User:Mendel/Talk Archive 6

I reserve the right to edit section titles to coincide with the section content. =Comments=

Archive
''Copied content from the respective talk pages follows. See also block log (Auron) and user rights log (mendel)''

from User talk:Tenetke:
hi you're terrible at understanding game balance; i would recommend not commenting on it at all to save everyone else the time and agony it takes responding to poorly formulated and inadequately supported arguments. have a nice day :) - Auron 10:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we had a |"Don't be a dick" policy, I'd ban you right now. -- ◄mendel► 12:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should look into a "don't be stupid" policy first, those are leagues better in the long run. - Auron 13:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

from User talk:Auron of Neon:
GW:NPA

Please refrain from personal attacks such as on Tenetke's talk; you know GW:NPA and you will be banned next time. -- ◄mendel► 12:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tbh, fuck you. He's a stupid shit, and instead of containing his stupidity to userspace, he tries to spread it on talk pages. My post was a request to get him to stop, since stupidity without limits is a very bad thing. You can use your role as sysop to defend stupidity and let it flourish or you can use it to raise the bar - up to you. But don't pretend like you're doing the wiki a favor by banning me when I'm just playing the role of captain obvious. - Auron 13:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, posting he's a stupid shit as reply to that warning would quite probably be a violation of your proposed "don't be stupid" policy as well, and the only thing that's holding me back from blocking right now is that I want a second opinion. -- ◄mendel► 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Second opinion. Whether or not the person you're attacking actually is stupid is not the issue here, Auron, though I'm fairly sure you already know that.  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for three days for the aforementioned reason. -- ◄mendel► 15:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been unblocked because I do not think the original offense merited a block. Response here is borderline but I claim provocation/slippery slopeism.

That being said, you know this isn't GWW. Reality doesn't apply here so people will call you out for such stuff. (T/C) 06:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
I think some people want to change it to GW:NPAUTDI (No personal attacks, unless they deserve it) :P Silver Sunlight (T/C) 16:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. &mdash; Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
 * Don't shoot people unless they deserve it. -- ◄mendel► 21:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Postscriptum: do try and write Game balance. -- ◄mendel► 21:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your block. Saying someone fails at understanding game balance is not a personal attack. It falls under "Don't be a dick", perhaps, but certainly not GW:NPA in a blockworthy fashion. Also, real life laws do not apply here, and we all know the U.N. is garbage when it comes to practical matters anyway. (T/C) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd let it pass if it was a simple statement made in the course of a discussion. This was a well-crafted paragraph posted out of context on the user's talkpage. It addressed a single user, it contained opinion, not fact, the opinion is strongly negative, it made statements about the adressee, not about the poster, it it went quite further than just stating that he doesn't understand game balance, and I am quite sure that most people who read such a statement on their userpage would be offended by it. It not only feels like a personal attack, I think by the criteria listed, you can't deny it is one, and I am not the only one who sees it that way.
 * Is this the style of discussion you want to condone on this wiki? Please reconsider.
 * For me (and actually, for the German constitution as well), "dignity" is one of the unalienable human rights. In fact, our constitution says that no matter what a human (any human on earth) does, he does have dignity, and that means that everybody deserves respect. It applies everywhere. Please understand that I am not lawyering; my intent in quoting that is to show that such a policy, if it existed, would violate some fundamental norms of civilized behaviour.
 * Dignity has not always been understood to be such a fundamental right; that's why most of the older bills of right don't have it. But the present German constitution (and, I assume, the UDHR as well) were written in the light of the Nazi regime, which justified incredible atrocities against the Jews with "they deserved it" (by alledgedly plotting Germany's downfall) and communists, who'd been portrayed as subhuman by German propaganda. It means that most arguments that go "we treat you worse than everybody else because you deserve it" is ill-founded.
 * Of course specific behavour can net you specific consequences; that is what law is all about. But what you're implying in unblocking Auron is that if you post an opinion on a wiki talk page, you can be flamed without consequences, and you have no way to know before you post that this will happen to you. I can't see how we can attract decent people to this wiki with policy like this.
 * Auron posts once in a blue moon these days and probably won't even feel the three days. Nevertheless, you have chosen to unblock Auron without discussing this with me first, although most other wiki admins (and many users both new and old) have been online, probably noticed that before you did, and didn't comment on it (you may have received comments in private, I don't know). Overruling me this way means I hand in my badge and take a long wikibreak if you ever do this again. Yes, I am that pissed. -- ◄mendel► 10:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then let me save you the trouble. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Entropy, you are biased when it comes to Auron. Just an observation. --Macros 11:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrators can counteract other administrators, if they feel it prudent. An erroneous ban can be lifted. An erroneous delete can be restored. Typically, only a message on the talk page explaining the reason why such a countermeasure is prudent is expected in such a case. The "reverted" administrator is expected to oblige the revert, and should not reinstitute their action without discussing it with the "reverting" administrator.


