User talk:Eagle of Fire

Eagle of Fire's Message Pad

Thanks

Thanks for the update you made on the wiki, as well as defending our cases. To be honest, a lot of junk has been hitting me over the last couple of weeks, (including the end of third quarter yesterday for me) so I haven't been active as much. I'll try to reorganize things in our cell soon. (Oh yea, and here's to your first wiki message.) --Private Mark 04:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not the first but it's the first since I began playing again and updated my user page. Thanks. :) --Eagle of Fire 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Abandoned/Archive/2007 log

Orphaned Page

The following page(s) were orphaned, meaning they weren't linked from any other page on UDWiki. For house-keeping's sake, we are adding the link onto the relevant talk page. If you don't want the pages anymore just post them on the Deletions Page. You aren't required to do anything, but we'd appreciate if it you kept the link on any one of your pages. Please note that the link provided below will not remove the page from Orphaned Pages, so you'll still need to manually make a link for us. Thank you.

Your page, The Abandoned/Archive/2007 log, was not linked to on the wiki. This message is just to provide a link for it and clear it from our orphanage. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:36, 20 April 2010 (BST)

I am currently working on it as we speak. You will probably notice new orphaned links as I continue to work. It is however not necessary to point it to me again for they won't be orphaned by the end of my work, which should be in an hour top. Thank you for your time anyways. --Eagle of Fire 17:39, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Danger Reports

I saw this edit and was slightly concerned, given that I happen to have an alt in the area and was actually within viewing distance of the building at the time you updated its status. It was both not safe and not EHB at the time you posted that update, and was, in fact, fully ruined and in zombie hands. I expect that many more buildings in Yagoton will be as well shortly, given that MOB is in town for the moment. I would prefer not to have to keep an eye on the danger reports to make sure that they are correct at all times while my alt is in the area.

Anyway, please be careful about posting either incorrect or false reports. While it doesn't come up often, I'm fairly certain that doing so has been considered grounds for vandalism in the past. I'm almost positive that wasn't your intention here, but please be sure that the information you're posting is factually correct. —Aichon— 04:34, 21 June 2010 (BST)

I am part of a well known group in Yagoton, and this was based on info I got in our forums that the building really fell under zombie control but was retaken shortly after. It is not the first time we react promptly to a groupe which use the reports as publicity to boast their actions either. In any case I would never update something which I am not at least partly sure is true, just like I would not edit over someone who is actually there and do update the page.

Beside, if you look well you'll see that the very vast majority of all the reports in Yagoton in the past month have been done by me... I don't think that many people care about them or really take them seriously. If someone who don't actually use the reports as publicity would come again and deny those information with another report then I'll be more than happy to leave them as they are until I get on the scene myself to check. --Eagle of Fire 20:18, 21 June 2010 (BST)

Yep, I know The Abandoned pretty well and really respect your guys' work over in Yagoton (my survivor group, the Soldiers of Crossman even visited to help you guys clean up after the RRF came through earlier this year, spending about a month in the suburb, working on repairs and reviving). Don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to come down on you (and, to be clear, I'm talking to you as a fellow wiki member and one of the MOB's wiki guys, rather than as a sysop making an official statement), but rather just suggest care in updates, since this seemed like an honest mistake. It wouldn't surprise me if the building was retaken at some point in the recent past, since the ferals that follow/lead the MOB around sometimes break in early, only to be pushed out later, but once the strike teams hit, which they did in this case, it's unusual, though not unheard of, for the building to fall out of zombie hands until the MOB moves on.

I had noticed your user page prior to my posting here, so I definitely was aware of the work you've been doing, and I don't mean to diminish that in any way. It's really rare to see so many buildings updated in a suburb so frequently (e.g. Shuttlebank had only one update in the last month for the entire Building Information Center), let alone by a single individual. I trust that the intel you had was valid, though probably merely dated by the time you put it into use, which makes it an honest and extremely minor mistake. I'm guessing that the intel you get is probably spot-on correct about 99% of the time, but, in this case, it wasn't, hence my initial comments here.

As for boasting, there's precedent all over the place, but making a factual and neutrally-worded statement (e.g. "Ruined by X_GROUP") regarding which group is responsible for a dramatic change in state of a building is still considered NPOV (and in the case of hordes, most people welcome it, since it lets them know a horde is in the suburb). I will agree, however, that the part that was added previously making an accusation against you was unnecessary, so I went ahead and removed it. In any case, I totally agree that some groups do use danger reports as ways to boost their profile (e.g. they'll simply update a building that is already ruined with a message like "Still in zombie hands, thanks to X_GROUP").

