User talk:Jalepeno Cornbread

My previous talk is now archived.
 * One
 * Two
 * Three

Recent Blocking
Hey, Degen, wondering if you could give me a bit of info on this blocking incident that I was just hearing about. (I'll check back in the morning)-- 07:19, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it may have been inappropriate, and it maybe it shouldn't have been done. If you had said something earlier, i would have stopped, and that would have been the end of it. I'm not saying I agree that it was wrong, though, just that I, and probably the others involved, would have stopped and would have promised to not do it anymore, if you have just said something like 'I don't believe you should be doing this' or something to that effect. Anyway I won't be doing it anymore. 07:46, April 6, 2010 (UTC) For christ's sakes this is ridiculous..admins are supposed to demonstrate maturity, not run around like a gang of half-witted hooligans with matches! While we aren't automatons that doesn't mean this sort of foolishness is acceptable. I'm glad that most of the offenders seem to realise that incidents like this are the whole reason the tools aren't given out at random. I am concerned however, with the above, the behaviour was indeed wrong and while we are not the sort to act professional or pompous 'round here, it doesn't mean that administratorship is a joke. While there were a few (and I emphasize 'few) occasions where a joke block occur before, it was not a common or rampant issue.

The fact that the VSTF has even removed us from that list isn't a practical problem, it's a symbolical slap in the face for all of us who have worked so hard to keep the RSWiki independent, respected, and an example for others to follow. I have no issue with a bit of humour here and there with a friendly atmosphere for the wiki (it's a vital thing to have), however, the fact that it seems the joker/"fun" admins now outnumber those attempting to maintain a sense of decorum is disappointing and sad to say the least...

'' But were it not for the network thingy, I wouldn't be sorry. Blocking someone once in a while as a joke, especially if they didn't mind it, is, in my opinion, no big deal. -P. Robot ''
 * Administrative tools are just that Tools, they are not meant for 'fun' and are purely meant to be used in betterment of the wiki.

'' Also, if joke blocking was/is considered to be 'wrong' then wikia would do something about it, not ignore it. -Rwojy ''
 * Wikia has a few main unwritten rules, one of them is to never interfere with a community unless the community is being oppressed or illicit content is being posted silence =/= approval.

'' If you had said something earlier, i would have stopped, and that would have been the end of it. I'm not saying I agree that it was wrong, though, just that I, and probably the others involved, would have stopped and would have promised to not do it anymore, if you have just said something like 'I don't believe you should be doing this' or something to that effect. Anyway I won't be doing it anymore. ''
 * Being an admin means the community has placed it's faith in your decision making abilities, if you require someone to say it's common sense to not treat the tools like a play thing, then I simply don't know what to say.

 This community seems to have a problem with people showing humo(u)r, and I don't understand it.-Rwojy 
 * There's a time/place for humour and a time/place for acting responsibly, I trust that one would not arse around on the Yew Grove or other community pages and before this I trusted that the faith placed in administrators would be seen as a joke.

'' And I refuse to be a part of it since it implies that being an admin is a big deal-P. Robot ''
 * The tools themselves are not a big deal, the "authority" is not a big deal, the fact that the community trusts its admins to maintain order and respect the fact that they are seen as examples to newer users Is.

On a side note, (away from this issue) I've notice an increase in 'soft' admins that seem to either take AGF to a dogmatic extreme or simply throw a hissy-fit and retire any time criticism is leveled against them. I personally think RfAs have gone a bit soft as of late, what do you think?

To end, I think I'll leave a message I once received regarding the wiki from Uberfuzzy to show why it is that this incident saddens and frustrates me to such a point (be sure to read the last paragraph: As you and your wiki has shown in the past, a large stable community can exist and be fairly self sufficient at Wikia, with little need from staff/helper intervention. This is a dream of ours, to have more wikis run themselves, allowing us to focus our finite amount of time and resources on the sites that actually need it. Sadly, your wiki is an exception in many ways, not the norm.

As with the checkuser, we've shown that we're willing to try things out, to break away from the mentality of "how things were done in the past" to see how they fair in the ever evolving world of wikis, and to get some real world data on how a stable wiki will react if allowed more rights. You've been great test of our theoretical worries about granting checkuser where needed.

Done. You bureaucrats can now add and remove bot rights.

