Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Pling

Wyn's block

Did you consider only the discussion on Wyn's talk page (including the noticeboard talk) as "disruptive", or was something else you considered for the block?

Also, after the input from other users, has your opinion on the issue changed, or you still hold it as a proper course of action?

Lastly, have you taken some time to review again the whole discussion on Wyn's talk page? --Fighterdoken 22:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The issue on Wyn's talk page, and to a lesser extent User talk:Chris Malone, led to the actual blocking; however, Wyn's behaviour has been somewhat consistent. If you want, you can call this "the last straw", which might not be far off the mark. Her comments in IRC and User talk:Ariyen don't show to me that the block was unjustified, nor does my rereading of the situation. Since many private messages of advice, a reconfirmation, and Tanaric's comment/warning/message today didn't seem to help, I felt the consistency of her behaviour throughout multiple pages and directed towards multiple users warranted a block. -- pling 23:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

@Drogo: Disruption can be caused by 1 person. - Mini Me talk 23:29, 26 December 2009

It only takes one person to start a riot, I know. I see and understand where Pling is comming from. I never said that he isnt allowed to have his opinion or shouldnt have the ability to voice it (Blocking Wyn in this case). I simply feel that the block was not warranted and the whole situation should have been handled different. If he truly felt that part of the reason for blocking her was the discussion being disruption then the other major person in the discussion and the person that took it to her talk page should have been blocked too. She should have simply told Lacky to not discuss on the AN, Lackys comment was 18 mins after the original post made by silver edge. He did not remove the email and was in no way involved. He just put his 2 cents in where it was not needed. He didnt offer any helpful information to the situation. After Wyn told him not to discuss on the AN he then took it to her talk page where they both went at each other in anger. They are both equally guilty. Only one was bocked the other didnt even recieve a warning. To me that looks 100% biased on Plings part. We all know that he dislikes her and this is the whole reason behind me even posting for the rfr. I was not looking for people to jump on the bandwagon and try to have Pling removed. I wanted to voice my opinion and make sure that it was heard loud and clear. I meant no offense to anybody but the chances are no matter what you do your going to offend somebody. Drogo Boffin 23:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Disruption" is an overly general flavorless code-word often used in gated communities to keep out free thinkers and ethnic persons. IoW: this incident would look a whole lot better in Pling's favor with a different more exact term. Weasel Words don't belong in a Sysop's arsenal... It's almost as bad as writing "Douchebaggery" on a Ban-Ticket --ilr 23:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

With Brains answer here, now my 2cp:

I am talking as someone who has argued with Wyn several times already over both important and non earth-shattering problems. As such, i think i am qualified to make an interpretation of the issue at hand.

As observed from Wyn's last edits, and in particular last night's intervention (i was online at the time), i have to say that yes, a "chill out" flag was probably required. As such, i think a block still falls within any admin's discretionary action, specially given that we consider them as "any other user".

My main problem with all of this is the main trigger for it. Brains insists that the "discussion on Wyn's talk page/admin noticeboard" was the trigger and that required intervention, but nothing from what i saw there went beyond Wyn's usual lack of ability to explain her own acts after being questioned. And, as usual, the whole issue was sorted a couple hours later without major drama. The fact that Brains keeps ignoring that Tanaric's message on Wyn's talk page did help solve the issue at the moment also worries me.

For me, all of this is just a big misunderstanding originated on both Wyn's inability to justify herself when questioned (unless she is asked to in a "apples and oranges" fashion) and Brains inability to interpret correctly certain parts of Wyn's answer due to that (which kinda bugs me since i would expect admins to be familiar with each other's behavior and way of expressing themselves).

All in all, it's just a shame that we have to go through 2 RfRs for this.--Fighterdoken 00:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to Jette: It is considered "poor form" (extreme understatement) to unblock yourself on every wiki I've ever visited- on GWiki it was usually grounds for their equivalent of reconfirmation by itself. Not sure if that is the case here since afaik it's never happened, but it's still pretty serious fucking business. – Emmett 01:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My instance with Wyn on my talk page was started and resolved. That should have no resolution on the decisions of Wyn and Lacky as that was a separate issue that Wyn went at a bit harshly and I think she may have regretted the way she worded it. However, it was resolved by the time Pling stuck his nose into it. If it was still on going, when he was on. I'd see the ban as Justified. At least with Wyn, she warns before the block. Despite previous past issues. We all have them and are human. However, I have seen this with Pling, before and I don't feel comfortable someone having their sysops, abusing them when situations are already calmed down and resolved, which I would have 'thought' that the person would look at the history time too compared to the time on the wiki and I would have seen it even more plausible, if there were/was a comment or a note left on the Admin noticeboard. -- riyen ♥ 01:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Given how Wyn was banned for disruption, and her banning actually caused more drama than anything she has done recently, I don't agree with how this ban was done at all. Considering how other sources of disruption are rarely banned at all here even causing far more problems than Wyn ever did, with significantly less contributions to the wiki, this felt more like Brains banning someone he does not like than a sysop preventing further problems. This reconfirmation, in other hand, is a waste of time - a sysop should not be removed due to a simple mistake, and regardless I doubt Brains would see it as a mistake even if he were to lose sysop status, further making this moot. I wish all parties involved took a few days off the wiki, though; it looks bad for this site when a sysop asks for the reconfirmation of another sysop after the latter had banned a third sysop. Erasculio (on the sea) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using Wyn's large editcount to shield her from the fact that her behavior has been poor for over 6 months. We know she is an excellent contributor in terms of content and I don't think anyone wants her to stop working here in that respect. – Emmett 03:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actualy, her behavior has been pretty much the same since i first saw her on the wiki. The fact is, there are better ways to "stop" her than just stamping a block over her 5 hours after she already calmed down wiki-wise...--Fighterdoken 03:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr

What is Wyn's standing on all of this? ---Chaos- (moo) -- 01:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

lets ask her? Oh wait...personn5 01:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone probably has her on their MSN. You guys don't even know if Wyn thinks Pling did the right thing, so don't jump ahead of things. She's perfectly capable of standing up for herself. This RfR will pass, though, so I don't think it matters much. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

She made her point pretty clear on IRC, just before calling Pling a shithead and raging the channel. I'm pretty sure she doesn't agree with the block. – Emmett 02:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahahhahahahaahaaahhahahahahah, maybe that means she was reacting too emotionally and the ban was in place ;o ---Chaos- (moo) -- 02:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) IRC is IRC. Wiki is wiki. We don't decide based on what people says somewhere else.--Fighterdoken 02:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Throwing out valid evidence is stupid. – Emmett 02:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right, let me rephrase: "We don't decide based solely on what people does/says somewhere else".

