User talk:Konig Des Todes/Archive 2013

Annihilator 4

Started a fourth Annihilator concept, but have little knowledge about events related to Ebonhawke. Any input and/or links would be extremely appreciative. ^_^ --Falconeye 23:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw, I have no imput to give because, quite frankly, such a thing won't happen until we get Ebonhawke itself. Which is unlikely to occur as it stands, to be honest - and sadly so. But gw2:The Founding would give you enough background lore on the matter. Konig 00:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Today I looked at my GW2W Watchlist

And I laughed at the degradation of articles, then I felt like bitchslapping others for such silly ignorance, then I wanted to say "I know what you mean" when I saw folks questioning certain articles made by a particular troublesome fella. Ah, I laugh at the quality of articles there after I've been banned. Gives me a certain grim pride to see quality fall after I get kicked out. Konig 00:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

when do you get unbanned? I honestly think that the bans were an over reaction.- Zesbeer 22:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a six month ban so mid-September, I believe. Won't matter because unless things change, I'll be going off to join the Peace Corps. later this year - early next at best. I got tired of the GW2 community (especially GW2W community) anyways. Santax's constant squabbling over nothing was more or less the last straw and I was only trying to finish up what I wanted to finish up before hitting the road from that wiki for a while - if not for good. Welp, maybe I'll be back to GW2W in 3 years.

My only real annoyance is that I'll miss 2 years worth of Living Story. Which such scenarios is exactly why I hate the concept of removing content - I'll never get a chance to enjoy things like Day of the Tengu or old Tomb of the Primeval Kings; now I won't get a chance to enjoy 24 chapters of the Living Story. :( Konig 22:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, if you just ignored santax you wouldn't have been banned and those articles would still be high quality etc. It's not like that ban came out of nowhere - particularly after coming off the first one (which, imo, was a little bit harsh) and then immediately jumping back into the behavior that got you banned in the first place. If you had really cared so much about the quality of those articles, it would have stopped you from reverting to behavior that got you banned in the first place. Sitting on the ban-sideline and whining about not being able to edit strikes me as missing the forest for the trees somewhat; your second ban was definitely in your control :p -Auron 08:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If I had just ignored Santax, the revert wars would have continued, because me ignoring Santax means me still playing wikifairy (more or less) on lore articles - and it wasn't really about maintaining high quality, but making sure facts were right. Take gw2:Magic for example, which I hadn't gotten to - it has false facts and it has confused people on the official forums to the point of someone putting up a notice tag saying "these facts are likely wrong" (more or less). That was my problem with Santax more than anything else - he either worded things which was confusing (mostly because he copied NPC dialogue verbatim) or he put up wrong or unproven information as facts (most common fault being when he took gw2:Thruln the Lost's words for fact, despite Thruln being an uncredible source - and though not his own fault, where he had incompletely information and I rewrote with more complete information). Me "going back" to the old habit was only me trying to prevent it from returning - as he always told me to "talk first before major reverts" (which not only is counteractive to what he did, but also against the "be bold" concept), so I told him why, in detail, I was removing the (false/speculative/unproven) things he added. And hell, even when I tried to play nice and get cooperation before action, he went and effectively spat in my face because I commented on his response being long and his "cooperation" being just copy/pasting. But I don't want to argue about past shit. It annoyed me enough then, I don't need it keep annoying me now.

And I'm not whining about my ban now - or at least wasn't when I made this section. It was just me having a facepalm-induced laugh. Though this post certainly is a rant by myself, and take it as whining if you want, my previous two weren't. Konig 16:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Peace Corps

I wanted to congratulate you on joining the Peace Corps and thank you (in advance) for your service. I've known a lot of vets of the Corps and they are all unanimous in feeling that they made a difference and that they are better people as a result. "I am who I am, in part because of my time there," is a common thread in their discussions.

