User talk:NightAngel11476

Ban Request Discussion
As an admin, I've glanced over this. I'm at work now, so will leave the final decision to another admin who has time to dig further into the history and review the full conversation/debate that took place. The ban request does ask for opinions on the user's talk page, so here are mine. My initial reaction was to simply delete the ban request as unwarranted - the personal attacks were not large. However, the continual condescending attitude during the discussion/debate, the egging-on of another user (ie: Skuld), and the gloating over having done so on another users talk page are all immature and marginally disruptive. Does this disruption warrant a ban? To me, not at this stage - although a warning to NightAngel does seem warranted. But as I said, I'll leave the final call to another admin who has time to dig further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:43, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Oh, I've learned my lesson. Arguing with people who can't or won't argue is just asking for trouble. What really makes me angry is not whether you promote the build to best build ever or delete it. I'm using it and will continue to do so whatever happens in this Wiki. What makes me angry is that Skuld (or Auron, are they the same person?) is quick to dismiss and despise skills, builds, users, etc, even to the point of "Unfavouring" a build that was previously favored because he didn't like it!. I believe this to be a narrow-minded attitude and it makes me incredibly angry. It's a flaw, I'll admit. There are a LOT of ppl out there who "just can't be bothered" with anything new, different or odd. Getting angry at all of them is an exercise in futility that will probably leave me fisting walls. Maybe it's masochism. At any rate, I apologize for PERSONAL offenses, but not for the debate. Debates are healthy. Saying "BS, scrap this" (or similar words) is not healthy. It's not constructive criticism. Do users of this wiki have to be constructive? Hell no. But wouldn't it be nice? That's all. Thank you and sry for offenses - the arguments should pertain only to the build, skills or facts in general. Your capacity to argue or think should be something each user should be able to discern by him or herself. Not my place to judge it, all I can really hope is that it becomes as clear to others as it is to me. If it isn't, then maybe I'm the one who is wrong. As for me, the build section is a resource for great ideas. Some more polished than others. Killing ideas seems like an awful job, but maybe somebody has to do it...NightAngel 14:05, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Although you are accusing Skuld and Auron of sockpuppetry, I'll just ignore iy. It's great that you are willing to discuss, even if it's i na slightly negative manner. Remember that Skuld and the others are using hours and hours each day in the wiki, trying to make it even better all the time. Sometimes mistakes are made and sometimes they are not in the mood to targue with someone for some reason. Still, one or two mistakes are really small compared to what they have done to help the wiki. Making a huge war of a small mistake (I don't know if Skuld or Auron made any mistakes, I didn't really read all of the ocnversations) doesn't serve them right and I can understand why Skuld wnated to stop the discussion shortly. I'm also willing to stop discussion when I get angry, and it's possible better to do so than to get angry and start a meaningless argument. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Edit conflict:


 * I appreciate that you acknowledge that you were wrong to personally insult Skuld.


 * Skuld and Auron are not the same people. I know from experience that Skuld and Auron are not narrow-minded. They do not despise skills/builds/users.


 * While I'm glad you are willing to apologise for your personal attacks I am disappointed that you would use this opportunity to insult Skuld and Auron, and it makes me question the sincerity of your apology.


 * Skuld and Auron had no requirement to justify their votes. Skuld justified his vote to the extent that he did out of courtesy; he could have left his vote at unfavoured and not bothered any further.


 * I don't think this situation requires a ban, but I hope that your behaviour on the wiki in future is more polite.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:15, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Post edit conflict:


 * I don't think that was a serious accusation of sock-puppetry, Gem :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:15, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Maybe they aren't narrow-minded, but that's my opinion. I'm not using an opportunity for insults... Hm. I don't know. If someone has a low IQ on a test, and you say "that person has a low IQ", is that an insult? No, it's a fact. But in this case it just boils down to opinions. I can't PROVE anyone is narrow-minded, can I? Maybe I can say an argument is baseless. Point out flaws on what they do or say, instead of on the person itself? Or maybe I'm not allowed to criticize at all - not being sarcastic, I'm really wondering. NightAngel 15:22, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * It's irrelevant if the stuff you say is fact or opinnion. There are some etiquettes in the internet as there are in real world social relations. You can't say everything you want if you want to keep good realtions. I suggest keeping some opinnions to yourself or saying them in a less negative way. It helps others to take you less negatively. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * I think this has gone way off-topic, to the point that I'm not even bothered by the "shut up" suggestion. SKuld was careful to insult the build and not the builder "bs", "useless", etc. I'll be careful as well. And in the big picture, does anybody really care if a build is good or not? People will still throw out a rit because monks are better, and kick out elementalists who don't have mesmer as second class. Move on and create another group, instead of getting pissed at the guy who kicked you. So, moving on...Oh yeah, and heroes are horrible for farming, farming with heroes is a waste of time because they "steal" all your drops. 'Cause, yeah, sure, random party members will donate greens they get to you just because of your charming personality :) -rolls eyes-. So yeah, convincing ppl to try something they don't know? Lost cause. Totally lost. Just say it's crap and move on :)