Our rules are created to regulate the interaction for the community within the wiki, and is the wiki our zone of work. We don't police "somewhere else".--Fighterdoken 02:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, cocks. -FireFox 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, she doesn't seem to like it Kurtan 02:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol...? ---Chaos- (moo) -- 02:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I was asking Wyn's standing on this, and since Wyn is banned, her opinion is obv. expressed from elsewhere, so please gtfo with this "But that didn't happen on GWW" idiocy, because he simply asked my question, which was completely relevant. Guys, I know it's December and everyone is bored at their computers, but can you srsly grow up and learn to control your emotions or boredom or w/e is causing all this retardation? ---Chaos- (moo) -- 02:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

IRC log

An IRC log from today containing before the block and then discussion regarding the block. I disconnected a couple times so the log is not 100% but I still believe it's pretty telling. – Emmett 03:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: It was just pointed out to me that that log contains an email address, so I'm trying to get it removed. The short version with irrelevant comments removed can be found here, and if anyone wants to read the full log because they suspect me of doctoring it I can provide that if necessary as well. – Emmett 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I just read all of that... -- Lacky 04:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Irc should stay off the net. It is an UNOFFICIAL wiki chat area. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WIKI It's self. Just a place for us to hang out. To use it as such is REDICULOUS and INSANE. That's really a straw against Pling to have even used that as a cause as well. I'm surprised at the dumbness that we have going now as I have NEVER recalled IRC being involved with wiki issues. This has gone too far and is too INSANE for admins or people in general to do. Basically shows how many don't have a life and want to combine things said outside the wiki. What is said outside of the wiki, should stay outside the wiki. -- riyen ♥ 07:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That was not factored into the block at all. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before posting. Furthermore, 1. Regards – Emmett 07:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, just like how wikimail is heresy in permaban reviews. P.S. Unless I have a case of mistaken identity, you're on IRC pretty often, and also discuss wiki issues there. So...wut? Vili 点 07:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, but no where does it say we can't discuss wiki stuff outside wiki. Usually, It's just we don't bring all that in, due to drama. Except for 42 who brought outside wiki in and not left it alone. I'm just saying it really does no good to help either party out by bringing in outside stuff. -- riyen ♥ 07:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The IRC channel isn't really out of wiki. It's just not on the wiki. --Dominator Matrix 07:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Even so, it shouldn't be used in or on the wiki as evidence. It's just a chat place for us to speak our minds. Most have done that, because they had 'felt' it wouldn't show up here. After this, I can see people not being too happy, wondering if they say stuff on there that'll show up here to be used as 'evidence' at all, like what Emmett tried to do. -- riyen ♥ 07:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you ever had the idea that stuff you say in IRC doesn't get logged and shared around, then you must be new to the Internet. Just saying.

More to the point, the log was posted to show the discussion that was had regarding the block, the actions of the various parties, etc. It isn't meant to be used as "evidence", but rather to be enlightening - to show the rest of us the reasoning that was sadly not documented here on the wiki. However, I will concede that Emmett's addition of "I still believe it's pretty telling" was not a very wise choice of words. Vili 点 07:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vili. While i have showed several times my lack of appreciation for external means of contact such as IRC, it is due to the fact that the information relative to such items is reserved only for the participants and usually excludes the rest of the community.

Since the log was made available here on the wiki for anyone interested to check it (those users involved inclusive), there should be no problem taking it as reference for anything people wishes to use it.--Fighterdoken 08:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, Should just long things and post them that would seem 'relevant' to users, issues, etc. I have only see bad come from Irc logs, when posted online even. People on many sites have tried to use that as 'evidence', when anything can be 'doctored' to make someone look 'bad'. Only real way is if several post their own version, then would it be clear to see if it's been 'doctored' or not. I have written a story as an irc format and I can tell you that it's not hard to make something look real that's not real, especially with IRC. -- riyen ♥ 08:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the (unintentional?) insinuation that our dear sysop Emmett is doctoring logs to further his own nefarious political wiki agenda, I feel compelled to state that IRC logs of interest are often* passed around between users, not even just among sysops...but, it is only the most important of them that get posted to the wiki. "We talked about it on IRC and came to an agreement" as an edit summary for a disputed page, for example, is usually all that is necessary...an entire log of a conversation is for cases like this where there are several points to go over, and they cannot easily be objectively summarized. It is also important to note how this conversation took place in the "public" chat, so to speak, rather than as a "private" chat between two users - those logs are implicitly off-limits, similar to in-game PMs.

tl;dr I agree with your principle (that logs of public, relevant, and pertinent IRC chats about wiki things should be available on wiki to anyone who is interested), but "do it always or don't do it at all, consistency!" is just not the right approach to take here. Vili 点 08:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) IMO, the log makes it clear how the ban was a mistake. As mentioned in this page, it came too late to be a "punitive" block. Its role as a "take some time to cool off" ban has obviously failed as well, considering Wyn's reaction both on IRC and on Wikia - she doesn't think she was wrong, and being banned by someone who she knows doesn't like her would clearly not convince her of that.
It's not a matter of how bad Wyn's behavior has been (yes, it has been problematic), rather of what was done about it. Was the goal to make Wyn see how her behavior has been lacking recently? If so, that obviously failed. Was the goal to piss her off even more and eventually lead us to losing a valuable sysop? Then congrats, the ban is working as intended, although Wyn deserved more respect than that.
Given how inteligent Brains is, I have no doubt he knew what Wyn's reaction would be to the block. In other hand, this request for reconfirmation is the same mistake: I doubt anything said here would make Brains see how mistaken he was. Therefore, this request is not going to work as a "stop and think" time; the best it could do would be removing a valuable sysop from us.
That the point of focusing on contributions. Someone who does nothing to help the wiki and only causes disruption should be banned far more quickly than someone who's a valuable contributor, as the latter is a far more valuable tool for the wiki. Erasculio (ctc) 11:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'mistake' made was paying attention to Wyn after she was blocked. That is what caused unnecessary ruckus as far as I can see. Koda Kumi 13:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say I agree wholeheartedly with Erasculio and fighterdoken in this instance. I personally would have far preferred an arbcomm so as to just define what was proper and let both sysops move on in an informed manner as I really don't believe in taking away sysop powers for simple mistakes and errors in judgment as its counter productive. Also the question of if a sysop acted in the correct manner in an instance should not be intrinsically tied to if they are fit to continue to sysop. The unfortunate thing was that with the number of votes added to the recon request, in response to Wyn's block, it was clear that a recon would take place, thus I retracted the arbcomm and added my name to the recon request to express my dissatisfaction with Pling's actions in this instance, hoping that the RFR would serve as a vessel of debate and discussion on the issue while not depriving us of Pling as a sysop. I still think an Arbcomm was the correct course of action in this instance, so as to gain clarity, but I don't think one should have both an arbcomm and an RFR ongoing at one time and thus why I opted to go along with the idea of an RFR. (as their was no personal way I could prevent it and I felt the issue warranted discussion in one format or another) -- Salome 13:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

@Erasculio - Wyn is already protected by her edit count and sysop status. That's sort of how blocks work around here already. We take into account how useful to the wiki that person is when we place the block; that's what I've done for Backsword and that is (I am sure) what Pling did for Wynthyst. However, a big edit count doesn't mean you're immune to blocks, and honestly your comments concern me, as that is what you're expecting in her case - ridiculously preferential treatment to the point where we ignore her nonstop attitude problem forever and are never able to block her for it simply because she has a high edit count. That is a mistake - a much bigger one that a block placed to curb such tendancies.