I hope it's as rewarding for you as it was for my friends and colleagues. Good luck. (And yes, I gather it might not happen anytime soon, so I'll be happy to repeat my gz whenever you actually take off.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a sure thing yet, I just sent in an application and according to when I did I should be going at a certain time if accepted. Konig 12:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Project: Categories

Is there a risk of edit conflicts between your project and my campaign/images/service-based edits? --Falconeye 03:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

For now, I'm only focusing on the sub-categories of Category:Locations. Of the cats I've seen you edit, the closest would be mission and quests for festivals. Which I'm still not sure how to tackle, so I'm gonna sit on em for a bit. But once I sort that Gordian Knot of Categories, I'll likely just monitor category changes and alter where I see fit, though I may take a new look at Category:Lore and the whole Species/Affiliation/Creature Type mess. Konig 03:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As with all the category changes Falconeye does, don't you think it would have been good to start a discussion somewhere before altering 65 categories? -Chieftain Alex 09:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thing is, I'm pretty sure I did some time ago and it got 0 responses. Most discussions I've started in the past year or so have been the same with next to no responses and me just going ahead anyways or it just sitting there until the discussion's long forgotten (like this time - though I think the discussion for that I brought up around the same time I did the original Cat: Species/Creature type/Affiliation issue). Besides, with the large amount of redundancy and me having wanted to fix that category for years, I figured I might as well start or it won't ever be done. Konig 14:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto on what Konig said. I plan to restart 5+ years worth of skills-related categories after "that wiki-update". --Falconeye 16:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well make sure that you plan it somewhere. Lets not have infinite numbers of categories though :p (ps that-wiki-update should give us SMW.. fun) -Chieftain Alex 17:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Infinite numbers of categories" is actually what I'm trying to *prevent*. As well as 10+ ways to get to the same sub-category from the same parent category. Konig 17:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

So when in doubt, we should use GW2W's category-project as a guideline? --Falconeye 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, just try and create a big list of what the category tree should look like, similar to the content of the hidden table at gw2:Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Projects/Category_reorganization#Guild_Wars_2, before changing stuff :P -Chieftain Alex 18:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Just realized we dont have a Category:Root... do we need one? --Falconeye 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Just what the heck is supposed to be categorised as root? Da Mystic Reaper 19:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Falconeye: I'd like to request you don't go adding arbitrary templates meant for the mainspace in my talk space. Thanks.

@Alex: I've made charts a few times, and had to scrap each one just because of how complex the category tree was. My first step is to just create as simple of a line of categories as possible (e.g., a bunch of copies of Category:Landmarks per location type and then as basic Category: <campaign> locations grouping) so that the problem doesn't have a bunch of confusing loops which just untangling causes confusion. I just about did that, though it'd be easier for me to figure out where I am with the empty categories not part of the tree. I do have an idea of what I'd like to see, but with the huge mess it was, I'm not 100% sure it's viable.

@Mystic: GW2W utilizes that as a root category, which categorizes itself as well as the highest tiered category (in this wiki's case, Category:Guild Wars Wiki, Category:ArenaNet, and Category:Guild Wars, I believe, would go in such a category). It was done because of the belief that all categories should have a category, but not wanting to have the numerable top categories looping, so only one category would loop with the Cat: Root. It isn't necessary though. Konig 19:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Guild hall NPCs

Should their suffix be "(guild hall)", or just "(NPC)", when applicable? (Example: Merchant (guild hall NPC)) --Falconeye 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's no other NPC by the name, IMHO, it should be just (NPC) - if there are other NPCs of the name, like with Merchant, IMO, it should be (guild hall). This follows the convention that we have typically the parentheses denoting the most general aspect of it possible - e.g., that it's an NPC; or when multiple NPCs, its species; but when they're of the same species/creature type, its location. HOWEVER, please take note of this discussion, which left this very question you're asking me without consensus. IMO, the Merchant and Weaponsmith guild hall NPC articles should be moved to Merchant (guild hall) and Weaponsmith (guild hall) respectively, to match Rune Trader (guild hall); similarly I think Skill Trainer (guild hall) should be moved to Skill Trainer (NPC) since there's no other NPC by the name "Skill Trainer" (which would then match Guild Emblemer (NPC) and Rare Material Trader (NPC)). Konig 03:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles to be moved

Among these is Votive Candle (pre-Searing quest item)... is it (pre-Searing), (quest item), or the kitchen sink? Its page history suggests that nobody seems to know. --Falconeye 00:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically, they're both quest items - even if one doesn't say so. So it'd be best to go with (pre-Searing) and (post-Searing). Or as is, but pre/post-Searing only is shorter. Konig 02:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Has there ever been 'concensus' for the remaining Category:Articles to be moved? --Falconeye 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles to be moved were suggested at some point and people have the ability to discuss the move request on the talk page. If there is no discussion then either everyone agreed, or no one cared. poke | talk 11:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

^ Konig 13:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

PvP / PvE

Another oddball: Does PvP (example) and PvE require a "root"? I'd assume anything Pvp-related is "core" by default, and PvE seems unnecessary. --Falconeye 04:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that "example" category even needed? In fact, most are redundant with Category: The Mists NPCs and Category:The Rift NPCs. And the Alliance Battles NPCs aren't part of Core, thus feels inaccurate to be put in a cat that's a sub-cat of Core NPCs since it's not, y'know, core. Feels redundant.

