User:Dan Dan Teddy Bearz/Archive 3

Trolling
Stop it. I have enough to deal with now that these bots are around. Lighting up dead conversations is beyond stupid. G R E E N E R 15:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant to troll. I didn't even know that conversation existed until yesterday, so I expressed my honest amusement about it. I'd planned on leaving it at that, anyway. So, being his buddy and all, you won't have to worry about any (further?) harassment from my end. No need to get so defensive. Teddy Dan, yo. 20:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at the very least, don't push it too far or favoritism will become an issue. Just letting you know in case you don't see it. Teddy Dan, yo. 20:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you could possibly mean by "favoritism". The admin noticeboard is not a place to just come by and express your amusement about a convo that's long dead. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why]] 22:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't see much, do you? This wiki isn't a place to just drop by and harass people about one comment they made about a conversation that was initially about them anyway. Now, go do something constructive. Teddy Dan, yo. 22:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Any further commentary on this subject, in this instance, will be exactly what you're preaching against: Trolling. It will serve no further purpose but to disrupt. GREENER stated his concern. You, "Why", are a third-party. An outsider. A bandwagon-jumper. You serve no purpose here but to inflame a simple discussion with your unwarranted and unnecessary inclusion. Open mouth, insert foot, troll elsewhere. Teddy Dan, yo. 23:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool story, yo. --JonTheMon 01:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don' be hatin'. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling it as it is, btw. Anyhow, "favoritism" is a red herring, as is "third-party" and "bandwagon-jumper". Why has a right to question your usage of the admin noticeboard, especially given your flippancy. --JonTheMon 03:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as much right as I have to comment on a section that was created about me. Favoritism is no more a red herring than "dis convo iz ded". It isn't dead if a party directly involved (through the plaintiff) feels they have something to add, unless the highest acting position of authority presiding the issue declares the issue closed. "Third-party" is no more a red herring than claiming a conversation is dead. I have just as much right to question his involvement in a discussion he wasn't welcome in as he has to jump into said conversation. It isn't about who has what rights, it's about what is right. Was I wrong to comment on an old conversation that started with me as the subject? No. Was GREENER wrong for declaring me a troll? Yes, but I understand how he could have perceived me as such. Was he wrong for demanding I stop commenting on that section? Seeing as there is nothing to suggest that section is off-limits, yes. Was "Why" wrong for jumping into a conversation that had nothing to do with him/her? Yes. Why do I say it had nothing to do with him/her? A) The conversation was between GREENER and I. B) It was basically already over when he/she butted in just to add his/her own two-cents. C) He/She offered nothing constructive. Are we done, or are you going to continue badgering me about something that isn't your business, either? You've been level-headed in the past, why change now? Teddy Dan, yo. 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Created about you? I don't see that connection at all. And "OMFG" and "amusement" don't qualify as something to add. And as it's the admin noticeboard (of which Why is an admin), more parties are involved bringing them in beyond third-party. Which is all aside from the point of "don't post random shit on the admin noticeboard, especially if it can be seen as trolling". Why's initial involvement was due to you saying Greener plays favorites, something which seemed vague, unfounded and possibly NPA, requiring some clarification. Clarification which you didn't give but instead said it was harassment and dismissed him. --JonTheMon 04:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Check the link he posted, about which he was making his complaint. Please at least do the research. Also, "Try not to whine about things you're not just as guilty of." was my constructive addition, aimed to turn him away from making complaints that would get him nowhere in the future. Seeing as GREENER brought the discussion to MY talk page, "Why" was no longer involved. Which is all aside from the point of "Lrn2Read and comprehend the definition of relevance, especially before you start trolling users' talk pages just to push your hypocritical weight around." Why's initial involvement was simply to question a statement that had nothing to do with him, which seemed unnecessary, unwelcome and possibly NPA (bordering on harassment, which this conversation between you and I is). I didn't offer the clarification because it wasn't for him, or you, to clarify. If anybody, it was for GREENER to clarify. If he'd asked for clarification, I would have offered it without contest. He hasn't. Any more abuse before this gets out of hand? Teddy Dan, yo. 05:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I'm stretching the harassment/NPA card, but you're also stretching the favoritism=/=NPA card. We should drop that one before it gets ridiculous for us both. This very discussion (how it is being discussed) teeters at least two of us on the edge of violating the NPA policy. So at least you and I need to take a step back and reexamine how we're approaching this non-issue. Deal? Teddy