Secondly, two things - firstly, four hours hours after the fact is not too late to be a punitive block. This is a wiki - a comment several days old is "old," a comment several hours old is not. Stop expecting it to be an instant messenger. Secondly, it did not fail as a block, the recipient failed again by not taking the time to cool off. If she's not going to cool off through a RfR and a block, what the fuck do you think is going to make her cool off? -Auron 17:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Being blocked by Tanaric, someone who Wynthyst respects immensely and who, by her words, will request a RfA in a couple weeks. Or a ban by Salome, who would probably be seen as someone less biased than Brains. His block wasn't meant to prevent more disruption (given how the situation had already deflated, hence it being too late), and IMO it was clear Wyn would not accept Brains telling her how she was wrong through a ban, just as part of the community would not accept it either (hence this request for reconfirmation). She likely wouldn't have accepted it either if you had banned her, Auron.

I don't think the options the wiki had were "ban Wyn" or "do nothing". Brains could have had blocked her when he did and how he did (with the likely result of just pissing her more), or we could have tried many other things, some of which would do more than just pissing Wyn off and causing all this drama. Erasculio (fishes are pretty!) 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't see anyone suggesting anything to cool her off. My question still stands. If a RfR and a block don't cool her off, what will? Pling is already as neutral as it gets - pretending that a block placed by someone biased in her favor would help is a fallacy, as those blocks would probably never happen, and regardless, who placed the block is irrelevant, as long as the blocker had solid reasoning.

You're all caught up in trying to find blame in Pling, but you're still missing the part where Wyn is still missing the point. She got reconfirmed for having a terrible attitude. She got blocked for having a terrible attitude. When people tries to tell her that (like Ariyen did, like Tanaric did, like Pling did, like I have), the response they get is akin to LOL or sometimes just ad hominem attacks followed by a ragequit from IRC.

Does that sound like she's learning? Does that sound like she's making an effort to you? When she comes back from being blocked, do you think she's going to continue having the same attitude problems she always has or is she going to realize her mistakes and change how she reacts to everyone? And if your answer is the latter (which I assume it is), what can be done to make her realize her attitude problem is not acceptable? It's all well and good to sit here and call Pling biased and unfair and whatnot, but I could care less because I haven't seen a single fucking person in your crowd actually trying. Basically, at this point, put up or shut up.

The fact that Pling's RfR exists at all is evidence that people are too willing to go on a witch hunt to protect their friends. Stop focusing on the wrong shit and start looking at the real problem - Wynthyst and her shitty attitude concerning everything under the sun. When she gets in a bad mood, it affects everything she does - her ineractions with people, and worse, her use of the sysop tools. That is the problem at hand. That is why the block was placed. Can we stop pretending Pling did anything wrong and start focusing on the real issues, please? -Auron 18:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Tanaric did tell her to cool off. She ignored him. Why would she respond better to a block with the same exact message from him?

I would like to dispute your claim that the block wasn't meant to prevent more disruption. It was meant to prevent future disruption by helping Wyn realize her attitude problem, which despite a reconfirmation is still a problem. It has persisted for months (or apparently in some users' minds since she started editing), and there is no indication that such a disruptive attitude would have just magically ceased.

If Wyn chooses to respond this negatively to a block, that is on her, not Pling. Rather than going on a rage about how Pling hates her, she should have stepped back and cooled off then dealt with the matter calmly (which, incidentally, her failure to do so in every other situation is what led to the block in the first place).

Really, those were the only options. As Auron said, if a reconfirmation won't make her realize that she has an attitude problem, what do you think will? A greeting card? A ban was a perfectly reasonable step to make- and now a reconfirmation, a ban, and verbal requests have failed- what magical solution are you seeing that nobody else is? – Emmett 18:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So, you admit that this whole storm is because she LOL'ed at Tanaric's words, Emmet? By the way, that wasn't what happened. Heck, both users even took the time to explain their motives for the discussion after that intervention on a civil manner.

@Auron. We have the tools already for telling an admin to stop being a jerk when they are still breaking no rule. It's called ARBCOMM.--Fighterdoken 18:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is probably best that I am not a sysop, because at this point, I would be willing to block Wyn for a month to enforce a time-away period. I won't post Wyn's private communication to me onto the wiki, but her on-wiki behavior as related to what she's expressed privately is troubling to say the least, and I very strongly believe she needs an out. In lieu of that, I will continue pursuing more adminship candidates to put forward to hopefully remove the strain and let her attitude reset back to the pleasant neutral we all grew to like years ago. I'm not entirely convinced this will work, as Wyn appears to have developed a "this wiki won't run without me" mentality (one I'm all-too-familiar with, to be honest), but I'll do my best to try. —Tanaric 20:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Big Picture

I would like to summon the attention of all the people who have posted above that believe the discussion with Lacky was the only factor that led to Wyn's ban. Quite simply, you are wrong. Pling has stated that this recent discussion was something of a straw that broke the camel's back. Wynthyst is a valuable contributor and all that, but her behavior since her last reconfirmation really has not met the expectations of myself and, I suspect, other wiki members. I think the ban would have been more effective and less contended if it took place immediately after or during the conversation in question, but that does not by any means invalidate its use later on. Sometimes it takes a strong action to get someone's attention. elix Omni 04:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As it has been said by a couple users too, the main problem was the block being issued after the users already "calmed down", meaning that instead of being a "cool down block" it became a "pissing you off block".

The "disruption" reason given was not such since the issue between the involved users solved itself, and was focalized on the relevant pages. I agree, though, on the "constant behavior issues" reason being a valid one, but the timming for the block could (and should) have been better wiki-wise.

I can't shake the feeling yet that the "last straw" Brains mentions is a reference to the "LOL" paragraph from Wyn which can easily be misinterpreted when taken out of context...--Fighterdoken 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't technically speak for Pling, but I am fairly sure that Wyn's behavior throughout that entire discussion was the last straw. – Emmett 04:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Many sysops are guilty of an occasional poor ban summary rationale. I do agree that the lateness of the ban led to its being perceived as a "piss off" block, but I think it's best understood as a "Take a step back and realize why these things keep happening" block. elix Omni

