User talk:Auron of Neon

Grr...
What's the deal with YAV? Can you explain, in your own words, how Warwick's actions/comments have violated YAV? I have the same issue with what s/he/they are doing, but I really don't see any violation of the YAV policy in particular. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor do I understand what the constant occupation with YAV is.. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 09:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * General asshattery. You aren't valuable if people ignore what you say. Ignoring what others say because one disagrees with it is even worse than simply ignoring it. Consensus isn't reached by putting people on your ignore list, it's reached by discussion and debate. - Auroñ 10:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * General asshattery doesn't break YAV. YAV is specifically targeted at one form of asshattery -- that of self-deprecation to appear as a victim/mytre.  If I and Entropy ever get into an argument, and I say "screw you, I've been here way longer than you are" or if she says "screw you, I'm a Bcrat and you are just a lowly sysop", then neither of us are breaking YAV.  We are just inappropriately pulling our rank/experience to trump the other in an argument.  What breaks YAV are things like "I'm just a lowly sysop, you are the Bcrat, so yeah, whatever you say, you know everything".  A user can only break YAV if the user places him/herself at lower value.  Placing others at lower value is just being a jerk, it doesn't break YAV.  At least not the way the spirit of the policy was originally intended for. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... I was always under the impression the policy existed mainly to empower newer users, as you said, but also to make sure older users didn't pull some kind of BS trump card like number of edits or time on the wiki. That's just how I always interpreted it. - Auroñ 10:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, I would agree that the policy does discourage older/higher-ranked users to pull some trump on newer users, so I can understand if you disagree with my particular examples. Though if we look back to the original point, I would argue what Warwick was doing still doesn't qualify as breaking YAV even under the broader interpretation you used above. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 11:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Asshattery is still my main concern with that user, and if bad enough, can be a bannable offense. - Auroñ 11:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair. In this discussion I'm just concerned by the accusation of breaking YAV.  You are the second person to accuse Warwick of that in a very short span of time, so I want to sort that particular issue out.  Moving on to the topic of Warwick's behavior, I would advice to take into account that some user's message to Warwick is getting near/to the point of non-productive trolling and flaming, and so it might be more constructive/productive to be a bit softer in responding to Warwick's lashbacks. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 11:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to ban soon, but I haven't seen any real improvement in behavior. This last case wasn't the only one to concern me, but it's the only one I can easily find (spent about an hour trying to sort through archives; a pretty impossible task). I'll give it time. If, down the road, I feel a ban is still necessary, I don't want it to come as a huge surprise to anyone. So I left a note. - Auroñ 11:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fyi, Auron, its pretty easy to sort through archives. I only have 37 of them. May seem like a lot, but it takes about 5 mins to sort through them all. As another note, you wouldn't see much behaviour improvment, since you're a) not active here and b), like everyone else, seem bent on trying to find the bad things about me. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 11:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Auron may not be active here, but that's mainly because you don't see him out there every day in RC. He has...other ways of staying informed, and (like many users) when he is active, tends to spend that time observing rather than doing. I would also warn against making such statements as your last, since you can see a bit above that "self-deprecation to appear as a victim/[martyr]" is exactly what the confusing YAV is about. Without taking a blaming tone, you don't help the "victim" status by saying such things, at least in that tone. (whether they are true or not is irrelevant) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 12:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Get over yourself, Warwick. I don't know you. I don't hate you, I don't like you, and I wouldn't have anything to do with you if you weren't such a potential danger to the wiki. The most I've ever done with you is a single dungeon in EotN, and I don't even remember much from that. You might want to feel important and all that by declaring it you vs the world, but that simply isn't the case. As Entropy said... "When I agree with someone, it's not because I like them personally. When I disagree with someone, it's not because I hold a grudge against them. I just think they are right or wrong, and that's that." You can try to turn this into a martyr game, but beware; Karlos tried to do that, too, and I don't see him around anymore.
 * False assumptions and misinformation about my personality aside, my like or dislike of you has no bearing on my perception. I am sufficiently in control of my emotions (if there were any to begin with, seeing as I still don't care enough to be driven to anger or joy) to ensure they don't make my decisions for me. If your behavior was improving, I would admit it; if I disliked you, I would still, begrudgingly, admit it.