 * Again, though this may seem a fairly chaotic governing system, it works extremely well in context of the wiki. An appointment to administrator is not something done lightly. The administrators are a cohesive team, and the mutual respect they share for another, even when disagreeing, is second to only the respect and care they have for the GuildWiki itself.


 * So I heard it's impossible to know Auron without being biased one way or the other. That is all. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but immediately quoting the admin policy seems like a cop-out response and just a way of saying "I have more power than you so I can disregard your arguments." While this may be true, it only serves to piss people off and drive away this wiki's already small userbase. --Macros 11:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is better than writing something scathing and inappropriate about an obvious disconnect with reality, don't you think? (Oops.) The admin policy applies equally to all administrators, anyway - it has nothing to do with me being a bureaucrat. As to driving away users: If you're going to rage over something as petty as this, then by all means, go. Because I can assure you I would do the same thing given another chance. I find it highly amusing that things have come to such a state that by exercising the powers granted by both the letter and spirit of our admin policy, in a perfectly ordinary manner, I can cause people to quit the wiki. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to rage, however, I am going to bed after I post this, so don't expect a reply from me for a while. I just seem to recall some sort of guideline that said admins shouldn't exercise their powers in a dispute they are personally involved with. Karlos got a talking to for that several times, I believe. And, Entropy, I think you are biased when it comes to disputes that involve Auron. This is the basis of my reasoning. Maybe that guideline no longer applies. Maybe it should. --Macros 11:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have blocked auron for two reasons. One, he was right, which is pretty important to me when it comes to fucking retards discussing balance. Two, he very rarely posts so it actually serves np purpose. Since he's got two previous blocks that I remember for NPA, 3 days would actually seem too low if you were going to block. ZZZZZZZZZ. Lord of all tyria 12:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When it comes to 'biased' aren't all admins 'biased' when it is about other admins/'noticable' users ? IMHO, shouting 'biased' isn't doing that much good in most of the admin discussions. Mendel & Entropy, please, take a step back, count to ten. Is this really worth fighting for. Both of you have my respect, I will not state who is wrong or right about this and I think it is a shame that it comes to this. Mendel, you unblocked without informing other admins. Entropy has problems not being consulted about it. So, someone is agitated, just say 'I'm sorry, next time I think about it before doing such action' and discuss the matter the way it should be done in the first place. NOT by making this discussion bigger then it deserves to be -- [[Image:merty_sign.gif]]-- ( talk ) 12:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mendel, you unblocked without informing other admins. Huh? You got something wrong there. -- ◄mendel► 12:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is true that generally, admins ought to avoid dealing with situations where they are personally involved, because as much as we try it's very hard to remove all traces of personal bias from affecting the decision. However, if you are going to apply that logic to me, then I'll counter by saying Mendel is biased in the opposite direction. Mendel is free to counter this by saying he acknowledged the bias and went through with the action regardless after a thorough examination of the facts; and that leaves me free to say that I did the same. (Unlike game balance and power creep, bias counters bias.)
 * I may or may not be putting words in your mouth/abusing hyperbole with the following statement: If I am so biased that every decision I make with regards to Auron is bound to be in his defense, why isn't he a bureaucrat or sysop anymore? What does that say about condoning such-and-such style of discussion?
 * @Merty...We try, we really do, not to let such rank/visibility differences influence our judgments, but we're not perfect. I also appreciate your concern in this matter, but unfortunately, a storm like this was almost inevitable to break out eventually. By which I mean to say, this is a conflict much deeper than you can understand. So if it seems like it is completely blown out of proportion, you are correct - there are other underlying issues. And while I am sorry that it creates wikidrama to manifest in this way, I do not feel sorry for my actions. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 12:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mendel is free to counter this: my actual counter is that I did ask for a second opinion, which I received. I also think Merty can understand the deeper conflict, and if he does not, he is free to ask, and I will answer as best I can. -- ◄mendel► 13:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "As to driving away users: If you're going to rage over something as petty as this, then by all means, go."