Well yes the block could have occurred at a better time, but sometimes there just isn't a good time to do it when it's needed. Quite frankly this has been blown way out of proportion so it was the straw the broke the camels back and unfortunately maybe used to change things around on this wiki. --Dominator Matrix 04:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What led to the ban being a total piss me off ban was the fact that he totally ignored my attempt at any sort of discussion in IRC (in private, so it doesn't appear on the above log), and that he (and most everyone else here) makes assumptions about my mood/state of mind without really having any sort of a clue. Yes, I was irritated with Lacky, his post on the AN was stupid, and unnecessary, his total lack of understanding of what I was saying, and his misrepresentation of it was idiotic beyond my belief. There is nothing in what I said that could or imo should be construed as saying don't ever post anything on the noticeboard. Yet that is what Lacky warped it into. Tanaric's comments, regarding "me taking a break" were out of line in the least, as there was really no issue going on, other than Lacky's total lack of understanding of basic principles. The discussion had moved to my talk page, and was between Lacky and myself. Also, his commentary on my ongoing issues, well, that was based on understanding gleaned of 5 minutes of reading. Not a very full picture in my opinion. But I guess I can understand that he has been gone for a LONG time, and now wants back, and what better way to come back with a splash that embroil himself in "controversy" against an easy target. Pling's attitude toward me has changed from the day I invited Grinch to join my guild. I guess he saw me befriending someone he considers a harmful force on the wiki as some sort of betrayal of my loyalties or some other such bullshit. I am who I am, I have worked my ass off for this wiki and this community, and I am human, not a robot. My emotions prove my humanity, so don't expect them to go away any time soon. I personally find the posting of the IRC log to be abhorrent in the extreme, and could point to several parts of it that display ill feelings towards users on the part of sysops participating in the conversation, but I don't see any of the rest of them having fingers pointed at them. I find it irony in the extreme that Emmett, who clearly (by the IRC log) believes that Lacky's use of two usernames here warrants a block, is the one using my comments in IRC as "evidence" against me. I took no "sysop" action against Lacky, I violated no policy here, I in no way abused my sysop tools, unlike Pling, who created an entire shitstorm of drama by placing a "stop distruption" block 4 hours after the conversation was over. Given the fact it was Pling who started my last reconfirmation, again without the courtesy of any form of one to one communication regarding his concerns, I feel this has gone beyond "what's good for the wiki" into some sort of personal issue. As for the rest, well, as a Bureaucrat, giving Auron 3 months to open his reconfirmation rather than the 2 weeks called for by policy "to let things cool down" indicates to me that he willingly ignored the consensus of the community regarding the fitness of a sysop to retain his position, just as his total lack of any sort of communication to resolve his personal issues with me, is an indication that he no longer has the quality of judgment I wish to see in a community leader. Btw, this is the one an only comment I have on any of this, so don't bother trying to get more. -- Wyn talk 18:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There was, and still is, an issue. The issue is your attitude, but you are too blind to see it despite several people telling you in different ways. That is idiotic, more so than Lacky's "total lack of understanding". - Mini Me talk 18:40, 27 December 2009

Wyn, it can take weeks for you to realize it, but you are wrong. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 19:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Auron's reconfirmation: the policy states that the two week-timeline starts when a bureaucrat gives notice to the sysop that he must reconfirm or lose sysop status. That actual notice is made when a bureaucrat judges it to be time. While I was the major bureaucrat in that situation (I think I was the first to address the requests, and Misery was hesitant to get involved in something that started before his election), I talked with the other bureaucrats a few times as to when Auron should be given notice, and then I told Auron accordingly. -- pling 19:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"as there was really no issue going on, other than Lacky's total lack of understanding of basic principles" — and that is just wrong. In my eyes, Lacky did something helpful. He provided more information on the actual issue on the noticeboard that the email was removed, because it was removed after Silver Edge posted it there to begin with. Yes, he could have made it clear, that the email was just removed, but the history entry still exists, but that is just a minor thing. But instead of telling him to next time clarify what exactly was done, you just shouted at him about how he can't do anything and everything he does is just making it worse. It would have been fine, if you just ignored it, or even simply removed that comment (although I wouldn't totally agree with that), but really shouting at him, because you are an admin and he is not is just the worse thing you could have done in that situation.

"My emotions prove my humanity" — then please learn to keep out your emotions (here: annoyance about Lacky) out of discussions, especially those where your status of being a sysop is important.

Also in response to your Oppose vote, "He did not even discuss/consult with any other admin" — If it makes you happy, he did; not this time, but he discussed it with me, and others, before. poke | talk 20:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because he took up the issue with you and others, before and not this time, does not make it right. He abused his sysops usage, way after it was over. Sounds to me like someone can't state their intentions, after a suggestion of 'cool down', before taking the 'cool down'. Also, no one takes note that the conversation didn't bring in many people, unlike 42's disruptive behavior that he was never banned for. Also, what brought up all this drama, was Pling's ban. Let's be blinded by the truth and believe in what we want. It seems to be going that way now. Proof is shown, but we're ignoring it, adding in our personal feelings. I think if you all step back. Look at it from an Optimistic view without personal judging, you might see where few are coming from. I think this is too far and has gone out of proportion. For this one to end, I think the Bureaucrats may have to step in to end it, unless we all admit that we all make faults and accusations and misjudgments. Admit that the whole issue was started and finished, before more drama was started and to end it now, before it escalates into worse scenarios that could result in things that may not be good for the wiki. -- riyen ♥ 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue had not ended by the time Pling blocked Wyn. She stated repeatedly that my request to be polite was inappropriate, that I was in the wrong for requested it, and that she didn't subscribe "to my methods," whatever that means. To the three of you who think this resolved before Pling stepped in, I ask you to re-read the page and think again. —Tanaric 21:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read the page a few times. The issue was at an end clearly. Simply not subscribing to your ending of it however does not invalidate that an end had been reached. I would suggest you have a wee look over the issue again and perhaps distance yourself from her response to you personally and look at the issue as it stood by the time the block was placed. -- Salome 21:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tanaric, the issue was over with, before Pling got on. If it wasn't, it'd still been on going more than it was. It's obvious someone can't 'state' their 'reasons' before actually 'taking' advice. She didn't 'ignore' it. she laughed, because you didn't understand her points. She obviously wanted to make that clear. I didn't see much more after that and I have read GWW:AN many times to see the points you guys are making. I don't see any. I just see that her ego was bruised, she wanted to stated her facts and there was nothing more said after your two statements. Now, if there were, I could see the ban, but there wasn't. It's plain as day and so many of you are blind to it and well, hell I could see it clearly, but I guess people are blind to what's staring at them in their faces. Look at the times, too. It's not drama as the main part (GWW:AN on her talk page) didn't last quite as long as many others have in other places. -- riyen ♥ 21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The only resolution that occurred is that everybody involved went to sleep. This is not a real-time communication medium and you should not treat it as such. Pling's response was the one immediately after mine. He did not dig something out of the archives or ancient history, he handled the situation as soon as was feasible, considering he himself was probably asleep at the time of the discussion. I find the fact that you want to give the only sysop online the right to steamroll and abuse other users because of her "bruised ego" very upsetting.

Wyn had engaged in similar behavior in the past, stated that she had done nothing wrong in the present, and indicated that she'd continue doing the same in the future. That is not a resolution I can accept, and glancing upward on the rest of this talk page and the other talk pages involved, neither can most everybody else.