As to PvP/PvE categories, I'd say they're unnecessary. For those cases, they should boil down to Core/Beyond/the campaigns/EotN cats, which is then a sub-cat of Category:Guild Wars which is the root. Konig 04:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lore

Should a "Culture" or "Geography" sub-cat be created? "Continents" is currently a mixed bag of culture/locations/other. --Falconeye 20:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Been contemplating. Honestly, Continents was a mixed bag of culture, lore locations, and mechanics (NPCs, affiliations, mechanical locations). I've brought it down to to culture and lore-only locations, and seeing how it is now I don't think it's really needed unless we put the cats like Category:Ascalon locations within Category:Tyria or just keep Cat: Continents as the same as Category:Landmarks, etc. with only 3 articles within (Tyria, Cantha, and Elona). Been thinking of moving the culture categories into a Culture cat too underneath Lore. More I think of it, the better it'd be to do.

Unlike what Alex would prefer, I need to sort this out on a step-by-step basis. Trying to turn a category spiderweb into a category tree isn't exactly clear cut.

(Edit) No on the Geography cat. That'd be pointless and no different than a proper Category:Locations. Konig 20:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose "Human culture" is another redundancy, since it would outnumber all the non-human stuff, combined? ^_^ --Falconeye 20:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, with humans just go by nationality. All should do that, TBH, but there's too little cultural articles to divide Stone Summit and Deldrimor or Iron/Ash/Flame/Blood Legion charr, etc. So those are combined while humans aren't. I'm considering merging White Mantle culture into Krytan culture though. Konig 20:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oddballs

• Category:Game skill icons
• Category:War in Kryta disruption

More to come when applicable. --Falconeye 00:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Oddballs" - what context? Why are you telling me this? For my opinion on whether or not they should be kept or... what? Konig 02:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Should it be renamed to "Minigame skill icons" and expand it with missing minigame icons? --Falconeye (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Landmarks

Based on Wendy Black's map as a reference, how many official and notable unofficial terms are there in the catacombs and northlands? --Falconeye (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a single word there other than the obvious are official; as to which are notable, I'll get back to you. Konig 21:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see, if I were forced to say "at least some of these deserve pages" - I'd do what Wendy calls "Well of Souls" "Mausoleum" and "The Crypt" from The Catacombs, and Surmia from The Northlands. HOWEVER, Surmia's not physically accessible, and "the Crypt" is not a crypt, and "Well of Souls" is hardly such (it's just a giant pit). I wouldn't make an article for any but possibly "the Crypt" but I wouldn't dare call it such.

Hell, I could easily point out how nearly every one of those names are terribly off sans the three official ones (Surmia, Piken, and Cauldron of Cataclysm). But still, there's only one I'd argue could have use of an article, since its the focus of a quest, maybe another ("Mausoleum" and one he doesn't even make note of). Though I request that you don't make any such articles, Falconeye. I'd like to think it over and consider making them myself - as I know I'll be filling them out tenfold even if you made them (or tagging for deletion over lack of worthy information). Konig 15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing! ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Foreman the Crier

If Foreman the Crier had an identifiable service NPC type, what would it be? Lore NPC, Info NPC, Guide NPC, Crier NPC? Are Imperial Guide, Silavor, Bruce the Herald and other similar NPCS worth grouping, as these are seemingly intended to provide players with useful info, lore-trivia and/or point them in the proper direction? --Falconeye (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't. No they aren't - they all hold vastly different purposes. Konig 04:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

asdf

It sucks to get drawn into arguments, and you honestly kept your cool really well during that discussion flame war, but remember to keep obvious personal attacking comments off your userpage :< -Auron 07:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's actually not directed at anyone on GWW, nor any one person in particular. That "discussion" is perhaps the tenth or so of eleven or so (there having been one since the one you speak of) such insults/attacks this month. Not that anyone who it's directed at would read it anyways. Honestly, I don't care how folks think of me... But if they're going to try to make me into the bad guy, they should at least not be an idiot about it - like not react to obviously non-existent things, or more hilariously get themselves banned. Konig 17:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

1RR ?