One thing We've always admired about your wiki is even though you have a way above average number of sysops, you have managed to keep the bureaucrat list small, showing that you understand what that roll is meant for, and not just another checkbox. We hope to continue to see good things come out of runescape, and can continue to use it as a shining example of our dream.-Uberfuzzy

I think that sums up pretty nicely why this (not so short) comment is as sharp and pointed as it is. (I waited an extra few hours to see if I could make this any less curt.)-- 20:29, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Username Hilite
Hi, I just readded your name to the hilite list of usernames, but did so without seeing your justification of removing it in the history for MediaWiki:Common.css/hilite. If I would've seen that, I would've discussed it first.

The main issue is that the hilited names give a visual indication in logs such as recent changes and block logs. The second, and more important issue to me at the moment, is consistency. It is confusing to see some actions seemingly being performed by non-admins and doing a double-take. The need for consistency makes me think that we should make this decision as a whole, not just individually. Either we're all hilited, or none of us are. If you think we should take the stance of no hilites at all, let's discuss it on the Yew Grove. 19:42, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The forum would be a bad idea if you were suggesting a blanket policy that no one can be hilited, but what if you just started a thread suggesting that those who don't want to be hilited don't have to be? That way no one would vote a particular way just because they didn't want to lose their colours. 00:20, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Community consensus > Endasil. And not long. Your auto edit summary ratted you out. 00:38, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Is that directed at me?  What are you talking about?  What auto edit summary?   00:47, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Degenret, to be honest, I wouldn't have done it if I didn't think they were left out just by oversight. I don't have a good enough defence to argue for it at the moment, except for a personal desire for consistency (I was just getting confused, is all).  00:47, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

RE: outside links
Yeah, they are. But that site seems to be the only evidence of that item being present outside of game (in the GE database before it was removed from there), and we use url manipulation as evidence for other things (soul talisman). [Assuming you're refering to [ this]]. 20:38, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Re:more discussion
The message from Uber (which I've had in my Wiki archive folder since June of '09) would definitely be a good thing to disperse to each of the admins, feel free to as I personally don't have the time to spare. Funnily enough, the defining of an administrator's role is on my 'to do list', just haven't gotten around to yet, though it would be useful if you left a notice about a soon to be create page for discussing a set of universal social contracts for admins (beyond the tired counter vandal - maintenance debate). (I'll probably create a sub-page for it and then move it to project space depending on discussion). In fact, I think I'll put up a quick page of sorts until I'm able to get a more fleshed out version, right now.-- 01:22, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

