User talk:Defiant Elements/Archive 3

How in the name of the Most High God do you only have 2 archives? Hell, I think I have 3 (maybe 2). Karate Jesus 00:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is 22 excessive? :x — Raine Valen 14:09, 14 Sep 2010 (UTC)

No one's going to complain if you just revert the firstings instead of archive them, btw. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware. — Defiant Elements +talk 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of unnecessary redirect

That was fast. Did my tag even go through? -- FreedomBound 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It did. I deleted it so rapidly because I noticed that you'd tagged it in the course of checking RC. — Defiant Elements +talk 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

^^ - J.P.Talk 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Shadow Runner 00:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Lacky was a bit hasty in deciding. I'll re-offer my congrats as soon as they've sorted it. Shadow Runner 00:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats DE! --Dominator Matrix 00:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol Edit conflict with Shadow Runner. I was going to say. The decision hasn't been made. It's in the deciding phase. Lacky is just trying to be helpful. Just a bit premature. -- riyen ♥ 00:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There we go, Congrats! Shadow Runner 00:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

congratz --adrin 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Hope you'll do well. -- riyen ♥ 02:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Defiant, when is the victory speech?69.182.188.52 03:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats. King Neoterikos 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As said above, Congrats!!! :) -- Salome 04:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite the congratulatory remarks I bestow upon thee. NuVII 09:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

*resists the urge to say I told you so* :P. congrats! – Emmett 18:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

^ -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

^ C4K3 Talk 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

as per etc. et al elix Omni 19:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

↑ and [1]. Where is it? — Why 12:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Missed the party, but gratz. :) — Jon Lupen 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Gratz!--Burning Freebies 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I_WAS_IN_THE_NEIGHBORHOOD

I think I may have put the deletion request up just as your deleted it sorry. =P -- Lacky 05:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. — Defiant Elements +talk 05:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You also might want to take a look at the noticeboard about the user and also (I'm guessing) a sock of its. -- Lacky 05:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wintersday

Have a happy and a merry!  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Really?

19:21, January 2, 2010 Defiant Elements (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 71.251.140.10 (Talk) with an expiry time of 3 days (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (vandalism)

I didn't realize that bcrats were suppose to be blocking your basic vandal, I mean, that's not how I read GWW:ADMIN

• "Bureaucrats may only use sysop powers to deal with an ongoing situation and if no normal sysop is available. Additionally, they may delete pages at any time in accordance with the deletion policy. Bureaucrats are only allowed to block in emergencies, specifically for edits that impair the ability of users to access wiki content"

I would think you'd be a bit more circumspect using your tools as a bcrat. I don't feel that situation could be considered an emergency, nor was the vandalism involving anything but trivia, so it really wasn't impairing the ability of users to access wiki content. -- Wyn talk 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I am kind of wondering why you care in the first place- it was a routine block for vandalism, does it really matter if a bureaucrat or a sysop did it? Furthermore, if you actually pulled the entire quote from GWW:BCRAT, it reads "Bureaucrats are only allowed to block in emergencies, specifically for edits that impair the ability of users to access wiki content, such as vandalism." Vandalism that removes trivia = impairing ability of users to access wiki content, so I still don't see where you're coming from. Finally, that user is a recurring proxy vandal who has been blocked at least 9 times since December 30th. So... what are you talking about? – Emmett 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one am very disappointed in Defiant Elements' actions in this matter. I will be putting my name forth to suggest a recon for this gross and blatant abuse of power and overstepping of bounds. Hopefully the bcrat in question will learn from this grievous error and strive never to make one like it in the future. -Auron 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. This vandal has only been removing useless trivia. I mean, it's trivia... no one cares about it...why are administrators wasting valuable time and resources on such a non-issue? Why the fuck does it matter? Vili 点 06:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread is wonderful. 71.125.136.37 09:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If we no longer wish to (inversely) couple bureaucrat status and sysop status, could we propose a policy change instead of just violating it? —Tanaric 19:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the spirit of GWW:ADMIN is that we limit the use of sysop tools by bureaucrats in an attempt to preserve their neutrality. That is we don't want them becoming embroiled in conflicts that might theoretically result in ARBCOMMs, so we limit their right to block. With that in mind, I don't think it's unreasonable for a bureaucrat to perform routine vandalism blocks because, quite frankly, the odds of an IP vandal becoming involved in an ARBCOMM case are nil. In fact, I've made a few of those blocks since being made a bureaucrat. I suppose that you're correct in saying that my actions may violate GWW:ADMIN as written; however, I would argue that common sense/spirit of the policy exonerate my actions. — Defiant Elements +talk 19:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't even say it violates the wording of it. If you want precedence, just look at Tanetris's blocks, my blocks, this block of Aiiane's, or anyone else who has been bureaucrat before. You'll probably see many vandal-blocks; and that's what the policy intended. -- pling 19:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocking obvious vandals is hardly going to result in an arbcomm, and in any case - bcrats are elected, surely if they're trusted by the userbase to resolve conflicts, then they are trusted not to cause them in the first place? --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents, I'm wary of bureaucrats being a part of the day-to-day sysop team, as that ruins the system of checks and balances established when we overhauled our adminship policy way back when. That said, I don't find the occasional blocking of an obvious vandal no sysop noticed, as has happened here (I believe it was a few hours between the vandalism/report on noticeboard and DE's block of the vandal), any sort of exceptionally grievous offense. calor (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't even tell whether any of you are being serious or sarcastic anymore. –Jette 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If they're seriously even bothering with this "breach", I suppose I should own up to blocking a few IPs for vandalism during my time as a bcat too... -- ab.er.rant 00:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a bcrat blocking a vandal, especially with the time allocated like that one was. I've read the policies and I don't see where Defiant messed up either. -- riyen ♥ 09:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

