User talk:Prankster4343

Welcome
Hi, I'm an admin for the community. Welcome and thank you for your edit to Laval! If you need help getting started, check out our help pages or contact me or another admin here. For general help, you could also stop by Community Central to explore the forums and blogs.

Please leave me a message if I can help with anything. Enjoy your time at !

Wikikinetic (talk) 05:34, January 6, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Good evening Prankster4343. I am another user who joined this wiki. I realized you were fixing other user's pages for grammar. You're doing a very good job! I totally appreciate your hard work. Thank you very much.

UmbreonzRule101 (talk) 06:07, February 27, 2020 (UTC)UmbreonzRule101

Thanks for helping me with the Bat Tribe page, I am very happy that there are people who are able to assist me with my edits!

Necroposting
Hey Prankster4343. I've noticed that you've been posting comments on a lot of blog posts that haven't been commented on in multiple years and are generally irrelevant. While there's no rule against necroposting like this in general, your posting on several different irrelevant blogs and thus reviving them despite their irrelevance is unconstructive to the wiki, thus violating the Constructiveness rule in the Policy. Please stop posting these comments on very old and irrelevant blog posts. Thank you. Wikikinetic (talk) 00:16, May 25, 2020 (UTC)

I understand the necroposting, but I don't understand how this violates the constructiveness policy since it says that the only things that aren't allowed are advertising, spam, misinformation, and making sockpuppets, which are things I didn't do when I posted those comments. If posting comments on very old blogs is a very specific violation of the constructiveness policy, then it should be clear that it is a rule because someone could do this on accident (like I did), and they could get punished and wouldn't have known it was a violation because the rules didn't make it clear it was a violation. Also, I saw someone else post some comments on old blogs, and I didn't see any action against it even though he revived old blogs, which you say is a violation of the constructiveness policy. So how does that work? Prankster4343 (talk) 17:14, May 26, 2020 (UTC)Prankster4343

All right, let me address each of your points separately.

The Constructiveness rule is very broad and can apply to a wide range of unhelpful activities. The rule is: "Everything should either build the wiki or build the wiki's community. Anything that helps neither [...] does not belong on the wiki and will be removed." That is the intended effect of the rule: If an activity isn't helping the wiki or its community (and especially if the activity is hurting the wiki or its community), then the activity needs to stop.

Now, you'll notice that "[...]" I put in there. The original full paragraph, filling in the "[...]" with text, was, "Everything should either build the wiki or build the wiki's community. Anything that helps neither, such as advertising, spamming, or adding misinformation to articles, does not belong on the wiki and will be removed." I'd like to be clear on something though: I put the "[...]" when quoting this before for a reason. "such as advertising, spamming, or adding misinformation to articles" is a list of examples of offenses, not a cohesive list of every possible rule violation (hence the usage of "such as", implying merely a set of examples, not all such items in this category). The rule actually is "Everything should either build the wiki or build the wiki's community. Anything that helps neither does not belong on the wiki and will be removed." That is the whole of the rule, and the other items are just there to help shed a bit of light on an otherwise ethereal rule.

In conclusion: Necroposting being disallowed can be part of the Constructiveness rule without it explicitly saying so in the rules.

As to wanting the rules to mention this so other users don't get punished, that's not an issue because the most I'd do to someone innocently violating this without knowing what they'd done wrong is to drop a talk page warning like I did for you. I'd only actually "punish" the user by blocking if this were a more severe pattern.

(You may notice, however, that I haven't blocked you for this since you didn't know what you were doing wrong. I might block you if you keep this up, but I haven't yet.)

On your final point—that someone else did this and weren't warned as you were—I generally don't treat necroposting as a serious offense (hence why it isn't in the rules). One occurrence of it probably wouldn't earn a warning. The only reason why I warned you is that you seemed to be making a habit of this. It's not that I think necroposting generally deserves warning, it's that a pattern of repeated necroposting on a regular basis is disruptive to the wiki and thus deserves warning.

I hope that's all clear.

Thanks for understanding.

Wikikinetic (talk) 00:31, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I now understand why necroposting is bad. The main reason why I was doing this is because I wanted to get the blog post achievements, and I thought this was the only way to do it since the blogs here are all dead. I didn't know it wasn't allowed since someone else did it. Now this incident is permanent on this talk page. Prankster4343 (talk) 06:34, May 27, 2020 (UTC)Prankster4343

To address your points:
 * Making pointless or harmful edits to get achievements is also unconstructive and breaks the entire achievement system. On almost any wiki, that would be grounds for a ban. While I'm not banning you yet—I'd like to give you a chance to do better—you usually wouldn't get this chance. Please don't abuse it, or you will get banned.
 * The blogs here aren't all dead. I post blogs every few months and so do some of the other users here. You could have waited until one of those came around. That's not an excuse for repeat necroposting.
 * I've already addressed the "someone else did it" excuse; nobody did what you did to the degree you did.
 * On the incident being permanent on your talk page, that's intentional. As I said when I restored this discussion to your talk page, removing this just makes you look worse than leaving it here. With it here, if you get better in the future, people will understand that this was just an incident in your past that you've moved forward from. On the other hand, if you remove it, it will get dug up again, and that will look bad for you when it gets dug up. This behavior is both unconstructive and uncivil. Please don't make me ban you for this too.

This is your last warning. If you do another thing or instance of a thing like I've warned you about above, you will get banned for whatever period of time is deemed appropriate.

Wikikinetic (talk) 07:54, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I am sorry for what I did. I don't want this to escalate further. Prankster4343 (talk) 08:07, May 27, 2020 (UTC)Prankster4343

Thank you. I appreciate that. Wikikinetic (talk) 09:29, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked
As you can probably tell, you have been blocked/banned for making another policy violation—stirring up the community by making a flamebait accusatory blog post where the accusation has been resolved before—after I warned you that one more violation would earn you a block/ban. If your block isn't escalated to a permaban, please try to avoid more of these violations if you return, or you are much more likely to be permanently blocked from the site. Thank you. Wikikinetic (talk) 10:12, May 27, 2020 (UTC)