—Tanaric 21:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tanaric but your above statement is incorrect. Wyn was not asleep, I know this for a fact as I went onto IRC directly after posting on her talk page and found her online and asked what was going on between her and Pling to result in the ban. This was 15 minutes after the ban was put in place, so unless Wyn only sleeps in 3 hour cycles, then no I don't agree with you. I would also say that the way you are reading the page above is not in line with what I'm seeing. I'm seeing alot of people also saying that Pling's ban of Wyn was in error but that that error shouldn't result in Pling no longer being a sysop. I personally can not accept a resolution that results in this level of drama to the wiki and fractures the sysop team and the faith the community has in that team to do its job both impartially and professionally, which has been the result of Pling's actions. I will also assume you meant the following: "I find the fact that you want to give the only sysop online the right to steamroll and abuse other users because of her "bruised ego" very upsetting., to Ariyen and not I, as I don't think I even came close to implying that statement in anything I have said. -- Salome 22:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant everybody involved except for her. Can't discuss by yourself.

I'm a strong supporter of cutting off dead branches so the whole tree doesn't die, even if it makes the tree ugly for a while as a consequence. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

And yes, that other bit was to Ariyen.

—Tanaric 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it give the right that the only sysop online should make immediate action, despite the time lapse of said discussion and that nothing more was added? Not, consulting at least another or two, when they came online? -- riyen ♥ 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be even more against the block then? Because, you know, it would have been even longer after the discussion had ended? - Mini Me talk 22:36, 27 December 2009

I know I've said it somewhere before, but I feel the need to echo Tanaric's point - this is a wiki, not an instant messenger. A four hour delay when most of the posters have gone to bed without conflict resolution doesn't mean the conflict has been resolved, it means that the posters went to bed in the middle of the discussion and will pick it up tomorrow. That is how wikis have worked for years now. An immediate response is not required, and for any serious/emotional issues, it is common for users to take a day or longer to formulate a post they feel comfortable with. Tanaric said the rest. Sysop action based on continuously problematic attitude issues is perfectly okay at any hour of the day :D -Auron 22:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Misery once said something to me, it was something along the lines of "it is not only important to be fair but to appear to be fair also", I probably mucked up that quote but its close enough in meaning. Pling's actions however fell outside the boundaries of both of these. It was neither fair and nor did it appear so, every sysop and an awful lot of the user base know that Pling and Wyn aren't exactly bosom buddies. Pling is not impartial in this instance and Wyn has been annoying him for months. Thus even if this was a valid exercise of admin discretion, which I don't believe it was, due to personal issues with Wyn he should have bowed out and let a more impartial Sysop deal with the issue, such as Gordon, Kakarot, Indochine, Aiine and so on. The way he went about this was simply wrong and clearly raises questions of personal abuse of sysop tools.

As for Auron's comments, he states "it is common for users to take a day or longer to formulate a post they feel comfortable with", if this is indeed the case then what purpose would a 24 hour calm down ban serve? Surely then from the logic of your statement above, you are saying Pling's ban was punitive in nature? Which I think anyone has yet to point out which polices Wyn breached to warrant a punitive ban. -- Salome 22:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a block was needed, Mini Me, but if Several agree with Pling, then I'd be okay with it. However, it was not the case and I do not see any policy breaches, just a simple discussion that was really not a 'disruption' to the wiki. The ban put in place was and it should have been discussed with others. The best thing to have done was left things alone and if there were/was a 'real' problem, take it to Arbcomm. Don't let Personal Feelings cloud judgement. Both sysops had their Judgments clowded throughout this 'issue' that wasn't an issue at first, but was made into one, because people couldn't leave things well alone after 'discussion' was obviously over. We are also ignoring the fact that Wyn was still up and so was Lacky (via emails is how I know) as I was online and up as well for a bit. So, you see, how could this still be a problem, when neither party participated after Tanaric's two posts (before Pling's ban). -- riyen ♥ 23:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the only sysop that doesn't agree with Pling is salome. poke, Emmett, Tanaric, Rainith, me and others, agree with Pling, as we've said on this and other pages. -Auron 23:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's only after he blocked her, not discussing it before hand. -- riyen ♥ 23:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement to discuss blocks beforehand. I'm not sure where you got that idea. It's called sysop discretion, not sysop discuss it in a committee before doing anything. -Auron 23:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's get it through our little heads that discretion really wasn't needed for this. It was 'not out of hand' and was finished before intervention. -- riyen ♥ 23:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Scroll up. No resolution was reached except that half the people in the discussion went to bed. Please don't make any additional posts until you've read this thread in its entirety, because either you are selectively ignoring posts or haven't read them. I'm thinking it's the latter. -Auron 23:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) -- Shew 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's touching that you lumped me in there Auron, but let me remind everybody that I am not a sysop.. —Tanaric 02:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

yet* -Auron 02:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen: "We are also ignoring the fact that Wyn was still up and so was Lacky (via emails is how I know) as I was online and up as well for a bit." - I have yet to see the rule that everybody who is online is required to continue discussing on active topics on a wiki, or sign off immediately. Just being online and not commenting doesn't mean that a discussion is over. I do it very often that I just ignore a topic for a while until I have the right words or ideas to comment on. However that doesn't make that discussion resolved. So leave this "she was still awake" argument out; it doesn't matter if she was awake or not, the discussion however was not ended, and the actual issue (that Wyn did the mistake, and not really Lacky) is not resolved at all. poke | talk 15:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry poke but I'm not following your logic. You accept both parties were awake and active on the wiki, you accept that Wyn's block was preventative rather than punitive, You accept that it was to give Wyn a time out of 24 hours. However from what you just said: "I just ignore a topic for a while until I have the right words or ideas to comment on", you seem to be saying that Wyn was already taking the time to sit back and take the time out herself be it for 4 hours or for however long. Which then means that logically you must either be stating that Pling's block was pointless in nature (due to wyn already taking a break to distance herself from the discussion) or that Pling's block was punitive in nature and had nothing to do with the forcing of a time out, which again no one has yet shown any behaviour which breached any of our policies to the point of justifying a punitive block. That's the only 2 logical conclusions I can see from your statement. If I'm picking it up wrong, please tell me. -- Salome 17:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe his points were 1) just because a discussion has stopped for 4h does not mean it's resolved and 2) Wyn should have taken a break before posting in such a manner but didn't. But that's just my interpretation. – Emmett 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But he accepts that Wyn was taking a break from responding, which was Pling's stated intention of his block anyway. Thus surely that renders the block pointless at best and aggravating of an issue at worse? -- Salome 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Salome on this issue, but feel that the amount of time between posts and block is kind of a moot point. If you read the discussion, it is clear from everyone's words that all three participants (that is, Wyn, Lacky and Tanaric) had reached a point of civility and resolution in the discussion, a notion that Tanaric and Lacky have already agreed to (and Wyn probably would have as well, had she not been blocked at the time). This is clearly visible from the way the participants began to say things like "I see what you are saying..." and "I now see where you are coming from.." and "I do hear what you are saying..."