 * I've been watching (and listening, as Entropy has hinted) all along, hence my popping on to ban vandals and delete mass spam pages. I haven't watched GWiki as religiously as I have GWW, but I haven't been simply gone. No, the reason I haven't noticed your behavior improve is because, quite frankly, it hasn't. Stop trying to blame everything except yourself. - Auroñ 12:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidently you havn't been paying much attention. I've muched changed since I joined GuildWiki with my brother. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 12:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um...Auron is specifically referring to the time from when you "split" and became "May", to now. It's impossible to make a fair comparison if you bring the whole brother issue up again. And even people who are really active here wouldn't have known you from that far back anyways, except for those like Fire Tock (Spam King?) who knew both persons. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 12:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose you make a point there Entropy. Fire only knew my brother, tbh. Shadow knew both of us. And auron, here are some edit statistics

Auron of Neon Total     3,412      100% (Main)    843     24.71% Talk    479     14.04% User    399     11.69% User talk    1,203     35.26% GuildWiki    48     1.41% GuildWiki talk    199     5.83% Image    181     5.3% Image talk    24     0.7% MediaWiki    1     0.03% MediaWiki talk    1     0.03% Template    15     0.44% Template talk    5     0.15% Category    5     0.15% Category talk    9     0.26%

Warwick Total     6,855      100% (Main)    1,043     15.22% Talk    668     9.74% User    1,188     17.33% User talk    2,841     41.44% GuildWiki    307     4.48% GuildWiki talk    215     3.14% Image    308     4.49% Image talk    135     1.97% MediaWiki talk    12     0.18% Template    71     1.04% Template talk    34     0.5% Category    14     0.2% Category talk    19     0.28%


 * No, much as it looks, Im not making an issue of the amounts of edits you have. What I'm saying is that you say I'm focused on Userspace edits. I have more userspace edits than you, sure, but the statistics of mine say that basically I have more Mainspace/talk and such than you. I'm not saying you're not a great contributor, I'm just saying- Think about yourself before you say things like that. Unless, ofc, I misinterpruted you. In which case I apologise. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png|Hello]] Warw/Wick 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * GW:YAV isn't enforcable. No body is going to ban a newbie for self-deprecating. The policy says "you have the same responsibility to respect our traditions and guiding principles, just like everybody else", and even that isn't enforced. It's an etiquette policy, is about being kind with yourself and others, and is probably the policy that best represents the spirit of the GuildWiki community, and that's why we should do the hard work of taking good care of it, despite the fact that it's not enforcable. Anything else about it, I already said it. And about Auron, I somehow had the impression that he was watching while I argued (or attempted to) with May (I might be crazy or paranoid), so I'd like thank him for letting it be. He was wise enough to realize it wasn't the right situation to get in bitchslapping Auron-style. It wouldn't had helped considering May's way of viewing things. So, thanks Auron.[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]reanor 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Auron of Neon
 * (Main)    843     24.71%
 * Talk    479     14.04%
 * User    399     11.69%
 * User talk    1,203     35.26%
 * Warwick
 * (Main)    1,043     15.22%
 * Talk    668     9.74%
 * User    1,188     17.33%
 * User talk    2,841     41.44%
 * Imo, the proportions often give a better idea of what someone's focus in contribs is, instead of the counts. On a side note, the only time I've ever accused anyone of violating YAV was when eloc accepted an RfA nomination on PvX and then opposed himself XD I think I banned him for three seconds, or something ^_^ But yea, YAV isn't really an enforceable policy like NPA or 1RV. I suppose you could ban people for repeatedly being self-deprecating, but that would just kinda reinforce their low opinion of themselves >.> And if someone's repeatedly belittling others, that would really fall more under NPA or just "being a jerk".  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 03:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So your edit count tells me what, exactly? That your attitude is anything more than piss poor? If anything, your insistence on diverting blame from yourself just tells me you're every bit as egotistical as when I first saw you.
 * Don't pull an Eloc. He was probably the only other user I've seen that placed even the slightest importance in edit counts (although I'd have to say you aren't as obsessive, unless you are secretly infatuated with having the most linked userpage on the wiki).
 * I will have to express my amusement at you using edit counts in your favor, though, when on your last real (or first real, according to you) RfA, you claimed that you weren't accountable for all those edits. And yet here you are claiming all of them as your own. Pick a story and stick to it tbh, lest people stop assuming good faith and start calling you a liar. - Auroñ 03:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the actual statistics. The percents arn't what im talking about. Sure, everyone has a lot of usertalk edits, because there is less and less actual stuff to do on GuildWiki nowdays, since for the most part its done.