Dan, yo. 05:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered Why's question. And now that you're bringing it up regarding me, what are you talking about by "favoritism"? --JonTheMon 13:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I already explained why I'm not going to answer that question from anyone but GREENER, but I'll say it again. It was a caution directed at him, alone. In so being, he is the only person who deserves any justification for it. You don't. Neither does "Why". So, I'm not going to cater to your (likely malicious) intentions. If you're so uncontrollably curious, ask GREENER to ask me. Otherwise, badgering me for an answer isn't going to get you one. You're not going to push me around on this one. I do have a simple answer for it, I'm just waiting for the right person to ask. Teddy Dan, yo. 20:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Though you've asked for no further commentary, I feel I should apologize. As an educator, I abhor the use of the word "stupid", and am shocked at having used it. I can assure you that looking at the style of that sentence, the word I had intended to use was "ludicrous". G R E E N E R 01:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Unnecessary" would probably fit best and be the least potentially offensive. I was remiss not to point out that the fact that the conversation was originally related to a discussion between "RO" and I, any comment I may make regarding said conversation is valid regardless of when I comment. That conversation did change subjects, but I wasn't responding to the end of the conversation but the beginning (where my involvement would have been legitimate). Also, note that I offered him a suggestion for any future complaints similar to the previous discussion. Therefore, my commentary was not solely an expression of my amusement. Trolls or otherwise, getting flustered because someone is right is detrimental to any peace-making efforts. We could all benefit from being more careful in the future. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

NPA In case that part was missed. I have not once used profanity on this site. Though we strongly disagree, I still expect the same in return. Don't apologize for it, just don't do it again. Teddy Dan, yo. 05:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in comments to other contributors."
 * "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all contributors, including admins."
 * Points I think you're missing. 1. Greener and Why are both trying to tell you to not post to admin noticeboard. 2. it is a place to report things, not to comment, except by admins (on resolving, etc.) 3. If there are discussions on such topic to take it to the noticeboard talk. 4. old topics that have been settled for a while, do not need new discussions. Even if you are a friend, it wouldn't look good. 5. Those that have responded here are sysops and like anyone else, they have a right to respond here. It'd do better to respect them and not make a fool of yourself. I've been there and I do respect the 3 sysops on here, especially Jon and Greener as they're only trying to make the wiki a better place. 6. It is trolling, when you do post on the admin noticeboard and you do not see the red box that says "Please refrain from discussing here! (read the rules)" and one of the rules saying, "As this is a noticeboard and not a talk page, please refrain from discussing." I do hope you'll apologize to them. I'm only doing this out of good faith in that I've been where you are. There's a lot to learn, but working together solves things better than being hostile. I know you may only be "defensive", but there's no need and there's no need for the above. I hope this helps. Kind Regards, Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 22:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Why's involvement was unnecessary, as GREENER had already made the demand. 2) I was not aware that the discussion page for the admin noticeboard was not a talk page, which is where my addition was. 3) It was not settled, since the accused was not aware of the discussion until much later. Nor was action taken against the accuser for filing unnecessary reports or slandering other users. 4) Those that have responded here are trolls, aside from GREENER who made his demand and left it as such. You're not solving anything nor are you adding anything constructive to the conversation. All you're doing is continuing this argument for the sake of your own selfish pride, merely annoying me in the process. That is part of trolling. It'd do well to stfu and not continue to make a fool of yourself, because that comment alone borders on violating NPA. That's your only warning from me before I start reporting, as I've already warned Jon and you seem incapable of learning from that. 5) It is not trolling, as it was not a discussion but advice relevant to the admin noticeboard in that it was intended to prevent continuous unnecessary reports. 6) I do hope you'll apologize to me. You're only doing this to troll and if you've been where I am you'd have minded your own business rather than inflaming the situation further. You, yourself are being hostile, so don't preach about it. I hate hypocrisy, as I've noted numerous times. There is need for my defense, as I am being wronged. Wanna help? Get off my back. Your presence is disruptive. Teddy Dan, yo. 00:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Entrenchment
Here's the cliche, "Everyone step back."

I don't think there is any need for much of the above, and all parties are probably thinking the same thing, though perhaps for different reasons. I'm not sure why there is a ban, and I'm not going to play the judge on that. All I can say is that the above conversation has gone nowhere, and will continue to go nowhere.