I'm not the one who raged; I didn't quit the wiki over the ban revert, precisely because there was the chance I'd not understood something well enough, and pointing out that the policy is "revert ban, then discuss" makes me reconsider. Did I get a chance to reconsider? Basically, I feel demoted because of a single post I wrote that expressed a feeling you didn't like; it wasn't even a wiki action that was involved.

You get a special irony bonus because you unbanned Auron because you think he has right to say to Tenetke "I am pissed at your stupidity", but you demote me over saying "I am pissed at your admin action".

I took / am still taking the wikibreak over what I think is an unfair demotion, because I know standing up for yourself in that state of mind is not a good idea. I seem to think that posting these paragraphs is a good idea; partially because I think having others stand up for me without taking a stand myself is not something I like to do. (Thank you!)

We'll see how that goes. A slightly different version was also mailed to Entropy. -- ◄mendel► 12:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Overruling me this way means I hand in my badge and take a long wikibreak if you ever do this again."
 * Unless I'm highly deficient in clue today, you were threatening to resign if I ever countered you on an administrative action again. Knowing that this was an all-but-complete certainty, I saved the drama by cutting to the chase. Was I wrong in that? (You of all people I would expect to know the policies best, even better than myself; since you actually bothered to read them, even before being promoted... and you're one of the last people I would expect to retract[?] a prior statement because you did not thoroughly think it through first.)
 * I unbanned Auron because I do not believe he breached NPA or otherwise performed a bannable offense. Your threatening to ban him for it quite possibly provoked him to further hostilities, in addition to it being on his talkpage (semantics difference, but there is one), and thus I still refrain from considering ban-worthy at that point. A warning I would have given, most likely.
 * If I tell someone that their logic is terrible, that is not a personal attack. That is all. It is certainly not a bannable offense by any stretch of the policy. What I take offense with is not the block in and of itself (since, after all, admin discretion = can ban anyone at any time for anything); but rather that you would categorize it as an NPA. "asshattery", "being a dick", etc. would have been much more acceptable. Why do I consider this a problem? Because if the block stands, it expands the scope of NPA to cover anything which could be construed as a personal attack; it puts in a slippery slope notion that "one must be courteous and nice in discussion" or be subject to administrative action.
 * Slight digression - my summary for the unblock is another (smaller) issue, alluded to by Loat above - the block really doesn't solve any problems. Auron posts here very rarely, and thus a block of any appreciable length would have to be for weeks/months. (Which would also be way out of proportion for an NPA; not to mention prior violations are like a year+ old.) Remember the discussion about "block doctrine"? A block is a tool which is to be used preventatively, not punitively. In this case, it seems very clear to me that Auron wasn't on an NPA spree or any crap like that, and thus the block is meaningless; the point would have been to "stop" him, but he did that by himself, and would have done so regardless of the block in any case. You also know as well as I that a simple block won't make him change his discussion style, so "pre-emptive prevention" is also out of the question. Therefore, the block becomes punitive, to serve the interest of..."justice", I suppose... "The user broke policy and so he should be banned." And that is contrary to how the law works on this wiki. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I forgot that you're on the preventative side of the doctrine now; when I look back on the thread on the admin noticeboard I only see that you're like "it depends". Anyway, Auron had attacked a user (10:24), got warned (12:41), insulted the same user again and started insulting me (13:16), so I blocked him (15:41) to prevent further abuse. (I would've blocked sooner, but I waited for a second opinion because of suspected bias on my part.) You unblocked 15 hours later.
 * "a simple block won't make him change his discussion style": look back on what happened around the time of his first, failed RfA; I think it was about that time he got blocked, and he was on better behaviour up to the other RfA at least. 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. For long block lengths, there is no other way than to start short and work up, and like you, I disregarded the old blocks.
 * It's not about being courteous and nice in discussion; there was no discussion as there was no logical reasoning of any kind in Auron's post; it's about going to the talkpage of an editor that you don't agree with (heck, that probably the majority of readers doesn't agree with) and telling them to stop posting. You like to say the wiki's not about majorities, the wiki is about arguments and reason; that means we protect minorities even if we think they're wrong because if we don't, the minorities who are right stop posting. It's an attempt to intimidate and bully an editor he didn't agree with, and if GW:NPA doesn't cover that, it bloody well should. -- ◄mendel► 21:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Postscriptum: About the warning: I seem to recall that users are usually warned on their talkpages; I tried to be non-aggressive, yet draw a firm line. If you think I worded that badly, please explain. Should I have omitted "and you will be banned next time" and just have followed through with the ban when it happened again?
 * At the time I wrote my reply on Tenetke's page, I still thought (like you do) that it was just a case of "asshattery", but rethinking it and examining the structure and context of Auron's post made me decide it was a personal attack indeed (see details above, "I'd let it pass..."). -- ◄mendel► 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) While I don't completely disagree with what Auron posted on Tenetke's talk, I feel that he was unnecessarily rude and condescending which, at this point, are basically Auron trademarks. Don't get me wrong, I like and respect Auron, but he doesn't seem to understand the difference between being "blunt" and just outright being a jackass (because there is indeed a difference). Furthermore, his response to mendel, while perhaps somewhat provoked, was way out of line.