 * I myself am rather amused at the fact that you seem to be still being ignorant, or you just seem to not understand what I'm saying. As I said on the RfA, most of my brothers contributions were User talk edits, apart from a few(?) talkpage edits and a few dotted around. My point is that you have the lesser amount of useful edits.
 * Yeah, I'm egotastical, but then again, thats human nature, isn't it? Its one of those reasons why I personally hate humans and being one. Bleh, its a flaw of humanity. Everyone tries to get some self importance.
 * I'm hardly diverting blame from myself. I'm trying to make you stop being hypocritical, unless I misunderstood what you said on my archive. My attitude is, fyi, much different from what it was when I started on the wiki. Yeah, sure not much change has come in the last 2 months~ish, but not much noticable will happen in that sort of time. So bleh. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png|Hello]] Warw/Wick 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Since you're dipping into terrible logic ("I'm hardly diverting blame from myself" following a section blaming your brother, outside of an entire RfA where you blamed all the bad edits on him and claimed good edits for yourself), I'll just be painfully clear. Stop being a dick or you'll get banned. Nobody appreciates your attitude problem. This isn't GWW; you can't wikilawyer out of it. This is your last warning. - Auroñ 07:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a threat, Auron? Because I hardly think that you have any logic behind a reason to ban me. Nobody appreciates your attitude problems, and just face it- you're childish and immature; on an Equal to; or probably Greater Than scale to me. If anything, its you thats being a dick. Yes, your reasoning on my talkpage was alright enough, but you're letting yourself go over here. Face it, if you continue this argument you'll just be making yourself look childish and immature. If you block me, go block yourself as well. We're both continuing this argument. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png|Hello]] Warw/Wick 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not even sure why we're so set against each other anymore. I replied to a PM from you where you logged off almost immediately afterwards. And since then, you've been acting pretty oddly towards me, considering that I thought what we both said was a joke. After you put a note on my talkpage as an anon, I thought that somehow I'd annoyed you, but come on, one comment gives you reason to thoughroughly hate me? &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png|Hello]] Warw/Wick 07:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to assume you haven't read a single word I've ever said (since you still think disagreeing with someone means hating them, and you pretty much ignored half my post here), so I won't bother being verbose. The argument's over. Your attitude is unacceptable for a wiki environment. Clean it up or suffer the consequences. That isn't a threat. It's the truth. - Auroñ 06:07, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh no, I've read through that several times. You've ranted at me a lot, and are ignoring me on Guild Wars. Yes, the argument is over. I don't need to clean up my act. And btw, that is a threat. Regardless of whether or not its the truth. And okay, Ill answer what you said on my talk. Regarding the spam- To be fair to me, at least 10 of those archives were tock, 3 of them were Bored, 4 were RT and 3 were me. The rest of them is actually pretty much decent discussion. I move my page when I archive because if I were to sectionally remove comments, I'd end up removing all of them or none of them- Which is the point in general. I like to tell people when I'm going to sleep so that they know I'm not ignoring them if they leave a message on my talkpage. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png|Hello]] Warw/Wick 10:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Except... nobody cares? More importantly, this is a wiki. If someone leaves a message on your wiki talk page, they aren't expecting a response within the hour, they're expecting a response within the next day or so. If anyone expects you to respond immediately, they flat-out suck at wikis.
 * I'm not ignoring you on Guild Wars. I'm just never on it. I still have AIM, MSN, and email as fairly open options - or steam if you prefer. Contacting me isn't that hard.
 * I don't care how much spam you get, I'm just saying you should put it in a separate archive from everything that is of import. GuildWiki related stuff, content related stuff, in-game related stuff, IRL spam, random editing-because-we're-bored-and-haven't-figured-out-how-to-use-instant-messengers spam... if you separate them, all the content will still be there, but it won't be such a nightmare to sort through.
 * The entire point of archiving talk pages is to have information easily findable later. Easily being the key word. If the archives aren't easy to sort through, you might as well just be wiping the information off your talk page every time; at least then we could sort through the history and diff what we want to see. Currently, you move your talk page every three days (or more frequently, if you're afraid of carrying on a discussion to its end), so diffing revisions is pretty much impossible - and using history to find specific edits is difficult, because it requires opening a separate archive (a huge downside of "moving" talk pages to archive pages). If you want to keep the spam, learn to organize your archive.
