User talk:Rainith/Dec 2009 - Jan 2013

Revert war over trivia

Please stop reverting. Do you even read what is being written? It's ridiculous to keep doing this, just leave it be. -- Wyn talk 04:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Its an obvious vandal, I see no reason not to revert it. Look at their history's, I'm close to locking the pages for the night. --Rainith 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's about trivia. If you protect them remember it will take the wiki down for about 4 minutes. -- Wyn talk 04:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, please understand that what you feel is completely unimportant (stopping someone from vandalizing four specific articles, even if it is just the trivia), may not concur with what other feel. I understand your opinion, and I disagree with it. You may feel that I'm an ass for that, so be it. Have a nice night or day or whatever time zone you are in.  :) --Rainith 04:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent contributions

I find it hilarious that you're listed as semi-active and that nearly all of your edits in the past month are reverting me or talking about my blocks. Is there some sort of Bat-Signal users here have to summon you in times of dire need? 71.125.141.238 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -- FreedomBound 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Employ it now. 71.251.129.148 23:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Howdy

Can I get a little help User talk:74.215.145.113 here? Drogo Boffin 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching and I thought you were doing okay with him/her. I see they just responded to you, I'll check it out on put in my $0.02. At a quick look at their recent edits with the exception of the reverts I don't see anything block worthy, so if they would just move on it would be fine. If I missed anything obvious in their history, please fill me in. --Rainith 04:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

RIPE

Could you explain a little about this service/tool/community? Particularly about checking an IP via an e-mail. I'm mainly curious, and it would be a nice tool to have access to. elix Omni 06:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're probably talking about the RIPE network that I mentioned in a email to Auron. I used the word 'email' in the message by mistake, I meant the RIPE IP address that was used. RIPE is somewhat well known as a Mos Eisley with many people blocking the whole RIPE IP range from forums etc. because of the spam that they generate, usually through people who use their proxys. IMO anyone who uses a RIPE IP to edit the wiki is coming through a proxy account. --Rainith 06:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thank you. elix Omni 06:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh. My IP(s) is(are) RIPE too, but I'm not using proxies. My IP address is just very dynamic - feel free to checkuser me to see to what extent. -- pling 07:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pling is Lena? -- FreedomBound 13:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually what I would like to know is, who shot first? Brains or Greedo? Erasculio 13:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I currently also have a IP from the 91.0.0.0/8 range (which is the same as Pling's, so RIPE as well)... poke | talk 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies to Poke and Pling (Poke and Pling? Sounds like either a baby toy, or something really, really dirty...) for implying that they were, proxies? Spammers? I'm not sure what exactly I implied, I was tired and depressed when I wrote that, now I'm tired, depressed and hungry (and wet) so, who knows if this will make any more sense, but I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

I think what I was trying to say was that in my experience (which is not all-encompassing), I have run into a large number of vandals coming from the RIPE network. A little googling lead me to some posts that seemed to back up what I had experienced. Then when we started getting vandals from the 82.xx.xx.xx range of RIPE addresses I wrote in an email to Auron "...the RIPE email confirms it in my book." Again, I was tired and I mis-typed RIPE email when I meant RIPE IP address (i.e. 82.94.182.154). Then apparently what I misstated got quoted, either in IM/IRC, other emails, in-game, on wiki-pages that I don't watch, SMS messages, telephone, fax, telegraph and possible two tin cans connected by a string. (<--- The last might only be a rumor, I haven't seen confirmation of it, if anyone has a screenshot, please post it so we can confirm it.)

And I believe that is what lead to the creation of this section of my talk page. I've rambled enough, and by now everyone should either be completely confused, have fallen asleep or posted "tl;dr" underneath this. --Rainith 02:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

tldr

underneath this. -Auron 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Briar

Shouldn't he have been banned for a longer time, considering the last time he was banned for personal attacks the same length was used and it was less than 3 months ago? - Mini Me talk 13:45, 27 February 2010

I agree he's generally a disruptive influence on the wiki. --Lania Elderfire 17:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