 * I'm really sorry if you thought that I just said 'shut up'. That wasn't what I ment. I just tried to say that no one should always say what they think as it might cause negative reactions. Sometimes it is wise to not say everything that you come up with. But you are right, it's time to move on and forget about this. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2006 (CST)
 * On the bright side, have you seen the amount of votes the build has been getting? Goes to show if you build something nice and people GET TO SEE IT (for instance, by having been favored before the .ahmm. "slightly pessimistic people" arrived), it fosters constructive debate and positive reinforcement. On the other hand, if you bury it quick because you don't like it... well. No huge tragedy, this is not a cure for cancer, but it would still be a loss. Right? And I issue a small challenge to the Skuld-defendors. Find me one instance of positive reinforcement. One time he said "hey, cool idea", or "nice thinking, I'll try that out". None? Almost none compared to all the negative ones? Well, that's my point. Is it offensive? Don't think so. Is it completely unrealistic? Probably. People can be pessimistic, it's not against the law or something :)

Hello Gem, Barek, etc. I don't know NightAngel, and agree that negative attitudes and/or personal insults should be discouraged, but I'd like to come to his defense in a way. Its pretty obvious to me that Skuld does actually have a negative attitude, and I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way. I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly, the whole issue with not a fifty five had partially to do with Skuld's 'hit and run' unfavoured votes, usually accompanied by negative, unconstructive comments. I thought part of the outcome of the not a fifty five issue and all the build debates was that the voters should make more of an effort to follow the guideline of providing constructive criticism to avoid these types of conflict. But here is a recent example of the type of vote that Skuld often leaves Build:W/E Rodgort's Knight, saying only "Sucks". He often seems close-minded about new build ideas, and any feedback offered is usually insulting, condescending, or unhelpful. I know you will say that Skuld is a frequent contributor, but thats all the more reason to make sure he leads with a good example, since his name is seen often around here. Its not surprising that confrontations occur with newer users when they experience hostile attitudes from a veteran user. Furthermore, on the topic of personal insults, I don't think anyone pointed out that Auron managed to insult an entire group of guildwiki users by calling R/D Scythe users "retards" in his vote here Build talk:A/D Disciple of Death. Are there certain types of insults that are acceptable and certain types that are not? -- BrianG 23:10, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * In response, not that it particularly matters (seeing as a Build section is a waste of everyone's time anyway) Most of the builds on this wiki suck, and one would be wasting his time (and faction) testing each crappy build. Skuld and I share a similar view on the "Tested Build" section; it represents the wiki. Anything that makes it there is the best we have; so if something is not the best, it will draw Unfavored votes from me (and possibly Skuld). More people should be thankful he puts up with a beaurocratic process for half of these junk builds; I'd just delete them and go on my way (another reason I shouldn't be an admin). If you think Skuld has a condescending attitude, go to GWGuru and post these builds; you'll be singing a different tune quickly (most likely complaining about the abuse you received over at their forums). So before you accuse anyone of narrow-mindedness, look in the mirror; I wouldn't call anyone that leaves 90% of these builds undeleted narrow-minded. Hit-and-run unfavored votes save time; the untested build list would *never* thin out if Skuld wasted time and faction testing each one before voting unfavored. P.S. Yes, I did call all the scythe-using Rangers retards. Guess what? Skuld uses 'em. That was mostly the reason I said that :) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 02:18, 6 December 2006 (CST)


 * As stated earlier, the current policy does not ask to test the builds or to give any reason for your vote. The builds section is getting big and there are a lot of people like Skuld who go through them and cast votes. The reson why Skuld is attacked sometimes is the fact that he is an admin. Attacking a random contributor for a negative vote on your build wont help, but if you attack an admin, you might hit a weak spot and suddenly the whole wiki wants to show you how they think you were mistreated and favour your build. The fact that Skuld hasn't gotten many of these complaints shows that he isn't doing a lot of wrongness. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2006 (CST)