Hello! On the Vekk talk page I have raised the question whether your 3 removals of the gw2w tag break the 1RR. Therefore I should "officially" inform you about it on your talk page, I think. Hereby done. Steve1 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, I didn't break 1RR. 1RR refers to reverts. My first edit was not a revert but a removal of one line and the addition of another. My second edit was a revert of Yoshida Keiji's edit, returning to my previous edit. My third edit was a removal of the original line, without the addition of another.

I reverted once. No 1RR breaking. :) Konig 00:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

So, technically, if I keep adding that tag and always do some minor edit at the same time, it won't break 1RR?! Marvelous! We can have our own little revert-war. That will be glorious!

Spirit and letter of the law, eh! You should become a lawyer. :P

In the past, in Germany, you needed to speak Latin in order to study Law. But now that this obstacle has been removed you're all set! ;-P Steve1 (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as an aside, to clear this up by quoting GWW:1RR: “A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors.”. poke | talk 13:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I would still argue I did not break 1RR - first edit was replacement for compromise over a revert others did; second edit was reverting to that compromise since the original (the GW2W tag) adds nothing to the article; third edit was an attempt at a new compromise (can't agree on which to have, have neither). IF that were to continue, even just once more, I'd consider a violation of 1RR. If it were just always adding minor edits at the same time as reverting another piece of content, that'd still be reverting because you're just reverting and doing other things - neither my first nor third edit was such.

On an aside, I actually have been told many a times to be a lawyer. But I have no patience for their long exams, hard studying, or any form of like for the judicial system which I find mightily flawed. Also, I don't live in Germany. Konig 18:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have to wikilawyer to seem like you aren't violating 1RR, you're cutting it too close, tbh. The policy clearly says in whole or in part, and you reverted "in part" 3 times. -Auron 18:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I naturally try defend myself, regardless of how close I "cut it." Someone called me out on something, I defend myself; said person used my argument against me, I counterargue - I would hardly call that "wikilawyering" - just like I am now. I get called out, and I defend myself. This is not wikilawyering. Like I said, if I were to do what I did once more, I'd even consider myself violating 1RR, and if you truly count attempts as compromise as "reverting in part" then so be it, and it would only be one more piece of evidence to confirm that both wiki's sysops and admins are more interested in "following the guidelines" (which aren't set-in-stone rules) than keeping the quality of articles good and accurate. As always, my view of the GW community is ever falling, where folks prefer argument and meandering over quality and usefulness. But I digress. Konig 18:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for the records: With my comment I was neither saying that you did nor that you did not violate the policy. I was just mentioning the exact definition for the policy; hence the “aside”. poke | talk 19:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

My comment regarding our "glorious revert-war" was tongue-in-cheek.

I know that you don't live in Germany (and afaik you're not German either). But since your name is pseudo-German I thought you'd appreciate it anyway. ;)

Imo our discussions on the 2 talk-pages have been civil and fruitful. But this here "than keeping the quality of articles good and accurate" is below the belt. You see, I think that most users try to improve the quality of the wiki. But quality isn't an objective unchanging truth, so disagreements are to be expected.

I admit that I found your editing bahaviour annoying - but I never thought that you were purposefully trying to lower the quality of the wiki.

I wouldn't be surprised if you found my edits annoying as well - but I assure you, I also wanted to improve the quality of the wiki.

It looks like you were right about the gw2w tag, but I assure you that I wasn't trying to vandalize or make things less useful.

Do you really want the admins to be more flexible in their handling of rules? And how long would it take until people cry "favouritism!" or "foul play!"? Steve1 (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Poke: Was never referring to your comment.

@Steve: I suppose you can say I'm still peeved about the continuous actions of the wikis' administration. But the quality and so forth wasn't really in reference to this discussion. And it's rather their response to said disagreements that bother me. As I see it, recent tendencies over disagreements in regards to admins' actions is simply "ban and don't deal with it" rather than working out the actual issue. Seems folks are more and more just wanting to avoid all issues than actually deal with them, regardless of how tedious or not they may be (and for the record, there are some I've seen that are irrelevant to me or even the outcome was in my favor that I think weren't approached properly). There's a mighty large difference between being flexible about rules and outright ignoring or near immediately banning (or threatening to immediately ban!) "problems."