About the gay remark here, which was directed at me. I used to have a signature like "---Chaos is gay - 07:51, October 1, 2009 (UTC)", which then has lead to all kinds of speculations about my sexuality. KJ summed my attitude towards this whole thing very well on my page here. It's an amusing inside thing that spreads at a stunning rate, and so Briar too is part of it. Calling someone a tight ass is also hardly a personal attack, and I don't think Drogo minds. They seemed to have alright relations when Drogo hanged around Briar's page earlier this week. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 19:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Or he could learn to converse like a normal human being and not get blocked for two weeks. Simple ^^ -Auron 20:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are requesting too much. I also do believe that the internet is not the right place to define normal people. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 20:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe we're setting a minimum standard for personal interaction on the wiki. If people are incapable of interacting on par, they run the risk of getting blocked for dumbassery. I'm sure you could try to PvX-logic (i.e., bullshit) your way out of bans, but it doesn't work on people like Rainith. The better option is just to learn and grow instead of trying to make excuses to defend poor behavior. -Auron 21:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a little far-fetched, seeing how I was the subject of the "personal attack". I can't see why there has to be a taboo to never mention someones sexuality, even though it's pretty common because people like to point it out. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't ask don't tell. The wiki isn't about you growing as a person, it's about a game. And no one in Guild Wars is gay. Coincidence? I think not. elix Omni 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't qualify as a reason to ban him. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. Read what I wrote. You're trying to bullshit his way out of a ban for inability to interact like a normal human being. The entire NPA policy exists to help regulate personal interaction, but it only covers one facet. We're using the sysop discretion part to cover the rest. When he is able to act like the rest of us in a conversation, he will not be banned. Is there a part of this you're not understanding? -Auron 21:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I'm probably just amazed by GWW. I'll go and recover from my holidays, my head is a little lost. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify something for you. Briar is not getting blocked just because he insulted you or Drogo. He is getting blocked because he, amongst others, is trying to normalize insulting people for fun. Someone else (I think it was Unendingfear) was also banned for this reason. Maybe it is common practise on PvX, where everyone is insulting everyone, but here, people still have some decency. Koda Kumi 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @ Mini and Lania: Yes, I could have done it for longer and possibly I should have, but I decided to go with just two weeks. @ Chaos: Calling someone gay is still seen as a personal attack in many places, even if it wasn't insulting to you personally. Similarly if NewUserA called NewUserB a nigger, NewUserA would be blocked, even if NewUserB came to NewUserA's defense by saying, "Its okay because we're both black." That defense just won't fly in polite society. If you want to joke around with your buddies like that, go to Facebook, don't do it here. If that doesn't work for you, please go to my reconfirmation page as Briar has already threatened to do in an email to me. --Rainith 05:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's fine. I was mostly just out to getting a personal response from you, and making sure that people know the circumstances of the personal attack. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 10:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A mostly random aside, but people keep saying things like "This kind of behaviour may be acceptable on PvX...", but both people who were banned recently for it (UnendingFear and Briar) are not from PvX. Just saying. "They are from PvX" is being used pretty commonly as a derogatory term, with that intent, pretty commonly here on GWW now. Considering this is a conversation where part of the reason someone was banned was for calling someone who is gay, gay, maybe people would like to cut that out too? By the way, I'm from PvX. Misery 14:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But wherever this trend is coming from, it should stop. You agree with me on that, right? Koda Kumi 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we clarify again why insulting each other is bad? Thanks! NuVII 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because this isn't PvX. elix Omni 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you tell him this isn't PvX when he has nothing to do with PvX? ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 21:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be because it's ironic, and irony is the highest form of humor. elix Omni 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally Koda, I couldn't care less what people do to each other on their own user talks, just be nice if they could do something productive on the side and keep crap out of important places. That being said, I'm not the only enforcer. In fact, I'm not even really an enforcer any more. I don't see people circle jerking on their own talk pages any more destructive than users who spend their entire time on wiki cataloging all their in game achievements. It actually only becomes disruptive when third parties become involved. Misery 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Goren trivia

The current dispute is over whether it's worth including the fact that Goren means moon if we're not including the fact that Goren is an anagram of negro, which is more relevant to his character. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In the whole of that discussion, I see two people who say essentially that the moon in hebrew trivia should be removed if the anagram trivia isn't allowed... I see no one arguing to keep the moon reference, so what is the problem? Remove the moon part. --Rainith 03:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

<edit> i.e. it takes two sides to make a dispute and no one seems to be on the side to keep the moon reference... --Rainith 03:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for being there.--Neil2250 21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeh the rc log was hurting my eyes. Tidas 21:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just popped on here at work and saw the three accounts I just blocked, were there any others? --Rainith 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ive been studying for tests for 2 hours. i needed some fun rv wars, so killing a vandals edits is best for that.--Neil2250 21:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Dont think so.ill go search RC and account creation log.--Neil2250 21:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope.unless Valenitnegirl5650, Beato666, Superbuyro, Babolon5, and Wolfie913 are vandals, which i dout.--Neil2250 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

" WTB BLOCK 100K WTB BLOCK 100K WTB BLOCK 100K WTB BLOCK 100K WTB BLOCK 100K WTB BLOCK 100K " Has just risen from the troll grave.--Neil2250 21:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, got him. Back to work for me now. --Rainith 21:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Interested?

Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2010-10 bureaucrat election/Rainith - Tanetris 23:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll think about it and respond in a day or two. Kinda funny though, at one point (either here or on GuildWiki, I can't remember), someone thought that Gares and I were the same person and you nominate me to take the position he held. --Rainith 01:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Block

Sorry, I had another window open to look at that vandal's history (under other IP's). Feel free to adjust my block if you wish. G R E E N E R 04:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all.  :) --Rainith 16:03, 18 July 2011

I disagree that "go away" is a personal attack. I could almost see it as trolling, but in the context of the ip's three edits, I think that's a hard argument. But, then again, I'm not a sysop and, furthermore, my opinion is meaningless on this wiki. -- Armond Warblade 04:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit's edit summary is the one that I did the block for Armond. It was a violation of NPA: "Not kaisha or whoever that bitch is. Dumbass ip or Armond hiding behind proxies". I'm not sure what the "go away" comment is that you're talking about. I think you're looking at the edit prior to the one that got blocked that says: "go away kaisha, by which I mean ariyen". As far as I know, that editor was not blocked. --Rainith 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well, what do you know, reading is indeed hard. -- Armond Warblade 06:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Greener rates "dumbass" as a personal attack (and maybe "bitch" re: Kaisha), but the previous edit implying Kaisha's evading her block doesn't rate that. Now, the latter is more civil, but to me it's more serious because it has more potential to stick -- with insults, you know that the person offering them is likely to be in the wrong anyway, but falsehoods offered civilly are more likely to be believed. (Didn't someone say the same thing about dealing with Arenanet support?) --mendel 20:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I may be a bit biased because one of my friends has +50 to bluff, but I think if you believe something just because it's offered civilly you're a bit foolish. (Also, I'm not sure how civil that statement is - I was obviously going for the kaisha/ariyen identity bite.) -- Armond Warblade 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one that's not what I said ("more likely" isn't "just because"), and secondly, if you tell housewives they're generous they will donate more to charity two weeks later when the canvasser comes 'round. Ponder that, and consider how many fools there are (born every minute). --mendel 23:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I wasn't even aware that Kaisha was blocked, and I don't really think that calling someone someone else is necessarily a personal attack. As I don't see the statment "go away kaisha, by which I mean ariyen" as a personal attack, I'm not going to block that persone for saying it. Now if you were to call someone Hitler or something like that, then I would consider that a personal attack, but I don't think calling someone Kaisha/Ariyen is quite on that same level (or even close). --Rainith 02:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a personal attack b/c (a) it's personal (it names someone), (b) it's an attack (it is clearly meant to disparage), and (c) it is not a comment about the edit (it's about the purported editor, not even the actual editor). You're right: it's not on the same level to accuse someone of evading a block or to tell someone that they aren't welcome here — it's somewhat worse, because it's a subtler form of intimidation.

The reason for NPA is not to prevent passionate discussion; it's to ensure that the discussion stays on point (it's supposed to be about the wiki, not the people). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, checkuser results gave the same IP for both users...although there was already a large body of evidence from e.g. similar writing styles. Either that, or there was an e-mail account shared between the two (implying that they are the same person). Or something. It is all in the distant past though, so I don't remember very well. In any case, calling someone for who they are is not a personal attack. The problem would be that in this case the person behind the IP was not actually Kaisha/Ariyen, and so it does in fact become an insult. 67.180.237.90 03:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to a past block evasion involving Kasiha/Ariyen? Who are you? --mendel 11:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously he is 67.180.237.90. What more do you need to know? -- Armond Warblade 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just curious. Also, that's indeed what the editor referred to. --mendel 09:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

TEF, is the "it" you're commenting upon the "go away" levelled at the IP and Kaisha (an aspect that I hadn't seen)? I don't get your "on the same level" comparison, because that "go away" amounts to telling someone they're not welcome. What am I not getting? --mendel 11:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Rainith, nice take of reading that comment as an insult on the IP, I hadn't thought of that.

From your angle, the comment may have been meant as a joke, in which case I (and that other IP) have been taking things too seriously. Suffice it to say I don't look upon that kind of "joke" fondly. --mendel 11:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have explained better.

Let's say we have a population of a few thousand people. They are once told a falsehood blatantly, and once civilly.

