User talk:Entropy/Archive 31

You
Don't need to do this. 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When was it ever a question of "need"? I'm giving the people what they want. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know very well that people don't want you to quit the wiki. You've seen that enough times to know it already. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quitting the wiki. I simply will not be helping administrating/"leading" it any longer. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uguu~ [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 03:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be a dick or anything Entropy, but how many times have you already quit the wiki (or "will not be helping it any longer") and came back?75.92.46.118 04:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * About 5. Why do you ask? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Random thought: More people ought to take a leaf out of Shadowphoenix's book. You people put up with way too much abuse and shenanigans. I'm not even nice to you. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 09:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lolwut, who cares about nice. Keep this wiki alive. Although, I should cross over to GWW, just to be rid of this drama. /dramascream: STOP THE DRAMA, DO more work Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 10:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't "keep this wiki alive". You people do. Even if I was to leave for permanently, things would go on here. I am not central to the everyday runnings of the wiki in any way.
 * Also, a word of warning: GWW has drama of some sort nearly every single week, if you look hard enough. If you don't like it here, I can assure you the move won't be pleasant, unless you choose to ignore the goings-on. >.> [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

reinstating the block
From your userpage notice: "I am perplexed by the fact that none of the other administrators chose to reinstate the block". From my talk, quoting myself: I couldn't tell that he would stop by himself, but you know him better, so I believe you in that respect, and the evidence is in your favor. The procedure you quoted is revert, discuss, decide. Discussion wasn't closed (still needs to be), consensus wasn't reached, hence no reblock. -- ◄mendel► 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Entropy, I consider 1RV to cover blockings etc too. Thus to reinstate the block without finish reasoning things out would've been against my own principles. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You mad? Consensus was already reached. Not a single person(?) agrees with my revert of the block, and so it ought not stand. I don't see what else there is to discuss, as discussion is the precursor to consensus, not the other way round. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What would reinstating the block now accomplish? [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing, just as the original block accomplished/would have accomplished nothing. In both cases, the meaning is purely symbolic, and that's never a good thing. Bans aren't to be used for soapboxing. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But by saying "X seldom posts, so it's pointless to ban X because it would be merely symbolic," you are essentially giving X free reign, which is also never a good thing. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, not as messages, not symbolic. That is my personal opinion; I consider it to be the best usage of the tool. Others can of course disagree, and it is not a hard-and-fast rule because discretion ownzzz.
 * If X seldom posts but only posts trash, then yes, you have a case for a preventative block there (and a long one). I can't really explain this without writing a big WoT, which I'm not in the mood for. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I think Entropy is right on the "symbolic" part; banning Auron probably wouldn't change his personality, and due to his limited activity, it also probably wouldn't affect him much. However, on the same hand, that argument could be used in the reverse; leaving him unbanned wouldn't accomplish anything either.
 * At this point, I think it's perhaps a bit late to decide if Auron needs banning, since all this drama has causing a lot of the previous points to either get buried or invalidated (just my opinion). But I also think that should Auron, or anyone else at all, break a policy in this way, they should be punished based on the crime, not based on who they are or whither or not it would "accomplish" anything.
 * ...now I'll read all the comments that EC'd me. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> .cнаt^  20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Me no mad, I just didn't felt there's been enough input/discussion to call things "reached consensus" yet. And by now it'd be moot to reban Auron anyways as I would've consider the "bantime" to be expired (ie, if I had banned Auron originally, it would've expired by now). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a figure of speech; but you won't be getting any input from me (the sole opposition) because I choose to yield without argument. Bureaucrats have the power and discretion to completely ignore the community if they so choose, but it's clear that the people want the administration's decisions to follow "majority consensus" these days, because they no longer agree to the part of the social contract which says "when a sysop/bcrat is promoted, you forfeit your right to decide what is best for the community to them". [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Contracting Socially

 * For me personally, I never felt such social contract existed. Gravewit had the power by the merit of him having control of the server and everything, and that power has transferred into Wikia's TOS.  I do not consider any of the other Bcrats to ever had such "social contract" with GuildWiki users.  Bcrats were originally only meant as people who can promote sysops when Gravewit can't be reached, and you are IMHO the first Bcrat with whom some users have this social contract.  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely never agreed to it. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We've gone over this at great length in "discussions" such as unholy festering wikidrama. Bcrats/sysops are promoted because they are trusted to act in the better interest of the community, even if that flies in the face of majority opinion/consensus. This is essentially the same as saying that the users forfeit their rights to decide for themselves. Of course, a reasonable administrator should always take heed of the community, otherwise they risk dethronement very quickly. Anyway this is getting off-topic. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, that particular page is a weak support because that was after you became Bcrat, so even if you really want to enforce it, that page only supported to my and Auron's and maybe mendel's cases. My writings in that very same link and its talk page more or less consistently reflects my minimalistic view on the Bcrat's role, with no implication of any acceptance of the social contract (though no out right rejection either, as that wasn't exactly a focus of attention for me at that time).
 * There is also a great difference between a democratic "majority" versus the process of reaching consensus. For example, the builds wipe was opposed by the "majority" if you look at it democratically, but it actually had "consensus". The wiki isn't about the raw number of people with each opinion, but rather is weighted by the actual discussion arguments supporting/opposing the positions.  Three hundred uninformed people stating what they prefer in unison is less weighty then the agreement of forty two people who originally disagreed but after exchanging rational arguments coming to a mutual understanding.  Of course, ideally we would want to get those three hundred people involved in the discussion to begin with... -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 01:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Picking up some left-over bits from prematurely archived stuff
Felix originally wrote "The problem there is that all admins are either heavily biased in favor of Auron, or against him. The only exceptions are PanSola and RandomTime, and they pretty much don't care."