A post was made by Dan. I came here and left a message that leaned too far from my intent; it provoked a response. Why came on looking for clarification; that provoked a response. The pattern continued. We've all said our parts, we don't all see eye to eye, let's accept that and get back to documentation. G R E E N E R 02:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Block
I've blocked you for wiki disruption, which has been a reoccurring theme in many of your conversations. In addition, after several sysop warnings, you continued to argue and wikilawyer about the specifics of your wrongdoings, and flat-out ignored Why's attempts to settle the matter. That behavior is unacceptable. Clean up your act or get used to being blocked. - Auron 00:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC) I thought the same once, but apparently a ban can be the warning. Just clarifying, not trying to troll or anything. Kaisha  09:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha this is gonna cause such a ruckus xD Morphy 21:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my talk page, for my user page. I cannot disrupt my own talk page, since it's about me/my userpage. That would be like claiming someone is being a poor guest in their own house. Your ban, while effective, was wrong. Not once was the threat of a ban suggested, so there was no warning of which you speak. That's all I'm going to say on the matter, unless I need to clarify any misunderstandings. I'm going to wait at least twenty-four (24) hours, starting now. After which I will be archiving everything on this page related to this subject. I ask that certain individuals, who likely know who they are, not troll my talk page in an attempt to goad me into justifying another ban. Teddy Dan, yo. 07:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lastly, I request that I not continue to be slandered on any other pages within this wiki. Those are personal attacks, which violate the NPA policy. Teddy Dan, yo. 07:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not once was the threat of a ban suggested, so there was no warning of which you speak."
 * Doesn't a warning, by definition, precede the suggested action/outcome? If it's been redefined within this wiki for certain usage then that would explain it. It would be wrong but still a logical explanation. Is that the case, here? I'm curious. Teddy Dan, yo. 09:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more like this: sysops have the discretion to act however they see fit. Warnings are not obligatory. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 09:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on my experiences here on this wiki, I honestly do not know whether I should believe that or not. No sarcasm or offense intended. Teddy Dan, yo. 09:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't let it get to you bro, "disruption" is basically a carte blanche to ban the people the sysops don't like. Morphy 13:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Here it comes.
I'm calling this one. I can sense it. Teddy Dan 14:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I so called it. So, here goes. 1: It was so blatantly related that not seeing it is your own damned fault. 2: I believe it's you who need to read the NPA, as I didn't attack anyone. I know the NPA policy well enough to know that I'm not wrong in anything I've said either now or previously. 3: "blocks should be given out fairly whoever the target" - pling. That was his issue with the block, which he brought up on that talk page. I merely revisited the issue, as it continues today. That which was initially addressed was but one instance of a recurring problem, which should be addressed on the noticeboard without getting immediately shot down just because power-hungry tyrants don't like to be questioned. Unfairness and the frequent obvious abuse of authority are major problems on this wiki, which (again) should be addressed. It is a problem for you as admins and "bureaucrats" to solve seeing as you are the ones with the power to do so. So, my concerned addition to that subject was exactly where it belonged. Prove me wrong.  Teddy Dan  16:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, for everyone's sake, stop jumping on the defensive, it gets tiresome.
 * The Admin talk page is designed to alert the admin of a specific issue. When I get informed that the topic on User:Gtn has been updated, I have to read through the old text, pull up related links on my tabs, and familiarize myself with the situation before reading the new text. To find out that your addition has nothing specific to add to the Gtn topic – be it the block length, the current situation regarding his guild page, or even if DE has responded to the topic – is simply frustrating.
 * As for the link to the NPA, it was a kind reminder that if you did want to voice your concern, you should take a look at that page. It's advice we all should take when we want to express ourselves in a manner we may regret later.
 * Now, to address your other concerns, please familiarize yourself with the wiki and its administrative format before you begin to attack it. Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship is a great place to start with many links at the bottom. Judging from your stance which you've stated many times, you are perhaps looking for this page, which doubles as a reconfirmation page for the admin. This is the process through which we are held accountable. G R E E N E R  17:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll try to tone down the sarcasm. From what I read, though I could be mistaken as I merely skimmed it and I may be mistaking it for the RfA, only those with 100+ non-talk/non-feedback edits are allowed to request reconfirmation of a sysop. If I'm not mistaken and it turns out that is what I read then that offers quite a large loophole for admins. All one would have to do is check the user's contributions for pages other than talk or feedback and if the user doesn't meet that 100+ requirement they can basically troll the hell out of them and then ban them just because they felt like it, which honestly felt like the case concerning my ban (especially since the only mention of it was but one off-hand remark). I've read the RfA and Adminship page numerous times, which is where I read that nothing I say will be considered simply because I don't met the edit requirement (as if using the talk and feedback pages makes me less of a user).