 * Lastly... yes, you do in fact need to clean up your act. I'm blocking you for a day for everything we've discussed (with the exception of archiving etiquette; I don't think that's a blockable offense). Keep in mind that the wiki's goal and purpose is to document the game; anything that detracts from that is a disruption, and should be avoided. - Auroñ 10:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah, Auron, that was uncalled for. When I'm unanoned, I'm calling for your resignition. You had NO RIGHT to block me. Okay, you had the rights when you were given the power, but you had no call for it. Basically, you just banned me for what you call "Threatening Behaviour/Harassment" and which is what I call "Responding on somones talkpage". If anything, gtfo and ban yourself. --May

@May GW:NPA RT | Talk  10:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm already banned. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick
 * You're going to ask me to resign? Uh... good luck with that. You can ask Entropy to demote me, but I don't think that'd work either. - Auroñ 10:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Auron, the next time you ban, please pick a reason that is more defensible. I would have to disagree with the ban if this talk page (up to the ban) plus past general behavior is what you call "Threatening Behaviour/Harassment". -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Hey. Read GW:ADMIN lately? "Sysops can ban anyone they want for absolutely no reason, should they deem it necessary." Paraphrased, yes, but (1) Auron did not abuse his powers and (2) calling for his resignation is...stupid. Even if I didn't agree with Auron; even if I didn't consider him a friend; even if I was arguing May's side of this issue. As bureaucrat, I see no reason for him to be demoted for something like this. Perhaps as PanSola says, he should be reprimanded for a stupid block message. I've talked to him privately and I know he could have explained his reasoning better. Nevertheless, let's take an objective stance: the only time we've ever had a demotion was when Skuld was seriously fucking up everything. And the only resignation was when Marco was told by just about everyone that his conduct was unacceptable for an admin. I am seeing neither such circumstance repeated here.

All I'll say is that Auron is Auron. That's not a defense or a preferential treatment, but I think you knew what you were asking for by "continuing the argument". This really ought to have taken place off the wiki. (T/C) 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I don't think I've ever talked on your talk page so; Hi! Lost-Blue 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was random RT | Talk  10:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ketchup on my mouse! <--- no that was wait.... *looks at your name* >< Lost-Blue 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Auron is serious business. Misfate  17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify
Warwick was not banned entirely for his/her actions on this talk page. S/he was largely banned for the actions that were discussed here, but performed elsewhere. I'm a firm believer that, no matter how angry people get, they should be able to have a discussion without fear of NPA or whatnot - they should try to stay away from personal attacks, but in heated debates, that's not always possible. The actual block came as a result of refusal to listen to an admin. I'm not here to have a pissing contest, I'm here to make sure Warwick doesn't keep making this a shitty, unfriendly place. Warwick thinks that I'm on some personal vendetta driven by intense dislike, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. I piss off plenty of people. Most of them, at least, recognize it for what it is; stating the truth. Or at least, the truth from my perspective; but tbh, I'm usually right, so it's pretty much the same thing. I don't hate him/her. I don't hate most people I communicate with. I made the mistake of actually hating a user once (it was on this wiki, too... a long time ago), and vowed never to give a fuck again, as it just made me less objective. Since then I've kept my feelings out of wiki discussions, and have been amazingly fair in my discussions/debates. When I went to make the block, I was trying to think what I could use as the block reason. I checked the mediawiki options and saw "Intimidating behavior/harassment," which was quite an amazing fit for the behavior I witnessed and wanted to discourage. It wasn't inaccurate in the least, and I could very well defend it; is this not intimidating behavior? Is this not harassment bordering on personal attacks? I could have been more descriptive and added, in the "Other/additional reason" section, something along the lines of general asshattery - but I didn't feel that necessary, because the mediawiki option was quite relevant. Lastly, Randomtime, I vehemently disagree with your shortening of the block; for two reasons. One, Gem already blocked the user for six hours for being an asshat; you don't turn around and ban them for shorter than that, ever - ban lengths go up, not down, especially for the same crime. Two, the user was in full awareness of said asshattery and knew the consequences of continued asshattery; yet s/he did it anyway. That doesn't warrant a 2 hour ban, that warrants a day at least. If you disagree with the block, discuss it with me before revoking it. Thanks. - Auroñ 20:15, 13 April 2008 (EDT)