In the case of MOB, however, they only make updates to buildings for which they have dramatically changed the status, and most of their comments (though, admittedly, not all) maintain NPOV (in the case of those that don't maintain NPOV, we like to encourage banter and good humor with the survivors we're interacting with, but will maintain proper wiki behavior if the survivors don't want to have fun with us). Merely mentioning their own name, while perhaps indirectly boastful, is not considered POV, and you're likely to see quite a bit more of it today and tomorrow as Yagoton gets ruined by the horde.

I guess, in the end, I'd like to make sure we're on the same page, or, barring that, that we can at least have a mutual understanding regarding where the other is coming from and can be respectful of the other. The MOB and you didn't get off to a great first start here on the wiki, but I'm hopeful things will go better from here on. I definitely don't like antagonizing folks on the wiki, but I also knew that the situation needed to be addressed. And I do apologize for this...excessively wordy comment. I have a tendency to do that sort of thing when I have a strong opinion on a matter. —Aichon— 00:20, 22 June 2010 (BST)

Well, I am sorry to say that as long as boasting and NPOV goes, even linking to a group page is far beyond what I'd consider acceptable. We just had a "small fight" over the Yagoton page about a month ago about NPOV and how some groups were using the page to promote their own groups. It does get very boring very fast after a while, especially when the fight turn into childish bickering. "We did it!" "No you didn't!" "Yes too!" "No too!" etc...

NPOV should be exactly that: no point of view. A building is ruined, fine: flag it as ruined. But as far as I am concerned, adding any link to who did it or what group did whatever is really not a NPOV either way.

I'd never add the abandoned tag in the reports... And I guess that I also expect the same to happen on the other side of the fence. --Eagle of Fire 12:13, 22 June 2010 (BST)

I recall the dispute you are talking about (I observed and commented from the sidelines, but didn't get involved), and I can definitely see why it'd affect your opinion on this matter. I'm definitely not interested in resorting to bickering however, which is part of why I approached you in the first place. Anyway, that particular case was far more contentious due to a number of reasons, however, very few of which line up in this situation.

Just to run through some of the differences:

1. Suburb pages are policed much more rigorously than the danger reports, simply on the basis that they are very high profile.
2. Additionally, they tend to remain largely static for many months at a time, unlike the danger reports, which are wiped out by a bot if they're older than a month.
3. Uniformity between suburb pages is important, that way people can quickly find the information they need.
4. The comment on a danger report is not in the public eye unless the user goes to the poorly trafficked BIC page (i.e. the value in the report is the status, not the comment).
5. The group listing on the suburb page created unnecessary redundancy, since there's already a place for groups that are local to a suburb to be linked and listed.
   • In that last case, it also means that the groups aren't being policed by The Great Suburb Group Massacre, which leads to lists that could be outdated by years.

There was also the issue of egos coming into play, which made some people who observed the situation (myself included) just want to wipe out the entire list in order to remove the point of contention since it served no functional purpose and was seemingly outside the purview of the suburb page anyway (i.e. most suburbs don't have lists like that, nor was it a planned feature of the suburb page). In contrast, as I said, this sort of thing that the MOB is doing is actually very common on the wiki, especially when dealing with hordes. For instance, see these recent reports.

Anyway, let's approach this pragmatically. The way I see it, MOB is only going to be in Yagoton for few days at the most, since it tends to ruin suburbs pretty quickly. After that, we're out of your hair and you don't have to deal with us (unlike the suburb page, which you guys were stuck with for a long time). Now, if you want to take a stand on the principles that you hold to, I can't stop you, but I'd advise against that course of action. The way I see it, MOB has a lot of people that update the wiki, many of whom aren't actually official MOB representatives, but are merely helpful members, and so if I were to agree with your stance, I'd have a really hard (read: impossible) time tracking them all down and explaining the situation to them before we left Yagoton. Besides that, I very much so doubt that I'd be able to convince most of them that removing mention of the MOB is a good idea or is necessary, given that it's standard practice everywhere else in Malton and meets with no complaints elsewhere.

Since you won't be stuck with us for long, my honest advice as a fellow wiki user is that this isn't a fight worth fighting and that it should be allowed to let slide. I can't police everything that MOB members post, and if you go around cleaning up entries that make mention of MOB it's bound to create hostilities. We're all in this to have fun, and no one likes it when this sort of thing comes up, but, purely practically speaking, it's unpractical for us to deviate from an accepted wiki practice merely for Yagoton's sake, whereas it is practical for the folks in Yagoton do as the rest of the city does: to take it all in good humor, as it is meant, and to deal with any issues after we're gone in a few days, since it won't create any hostilities then.

