiate with us.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Even more reasons why a poll should be implemented in some form...

        Loading editor
    • I think in every level, with all difficulties, than probably a script that made an average with the votes to make te final difficulty

        Loading editor
    • Lefty7788 wrote: 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.

      The sandbox was deleted, and the logs say it was done by you. However, if it was just an accident, then you would be happy to restore the page. It was moved from User:Wildoneshelper/Sandbox/Level_100 to User:Level 100, so you will need to undelete the latter page and then move it over the redirect to the former. To undelete, use Special:Undelete (instructions on the page), then move the page back to its original position through a normal page name change. If you need any help with any of that, feel free to ask.

      From looking at the protection logs at time of writing, only three pages have been unprotected following the infinite protection of 13 different level pages in the last month. I took a random sample of 6 of those pages and looked at their page histories and to say there were edit wars is really stretching the definition a bit. Ok, there was one difficulty, it was changed, it was changed back and the page protected. That's not how it works. When it was changed back, you should give your reasons why in the comments section and allow the other user to respond and you both come to a compromise. Protecting a page after so minimal a dispute is just not the way of encouraging a free and open editing community. Talk about your problems. It sounds cheesy, but it truly is the best way to make everyone happy in the end. Anyway, if you want to keep the difficulty level thing (which I really don't recommend), you should follow an objective formula to minimise disputes. Wildoneshelper has quite a good basis for a scale of difficulty which can be found here. I suggest you guys should discuss how to alter that scale to make everyone happy, then make a template containing the maths (I know somebody who could probably do it if you don't know how) and have that as a standard across all pages which is agreed upon and completely objective to minimise disputes. That way the difficulty isn't up to individual experience but is based on certain criteria, removing the need for edit warring or subjective discussions.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, so here is the plan:

      I am actually wanting to become an admin here, and even in some things that I am good at. Me, I just want to keep this community as simple as it is. My Business Wiki (my own wiki) had 2 versions: the successful one (not much anymore), and the unsuccessful one. So, simplifying this statement, I just want Candy Crush Saga Wiki to have success, and not failure.

      Despite, sometimes I get into tensions, like Zombiebird4000 shouting to me about Level 31, I hope not to get into anymore tensions. Even the whole wiki making tensions on me. I just want this wiki become peaceful, and just carry on editing, and making some admins.

      If I were Lefty, I would oppose his current attitude. So, I would not protect pages, so that everyone could edit the difficulty, and maybe I could hire some bureaucrats, or maybe not. I will also just create more admins, but not too much, since I'm in the connection of strict communities, and friendly communities.

        Loading editor
    • One person caused all this to happen, but it wasn't any of us.

        Loading editor
    • Is it me?

        Loading editor
    • No, it wasn't any of us. It was someone who caused Lefty to keep protecting pages.

        Loading editor
    • Umm... I hope it's not me, but indeed there is a convincing evidence that I cause Lefty to keep protecting pages.

        Loading editor
    • Argh, I hate giving riddles eventually, but it was never you. I think Lefty knows who I'm talking about. Check the other pages comments. There is proof. I think page Level 33 has some. And no, it wasn't Blueeighthnote either.

        Loading editor
    • That is only just an example. I was once blocked because I reverted the difficulty. However there's a reason, because Lefty has not consulted us before making the change.

        Loading editor
    • Anyone who reverted the difficulty too far off everyone's average. Check the criminal's profile! You will see why lefty protected pages. Wildoneshelper, I think there must be a far more reason lefty blocked you.

        Loading editor
    • I understand that I have been aggressive, and that doesn't mean that I'm innocent. I know who he is and I am once there. Why should you keep holding onto that person? Let him/her go! And protecting pages starts from the end of August, which is far earlier than the blockage of melon!

        Loading editor
      • Maybe* Lefty gave melon chances, until Lefty couldn't hold him off. I joined this wikia yesterday, so I don't understand much and is new to the people here. Thanks Wildoneshelper though...(note that I said maybe)
        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message