did you have 2... countined
alright, i was going to let that lock go, but its started to bother me again. NO, THERE WERE NO PERSONAL INSULTS GOING AROUND. and if there were- you could simply tell me/them to calm it down a bit, something i gladly would have done. also, there were what? 5 support and 5 opposes? is it unimaginable that things do pass when 5 ppl have said no? MANY threads have lasted longer then that one, and there was no reason to shut it down. any time people disagree somebody will "have their emotions drained". 02:40, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully understand that heated discussions will drain emotion as well of course as getting them flared up. You will clearly see that that was not my primary reason for closing the thread, but my secondary reason. I am convinced that at this time that the proposition has zero chance to succeed (although I do want to mention that I personally am for it). I will ask a non-involved admin to review the thread and see if they will reopen it.--Degenret01 04:08, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * You should also keep in mind that users were simply rehashing old arguments and reiterating what they had said before, it was not going anywhere. 11:34, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Letter from Uberfuzzy
That was unnecessary, I personally think. 09:02, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just think it wasn't something that needed to be sent to every single admin, even ones who want no involvement (not myself). Although, I understand it would've been difficult/a bad idea to send the message to only a select few. Also, I got muted again, for 14 days... Long story, but I've appealed. 09:10, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was an excellent idea to send it to all the other administrators, it really put some things into perspective. 11:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Caleb. It doesn't hurt to be reminded of what our wiki has accomplished and hopefully will continue to accomplish. 12:32, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll definitely take his words to heart. 14:37, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing it to me. 02:21, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Block Games
Hey Degen, I thought that I would give you a little bit of explanation into what happened, so that you at least have some idea. Wikia has a global counter-vandalism IRC channel (exactly what I proposed on the Yew Grove, except for all of Wikia). On that channel, whenever someone at RS is blocked, it automatically adds them to a global blacklist. When admins are playing block games, it adds them to the blacklist as well, and it is annoying to need to take time and remove them from it. The CVN thing itself is not a big deal, however, you are right in being disgusted at the actions of the administrators involved. Using the block function in that manner could be considered misuse of sysop tools, and on some wikis the rights would be removed over that (E.G. Wikipedia). RuneScape Wiki has not been re-added to the CVN feed, so long as the admins don't keep on playing these games. Anyways, I hope that this clarifies things for you. Ajraddatz Talk 14:17, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was told just before that RuneScape Wiki has been re-added to the feed. Our cvn-channel seems to be working well now, too. Cheers, 14:25, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say I'm "disgusted," but I am extremely disappointed in the blocks and do see them as a misuse of admin tools, as a sign of lack of good judgment, and perhaps even as a betrayal of community trust. Is this something that the community should discuss, if the consequence of this should be the removal of the tools? 14:39, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * RS has been re-added, under the conditions that there won't be anymore block games. Ajraddatz Talk 14:42, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I didn't participate in the blocks (rather, I unblocked the "victims"), I was aware of the blocks for some time and wondered whether they could be considered misuse of tools, but I didn't do anything about them. I'm far too lenient sometimes. I'm sure, however, that those involved will learn from this.  14:47, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per above, I think that it is fair enough to let those involved off with a warning; no real harm was done other than the misuse of the tools. Ajraddatz Talk 14:49, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with just a warning. If there will be forfeiting of tools, I think 1 week is enough. By the way, you haven't commented here yet, Degen  14:52, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * If there would be any forfeiting of tools, it would be permanent until the users had another successful RfA. There is little point in removing the tools for a week and then giving it back. 14:57, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Degen and Azaz think that it would symbolise that we're not a bunch of idiots who plays with the tools we're bestowed with. To our community and Wikia. Permanent would be taking it way too far, in my opinion, as although these users have been doing this for awhile, they have not been warned once until now. Plus, some senior/founding admins and even 'crats haven't set the best example, having done something of similar nature before. 15:01, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Azaz doesn't think a temp removal of tools would really matter so he didn't go with that. At this point, I would hope everyone now gets why it was wrong and it won't happen anymore. My suggestion for forfeiting the tools was just an idea, not some thing I would try to push. If were back on the CVN and we can set the mature example for other wikis, that is what I would like to see. We all screw up, the important thing is to learn from it.--Degenret01 15:08, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

RE: May I impose?
I have to admit that I have in fact [ participated] in one of these RSMV threads. That was some time ago and I think the information has changed somewhat since I posted that, but for now I'm still somewhat neutral on this topic.

Anyways, looking at the closure reasons for the most recent thread, I think that the thread may have been closed too early and the application of RS:SNOW was not appropriate, particularly following the recent proposal by Oli. I doubt consensus will be achievable though, since it has now become largely a question of ethics/morals and it is hard to reconcile that into a single viewpoint of what the wiki will actually do. But, I don't think it matters a great deal if the thread is closed or not, because as long as this is an unresolved issue that people are interested in debating over, a YG thread will be created for it, and as far as I'm aware, we don't have a policy against that. -- 15:22, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * This could be something we could use if this topic constantly recurs with no consensus or new arguments. 15:34, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't apply, this proposal is not "overwhelmingly rejected", it has been very close to passing at times.--Degenret01 15:42, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Really?
How do you know if Jagex is really taking notice of the discussion if thats what you meant by your post? Thanks. 00:26, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Spam
A rangeblock may be necessary, but it will be a large one, possibly getting many innocents. So what do you want to do? 04:13, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I did it. Also, rangeblocking is pretty simple, I use this to determine the suffix. For help on rangeblocks, this may be useful. 04:22, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Sitenotice
Probelms=Problems,  04:25, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

