User talk:PanSola/Archive5

Archiving Stabber's talk page..
Why? --Karlos 01:32, 1 July 2006 (CDT)


 * It is my hope, that by archiving the conversations which are essentially dead (though matters not concluded), that it will decrease the likelihood of people perform thread-necromancy or even drama-necromancy. The original drama was already blown up way out of proportions to a sickening magnitude, I do not wish to furthur encourage anyone keeping the fires burning.  By all means it's fine to continue to figure out what our policy on Sockpuppetry should be, and once that's figured out depending on the policy we may wish to rigorously look into whether Stabber should be found guilty of any accusions against him/her; but Stabber's talk page should not degenerate into free-for-all commentary on online stalking, sockpuppetry, and other dramas on the internet.  - 05:33, 1 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The talk page however contained evidence very pertinent to the discussion. In addition, the added links were not vandalism, so you're editing other user talk pages against the policy you yourself were advocating. Preventing thread-necromancy (in and of itself) is not exactly an acceptable reason (so what if the thread is resurrected?) but even if that is the case, the necromancer can just go edit the talk on Community Portal and/or the Sock puppetry page.
 * I am more interested in precedent and policy. You were the one who was telling me I have no business trying to force a talk page on Deldda, now you're editing Stabber's talk page. What gives? --Karlos 08:27, 1 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I think archiving it was a good idea, but to prevent this talk Pan should probably have told Karlos beforehand. I was so sure Karlos will comment when I saw the archiving and the update notes. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 08:50, 1 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Perhaps it conflicts/contradicts/differs with the exact wording I have conveyed before, but I still believe I have no right to force an edit on Stabber's user talk page against her/his wishes. My edit summary explicitly allowed Stabber to revert the changes I made, thus fully respecting Stabber's soverignty over Stabber's user talk page.  If Stabber ever logs in and reverts it, that's fine by me and I fully respect that, I won't be offended or decide to ban Stabber.  There is sufficient reason to consider Stabber's departure this time to be different from the previous times, and that even if the user still uses/contributes to GuildWiki the chances that the user will ever log in as Stabber again is slim.  My archiving of the talk page was intended to manage the page in the User's absence (as in not logging in), and again the user may revert it as s/he sees fit.
 * If the added links were vandalism, I would've simply reverted them without archiving them.
 * I'm not trying to prevent necromancy, but trying to discourage unnecessary ones. If the issues are important enough, the archiving would not have prevented the issues from being resurrected.  However, keeping certain things on the main talk page will simply encourage people to drag on a drama that has been a dead horse for quite a while.  I wouldn't actually mind those links posted on the Sockpuppet talk page at all.  In fact, part of what annoyed me was that I think it really belonged TO the sockpuppetry talk page or community portal page (assuming it would be neutral commentary on Online Stalking, Sockpuppetry, or Online Drama in general; instead of directed at the incident with Stabber) as opposed to belonging  to Stabber's talk page.  Thus if the archiving of the Stabber's talk page encourage future stuff like the posting of those links to go to Sockpuppetry's talk page, then that is an extremely satisfactory result to me.
 * I did not delete the talk page, I did not simply blank it. I archived it.  If we ever need to examine the previously posted evidences again, it's not much of an issue to locate them.  They are in the talk page's history AND in the archive. - 21:10, 1 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, so you are basically contradicting yourself. You're saying: "I am doing this change, but I am absolutely NOT forcing it on Stabber's talk page, she can revert it if she likes, she is absolutely free. Although I am fairly certain she is reading this and cannot possibly login with her Stabber username to agree/disagree with it."
 * That's a pretty convoluted logic. I'd think if a user left (and left his user page and talk page in a certain state), you cannot honestly say "I am doing an edit that they are free to remove." Stabber chose to leave her user page (and talk page) in a certain state. I don't understand how you can do this and justify your earlier policy. This still seems like an obvious inconsistency to me. Are we allowing a "greater good" clause in that "admins shall not edit user pages" law you proposed or what? You know Stabber is not gonna login as Stabber just to correct you on that edit if she didn't like it. --Karlos 23:58, 2 July 2006 (CDT)