In response to Felix, I actually do care, to an extent that still hopefully keeps me more or less objective. And I felt Auron DID cross the line especially in his response to Mendel, and while Mendel wasn't exactly being friendly when warning about the NPA, Auron's response was, IMHO, unjustifiably hostile given the amount of "provocation". I don't think mendel should've been the one banning Auron, but I would've consider banning Auron for how he responded to mendel. Turning the focus back on Mendel, I disapprove of how he handled the situation (under the impression that Mendel blocked Auron out of the manner of Auron's response to Mendel's warning), especially since it exhibited certain attributes of Auron that I tried to encourage Auron to change while he had his adminship. I wouldn't considered this specific incident worthy of demoting Mendel, otherwise I would have been among the first people screaming for Auron's demotion months before Auron actually ceased to be an admin. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your imput, Pan. Theoretically speaking, what would your justification for the ban be (what would you have written in the summary)? My entire reasoning behind the revert was that I felt it was based upon a faulty NPA premise. If Mendel had instead banned with "don't be a dick" (which I do not disagree with), I would not have reverted. But this point was lost in the ensuing chaos.
 * There was more than just this specific incidence which led to my demotion action. Mendel's term has been under close scrutiny from me since day one; it has always been hanging by a thread. I have been waiting and watching for the proverbial "fuck-up" so I could find a reason to demote. (I even explained this to Mendel the day I promoted him; you can find it in his talk archive somewhere.) There have been more than one case before where I have been disappointed with Mendel, but I had let them slide because I still at that point believed that "he was doing more good than bad". I expressed this frustration when I raged over Wintersday time, if you recall.
 * I asked Auron what he thought about the demotion, whether I may have been o'erhasty in it. Here was his response:
 * "I wasn't expecting it. I'm ignorant of your reasoning - I haven't talked to you for quite some time, so I'm not privy to any potential drama leading up to the current situation. Knowing the history is often important in cases like this. Mostly because of my ignorance, I don't have an answer for you.
 * "It will look like a knee-jerk reaction to some. No matter how slow you move and how many chances you give (especially if you give them in private), someone will always assume that the straw that broke the camel's back was the only straw on his back. But maybe they're right? I dunno the whole story here."
 * I believe this is a large reason behind the current outcry - very few people I've ever truly talked to/explained this "history"; only those people could fully understand and grasp why I did what I did. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A "fuck you" response on another user trying to keep things civil is ban-worthy, even if that other user was being slightly confrontational (and thus provocative). I'd probably have used "Temporary castration" as the ban reason, punning on Auron being a dick and the specific words "fuck you" that he used.
 * Generally speaking, things tend to go a lot smoother if you take great pains to carefully explain actions especially related to unbans, demotions, and other "reversal" actions. Otherwise you would often be responsible for the great lack of understanding of those who didn't have your perspective, and who probably have opposite inclinations from yours.  It's all about drama reduction.  It wasn't like mendel was in the middle of a rampage to disappoint you, there is time to explain right before/after you take action. (-:  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hah. I would not disagree with that block, and in fact I would find it quite amusing.
 * Generally speaking, I think that personal issues ought to be worked out off the wiki, because it creates an unnecessary amount of drama and/or you will have various interlopers coming in to add their (unwanted) opinions to your discussion. Public wiki is public, after all. I also felt that if people did not see cause to complain at the time that I brought the issue to the front (by posting it on Mendel's talk when he was promoted) then there was no reason to write a big WoT to take great pains to carefully explain my action (promotion).
 * I felt that I had explained the reversal of the ban fairly sufficiently enough, and I've reiterated it a few times now in different places; the demotion, perhaps, could have used a WoT explanation...but frankly I did not expect such an uproar.
 * Also, like some of us, I have a real life to work on too...but I felt that immediate action was necessary, instead of waiting for a time when RL gave me more time to explain. That may have been an error on my part, but it was one of those time-sensitive situations, in my opinion...so I would be damned if I did, damned if I didn't. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To Entropy
There is going to be another section entitled To Everybody on my own talk page.