As an aside, I actually think it'd be fine for you to add The Abandoned tag to a danger report, so long as they were significantly and clearly responsible for retaking the building. ;) —Aichon— 22:23, 22 June 2010 (BST)

As much as I try and would want to, I personally cannot get myself to agree with what you say. Creating and enforcing some kind of rule on one side because it is popular and taking the exact same rule but showing heavy leniency on another front simply because it is less popular or less visited dosn't magically turn the whole problem upside down. If you cannot tolerate the problem in one place, there is no reason to tolerate the same problem elsewhere.

I am going to bring the matter to my superiors. We'll see what our official stance on the whole thing is and I'll get back to you. --Eagle of Fire 02:06, 23 June 2010 (BST)

We came to a conclusion.

I was very surprised to see that many of our members already banged their head in the Wiki concerning the NPOV. Many people of our organisation came to realize that it wasn't well policed, badly enforced and pretty much useless as well as something to completely avoid if you value your time. Because of all this, the vast majority of them simply decided to completely ignore the Wiki bar our groupe page and special places where we have a special hold (like the Yagoton page), the only pages we actually have some kind of control on.

Since I was the only Abandoned member who seemed to have any kind of real appeal for the Yagoton danger reports and I was the only one updating them regularly, the Abandoned will simply ignore the danger reports from now on.

It is also thus why I am informing you that, as of right now, I will completely ignore the Danger Reports too. I will stop updating them, stop reading them, generally act like they don't exist and try to convince people not to use them if someone ever discuss the matter with me again.

This way, groups like the MOA will be able to amuse themselves with their own little NPOV war without interuption. Only, I won't lose my time fighting it.

Have a nice day. --Eagle of Fire 18:28, 28 June 2010 (BST)

I'm actually very sorry to hear that. It was not my intention to basically force you off the wiki, nor was it my intention to have Yagoton lose a valuable asset in your efforts to keep its residents informed on a regular basis of the happenings in the suburb. I cannot reiterate enough how important I actually do consider your efforts to be in assisting Yagoton's local population, and how impressed I was when I came upon the danger reports for your suburb. I do hope you'll reconsider. —Aichon— 21:13, 28 June 2010 (BST)

This is just as likely to happen than you announcing me that the NPOV are actually followed. Which I doubt will ever happen. --Eagle of Fire 03:01, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Would it be worth looking into a codified policy governing the exact policing of the danger reports? Given that it's technically a user's sub pages it really would be a good idea to be sure there's no silly grey areas, and avoiding future debates on just what is and isn't acceptable as POV would be a good idea. I tend not to make much use of them myself so I'm not really the most informed of users regarding the draughting of something for this, but I'd help run one up if it would aid things. 04:08, 29 June 2010 (BST)

You and I have had a disagreement over the interpretation of what is or isn't considered to be NPOV, and I would say that NPOV is largely being upheld in the recent danger reports (admittedly, there are some exceptions, but those can always be handled on a case-by-case basis). There are plenty of amicable ways to deal with disagreements, such as talking them out, arranging for a third party to sort it out, reaching some compromise, or waiting for the situation to handle itself. Withdrawing from the discussion entirely is not a way to reach a satisfactory conclusion, and is not something that I would wish on you or anyone else who is making an honest and concerted effort to provide a valuable service to the wiki. I much prefer that we reach a win-win in this, rather than you pulling out. Why you seem to be hostile to the idea I do not quite understand. —Aichon— 04:31, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Sorry, but I don't have that kind of time to waste on such a low quality game as UD. This anwers goes for both of you... A mayor? For a Wiki? Seriously? I have better things to do. --Eagle of Fire 04:57, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Many pages are exempt from NPOV, and the Mayor of Malton thing was not for the wiki, but rather for in-game RPing reasons. Anyway, I simply don't follow your logic here. I'm merely trying to sort out the situation with Yagoton's danger reports inasmuch as it matters, since MOB is moving on very soon, not drag the entire wiki under the microscope. —Aichon— 05:41, 29 June 2010 (BST)

I don't see what there would be left to discuss, Aichon. We had a disagreement, I checked with my group, you won by default because we don't want to get involved... And you can continue to promote your group in the safety reports.

And don't tell me that's not what you are doing. I monitored all the reports myself, only you were linking to your group page when you updated the reports. --Eagle of Fire 12:28, 29 June 2010 (BST)

I want to point out that I scrolled through the list of all the reports and I saw an overwhelming number of them publicizing the MOB.I don't so much mind a comment every once in a while stating a group name, in fact, I find it to be a good thing. However, when you start putting your name on every building it gets annoying and feels like a taunt and at that point it's just a shameless plug. It's not so much that it happened, but that it persisted on such a level. I tend to be very casual about the wiki for the most part, but I grew tired of seeing that all the time. I will say that at least recently I've started to see more of your members posting the publicity, but for a while it was only you. I've sat quiet on the issue for a while and frankly I'm tired of seeing it.

