User talk:AndrewHickey
Faction Paradox Wiki[[edit source]]
Hi there. :)
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.
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. Indeed, the conclusion to my comments at the FP thread explicitly says that we need more admin there, that I'm willing to appoint them, and that I hope the FP Wiki grows.
You've stated that I've deliberately prevented new editing and new ideas, and that's just so demonstrably false it dumbfounds me. I don't have much experience with administration outside of Fandom, and you appear to have few edits here. So it's possible our mutual confusion comes from our lack of understanding of each other's backgrounds. It's possible that in other places on the web, the word "admin" connotes someone with far greater powers than it does here. But at Fandom, and certainly the way we interpret the role at Tardis, admin are just janitors. That is a definition first given to me by Tangerineduel and it's one that you'll find if you read the top of my profile page. We do the cleaning and the heavy lifting.
That's why I spent a good deal of time back then setting up the structure of the wiki, so that an admin staff wouldn't have to do a lot of work. I created a wordmark, detailed instructions about how to edit the main page, forum integrations on the front page, a category structure -- a ton of stuff that gave whoever came in later a massive leg up over trying to start the wiki from scratch. And nothing to do with the content or administrative pages of the wiki is locked down or even protected. 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?
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.
Much of what I wrote at FP was placeholder text. After the decision was made to split came the realities of, "Well, how do we accomplish it? What's going to be on the front page? What's a good structure to put in that allows people who came from Tardis to feel like they basically have the same tools they had at Tardis?"
It was sincerely just an effort to get the ball rolling. I honestly don't care how that text gets rewritten -- or really how anything else on the wiki might get changed. The content of the wiki needs to be handled by people who are really into FP. My job on the wiki is mostly over at this point. I need to retain Bureaucrat status there so that new admin can be appointed with ease. And since the people who are making the most noise about FP are people who are not familiar with the technicalities of Fandom, it'll be useful to have me around when you -- inevitably -- run into CSS issues and the like.
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?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 21:48: Wed 28 Dec 2016
You got what you wanted[[edit source]]
Look mate, you got what you wanted. FP is now included, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't change the topics of the threads to "fighting c**ks".
Best wishes. Denchen ☎ 19:30, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
- Look, I went by what the wiki told me, it says "topic changed by AndrewHickey four days ago"...
- So believe me it wasn't an unjust accusation - if I'm wrong, I'm sorry - my intention wasn't to upset you.
- Though Stuart Douglas (aka User:Obverse) has been blocked for personal attacks on User: CzechOut. And yes, he said it was him in an earlier contribution.
- To quote: (a user asked)
- Are you Cody Schell?
- To which he responded:
- God no, he's the handsome one
- Followed by him saying who he is.
- I'm sorry if I've offended you in anyway, however your colleague Stuart is far from innocent.
Oh f you. "You can see why I'm suspicious". No I can't. You go around making baseless accusations against other people. It was an *entirely* unjust accusation, and you don't even have the basic decency to just say "sorry, I was wrong". You didn't bother to check before accusing Phil, and now you didn't bother to check before accusing me, and yet you're trying to make your own repeated false accusations my fault.
You *still* say stuff like "If I'm wrong" and for some reason are trying to hold me responsible for Stuart's actions -- *when you won't even take responsibility for your own!*
And I "assumed" it was "fighting cocks" because that's a topic that was added to both threads that I have participated in, and because there's no other word that fits "fighting c**ks".
Stop libelling people, and if you make a mistake at least have the common human decency to apologise rather than act like the people you have libelled are the ones at fault.
Feel free to get me banned here, as I won't be returning anyway. I have no intention of staying around a site where baseless accusations and outright lies are normal acceptable behaviour. AndrewHickey ☎ 20:36, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
Copying what I just posted to DENCH-and-PALMER's talk page: Look, "Mate", maybe before you go around throwing accusations about you might want to check that the people you're accusing actually did the things you're accusing them of. First you accused Philip Purser-Hallard of leaving anonymous comments that weren't from him, and now you've accused me of adding the topic "fighting cocks" to discussions. I didn't. If you look at my contribution history, it does say "topic change" on one topic (note that both FP topics have had "Fighting Cocks" added to their topic lists, not just one), but if you look at the diff it shows that "Fighting Cocks" was there both before and after. I did edit the topic of that discussion -- but my edit was to type in a bunch of random nonsense, which didn't link to anything, to see how it worked. That edit shows up as a contribution but didn't actually change anything. Stop libelling me and my friends. AndrewHickey ☎ 20:13, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm a d**k.
- I don't expect you to except my apology. I don't want you banned, you only violated Tardis:No personal attacks, and that was to me - and I'm not offended so there are no grounds for your being blocked.
Block[[edit source]]
You have been blocked for two months for a violation of Tardis:No personal attacks at User talk:DENCH-and-PALMER, specifically "Profanity directed against another contributor." We want to maintain a civil community atmosphere, and in that light, your comments were unacceptable. Please, in your time away, read through T:ATTACKS and come back ready to treat other editors with respect. P&P talk contribs 05:02, January 2, 2017 (UTC)
- In the interest of full disclosure, DENCH-and-PALMER has also been blocked for his behavior. P&P talk contribs 05:19, January 2, 2017 (UTC)