 * 1. I did not propose a law. The statements I made (and I believe it was not verbatim "admins shall not edit user pages") were textual reflections of a certain principle I believe in, and depending which statement you decide to quote (though you never made any direct quotes), it may unfortunately contain semantic conflicts with my actions on Stabber's talk page.  Rereading everything I can find on the previous subject, the only direct thing I found (and I could've missed some/many, so please do point them out) where I acted against what I wrote previously is the quote that "I don't think [name] has a right to create articles under another user's namespace", which conflicted with my creation of archive 3.  This discrepency could have been prevented (and can still be resolved) by putting the archived discussions into archive 2 instead of having them in archive 3.  However it is my belief from what you have written above that whether things went into an existing archive or in a new archive I created is nowhere near the center of your issue (if you even care at all).


 * 2. Again, I believe I never proposed a "admins shall not edit user pages" law. The specific action I was against was about users getting banned if they revert an admin's edit on their own user page.  I tried deriving a general pricinple and put it in words and have obviously failed to keep the semantics and the spirit of the principle in sync.  It would be helpful to the discussion to directly quote my words when pointing out any contradictions with my actions.


 * 3. The fairly certain is not about Stabber still reading it, but about her not going to edit it if she is still reading it (of which I am not certain one way or the other). And the part about she "cannot possibly log in with her Stabber username" is your assumption of what I meant, possibly derived from the anon claim that she no longer has the password, whereas I arrived at the concusion of "slim chance of logging in as Stabber" from the circumstances of the persona's departure, which did not depend on her losing the password.  At least I find there to be a difference between "cannot possibly" (probablity = 0) vs "slim chance" (low but non-zero probablity).  If the two mean the same thing to you (which I don't know one way or the other), well, here's the clarification.


 * I am saying, that I believe there is a low probablity that the Stabber persona will ever return to guildwiki. I am making one edit for management purposes.  And in the (what I judge to be unlikely) case of the Stabber persona ever returning and disagrees with the edit, the Stabber persona may revert it. I can agree that Stabber chose to leave her user page in a certian state (and I didn't touch her user page), but I disagree that Stabber chose to leave her user talk page in a certain state that is meant to never get archived even if it keeps growing and growing.  I'm not making the edit because I think Stabber won't come in to challenge me.  I'm making the edit because I want to discourage certain unnecessary stuff that don't belong there from going there, possibly taking advantage of Stabber's absense, before things get out of hand. - 00:10, 5 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I find your analysis of your actions vs your words bordering on mockery of my request. I also find your archiving of Stabber's page "before things get out of hand" unnecessary (how were they getting out of hand) and (quite frankly) clearly biased. However, I have no desire to quarrel over this. I would have hoped for more honest examination of policies and actions rather than playing with semantics and words. --Karlos 06:21, 6 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The conscious intention was not to mock, to quarrel, or to deceive, though being the involved party it is hard to rule out the existence of undetected subconscious bias and subjectivity. It is also unfortunate that you decided to judge me by what you thought I said, instead of quoting (or re-examining) what I actually wrote.  We have had similar discourse before, on less important issues (non-policy related) with our roles reversed, and you had solemnly objected to me putting words into your mouth (due to my unintentional misinterpretation of your words), and I have to go back to re-examining your prior exact quotes to puzzle out what exactly you have meant (because despite my best efforts I could not obtain furthur explaination/elaboration) in order to continue any meaningful discussion.  Thus I find your (what I preceived to be) distaste for semantics and words rather ironic (and to a degree, frustrating), when those things are the very roots that lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretations.
 * I'm fine with anyone disagreeing and/or discussing the necessity (or lack of) of my recent actions. However, for any accusations of inconsistency, self-contradiction, or (to put it more severely) hyprocricy, I kindly request direct quotes of things I actually wrote, as opposed to an interpretation of what you think I was trying to say.  If you don't want my current view on what I did previously, quote what what I originally said exactly instead of giving me your current view of what I did previously. - 07:37, 6 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, let's start with this: Explain how creating a sub-folder in Stabber's user space, without her permission (and knowing that she most likely will not be able to give or deny you permission, explain how that is different from me creating a subsection in Deldda's talk page which you complained to:
 * At one point I deleted User:Deldda Kcarc/Track record, partly to stop a revert war that I find ridiculous, and partly because I don't think Karlos has a right to create articles under another user's namespace.
 * If you respond that "Well, I could have moved them to Archive 2 instead of 3" then you are telling me that the above objection was a joke. That you would not have minded me editing Deldda's own user page and putting the talk there, it was just creating a new page that bothered you. Was I wrong to understand that you opposed outside editing of a user page, especially unapproved edits? --Karlos 21:36, 6 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I do not mind you editing Deldda's user talk page and put back what he removed from his talk page (or add whatever else), but I do oppose you banning him for re-removing what you put on his talk page. So, assuming we are talking about things under the User talk page namespace, indeed the editing does not bother me, only creating new pages and banning for his revertion bother me.  And if you simply re-reverted his re-removal, without banning him, I would be processing it as a revert war and find both of you at fault for the revert war (though in the end favoring his edit over yours because it is his user talk page).  If you are talking about putting stuff on his user page instead of user talk page, then I think my position is against it, though I don't think (my memory could be wrong though) it is covered by any of my previous statements on related issues.
 * Does that make my objection a joke? Due to inevitable unconscious bias (being an involved party and all), I am unable to tell, but I do not consciously intend it to be a joke. - 23:20, 6 July 2006 (CDT)


