Board Thread:General Discussion (Wiki)/@comment-25567027-20160304224647/@comment-5181106-20160306062015

Camelicious wrote: Once upon a time, I was going to make a character that was associated with Jashinism, now keep in mind that this when the wikipedia had no *active* administrator. Well...I cited a *inactivity* rule for what I was about to claim (The triple-bladed scythe to be exact), but I was met with rebuttal because it exclusively belonged to Bocchiere. I mean through the months he was gone, I didn't claim it on good faith and on the grounds, that perhaps maybe this guy would come back and put the item to use again. (Sadly it wasn't until three months or so)

Sorry if I was off-topic, but it actually has very much to do with the subject at hand. You may ask yourself? How? Well...favoritism happens to be a dangerous vice in my opinion and from what I observed, the people whom were chosen to have these blades re-distributed to are actually associated with the *current* wikipedia administrator in some way or form. (Now this is only an assumption, the rest is up to debate)

Now for the whole issue, I actually tried to mediate for Kirigakure and even at the behest of my 'inner conscious', gave advice that would've avoided all of these shenanigans. What did I suggest? I told Kirigakure to RP out the collective re-distribution of the blades through the usage of the scroll that they are sealed in, I suggested this idea so that the remaining seven blades wouldn't be sealed and up for claim by those associated with SSM. Gitsune was about to do this prior to Bocchiere claiming the items in question, but her character was busy in Sunagakure and had no way of doing what I suggested. Which I initially found strange, since Gitsune has since been posting in Kirigakure's village board. (It is a wood clone, but still it shouldn't been suffice enough to do what I suggested.)

Now the root of this whole issue, derives from the inactivity clause that I thought at first was added to the wikipedia. I actually could've sworn that those rules were on the claims list, unless they got removed and basically forgotten about over time. If anyone is confused onto how or when these rules came into existence, I have the links right here: Link #1 Link #2

PS: I would like to also bring up the issue of "edit-warring" and from what I observed in silence, the warring mostly derived from the *current* administrator whom thinks other slanted point-of-views constitute as an edit war when it does not. If anything, Bocchiere you actually violated a rule yourself by doing more then three reverts in a twenty-four hour period and it is contradicting to cite the reason for banning a user because of an edit war being instigated, when in reality it really doesn't constitute to as a edit war at all from what I read--see the link below for more information on edit warring.

Read this carefully -

Regarding link one, the relevent swords endpoint was here:

[quote author=Madara (Shadow) link=topic=8419.msg221191#msg221191 date=1433372291] [quote author=Trev link=topic=8419.msg221190#msg221190 date=1433371267] If you can't take them, they should be deleted. At least off the claimed list if they're on there. [/quote]

We had a debate about Kiri swords. They can keep them village only, but if a sword holder goes out and gets killed they can't auto summon the swords back like they claim to be able to do. [/quote]

Regarding link two, those were over jutsu and techniques, not items.

You can't expect people to follow rules that they have no access to. Unlike the biju rules, the Edo rules, stuff set in relative brick and posted up someplace (like the forum) this claims activity rule was never posted up, in part because it was never an official rule.

Kiri has got history but stripping based on an activity clause that was never posted up anywhere nor really even official is wrong. Keep both claims on the swords page is my suggestion, both the "new" owners and the "old" owners, and if necessary have a dual section with the owners on both side of this river. If neither side is going to concede claims (or be forced to on SL) then it would only make sense for the same force not to be used here.