Talk: New California Republic Army

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "New California Republic Army." For general discussion or to share stories about the topic of this article, please visit our discussion boards. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after each of your entries. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Do not edit other people's entries. For general conversation on this topic, please visit our discussion boards.

I was appalled at the behavior I just saw from JustDoggo2YT. In the middle of a Discord discussion about this page, he unilaterally reverted the page and demanded that everyone discuss the edit in the middle of the ongoing discussion. Our rules state that if Mug disagrees with Tag's edit, Mug needs to start a talk page. Yet here I am following the policy that a member of staff didn't.

I for one would like this page restored. There was no consensus to blank such a rich page with 68 references, and no consensus is needed to restore it.

intrepid3595/3/22 [4:17am]

If there as a discussion being had about the page when Mug made his reversion, it was nowhere on the official wiki discord or the partner Discord. How is Mug in the wrong here for reverting when the discussion being allegedly had cannot be seen by the vast majority of people? LovinglyGaslight (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mug disagreed with Tag's edit. Per our edit war policy: "If in disagreement with another editor, discuss the issue either on user or article talk pages." Mug failed to do that. Kdarrow's mass deletion of this page violates our "Correct, don't delete" guideline. Tag brought the article back into compliance. We've been in discussions with Fandom about the mass deletions (such as this page), and these pages need to be restored. Tag did what Fandom has asked us to do. So again, I second the motion to restore this page.

intrepid3595/3/22 [4:50am]

I am honestly more appalled that you automatically assume bad faith in another user's behavior. And also irritated, on which Discord was this particular page discussed? If this is some backroom business, discussed between only some users, you can hardly expect everyone to be in the know. As for the policy, one could argue that it works both ways, e.g. Tag could have started a discussion about why the content was removed. Not to mention that "bringing the article back into compliance" re-introduced issues with outdated format yet again. Imho, feel free to re-add the content, as long as it has the proper format. –Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 10:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You've assumed bad faith on my part, not knowing the context of the conversation you didn't participate in. Mug decided to leave a productive conversation where consensus was being reached and make a unilateral decision, thus derailing the discussion. This occured on a Discord you were a member of, but left on Day 1. It currently has over 20 members, including many active editors, rights holders, and Fandom representatives.

intrepid3595/3/22 [9:06am]

Your results are skewed by merit of a poor sample size. LovinglyGaslight (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(←) Just to clarify a few things here, so that everyone is working on the same page, as you both know, there is a working group of editors from the wiki examining issues that folks have with the wiki and attempting to come up with ideas to present to the site here for improvements. You were both invited and one of you attended for a short time. We spent a lot of time discussing what different people's impressions are of problems on the wiki, a wide range of users and some Fandom staff, in a very open, albeit unofficial setting. As some of the ideas are coming to fruition, I have asked everyone who is contributing there to be certain that anything that has come to consensus and is moved to here is proposed here as a discussion for further inclusion and consensus with the wider community. There was never any intention of decisions being made there that would apply here without further discussion and consensus. In this case, that was not followed. I have reiterated again that ANYTHING that is discussed there and deemed worthy of bringing to Nukapedia be proposed here for discussion before any actions are taken. I will make sure this is followed in the future. For what it's worth, anyone interested in contributing to working towards consensus on issues that effect the wiki is welcome to dm me. We will continue to work to find areas of common ground to bring here for further discussion. But understand it is not my intention to short cut discussion and decision making here, just to help come up with ideas to bring here for that discussion. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I am all in favor of working things out with this, but a few things need to happen before i will accept to this.

One, as i told Tag, and you Intrepid, Users, before blanket reverting pages, need to have a discussion on talk pages, which is open for everyone to see, not a unofficial discussion server. We go through official channels when topics like this come up. Like #the-editorial-ballpit in the discord, or Talk pages/User talk pages. But when a discussion happens in a unoffficial think group that can be joined by asking Gunny. Simply put, if the discussion does not happen in official place, the discussion cant be vetted what so ever when reverts happen.

Two, alot of the content on the pages, as talked about, is unsourced, or simply untrue. After this discussion if a end point has been reached, look over the revision, and pick out the false info and unsourced info. Because having false info on pages may confuse readers or lead them to believe wrong things.

And Third, automatically assuming bad faith in situations like this is just wrong. After the page revert, i was proceeded to be accused of threatening Tag, and Intrepid made the bold claim that because of following policy, "I was on grounds of removal for my rights". And later would be accused of abusing my power, when all i did, was follow our own policies. Quote our User conduct guidelines

Being accused of abusing my power and saying that i could have my rights removed, in a behind closed doors discord server, just makes it harder to work with this server. Considering that this servers intended usage is to Help Nukapedia, not Hurt it. The reason i was being accussed is i made a statement about 2 other users who had their reverts undid, which the members of the chat at the time, percived as a threat because both those other users have been blocked at the time of writing, which was never my intention in the slightest. My intentions were to compare the users contributions. Next time i make statements, i will explain the reasoning to them before hand, and i will try to be less heated during these discussuions. The Mug Monarch Today at 20:25
20:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Cooling things[]

Right, can we try to cool things down here.

Tag/Intrepid - you guys shouldnt have taken an action you either knew, or should have known was going to be provicative. Dare I suggest an apology is in order.

Doggo/Fin/Gaslight - You guys know, or should know, that there has been a lot of damage dobe to the wiki (presumably with good intentions, but as has been demonstrated so well in the last 24 hours, good intentions dont stop damage occurring). You guys have to know how your actions looks, even though I'm sure you didnt intend it that way.

That said. Is there any reason one of the following could not occur:

• The edit is restored, with an appropriate mainspace maintenence template to fix the "format" issues Fin identified (or better yet, fixed immedaitely thereafter by someone objecting to the edit

• That the edit is agreed to go through if those formatting issues are explictly identified and corrected.

Thoughts? Agent c (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with restoring the page. It contains well-sourced information (58 sources) and significant amounts of information that do not exist at the redirect. Per our editing guidelines and user conduct guidelines, removing information or blanking a page is the last resort. Those policies were not followed here, so a restoration is justified. We can then follow our editing guidelines to bring the article up to snuff through corrections.

intrepid3595/3/22 [5:04pm]

Solid apology right there, mate. /s

On the other hand, I apologize for not being in the know of the discussion on the focus group Discord. But this is exactly why I think it to be necessary to discuss individual article changes here, in public, where everyone can chime in. Claiming that consensus has been reached, in a place that might not even be accessible to everyone, is just nonsensical in my book. As for re-adding the content, I already spoke my mind about it in the previous section. –Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 03:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The sarcasm was unnecessary. Mug and I spoke in private.

intrepid3595/4/22 [2:03am]

Yes, while i did apologize for my anger in dms, and i understood why you were acting like that, it was past 1 am for you, it was for me too. I know this doesnt excuse my anger, ill try to be calmer next time, but that does not excuse your behavior of claiming im on the grounds of having my rights removed. And it does not excuse your "Nuke" mentallity, wanting to get rid of everything and rebuild from the ground up. Many people told you to calm down many a time, but you didnt until you woke up the next day. Next time things go south intrepid, lets both try and keep our cool, im willing to work out my issues with you to try and solve our anger. Dm me at any time and we can discuss things. The Mug Monarch Today at 00:59
00:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)