 * You've somehow managed to avoid commenting on the bolded part up there, which cannot (in any usage of english that I know) mean that you oppose my banning of Deldda. As I read it, you opposed my creating pages in his user space. Can you address that remark in bold in conjuction with your archiving of Stabber's talk page? Your action and those bolded words up there seem to contradict each other and yes, do paint you in a rather hypocritical tone. --Karlos 02:10, 7 July 2006 (CDT)


 * So here's another misunderstanding. From what you wrote immediately above, it seems that you preceived that the bolded part is supposed to relate to my opposition of your banning of Deldda.  That preception is incorrect and I apologize if I was the cause of that mispreception (though I am not actively aware of how I caused it, if I am the cause) .  I have stated elsewhere, that:


 * My opposition of banning Deldda is because I find YOUR justification of banning him (revert of what you considered to be an adiministrative edit) lacking. Thus, my opposition of banning of Deldda is not directly related to the quotes marked in bold, and the bolded quote was never intended to be a direct explaination/example of my opposition of banning of Deldda, which is the reason I did not comment upon it with respect to my opposition to the banning of Deldda.  But otherwise, I have already made my comments with respected to that bolded quote before you even quoted me:


 * Yes they do contradict, and I already brought up and admitted to and even commented upon the bolded part before you even quoted me on that. And I have proposed what I can do to remedy my mistake aka inconsistent action.  Later you quoted what I have already brought up and admitted and proposed remidy for, and discussed what my proposed remedies mean from your point of view and asked me if your understanding of my position is correct, and I answered your question.  I'm still not sure what is missing that I should have covered.  If it helps, I'll requote myself one more time: " where I acted against what I wrote previously is the quote that "I don't think [name] has a right to create articles under another user's namespace", which conflicted with my creation of archive 3. This discrepency could have been prevented (and can still be resolved) by putting the archived discussions into archive 2 instead of having them in archive 3." and "indeed the editing does not bother me, only creating new pages and banning for his revertion bother me".  So yes, the creation of archive 3 is inconsistent and bothers me.  If you care enough about it I'll go resolve it and move it into archive 2 and delete archive 3.  But if you have as much issue with me putting the thing in archive 2 just as much as me putting the thing into archive 3 (which is what I felt back then though uncertain, and still what I feel now though uncertain), then I'm not going to bother moving it until we sort things out.  THere's no point in a particular remedy if you oppose it as strongly as you oppose the original issue (again I suspect, but do not know for certain, if you opposse the remedy as much as the solution). - 03:22, 7 July 2006 (CDT)