And for the record I neither found your edits annoying nor did I view you as being among those trying to lower the quality (intentionally or not) of wiki articles. Konig 20:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Konig, if you have to explain why you're "technically" not breaking a policy, you're wikilawyering. And wikilawyering is bad. Next we'll have venn diagrams explaining why 1RR should be ignored.

When someone accuses you of breaking 1RR or a similar policy, the only thing you should argue is why it was necessary. If the action was necessary, then policy be damned! If you can't tell us why it was necessary for you to continually remove that tag instead of discussing it on the talk page, perhaps you should take a step back and think about things. -- Armond Warblade 20:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Word choice aside, I didn't know that defending oneself when accused is "wikilawyering" - sorry that I have a peculiar vocabulary preference that dubs me doing something that isn't wikilawyering as wikilawyering. And besides, I did explain why I viewed it as necessary. And the accuse had acknowledge that. Why insist on keeping a settled topic going because of my habit of self-defense and bloody word choice? It only acts to instigate people's emotion and dislike of others. Konig 21:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyways before it escalates, Konig did not brake any rule but was close to it and this post simply serves as a warning not to go past that point of over-editing. I'm sure you all get it now. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Damysticreaper, Konig did break a rule. The rule says "only revert once", and he reverted three times. That's the entire point of the discussion above.

Konig: Chill, broski. No need to get so defensive. I'm not trying to ride your ass; I'm just trying to point a few things out. Similarly, a topic is hardly "settled" when the last post is barely half an hour old and the entire thing is barely a day old (wikis are slow like that). Also, while you explained why you thought the reverts were necessary, you didn't explain why it was necessary to revert instead of posting on the talk page - which is kind of what I said. The situation was nowhere near an emergency level that would necessitate revert warring over discussing the issue.

Again, not trying to ride your ass. Just trying to give my point of view.

-- Armond Warblade 08:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how the first of the three edits in question was a revert - and third's arguable as reverting. If you consider the first to be a revert, then removing a sentence to reword it completely is a revert, but no where have I ever seen such considered except by hardasses who're trying to stir up conflict. But y'know what? Whatever. You are riding. P.S. Something's settled when it's settled, regardless of how long ago it was settled. Someone can come and stir up the dust - like you did - and can do that for a 10 year old discussion if they truly wanted, but that doesn't mean it wasn't settled. And yes, I did explain. Perhaps you didn't read "first edit was replacement for compromise over a revert others did; second edit was reverting to that compromise since the original (the GW2W tag) adds nothing to the article; third edit was an attempt at a new compromise (can't agree on which to have, have neither)" that line was the first of the same explanation. Explain why I didn't post on the talk page? Typically, the wiki requests one to be bold and two of my edits - as I have said thrice already - were attempts of compromise for a better solution (the second compromise was to avoid a revert war).

If I seem like I'm getting defensive, it's because you're offensive. That, or I'm just god damn tired of being attacked all the time for any damn little thing I do anymore. Konig 09:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly konig, it kind of hurts to think that you interpret our (sysops') actions that way. We've gotten *many* complaints about you, your editing, your attitude, your inability to play nice with others, your reverts and revert wars, protectiveness of some sections and articles in particular, and while we took them into consideration we've avoided outright banning because we do think the quality of the wiki would suffer if we simply up and banned you. However, it is a fine line to tread; it's not a permanent get out of jail free card.

I respect you, so I'll be honest with you. On this wiki, you've been a bully. That's how I would describe the majority of your actions and conflicts if I had to do so in a word. You aren't nearly as open-minded as you pretend to be, and there are many articles you simply can't collaborate on because you have a fixed idea about how it's supposed to look and any deviation from this idea is immediately thrown out the window. If the throwing-out-the-window is not outright successful, you then bully people around, undoing/reverting/rewriting other people until the article is molded back into the image you had in mind for it. For example, your idea of compromise in this latest case was reverting the addition of a template you disagreed with 3 times. This behavior has chased users away before; dissuaded them from editing at worst, but usually just making them avoid the articles that were deemed "yours" and under "your protection" because editing them meant dealing with you, which was a nightmare. You never tried to play nice; you pretended you did, but you always took more than you gave and often didn't give at all - and that's not compromise. Other users simply "dealt with" you if needed, and otherwise avoided it; much less pain for them. Longtime editors knew there was a line in the sand, and crossing it often meant annoyance and wikilawyering, so they did so as infrequently as possible. (under normal circumstances, I would post conversations with various editors as proof of their exasperation/eventual indifference as they figure it's just not worth it to argue, but the majority of them are emails, which I typically don't post due to privacy concerns).