Perhaps a preventative block was necessary at a certain point, but certainly it came too late. At the time the block came, the issue was no longer getting worse, and in fact was coming to a close, if it had not already done so. Only the participants can say if there was any aspect of the issue that was not resolved by the time Pling put his block in place. However, I don't think anyone can rightfully say that, at the time of Pling's block, the issue was getting worse.

Therefore, this idea that the block was preventative, even if that was Pling's true intention, is incorrect because there was no longer any need to prevent further discussion. (Satanael | talk) 18:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why we're still on this topic. Aside from everyone on earth except for you, Salome, realizing the discussion was still in swing, one of the participants attests to the same. Poke made a comment that I've already made - some people like to think before they post (as opposed to some others' preference of not thinking at all, or possibly only thinking after the post is made). Thinking about what you want to say and how you want to say it does take time. I know that I've formulated posts for longer than 4 hours on controversial topics. That doesn't mean I've dropped the topic or that the topic is resolved. None of that has anything to do with the block made, and it would be a fallacy to make such a logic leap. I'm honestly concerned that a fallacy is one of the only "logical conclusions" you can see from poke's statement. -Auron 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also, Pling may not have needed to discuss the block with a committee before instating it, but a warning to Wyn could have gotten the job done without making matters worse, and would have shown considerably greater forethought on the part of Pling. If we can have a habit of giving vandals warnings before blocking them, I see no reason not to give sysops the same courtesy. (Satanael | talk) 18:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of rhetoric their auron. Your personal jibes aside, your logic doesn't stand. logical fallacy =/= logic. A 4 hour gap to consider your response is taking time to consider your response in a more reasoned manner, Which was the stated intent of Pling's "time out" block anyway. Thus as said above their are only really 2 conclusions one can make from the provided evidence:

1) That you believe the issue was not over and that the 4 hour space in editing was simply Wyn taking the time to consider her point before posting. (which was Pling's stated intent with his block and thus renders his block pointless) or

2) That you think that the issue was at an end, which again renders Pling's block pointless.

Either way at the very least, Pling's block was pointless and detrimental to the wiki. -- Salome 18:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Auron: To me, whether the conversation was ongoing or not isn't the full point. As I mentioned, the conversation had returned to civility and was close to conclusion. Preventative blocks should only be used to prevent the creation of further drama, i.e. while a conversation is still heated. The conversation in question had moved past the heated phase and was winding down. If Pling was trying to block wyn to avoid the creation of further drama, he achieved the opposite. (Satanael | talk) 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also in full agreement with Sataneal's above point. -- Salome 18:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And again, the ban was not about this single case, and especially not about the "Wyn vs. Lacky topic". poke | talk 19:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Where in the world are you seeing that the ban was not about a single case? When it dealt with a single case. Open your eyes poke. It is about "Wyn's behavior" which also was part of the "Wyn vs. Lacky" that was already cooled, before this whole ordeal that's Not necessary, but disruptive and also dramatized, came about. With people making it a bigger issue on more issues, when some of those issues had already been resolved. Obviously, people can't see resolved cases and it can be that some interpret words poorly. Not to mention no warning to the ban. -- riyen ♥ 20:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously did you read this page? It has been stated multiple times that this block was the straw that broke the camel's back and has been coming for a long time. It is about Wyn's behavior for the past 6+ months, not just about how she acted the other day, and she has recieved various warnings over time. – Emmett 21:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

For fuck's sake people

It was a 1 day ban. A 1 DAY BAN! That's it! Why is there this much drama over that? Have none of you ever thought Wyn could use a day away from the wiki? Karate Jesus 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, she could use more than a day away, but not like this. My thing is, warn before block. I didn't see that. Just a block that seemed a 'bit' premature. See if warned, waited for a few minutes, if given a response at all (no need in responses), ban them. I think that's what is sort of an 'issue' some have. -- riyen ♥ 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tanaric did tell her "Wyn, strongly consider taking a break from the wiki for a day." Her response was to ignore his advice and continue the argument, as well as disregard his further attempts to cool down the situation. She was warned, and chose to ignore it.--Pyron Sy 20:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually... no.

The response from both users (Wyn and Lacky) to Tanaric's request was to explain what the whole situation was. After that was clear, nothing else happened... until Brains decided to act.--Fighterdoken 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And still, Wyn was the one who behaved wrong, who blamed Lacky for doing something not that bad as she made it, and who still doesn't admit that she made a mistake. This can be applied to similar cases before and all those together made the block happen. poke | talk 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning before banning isn't always necessary. If she wasn't a sysop, nobody would care, and I think that's wrong. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether they're trying to stir up drama because she's their friend or because she's a sysop, but either way, they seem to be making some ridiculous logic leaps and conveniently ignoring entire walls of text when it stomps their half-hatched arguments into the ground. Both of them seem to think that posting the same flawed arguments over and over will make people believe them, so neither of them has bothered reading any of the responses or attempted to counter them :/ -Auron 22:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn the logic. The project page itself makes it known how people feel about this. Karate Jesus 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Auron Or rather, you won't make a counter-argument because you can't. Nowhere have I seen anyone give an argument that justifies the ban to be either punitive or preventive. Can't =/= Won't. You think that her attitude(which is terrible and needs fixing) on the wiki warrants a ban and your equally bad attitude on the opposite side of the spectrum doesn't strikes me as very ironic. I have thus since supported most of your decisions you and the other sysops have made along the way, but this is very disappointing. Wyn needed a break from the wiki, but not at the expense of fragmenting the sysop community and causing a shitstorm of this magnitude. Necessary "evils" are good to maintain the stability of the wiki, I accept, but in no way was the ban anywhere near needed where other "diplomatic" options have not been exhausted. It also strikes me odd where Emmett was egging Wyn on in IRC instead of telling her to cool off. Is this the new method sysops adopt to criticize their fellow sysops - blatant patronization and backstabbing? Pika Fan 04:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

re: fragmenting the sysop community: only one sysop besides Wyn has spoken out against this block, and other sysops consulted before the block agreed with its implementation. —Tanaric 04:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So basically Salome is irrelevant and should be ignored in the not-so-bigger scheme of things? Can I assume that? Pika Fan 04:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, until Salome learns how to sysop (read; stops unblocking trolls whenever they ask), that is a pretty safe thing to assume. His comments on IRC have been hysterically inaccurate and without any kind of logical backing, and my respect for his opinion has subsequently plummeted rapidly. -Auron 04:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but you can stop using words like "fragmenting" when a word like "consensus" is much closer to the truth. —Tanaric 04:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this 'proof' of where he asked other sysops before the ban, not after. I wouldn't trust after as I have seen in my own experiences of places, of some people 'agreeing' just to keep out of drama, or personal reasons and not the 'issue'. -- riyen ♥ 04:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I totally forgot that consensus allows people to do something wrong. Thanks Tanaric, you really broadened by horizons. P.S. I am still going to use words like "fragmenting". You can, however, choose to use your influence and/or soon-to-be sysop privileges, whether knowingly or not to ban me for disagreeing with you like what happened to Wynthyst. Pika Fan 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get embroiled in the larger discussion taking place on this page, but... @Pika: Wikis are governed via consensus. That is to say, consensus quite literally defines what is right and what is wrong. Even if, say, a sysop does something that is objectively wrong (by which I mean that his or her actions violate policy--which, I should note, is not the case here), if the consensus supports the sysop, then the fault is with the policy, not with the administrator (although it would obviously be better to change the policy before a violation occurs). Now I realize that in this case, there is not a consensus among the users of the wiki at large--though there does seem to be near consensus among the administrators--and that the question here is really purely semantic in nature; I merely felt that the irony of your first sentence merited highlighting. — Defiant Elements +talk 05:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll go one step further and mention that consensus != majority. That is, it's not a quick calculation of "36 yeas vs 4 nays, thus Pling wins" or whatever the numbers/user might be in a particular case. It's instead, "okay, here's all the discussion, and everybody who actually participated said Pling wins, so Pling wins," which is basically what happened here. Put more simply, the discretion comes not in the counting, but in the gauging of quality of contribution.