One of my largest concerns in this issue is that Auron's attitude toward Tenetke (ur bad, gtfo *trolls off wiki*) is exactly the attitude that has turned PvX into the cesspit of trolling and retardedness it is today. Letting this slide is a step in a direction I'm not sure you want GuildWiki to take. Even if banning Auron doesn't solve any of the problems with Auron (which I'm fully aware it won't), it sends a message to other would-be trolls that we don't appreciate that kind of behavior.  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 13:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to reiterate that blocks aren't meant to be punitive. By extention, that means you do not use them to "send a message". (before anyone digs through the logs on here or some other wiki to find a counterexample, I say this: those sysops were doin it wrong, including me.) I also find the argument somewhat fallacious, Wizard, that "if we let Auron go free, that will make it seem okay to other would-be trolls". This is common argument used in defense of punitive bans being a good thing - "it helps to deter vandals". But it is also unproven and stems from reaction out of fear for what may happen. It is the same line of thought which leads one to protect various obscure-but-widely-used templates on the wiki because a clever vandal *might* decide to mess with them. That was a wrong thing to do. Situations are to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; whenever a vandal/new user/etc. points to a past precedent and says "But look what you did there, I did the same thing, so I should be treated the same!" that is not a valid argument because of what we call discretion. (Not to mention that extenuating circumstances change over time.) Discretion defies logic, but it is the way we run things here. It is contrary to real life, because in real life, claiming discretion gets you into trouble very quickly; Wikis just don't operate like real life. The spirit of the law trumps the letter, and common practice/consensus trumps both... not so in real life. On wikis, we take intent into consideration, and whether or not the actual "victim" was "harmed"... etc etc.
 * Tl;dr: would-be trolls aren't Auron, and they will be treated individually regardless of the outcome of this decision. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

related comments
1 comment moved from below:

I didn't want to become involved, but I've followed this argument. There's most likely more to it that seen here, as I think Entropy said, but personally, I believe the ban was just. Stating someone is an idiot on that user's talkpage, completely out of context IS imho a personal attack, even though his choice of words made it seem much less worse than it actually was. Even when Mendel gave him a warning he simply continued to insult Tenetke, making it even worse than it already was. [..] (btw, entropy, this is not critisism on your acts, but merely my observations and opinion. I won't say that any of you acted wrong, because I don't think I have seen the entire argument, only the part about auron insulting Tenetke).--El_Nazgir 08:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology to Entropy
Concerning the footnote of this edit, I was completely in the wrong; I had no right to be angry about the way you handled the unblocking, since you were following established GuildWiki policy; and it was unprofessional of me to bring my anger to the wiki in this way. It will not happen again. -- ◄mendel► 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinion please Mendel
How're we doing? Be honest. -->Suicidal Tendencie 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some good ideas, some not so good. Get on irc if you want details. -- ◄mendel► 23:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So anyway, who can't tell "men" from "man?" :P RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 04:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pan likes to address people by syllables of their name - and mine isn't mandel. ;-) -- ◄mendel► 10:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I... can't... I followed a link from someone's page and it wouldn't let me, saying it had expired... it was a while ago. Sorry. -->Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 10:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? o.O -- ◄mendel► 10:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You forget I'm a noob... irc means nothing to me tbh (e.g. no clue how to get it... the vaguest of ideas as to what it is) Like MSN? -->Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indenting does matter - it looked as if you replied to Rose. :-P Irc works like MSN, only the other way around: with MSN, you chat with single users first, and invite them if you want a group chat. With irc, you generally join the group, and can then chat with individual users (although it can be used like an instant messenger, and indeed many open-source messengers can connect to irc). But yeah, the link for browser-based irc on our page is not working (but hopefully will again in February).
 * Go to http://www.mibbit.com/chat/, wait for the page to load completely, where it says IRC: Mibbit webirc, change that to Gamesurge Webirc, edit the nick if you like, and do change the channel from #mibbit to #gwiki. Click Go and wait. Type "Hello" in the box at the bottom and wait (could be 15 minutes before somebody notices (sometimes it takes hours), but everbody in the list on the right will see what you wrote eventually, unless they disconnect first). So just keep the chat window open and check back from time to time. Using a dedicated irc program (or even the Chatzilla firefox plugin) is better than mibbit, so you ought to consider installing that if you intend to use irc regularly. -- ◄mendel► 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wtf are you doing? >.> (T/C) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Triggering one of the biggest spamstorms in recent wiki history, apparently (and inadvertantly). I'm extremely proud that the participant list reads like a "wiki who-is-who". -- ◄mendel► 10:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM oh, sorry... everyone was doing it, I just wanted to be popular! -->Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I understand correctly, this is an open invitation to vandalize your page any way I see fit? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well he has been everything from a kitten to a baby eater, so go ahead :P Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|18px]] (T/C) 14:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehehe... the more kinky it is, the longer it will stay up... I'm mature... -->Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 14:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait... Mendel... can we do ANYTHING? -->Suicidal Tendencie 14:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, liek, we needz you here.... I needz you. plz don't leave :-( Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Arnout.. who's leaving? -->Suicidal Tendencie [[Image:Suicidal_Tendencie_Sig.jpg]] 17:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He probably thought the delete tag was legitimate. It's okay Arnout, mendel's not going anywhere. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 17:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously... this is unjust. My op. Of no importance. Unjust. --Alc ^^  18:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Arnout, Alc, everybody, I thank you for your support. Don't be sad. Go have some fun vandalizing my userpage, the opportunity won't last forever. -- ◄mendel► 00:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A part of the following comment was moved up a section. ◄mendel► 
 * And another thing, I believe vandalising someones userpage, even when he/she asked for it, very, very rude towards that person, even if he/she can just make a rollback or copy the original content back on it. --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 08:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * El Nazgir, I've enjoyed most if not all of these vandalisms, and don't think they've been rude at all much. :-) -- ◄El Mend► 08:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still feel it's inappropriet. If you want a childish page, make a sandbox and screw over that page.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 14:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Mendel's evil plan
I can see where this vandalism is going. It's like a trap. Once it's over you will go through the history and block us all for vandalism! Silver Sunlight (T/C) 02:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that he can't anymore! Ohhh so mean [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everybody believes now that the page is protected, though, so no more vandalism... ;-P -- ◄mendel► 08:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * enoguh vandal for you? Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some kinda reverse psychology at work?--Alc ^^  11:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't keep up with the politics >_< Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|18px]] (T/C) 14:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither can I. But still, I try. -- ◄mendel► 14:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)