BTW, if that is the only self-contradiction you can come up against me, and you do not oppose the remedy, then I am going to do it. So if you have any other issues, bring them out now. - 03:42, 7 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Again, instead of pasting jumbled boxes that copy text from the discussion above it. Can you please answer this simple question: Your complaint was that I "created" an article in Deldda's user space, not that I was editing Deldda's user space? You are saying that those two actions are different and that you find creating inexcusable but editing excusable? Am I correct in this understanding? --Karlos 04:55, 7 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Question 1, half yes half no. Yes, my complaint was that you created an article in Deldda's user space.  However, I would have also complained about you editing an article in Deldda's user space, except in this particular incident the article is the one you created anyways, so my complaint over its creation takes precedence and makes the complaint over editing it completely irrevalent.  What I stated explicitly previously about what I am not complaining, is the editing of Deldda's user talk page/space (which is different from the user page/space).
 * Question 2, yes, I find the action of editing and creating to be different. In the context of the user space, I actually find both actions to be inappropriate (inexcusable is too strong a word for me, and I hope I never actually used that specific word regarding this specific situation in previous discussions.  If I have, I apologize).
 * Now, because I honestly believe User space and User talk space should be treated separately, if I wanted to be sly about it, I could've argued that creating articles in the user talk space is ok while creating articles in the user space to be not ok, which would excuse my prior action and condamn your prior action. However, I didn't want to be sly about it.  I really should not have created archive 3 and should've instead to put things directly into archive 2.  I do think the difference between adding stuff in archive 2 and creating an archive 3 to be very minor in practice, but when held against a standard of consistency with what my principles are, one action is appropriate and the other is not.
 * Unfortunately, because I was not paying attention to semantics close enough previously, when I condamned my own action of creating archive 3 as being inconsistent with my words, I was actually wrong. I have not previously expressively condamned the action of creating articles under the user talk space, but only that under the user space.  Creating of archive 3 is incosistent with the principle I was trying to convey, but it actually did not conflict with the words.  I apologize for not being rigorous in separating the issue of user space and user talk space in prior discussions.  At the end of the day though, being incosistent with the principle (which is what I have done) is worse than being inconsistent with the words (which is what I previously accused myself of but turned out to be wrong).


 * To resummarize my position in bullet list form:
 * Yes, my complaint was that you created an article in Deldda's user space.
 * I find editing the user page/space to be (in general) not appropriate, except when adding/removing the ban template. (this bullet point is something new that I have not stated in previous discussion) There might actually be other exceptions, not just the ban template, but none come to my mind right now.
 * I find the creation of article under the user space to be not appropriate.
 * I find editing the user talk page/space, which you have been doing this entire time while conversing with me, to be ok, including re-adding of anything that was previously removed by the user from the user talk space. This also include the potential action of archiving Stabber's stuff into the existing archive 2, an action which I did not take.
 * I also find the creation of article under the user talk space (which is what I have done), to be not appropriate. (In earlier discussions I have errornously lumped this bullet point with the third bullet point, which was a mistake).
 * I find that I should have, instead of creating an archive 3, simply put the archived material into archive 2.
 * I find that banning a user based on the fact that a user reverted an admin's edit (which was perceived by the admin to be an administrative edit but otherwise not specifically marked as such) under the user's user space/user talk space to be not sufficiently justified. This is the basis of my objection against your ban against Deldda.
 * Aside from the second and fifth bullet point, all I am doing is restating what I have stated in previous discussions. Hopefully the different wording and change of semantics will help you understand what you couldn't figure out before.
 * Also, the above regarding editing of user page and user talk page assume that vandalism and foul offensive material are not included (I assume it is obvious, but still including this line for rigor/explicitness). Vandalism and offensive material should of course be judged different, and should be a different topic of discussion alltogether.
 * If there is any part of your question that I have not addressed yet, I apologize, and please point it out. - 07:30, 7 July 2006 (CDT)