GWW:AGF This is really getting to the point of semantical ridiculousness... Why are we arguing about this anyway? Isn't one less vandal good for the community as a whole, no matter who blocks? --rawr 09:16, 4 January 2010

The metric I have always personally used for whether to ban as a bcrat or leave it alone for a sysop to show up is whether there is likelihood of a reasonable protest over the ban (that is to say, someone calling the ban unfair for reasons other than that they don't like being banned). In the case of simple day-to-day vandals I've always considered that likelihood to be low; lower still for a proxy circumventing previous bans. - Tanetris 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I resent everyone calling me a vandal. 71.125.149.6 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I love this thread so much. <(^-^)> --Shadowsin 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sysop promotions...

Remember that admins have access to CheckUser too :).--Fighterdoken 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That fact totally slipped my mind. Thanks for the heads up. — Defiant Elements +talk 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't ya guys just put checkuser and checkuser-log (see: Special:ListGroupRights at the bottom) into the sysop group? –alistic 04:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That would involve asking ArenaNet to do that.. And having them to edit it for ~20 users is not really worth the effort. poke | talk 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Take care of yourself. And anyone else you need to. -- FreedomBound 12:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with your stuff, you'll be missed. Erasculio 12:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No matter what came up, you played a very positiv role on GWW. So look back on your time here with pride. --Xeeron 13:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

DE stopping, what did i miss? InfestedHydralisk 17:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Look through his contribs, you'll find it... It's always been great having you here, DE, so hopefully we'll see you back here some day. But for the foreseeable future, take care. calor (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Take care, like calor said, hopefully we'll see you again someday. ~ PheNaxKian 18:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 19:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WB.

You think you can block an IP without anybody noticing? :P Welcome back. --Riddle 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yay!, Hope you're here to stay :-). welcome back. --Lania 22:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. Thanks Riddle, thanks Lania. I wouldn't so much say I'm back as I'd say I might start occasionally dropping by now and again, maybe even look in on the IRC, that sorta stuff. As a general rule of thumb, I'm not actually back unless/until I've produced at least one wall of text :P. — Defiant Elements +talk 03:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey you wrote half a wall of text, does that mean you're back? --Lania 23:42, 02 September 2010 (UTC)

Walls of Text

You wrote one; are you back now? :D — Raine Valen 23:57, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Adminlist

If we keep walking in together, people are going to start talking. - Tanetris 00:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

omg u guy are gay lol elix Omni 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

awesome

you are awesome! :-D --Lania 04:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I take it that you approve of my altering Scythe's ban? — Defiant Elements +talk 04:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

most definitely!  :-) --Lania 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, took you guys long enough to perma him :>. PvX had perma'd him in less than a week of his bullshit. 98.248.90.248 07:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)