 * Gem, if you follow the whole "You don't have to test a build and don't need to explain your vote", what's to stopping one or more users from systematically voting favored for every single build? Then voting becomes actually more like the real world - where people vote because the candidate has nice hair or uses a catchy phrase instead of his economic policies. Is that a good or bad thing? Heck, I don't know. It's the whole "Democracy is the worse kind of government, except for all the rest". I don't have the time now to vote favored for every single build, but it would be a solution right? If I believe that Skuld is not being fair, I can just cast a vote on the other direction and it evens out. If Auron casts another bad vote. Someone else can just chime in. And on it goes. Is that a problem? Just wondering. I don't have time to do that now :)


 * What... would be the point of voting favored for all those suck builds? All that imaginary user would be doing is hurting the wiki, pushing crap closer to the Tested section. Basically, that user would be reacting in a very childish manner, using a knee-jerk reaction to get at perceived enemies by voting against them, while being quite destructive to the environment and people around them. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 05:45, 6 December 2006 (CST)


 * So what you're saying is that a negative vote can be cast for any reason, without testing and without explaining, but a favorable vote needs to be carefully weighted and considered, Auron? :) Why, the administrators have clearly stated that the vote can be made for any reason. So, maybe the fact that the builds deserve a closer look, or maybe just to be nice to the builder, if it has any merit at all, is enough of a good reason. Or maybe Auron prefers the rules to apply only to others? Edit: by the way, of course voting for every single build is childish. But maybe for every build that has a negative vote AND that deserves at least some merit.... I mean, I saw your comment on the build with 3 signets of capture and 5 optional skills. THAT's childish - obviously there is some criteria to defending a build, doing broad generalizations like that....Second Edit: see, the A/N boon/prot build is a good example. Skuld chimed in, so can I. Is it a knee-jerk reaction? Nope. I actually read the build. Did I actually test it? Nope. Is the build horrendous? Heck, it was favored, and being favored means it's awesome right? By the way, I have a build that was mostly edited by me on favored builds - if that's the criteria for success, I'm feeling pretty good about myself :) NightAngel 06:06, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * Actually, my comment was about the W/Mo build. Speaking of not understanding what I say, you continue on to fallicize (fun word :) and ignore the point of my post (on this page). If someone is voting favored *simply to get back at Skuld or me or anyone because we voted unfavored*, that user is causing harm. You misinterpreted my post and thought I meant that all unfavored votes are okay, and every favored vote should be scrutinized, which couldn't be farther from what I actually said. If you vote favored because it's a good build, good for you; you're doing your job as a build tester. If you're voting favored because Skuld voted unfavored, you're a douche and should quit GWiki period. My bluntness is required here, because my sarcasm and satirical posts are being taken too seriously. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 06:38, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * I dont know how to report all this offensive behavior, but I'm pretty sure calling people retard, douches and such is against the rules. Or maybe you're being satirical? Hard to tell on the Internet. :) At any rate - This is going nowhere. I'm not about to start a similar argument with you that I had with Skuld and led to this whole mess in the first place. I will do whatever I want within the boundaries of Guild Wiki Rules and common sense, and you will do the same. Or not. Ps: "fallicize" is not a word. And by the way, how do you plan on discerning the reason for a vote? Telepathy? :)