 * Adminship is a popularity contest, from what I've read through a few RfAs. If enough people say yes, it doesn't matter how right or reasonable anyone who says no is. That's wrong. There's no justice to RfA/Rs, only majority appeasement. I don't like how at least three of the admins on this site represent you as a whole. Perhaps I did submit my addition to that issue in the wrong place. I can admit to that much. Still, suggesting a(n) RfR for a popular admin, no matter how crooked that admin is, is a lost cause.
 * I have no desire to RfA, myself, since I don't take the position seriously as it is and I am wholly convinced that nothing I could say or do would change anything. I just want to point out the flaws in the system so someone who would be taken seriously may do something about it. I'm a cynic, and my treatment on this site hasn't helped, so I have strong doubts. But, it's worth trying. I know you disagree with most, if not all, of what I say. I know most admins do. Of course you do. It's only natural that you do. But you disagreeing with me doesn't make me wrong by default. It just means there's an opportunity to discuss the issue until it becomes clear who is, preferably without the threat of an unworthy ban looming over anyone's head. Teddy Dan  17:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone may request reconfirmations, vote in reconfirmations, or vote in regular RfA's. The 100 edit requirement is only for bureaucrat elections (and does not exclude all talkspace edits). - Tanetris 19:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You... You're always clearing these things up for me so calmly. All of my fighting spirit... it's gone. T_T (trans. = "Oh, thanks again.") Teddy Dan  20:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And as a final attempt to assuage any other remaining worries that you have, I do not believe that there is any admin who believes that they represent or lead the wiki. What administrative tools we have are designed to be used under the mandate given to us by the wiki community, and the number of tools we actually have is small. Not only are we held accountable on a regular basis by contributors, we hold ourselves accountable – and this is outside of the emails that we receive (which, for those wondering, no I haven't checked in a couple of days, sorry!).


 * Our current set of bureaucrats consists of three well respected and level headed people. They are meant to be our administrative check, and their emails are accessible to anyone with concerns. I can personally claim not to know any of the admin team – bureaucrats or sysops – in any other format outside of this wiki. I do not know them in-game, in forums or instant messaging, nor in person; therefore I cannot see how favouritism could come into play on any judgment which they may pass on me.


 * This wiki could not have survived for so long if it was built under a dictatorship or oligarchy, and I believe none of us want to see it become such. G R E E N E R  23:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When I express a concern regarding a ban that was never either necessary or forewarned, I am met only with flippancy. When I discuss the slander that followed the ban, it is completely ignored. I had sent an e-mail to one such "bureaucrat", which I had believed at the time would have at least taken my concerns into consideration, regarding the issue and was completely blown off. That is not accountability.
 * I can elaborate on the favoritism issue. It isn't impossible. I would simply rather not discuss it because that issue is old. If you ask, though, I'll elaborate. Only you , though. Teddy Dan  06:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Ted (Dan?). RfAs are really not popularity contests, though they could be (and often are) perceived as such. The reason for this is fairly simple- the wiki's direction is determined by community consensus, and bureaucrats and sysops are empowered by the community to act in whatever way they see as serving consensus. Consensus is not merely a matter of voting- it's reached through discussion and deliberation. Naturally votes will largely reflect consensus because people tend to agree on matters when it becomes evident which direction is best for the community's welfare. Thus, while you may see an RfA as a matter of "Lots of people voted support so the bureaucrat passed it," it is in reality closer to "After thorough discussion and an application of common sense, a consensus was formed that this individual would make a satisfactory admin, and the bureaucrat's decision reflects that consensus." Rarely bureaucrats will go rogue and act against consensus, but history has shown that it was a poor decision. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 07:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm just not easy to convince without enough evidence against what I've read or witnessed for myself. You could be right, I just haven't seen it. Maybe if I stick around for the next few RfAs/RfRs I'll see it for myself. Or not. Only one way to find out. Teddy Dan  07:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Try not to let a single bad experience shade your perception. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 18:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was twice, at least, but that's still a low number. I'm just not easily forgiving. We'll see. Teddy Dan  19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)