Why'd you do it? After I posted the apology, you could just have said, "fine, I was angry too, let's forget about it, here's your sysop rights back". You didn't. I think you might've thought about why you got so angry. I think if you had expected less of me you wouldn't have been. "Reads all the policies, considers what he writes, ..." - whatever. Something about me must've been causing these expectations. You've been looking for a bureaucrat for more than 8 months now - out of the neigh on 11 months you've been bureaucrat yourself. So you decide to give me a chance, much like Pan, Auron and Jedi.

Why'd you do it like this? You've always felt drama is bad for the wiki, and you've been causing it yourself; in this case, by overreacting to what you perceived as a threat from me. You don't forgive yourself as easily as others do (well, except maybe Shadowphoenix...). Sometimes you've had the impression that your bcratship hasn't moved the wiki forward in any way; when you asked "why am I popular", nothing much you would yourself be proud of came to the surface. You've been a bureaucrat because the community supported you, and over this decision you might have felt it supported me instead.

But, drama or not, you've always been an outstanding bureaucrat! This may seem exaggerated compared to the other bureaucrats this wiki has had, but I've seen other wikis, and take it from me, you are. Your reasoning (in this case, explaining the revert; recently, in meeting O'BloodyHell) is exemplary, and so is your open-eared attitude towards the community in general. Nobody is perfect, and neither are you, but you're a good sight closer to that goal than most.

Your self-chosen status is now that of "bureaucrat emeritus", a sort of "elder wiki stateman", whom I hope we can depend on for good advice from time to time; not having you doing sysop duties would be a loss, and I still entertain the hope that you're too addicted to those to let them rest.

But you can't get away with just not showing up for work; you deserve a sending off where everybody who knows you praises the memorable moments of your career as sysop and bureaucrat! Let me start this off by quoting you with the one sentence from my sysop promotion announcement that touched me the most:

'' If we are going to crash, then I want to go out in style, doing things my way and following my heart. Entropy, 3 Nov 08''

Everybody else, please join in! -- ◄mendel► 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodbye, Entropy. Good Luck. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 18:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Really touching Text… GL and all-- [[Image:F4Sig.jpg|19px]]  † The Falling One©  19:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a goodbye! Entropy is not leaving! She's just not active as a sysop and Bcrat any longer. -- ◄mendel► 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Than it's Good I didn't say goodbye. But still GL with all things -- [[Image:F4Sig.jpg|19px]]  † The Falling One©  19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mendel, you post here out of frustration/impatience at getting a response from me, and thus your statements, while true in spirit, are factually unsound; they are opinions formed from incomplete information. As such, I would like to ask "everyone" to refrain from posting here until I have had a chance to clarify things.

I would like to point out, though, that the so-called "bureaucrat election" has been over and done with; I have not been "looking for a bureauceat". In addendum, some of you may remember be posting sporadically about a "new bureaucrat" coming at the turn of the new year, but no such thing materialized. Let me explain this in brief: There never was going to be a "new bureaucrat", at least not in the sense that I would be promoting some new user. Rather, this was going to be a "New Year's Resolution" to "get back to business" and stop all the silly MyGuildWikiSpace'ing which I was primarily responsible for encouraging. In time-honored Soviet fashion, the "new bureaucrat" was going to be...me. But a new me; or rather, going back to the Entropy who was a hard worker, had focus and drive on improving the wiki constantly, and took her job seriously. Not the sort of half-serious, half-comical "tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood" whom you're used to these days, always joking about "you peons" and bragging about her power as supreme ruler of the wiki. That is all. (T/C) 20:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a nonconformist!
And don't read or care about wikidramaz anymore. I also don't repeat things other people say. And now for something completely different.

 There was an old farmer who lived on a rock He sat in the meadow just shaking his Fist at some boys who where down by the crick Their feet in the water, their hands on their Marbles and playthings and at half past four Their came a young lady she looked like a Pretty young creature, she sat on the grass She pulled up her dress and she showed them her Ruffles and laces and white fluffy duck She said she was learning a new way to Bring up her children so they would not spit While the boys in the barnyard were shoveling Refuse and litter from yesterday's hunt While the girl in the meadow was rubbing her Eyes at the fellow down by the dock He looked like a man with a sizable Home in the country with a big fence out front If he asked her politely she'd show him her Little pet dog who was subject to fits And maybe she'd let him grab hold of her Small tender hands with a movement so quick And then she'd bend over and suck on his Candy, so tasty, made of butterscotch And then he'd spread whip cream all over her Cookies that she had left out on her shelf If you think this is dirty you go fuck yourself!  --Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I love you, Giga <3 [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)