Listen guys, I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote unfavored if you think a build is no good. I'm just saying skuld has a way of doing it that is often insulting. And this is not guildwarsguru or any other site so I don't care how things are done there, its no reason to justify behaviour here. Maybe it hasn't caused many problems but it has caused some problems and its blatantly obvious if you follow his comments on build pages. I'm just saying that if skuld put more effort into being less hostile maybe less of these confrontations will occur. I really just don't understand why that type of attitude is acceptable from an admin but when new people (who may not know better) respond to it in an equally hostile manner they are criticized. -- BrianG 08:47, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * P.S. In response to Gem's claim that "The reson why Skuld is attacked sometimes is the fact that he is an admin", do you really believe that? For the record, I had no idea he was an admin, all I knew was that he is a frequent contributor with a negative attitude.  I think the reason these conflicts occur has much more to do with his attitude than it does with the fact that he is an admin, seeing as how I don't even think most new users of the wiki know who is an admin and who isn't.  I know I don't, is there a list somewhere?  Anyway, since he is an admin, thats all the more reason for him to conduct himself more professionally.  If this was my site I would want admins to communicate with a bit more class and set a good example for new users. -- BrianG 10:31, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * GW:ADMIN --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:33, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * Thanks Barek! -- BrianG 11:01, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Appreciate the support Brian, but I went about the wrong way. And really, maybe the best solution is to just chime in with positive reinforcement and constructive criticism on builds and other areas, and just make others look bad for not doing so. Freedom of opinion works both ways... NightAngel 10:41, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * No problem. You're right though, the best way to counter negative attitudes is by responding with a positive attitude and not getting sucked into the negativity.  I try to do the same when providing feedback. -- BrianG 11:01, 6 December 2006 (CST)

My responses to the above discussors: Changing the voting policy is possible, but that should be done on the voting policy page, not here. I wasn't taking part in the forming of the policy so don't blame me for anything. And yes, I sincerely believe that admins get attacked more than regular users for the same mistakes. I can't know which attacks are made with the knowledge that someone is admin and which aren't. However, when a non-admin or non-regular is attacked, no one really cares and there isn't a whole war going on. Maby Skuld is too negative and agressive maby not. If you think that he is, please start discussion on his talk page, maby post links to a lot of his contributions which prove your point and ask people to discuss. And thanks for reacting to this reasonably NightAngel, I appreciate your current way of talking. -- (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * Gem, I'm not sure if its worth my time to go hunting for examples (although I'm certain I could find them), but I will make note of it if I come across more examples in the future. I don't want to start a big dispute, I just wanted to make sure that both sides of this conflict were considered.  It looks like everyone has done a fair job resolving this, thanks! -- BrianG 11:01, 6 December 2006 (CST)


 * This is one of the saddest displays I have seen. As most have noticed, I removed the ban notice yesterday because I reviewed the discussion on the build talk and I have seen much worse conduct from admins themselves. I questioned why Skuld added the ban and came to my own conclusion, but since it was speculative, it's not worth posting. I will try to be careful with my words, but if feel you are offended, I apologize in advance.
 * The builds section on wiki is a joke and most know it. Even Skuld has a babel box stating it is an embarassment. Why don't I contribute to try and make it better you ask? Because I do not want to hinder it or help it. This arguement grew past the builds section, which is why I entered the picture.
 * I also have to ask why users even post builds on GuildWiki when they know their build will most likely be torn apart by the regular build "testers". I place testers in quotations, because, according to policy, they don't actually have to test the build. You know I had a guild leader about a month ago ask me if I knew one of his guildmates. I had no clue who that player was. Curious, I asked why and the GL said he tried to pawn one of my old mesmer builds posted on GWG well over 6 months ago as his own. If that wasn't flattering, the GL and the posts when that build was first created were all compliments and some variations were even stated positively. To be frank, most GuildWiki "testers" lack tact. You can say it's because of all the builds posted on wiki that they have to respond to. As far as I know, they do not have someone making them respond to every build. If you can't stay positive and tactful when "testing" builds and commenting on them, if you wish to do that, then take a step back and go do something else. If all you do is get irritated at every build that comes along, falling prey to arguements, etc, then either you're going to eventually find yourself in trouble of administrative action or go nuts :P (I suspect some already are. lol)
 * In regards to Skuld, not any other, since he is an admin and for that should be an example of how someone on this wiki should act for other users and know that his actions are looked at more than the average contributor. I had to get on him recently regarding an uncalled for comment on a talk page to a user that had no reason to deserve such a response. He apologized and showed he can admit when he is wrong. I try not to interfere with the builds section as I have stated above, so as for Skuld's conduct on there, I rarely pay attention, but from what I've seen for this build's discussion, his words could have been thought about more before he hit the save button and that goes for everyone involved in that discussion. It's not like it is a slip of the tongue. All have ample time to write what you want, read it, change the words if need be, and then save it. It's not hard. Skuld, above others, should remember that. He is not a target because of his adminship, but the words he uses. The only thing in all this that revolves around him being an admin is that he should try to act in according to how an admin should act, with as much maturity, tactfullness, and rational behavior as one can manage in any situation. &mdash; Gares 12:02, 6 December 2006 (CST)