 * So, now the issue is summarized as: "Editing another user's talk page is fine, CREATING a page in a user's talk page is not fine." I still find your answer and your manuevers quite evasive and inconsistent. We all know (or at least I thought we did) that you can't go about "editing user pages" in the way yor edited Stabber's. Are you saying I have any right to go re-organize Skuld's talk page (in any shape, way or form) and call that "editing" just like we do when we "talk" to Skuld? I would think that I don't. I would like to think that if I edited your talk page and shuffled talk around between archives and moved stuff from mistakes to archive1, that someone, somewhere would tell me "What the heck are you doing?" and not treat it the same as this entry.
 * I find it hard to believe that you honestly classify all editing of user talk pages as being the same. I am actually quite certain that you agree that the kind of edit you did to Stabber's page would not be allowed to any other's (Skuld's or Rainith's or Tetris's) talk page without their permission. In fact, the only "permissible" edit to a user's talk page (outside of "talking") is perhaps in the case of newbies who put their user page in their talk page or vice versa.
 * So, to smush "editing and shuffling and re-organizing" a talk page with "talking" in a talk page is an obfuscation of the truth. Especially when the shuffling is not simply an honest "oh, you filed this under the wrong archive" but an intended hiding of discussions from users' eyes.
 * Which brings me to the main point. You archived Stabber's talk page "despite" of her. She was there, she saw what was on her talk page, she edited her own user page twice after that whole fiasco. And yet she chose to leave her talk page as is (even though she cleared it many times before). Stabber is not a newbie who needs assistance keeping her talk page organized. This is the same as you archiving stuff from my talk page or Skuld's without our permission. Even if the talk is 20 years old and the added comment provides no benefit, it's -quite frankly- outside of your authority to edit my talk page for me and remove a discussion that you deem "too old" and put it in one of my archives proclaiming it was for the best.
 * Finally, how is it for the best that the discussion be burried? For who's best? And how was the addition of that useless comment harmful?
 * I believe (feel free to defend yourself and correct me) that you did it to defend Stabber. And while that is a noble goal, I believe it was outside of your authority, I believe it was inconsistent with your earlier stated positions and I believe most importantly, that we as admins should NOT be hiding discussions and "protecting" users we "like" from scrutiny.
 * If the comment added was a name calling of Stabber or vandalism, or if you had simply reverted the guy's edit for irrelevance or because the user has left, I would not be having this discussion. But you were (in my opinion) clearly protecting User Stabber from the consequences of his/her actions and the scrutiny of others (deserved or not).
 * I will be reverting your archiving of that talk page in the next few days pending a final argument from you that perhaps shows how the edit was within what's best for the wiki and not play on some wording of "I think editing a user's talk page is all the same but different therefore I am not doing anything wrong, technically, almost, I think." I know you are a fellow admin, but the edit in this case, breaks rules, sets bad precedents and seems fairly biased (to me). --Karlos 00:06, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Sig-Trick
nicely done with your sig-trick, you've inspired me! Alexanderpas Talk 13:56, 1 July 2006 (CDT)

Bye
Thanks, now that there are all these ruls I'm not using my account anymore, this is the last time you will ever hear from me
 * Huh, for someone who's not using an account anymore, you sure are making a hell lot of edits on your own user page. - 00:59, 3 July 2006 (CDT)

Warlord article
I had marked the article Warlord for deletion, as it's not relevant in-game. The tag was removed by User:Skinny Boy with no explaination given. Rather than re-revert, I added my comments to the articles talk page, and commented on Skinny Boy's talk page that my opinion was that such an article belonged in his user space, but he just deleted my commented from his talk page as well. I really can't do more without getting into an edit-war, so I decided to hand it off to you for further review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:50, 3 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I deleted it before you posted this d-: - 00:51, 3 July 2006 (CDT)
 * At first I thought I was getting hexed by slow typing frequently; now I think it's an environmental effect and I just can't remove the effect :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:53, 3 July 2006 (CDT)

Mesmer Skill List
I believe that when the Mesmer Skill list was converted to use includes, someone had mentioned monitoring server load changes from it. Was that you? I couldn't recall. I've tried periodically over the last two weeks, and have found that the load times of the article have grown un-usably long for me. I can still open the other skill listing pages; but the Mesmer one takes so long to open, that it's effectively unusable for me (we're talking 5+minutes).

Can the list be converted back to a table? My belief is that would resolve the load times; but as I cannot access the page, I can't even make the change myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:53, 5 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually; after thinking about it, never mind for now. I'll try the listings for each profession, time them, and post it as a bug.  I had been assuming it was related to the use of inclusions, but I have no confirmation of that being the cause.  Perhaps if Gravewit takes a look, he may spot some secondary cause. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:29, 5 July 2006 (CDT)

Random Arenas and Team Arenas
I was doing the Location boxes for those areas, and I'm not sure what kind of area they should be categorized under, since they can't be really considered "Arenas", since the article for "Arenas" talks of the different areas in which you'll be sent to via those locations. --Rapta 18:37, 5 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I think I would call them Arenas regardless, for now at least. - 18:47, 5 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Gotcha. --Rapta 18:49, 5 July 2006 (CDT)