Eagle, if you want this off your page, we can continue the discussion on my talk page, but at this point I'm determined to see an end to this. I think we need to reach some kind of unified conclusion on what should be considered acceptable. I'm willing to devote my time to this and reach a conclusion that is believed fair, if you guys aren't willing to do that then I'd suggest just following the precedent that gets set up and don't complain because no effort would have been made on your part. This is an open invitation and I hope to see everyone involved in this discussion that has been involved in the issue itself. --Rohndogg1 18:05, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Well, in the case of MOB, given that we're a horde, we do tend to ruin a large number of buildings, so I just copy/paste the same message ("Ruined by the MOB.") for any that I personally update since it's simple, factual, and has not been contentious up until now. But I think you have it backwards there, since I actually didn't start posting en masse until Sunday (see my contributions), when I did thirteen updates (of which just shy of half were in favor of the survivors, I'll add, since they had stopped updating it themselves). In contrast, I had only done about one update per day in the six days leading up to that. Also, I believe that most of my fellow MOB members did their updates in the days leading up, then slowed down after I did the big update on Sunday.

As for dealing with it, I'd be happy to do so on a larger scale. If you guys want to discuss policy, Misanthropy has already offered to help out with that, and I'd be happy to help get any discussion started that you might want to cover. My goal here was merely to clear up a disagreement between two groups, not to effect wiki-wide change or enforcement, but if you guys are looking for that, I'd certainly be up for getting the ball rolling. Just because we might disagree and I may have "won" doesn't mean that I am necessarily right about this, and I understand that. While I have one opinion, if a significant portion of the wiki community disagrees, then I'll happily work under the guidance of that governing opinion instead. I'm most certainly open to that happening. —Aichon— 22:09, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Would you like me to pull up a list of citations refuting the claim that I was the only one doing it? I'd be happy to do so if you really would like it, but that just seems petty to me. I was by no means the first one that did it, nor was I especially boastful in our claims (especially when compared to some of the other comments that were made), and for you to place this entirely on me seems spiteful. I even cleaned up one that had a comment directed at you since I thought it was inappropriate. You're making this personal when it isn't and assigning blame to me for things that are untrue. I don't especially appreciate that, and a quick glance at the page histories will back up my claim that your last set of statements is misguided or incorrect. —Aichon— 22:09, 29 June 2010 (BST)

I am simply saying what I see. I could not care less about other suburb danger reports... Our group operate in Yagoton. I monitored all the danger reports in Yagoton, and the vast majority of the reports which had a link in them were made by you. No need to pull up citations or whatnot... I know what I saw.

As for the report that you censored... I would have done the same without knowing the person in question. That part of discussion was related to your admin status, you made that clear at the beginning.

This is exactly why I don't want to get involved in all this. It smells hypocrisy miles away. I way prefer to stand down and enjoy the game than waste hours every day trying to convince a community I don't really care about... --Eagle of Fire 23:28, 29 June 2010 (BST)

Like I said, we can move this to my page if you wish. I feel that setting a precedent will help keep disagreements from occurring in the future, or at least will settle them quickly. I can say, I don't feel any citations are necessary as the incident is behind us and we should move forward. If we have a chance to improve the wiki I feel we should take it. I'm sure many of you agree with me. --Rohndogg1 03:20, 30 June 2010 (BST)

I guess it would be better that you indeed move the discussion to your talk page since I have no intention to reconsider my decision. --Eagle of Fire 04:22, 30 June 2010 (BST)

I made the exact opposite of that clear in the beginning, in fact, unless "I'm talking to you as a fellow wiki member and one of the MOB's wiki guys, rather than as a sysop making an official statement", which is what I said, means something other than what I thought. Regardless, fine, I understand you don't want to continue the discussion and I'm frankly getting tired of it myself. I'll end my commentary here. —Aichon— 05:40, 30 June 2010 (BST)

I didn't meant as per the discussion but per the edit you did. The edit you did was simply normal admin work. You also made clear that you simply wanted to talk about the rest. What I am accusing you is not to be partial in your admin work, but not to follow true NPOV in the reports as I already said above. For me, any link to any group page is publicity. Publicity is not a NPOV.

Now, frankly, I'm getting really tired to repeat myself. I just hope this slight misunderstanding with what we are talking about is cleared up. --Eagle of Fire 05:47, 30 June 2010 (BST)