So, put simply, and I mean no disrespect but it's the easiest example sitting here, your statements against Pling don't sway me, as a user or, were I still a sysop or bureaucrat, as one of those, because you're basing them on a complete misunderstanding of the most basic principles of GWW. However, Salome's comments, which in general I completely disagree with and express similar sentiments as yours, are meaningful and should be included when interpreting consensus.

This process is very fair and gives every contributor a voice proportionate to their abilities to support an argument and persuade -- a very good thing in my opinion, and the legislatures of pretty much every Western government agrees with me on this point. However, since we avoid the voting step at the end (unlike most legislatures -- and for good reason, since we have an infinitely-big userbase and no screening process to ensure a voter has the right to vote), it also means that any consensus-conscious adjudication essentially boils down to making a judgment call on every user involved in any situation, even if that involvement is limited to sideline commentator. This ends up causing those (few) people who disagree, or those people who didn't participate in discussions, to write it off as them being ignored or persecuted for disagreeing.

Even worse are those situations in which no consensus has been reached, which generally fall under ArbComm jurisdiction. In these, anybody who agrees with an ArbComm ruling is part of the in-crowd/cabal and anybody who disagrees with an ArbComm ruling is being unfairly biased against or ignored because they don't have the right friends. Obviously.

Both jobs are triply tough when you have prolific talk page contributors who write walls of text but say pretty much nothing. Names are omitted to protect frail egos, because unfortunately they probably don't know who they are. In those cases, consensus interpretation should ignore the page after page of feel-good or otherwise illogical/unsupported statements that really just boil down to "I want a pony.", but it's hard to justify (especially to the ignored editor) for obvious superficial reasons.

ArbComm, and to a similar degree sysop discretion, is an impossible job for these reasons, and I have great respect for anybody who can do it without cracking.

—Tanaric 10:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Auron how about you back off with the attacks mate? I have unblocked 1 person in over a year of sysoping, which was perfectly allowable under sysop discretion, so perspective FTW matey. (you will notice that despite my disagreement about Wyn's block, I did not unblock her account) I have a dissenting viewpoint on this issue and that is fine and well. I have not struck at anybody else's right to have an opposing viewpoint to mine, I simply just don't agree with them in this instance. As far as I can see my logic is perfectly sound, Wyn's communication style is an issue, so Pling banned her despite 0 clear infractions on policy and now a general acceptance by the majority that it was not a preventative block, but a compound block for previous action. (which again none of which infringed upon stated policy and seems to simply boil down to the fact that Wyn has annoyed the wrong people). Tan is right however I am arguing against the consensus in this instance, I still feel that Pling was wrong and that the block was vindictive rather than administrative. I also feel it showed a double standard when compared to Auron's behavior with users over the years and the lack of resulting administrative action against him. However I can also see that my continued debating of the points in this issue will not progress the issue due to the entrenched views people have upon it, thus on my part at least, further debate on this issue is pointless. -- Salome 13:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Auron didn't personally attack you; he commented on your person because the discussion had moved that way.
2. "Sysop discretion" isn't an iwin button. You can't claim that you were right just because you used your discretion once and only once. Your discretion could still be wrong. (Assuming, of course, you've indeed only unblocked one person and haven't forgotten some others; I can't be bothered checking.)
3. There's no real reason to note that you didn't unblock Wyn's account, since a block on her account means absolutely nothing in the first place.
4. No one said anything about you respecting or disrespecting other peoples' opinions; people only said that your opinions were "hysterically inaccurate", etc.
5. "0 clear infractions" doesn't mean someone shouldn't be banned. Welcome to the internet, where trolls exist.
6. In the broader sense, Wyn has a number of "infractions", if an infraction is something that she shouldn't have done instead of just a violation of written policy. (Protip - written policy has always and will always be incomplete. Spirit of the law vs letter of the law, etc.)
7. Given Wyn's history, a one day block is pretty damn lenient for a "compound block for previous action". Goddamn - she's a sysop, bans don't make a difference to sysops. Who cares? Even if it was a vindictive block, it's a block on a sysop account. Who cares?
8. Auron's allowed his attitude in part because the wiki needs it (he's the epitome of a hardass sysop on a site that was, at his promotion, filled with carebear sysops, though we don't see those levels of extremes today) and partially because he had to fight for it. Did you see his RfA?
9. People's views are entrenched because, on the pro-Pling side at least, they're quite obviously in the right.

Have a good day.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to just reiterate what KJ said, 1 day is not a long time, infact it is a very small amount of time in our lives. Having to spend it away from 1 website on the world wide bloody web is not hard, and it isn't like banishing someone to hell. I think you should all take a step back and really think about what you guys are arguing about here, because from what I can see there are clearly more pressing issues than this RfR and a 1 day ban. --Frosty 13:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Auron didn't personally attack you; he commented on your person" ... WHAT?? I think this just became my new favorite quote. Thank you... just so much Armond. I love it. (Satanael | talk) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate what Frosty said, because all of you are fucking ridiculous. However, I have gotten some great laughs out of this drama, so please continue. Karate Jesus 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I'm posting this garbage on YouTube. –Jette 17:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) urhilarys Armond. Let's go down the list and point out each and every logical fallacy you have made:

1. So, if Auron negatively comments on Salome's person it isn't a personal attack? K, good joke, especially when that falls under the exact description and definition of a personal attack. And hey, no one is starting Arbcomms or RfRs about his poor attitude, but Wyn is getting the flak for it.
2. So many assumptions, but it was true that the last unblock made by Salome was rude, but at least it was for good intentions. He learnt from it, which is the main point here.
3. So? A vandal can be easily reverted, so we should ignore them? Likewise, admins should abuse their power and ban each other maliciously, because that is perfectly harmless and revertable by each of them anyway?
4. Except his opinion isn't hysterically inaccurate, he draws from precedence, users with equally bad attitudes and demeanour, as well as aggressive speech to make his argument. The only point everyone else have proven is simply that they are ganging up to bully. And don't even pull the "stop crying about your oppression" card, because it's true and perfectly applicable in this situation. Just because a large majority group up to side Pling, it does not make him automatically right. Large groups of people =/= imrite button.
5. Refer to point 3, and partly from point 1 and 4
6. He needs to make obvious and uncalled-for personal attacks which provoke people in order to make a semi-solid argument? Or is it simply because he can't make a good argument to justify the banning of Wyn? Other users including Misery have pointed out Auron's overreliance on personal attacks when he is losing an argument. Auron's general behaviour is the kind of parallel I am drawing to Wyn's simply because both kinds are obnoxious and detrimental to the wiki, just that Wyn is more so in a sense since she attracts more trolls.
7. I just burst that bubble of yours. Please try again.