>.>
That was kinda funny >.> 07:42, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Blinking
Other users have them, so I think they should also be removed. If their's aren't removed, I should be able to keep mine. 17:43, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because someone else does something wrong, doesn't make it right. Don't do stuff on the grounds that other people do, because the only issue is that those other people haven't been dealt with. Ajraddatz Talk 22:42, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks Degen. If I see anyone I'll tell them. And BTW I didn't even notice your a sysop. 06:27, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Heads up
THE BUKKIT WILL SMITETHE NONBELIEVERS! . If you take a look at Murd3rlogist's signature, it looks a bit similar...I checked the history to find out when that line was added to the signature to make sure they weren't pulling out a joke to mock the vandal, but it was added Apr. 2 (here), 6 days before the vandal used it as summary. I think it would be a good idea to run a check user (I'll leave that up to you if you want to pursue it). Perhaps the vandal was simply looking at mocking Murd3rlogist, but we should look into it. 14:31, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it actually first appeared Apr. 1st, (here). 14:34, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I find that theory extremely far-fetched. Murd3rlogist has been part of this community for months now, and to suspect him of being behind the vandal attacks seems silly to me. Considering how the person behind this was simply inserting nonsense, does it come of any surprise that he would insert something like "THE BUKKIT WILL SMITETHE NONBELIEVERS!"? 14:47, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence why I didn't post this on the Yew Grove, Caleb. I'm simply implying that anything is possible and we should just be sure. I can go back in history and find a few instances of where some good, quality members have turned around and vandalized and have acted in ways they normally wouldn't. If you read above, Perhaps the vandal was simply looking at mocking Murd3rlogist, but we should look into it. . I know it's not likely, but it's possible. 15:09, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. I am simply further discussing the likelihood of it, being especially inclined to do so since you mentioned that a checkuser might be necessary. 15:13, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase is actually extremely prominent on Rwojys user page, he loves bukkits. I would say the use of that phrase was the vandal simply mocking Rowjy, just as in the follow up IP he used Rwojys block reason to mock him as another edit summary. ANd more important, Murder is very calm and reasonable and I would bet lots he is definitely not the type to pull this crap, he is in the CC every day. Checkuser is to be used as just a final bit of of proof after a definite pattern has been noticed, Murder certainly does not follow the pattern of that guy at all. To be on the lookout is certainly good, we would like this guy stopped. But I seriously doubt he is a regular wikian.--Degenret01 15:05, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a valid reason. I'm not saying he would ever do this kind of thing, I've appreciated his time in the cc too, I'm just throwing it out there. 15:09, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

So is anyone gonna user check me? 13:19, April 10, 2010 (UTC) I don't have Checkuser,if I did I wouldn't. No one is requesting a check and I would even say it is a misuse of the tool if they do so as there is no reason for it. It should be used only when certain other criteria have been met, and none of it has been. Since it violates a users privacy.--Degenret01 13:26, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

So, we're done right? 14:01, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Banning Name Highlights
Well, I'm doing it anyway :-). Forum:Ban Name Highlights The beauty of the argument from RS:AEAE is that I could delete them right now:  the onus is on people trying to make an argument for them staying.  So it doesn't take a consensus to support removal, it takes a consensus to keep them :-). 17:41, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

alright
alright, thanks, sorry for any confusion i may have caused. 01:18, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

RE:new simplified welcome template
K. Also a link to the IRC  13:26, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

inflammatory rhetoric
if you were talking to me, i have absolutly no idea what ur talking about. i posted NO inflammatory rhetoric on that page, that i know of. also, the fact that no action can be taken against you unless you confess is quite important imo. 20:22, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * How you could possibly believe that "whilst others have refused to comment on the topic" is not inflammatory is beyond me. If you don't get it, there is no point trying to explain it to you.--Degenret01 18:35, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Chee Ting's Store
Gosh, Sorry bout' that. Thankyou very much for the fix. 02:09, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

:o
Have fun reverting the vandalism all by yer lonesome! I'm off to give GMOD a try. ;) w00t He has knocked four times. 13:18, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Forums
"Well, I know a lot of my fellow Wikians will really not like me saying this, but I love the fact you don't list us. I think we are way too good and that any kowtowing to your ridiculous demands will only hurt the wiki in the long run. We do awesome without your support and I don't see anything on your list of benefits that would benefit us very much. The RuneScape community already knows how awesome we are, that is what matters to me. The players, not JaGex itself. We run the site for them to have an information source, and it is clear we do a hell of a job of it."

- You

\o/

Conforming to strict regulations would only bog us down. 00:42, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

More Forums
I thought that you would like to read this thread as it is interesting. It is the best evidence for Dungeoneering being a minigame by miles. 10:12, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Dungeoneering Summoning
So those templates on your sandbox are for the pages on the individual familiars, right? If they are, I was wondering if there was even a need for individual pages. All of the information is on the summoning page, and the special attacks are linked. Let me know your opinion on this. 19:42, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
Hey, I just want to thank you for nominating me for adminship. Its great to know that my work here is appreciated enough for you to nominate me and the community to support, and I can't wait to keep working to make this site the best that it can be! Thanks again- 02:15, April 17, 2010 (UTC)