When you encountered Santax on GW2W, you ran into a brick wall; here was another user just as bullheaded as you were, just as unwilling to compromise. If you ever wondered why sysops took so long "dealing" with the situation, here's why; we were tired of dealing with your drama. You were a contentious editor from the beginning, and we'd stuck our necks out for you on many occasions by then. I continue to do so here, on this wiki; a long-term ban would certainly reduce drama, but I keep fighting for you in the hopes that you get better. But that's the rub; we wanted you to see your shortcomings. We wanted you to see how little you had changed, how little your interpersonal skills were improving. On GWW, you managed to out-bully or outlast most everyone who came across the lore section; but when (on GW2W) you found someone unwilling to step down, an unstoppable force hit an immovable object. Drama ensued. Neither user could take 5 minutes to look in the mirror and see how ridiculously childish the whole situation was. And both users were given ample opportunity to take the higher road, to be the better man. Neither of you did. He was convinced you were a bully, and you were convinced your continued bullying would win out in the end. Neither party even considered compromise, and the discussion on the noticeboard talk felt like I was back in elementary school; two people hurling insults at each other and posting links to tattle on the other person, all while firmly blinded to how dramatic, unhelpful and damaging they themselves were being. Needless to say, you both got banned. Then you came back, started it all over again, and got banned again. I mean, jesus christ, that's a hard message to miss.

I tried to hint at this, months ago. Your message seemed to say you really had no idea why you had been banned, and that you were "kicked out" for reasons completely out of your control, which is ludicrous. When your response to my broad "hint" was met with wikilawyering and links to minutia, I dropped it, because I had no interest in arguing the point then (see the recurring theme here?). But it left me uneasy. Had you really not learned from a 1 month, then a 6 month ban, both for the same thing?

I know you get flak; more flak than we see on this wiki. I am guessing a good part of it is who you are and who you associate with. I'm not sure if you remember (or ever knew) but one of your friends got into a rather heated drama festival with a group of my friends, and I'd never really forgotten about it. Either way, hanging out with that crowd is almost definitely stressful; they were (and maybe still are) often trollbait, and there's not much they can do to avoid it. While I kept this in mind, I never let it be an "excuse." I raise eyebrows every time I see a comment like "I'm just god damn tired of being attacked all the time for any damn little thing I do." It tells me you see every situation as an us vs them (or a me vs the world), and that's just not the case. People often have issues with what you do based entirely on the merits of the action itself.

This revert war, for example; ignoring our entire long, complicated history, I have an issue with your reverts. Not because of who you are or what you've done in the past, but because we have a policy for reverts, the policy is very clear, and you very clearly violated it. Yes, I know you try to wikilawyer to get out of it. You always have, and you probably always will. It's natural pain avoidance. Either that or you just misunderstand policy completely and honestly believe 3 semi-reverts aren't against a policy that says no undoing "in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors." You try to give excuses for each revert. Oh, I reverted the first time because of XYZ, and the second time because of ABC, and the third time, well maybe that was just a plain old revert. No, they were all plain old reverts; done without discussion and despite a policy against revert warring. The least you could do in this case is not try to outbully or outlast me; it won't work. And don't try to out-wikilawyer me, because that definitely won't work. When you violate policy, take it in stride; if you did something because you thought it was "right," just come out and say that, don't yank me around with nonsense like excuses for every edit and why 3 reverts wasn't 3 reverts.

In the end, in this case at least, you reached a solution amicably, and got a discussion rolling. Typically that's how it is the first few times you encounter a new editor; by the fifth or sixth they'll have lost their patience, and either get into more dramafests with you or leave you alone entirely and let you "win" the argument. Just keep in mind how much you cost the wiki every time that happens, and that the cost might not be worth it in the future.

I'm not going to take any admin action here, partly because the situation has been resolved and parties are working toward common ground. But I mostly want to have you think on your actions; what they mean, how they look, and how they affect the other editors involved in this wiki project. I really don't want to have to ban you (and you've known me for years, I'm not being facetious). Please don't give me a reason. Make an effort to play a little nicer in the sandbox and everyone will be much happier, you included. -Auron 09:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)