Have a good day. Pika Fan 02:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Auron =/= God of GW. Please disillusion yourself ASAP. Briar 02:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Too bad Auron can outlogic your ass regardless of how good you are. Life Guardian 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean like when he totally admitted to being a dick (his words) and then blocked me for doing the exact same thing? yeah thats totally logical. *rolls eyes* Briar 02:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like someone is a little butthurt. Life Guardian 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we ignore Briar and get back on topic? Pika Fan 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course im butthurt. Thats not my point though. My point is that Auron isnt always right. But 9/10 people seem to think he's fucking god and whatever he sais goes. period. And it's fucking annoying how much and how many people sit around sucking his cock while they fap to pics of his charachter. Briar 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mind getting back on topic? --Dominator Matrix 03:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking a Sysop

I'm confused. I am getting the impression from a lot of people who oppose the block of Wyn that the rule is sysops require more dire circumstances to be blocked by admin discretion than any other user/ip. I thought all users, including admins, are supposed to be 'policed' the same as each other? It seems like a lot of people think Wyn being an admin gives her some kind of protection from admin discretion and can only be blocked for a direct policy violation. Can someone clarify please? 58.110.89.46 21:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sysops can and should be blocked for all the same reasons as any other user. My impression from the anti-Pling side is less "Wyn shouldn't be blocked because she's a sysop" and more "Wyn shouldn't be blocked because she's Wyn." Both of these attitude are perversions of how the wiki is supposed to run. —Tanaric 21:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree,I dont think anybody else in the same situation would have been blocked since there actually wasnt a breach of policy. I do however feel that Wyn needed to step away and if the block was the only way to get her to do so then it was needed and falls 100% under sysop discretion. Drogo Boffin 22:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You disagree with what, precisely? —Tanaric 22:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It depends really on the admin. I know of at least two that are capable of blocking a user on similar situations had they been online.

As one of the users with issues, my problem is timming really; both on how late the block came given the level of "disruption" the "last straw" situation caused, and the lenght of it (or lack of) given the intention behind it and the main reason for aplying it (proven by the fact that it had the opposite effect than intended). The fact that the block itself has caused more disruption in the wiki than the last one of Wyn's rages doesn't help either.--Fighterdoken 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the "I disagree" wasnt supposed to be there. Drogo Boffin 23:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think all users are equal, though. In fact, I know they are not; this user is not the same as this user who is not the same as this user, and so on. The wiki is not a meritocracy, as in we don't judge who is better than who and ask those to lead us; but the wiki is not a social network website, either. Our purpose here is not to hold hands and sing, it's to document the game and make documenting the game here as effective as possible. A user who contributes to document the game and does no disruption is a more valuable asset than an user who does not contribute and does no disruption; likewise, someone who documents the game and does disruption is a more valuable asset than someone who does not contribute and does the same disruption.

Is Wynthyst a valuable contributor? Yes, she is. Which doesn't mean she should not have been blocked, but rather that her "useless" mirrors (users who cause the same or more disruption than she does and do not contribute to document the game at all) should have been blocked a long time ago. Erasculio 23:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Fighterdoken, my issue was not with blocking wyn, or even blocking a sysop, it was putting in a so-called "preventative" block when the worst of the conversation had already passed. And if Pling was instating a punitive block that was in reaction to everything over the past 6 months, he should have said something like "I am blocking you because you need a break, and this issue is only an example of why you need a break." But instead, he said "you are wrong here, and there have been other times when you were wrong and I didn't block you, so I am blocking you now." He may have had reason to block, but he handled it poorly. I don't think anything else really needs to be said. (Satanael | talk) 01:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides the order of the clauses, what difference do you see in those two phrasings? I can't tell why one is preferable to another. —Tanaric 01:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe my example sentences aren't very good, the point I was trying to get across was that I thought Pling could have done a better job, in his initial explanation of the block, in emphasizing that it was in reaction to more than just the current issue. His summary in the actual block only referenced the outset of the current issue, and his explanation on Wyn's talkpage had very little to say about her past actions except "I should have blocked you before, but didn't." (Satanael | talk) 01:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So uh... what's your point? Pling has explained himself ad nauseam. His initial explanation could have been better, but as has been posted on this very page, it was a mother fucking 1 day block. This isn't something that requires ten pages of explanations and thirty links. 1 day bans are pretty common, and they very often do not have great detail in the ban reason. I know you're looking for preferential treatment because it's Wyn, but wake up and smell the roses. It was a one day block, the sky isn't falling. The reasoning has been explained. Some of her loyal fanbois are butthurt and want us to ignore how wikis work in an attempt to keep her unblocked, but for the rest of us, it's over and done with. Get with the times. -Auron 01:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Auron, relax. I've posted on this discussion all of 4 times, with no links, and have expressly said that I do not think wyn should get any preferential treatment, so... what are you talking about? I agree, there is no need for so much drama on this, the only reason I chimed in on this section was because Tanaric seemed to think that all who were against the block were against it because it was wyn, and that's simply not true. (Satanael | talk) 02:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to the blocking a sysop issue, and only compared those two responses in that context. Nowhere did I say that all users against Wyn's blocking were so because it was Wyn. —Tanaric 02:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Auron, please totally ignore major issues as and when it suits your own purposes, and make mountains out of molehills for small ones, such as the unbanning by Salome. The reasoning for the ban has been time and again refuted, and all I see is you passing off personal attacks as legitimate arguments and other users like Emmett repeatedly harping about "oh the ban was because Wyn's attitude thus far was the straw that broke the camel's back". Whether you feel that Salome is bad at conflict resolution, handling trolls or whatever you choose to bring into the argument about Salome's competency at whatever he dones is moot when his points are valid. Feel free to continue your argumentation style, though, it does tell everyone a lot when people start yelling and casting aspersions on other's character just because they feel like it, rather than because it is related.Pika Fan 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Tanaric: "My impression from the anti-Pling side is less "Wyn shouldn't be blocked because she's a sysop" and more "Wyn shouldn't be blocked because she's Wyn."" - that's what caused me to feel an explanation was required. (Satanael | talk) 02:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would you need to explain any further? I avoid frequenting this wiki as much as possible, but a brief glance at Wyn's talk page and the votes on this RfR seem to disagree with any point to the contrary. ··· Danny Pew Pew 10:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)