Population A believes the blatant falsehood but shrugs off the civil one. Population B believes the civil falsehood but shrugs off the blatant one. Population C believes both falsehoods; population D ignores both falsehoods and wonders why they're present.

By my interpretation of what you said above ("falsehoods offered civilly are more likely to be believed"), population C should be larger than population A. I think it's also reasonable to assume that both are larger than populations B and D (whether B > D or D > B is somewhat irrelevant right now).

By my logic, the difference between populations B and C when compared to A and D is that B and C believe civil falsehoods. Population B is the foolish one here; they appear to believe the falsehood because it was offered civilly (instead of analyzing it for themselves). Our disconnect was when you said "more likely" (referring to comparing populations C and A) and I said "just because" (comparing populations B and D). I would still say population C should analyze stuff for themselves, which was the heart of my comment above and can be applied to yours.

I apologize for the confusion, but I hope I've made myself more clear.

-- Armond Warblade 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Within your ad-hoc framework, I'd say C>A and B>A.

Most people studying credibility agree that it has subjective components, e.g. Wikipedia:Credibility refers to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message. Very rarely is credibility judged on objectively verifyable facts alone, as your phrase "analyze stuff for themselves" seems to suggest. Of these subjective components, the manner of delivery is one. A research team from Stanford University found that the average person judged statements on the internet to be significantly less credible when they were sensationalistic, unreasoned, or poorly written.[43] As participants noted, "slang or poor language harms credibility ... [and] [c]redible people tend to understate." [1]

This issue would be academic if we weren't arguing about this in the context of false accusations, i.e. where we get close to defamation or mobbing/bullying territory. From the victim's viewpoint, The Third Stage of Defamation is usually dismissal, as in "no one will believe that!"[2]. This is also a stance that, in cases of mobbing or defamation, the perpetrators might take to justify their behaviour - and why not, if even many victims believe that at first, until "it has sunk in that defamation really can be harmful." [idem] I mention this because from my initial statement (what is more likely to be believed) you went to make a stronger statement, i.e. that it is the readers' fault for believing things that aren't true, since they should have checked. I assume most people won't make that effort, and stating untruths as facts is therefore potentially very harmful. (This is also recognized by the legal systems in most countries.) --mendel 09:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So, about the edit summary "go away kaisha, by which I mean ariyen":

• it tells the IP and Kaisha to go away (TEF's point?) ⇒ PAs on the IP and Kaisha
• it tells the IP they are Kaisha/Ariyen (Rainith's point), which they find offensive ("dumb bitch") [⇒ PA on the IP ?]
• since Kaisha is blocked, it tells us that Kaisha is evading the block (my point) ⇒ PA on Kaisha
• it may have been meant as a joke on a perceived similarity of editing style ⇒ it lacks a smiley :-)

If there was some obvious evidence that the IP was in fact Kaisha, the first 3 points amount to Kaisha getting told to "go away, you're blocked", which would be legitimate; but I don't see that evidence.

This "go away" is more civil than calling someone "dumbass" or "Hitler". The NPA policy is about more than just civility (though that part is easiest to enforce). Personally, I don't mind getting called names so much, because everyone can see that the caller is upset and doesn't take them seriously. If I get accused (civilly) of something that's not true, I take that a lot more seriously, because it affects how others think of me (even if they don't believe it 100%, Armond). It makes me want to "set the record straight" much more. There's a lot of potential for disruption in unsupported accusations. --mendel 11:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Amen! I always call for evidence to back up claims as soon as one is made, they are far too harmful to be left unchallenged. -Auron 12:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't very clear in my post and I apologize for that. I don't consider the 'go away' comment as a personal attack and therefore I won't be blocking the IP for making it. That shouldn't stop any other Admin from blocking them if they see it as a personal attack. (short post, back to work now, will respond to any possible shitstorm this creates when I get home.) --Rainith 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You were very clear when you said "As I don't see the statment "go away kaisha, by which I mean ariyen" as a personal attack, I'm not going to block that persone for saying it." You even specifically said "...but I don't think calling someone Kaisha/Ariyen is quite on that same level (or even close)", strongly implying that you do not think that calling someone Kaisha/Ariyen is a personal attack, which mendel has conveniently chosen to ignore when constructing his list. -- Armond Warblade 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, list amended. --mendel 09:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as we're studying every fucking way my throwaway comment could have possibly been offensive, let's expand point two a bit: instead of telling the IP they were Kaisha/Ariyen, I could have been saying they're as bad as Kaisha/Ariyen for insisting on the change. In fact, I could have been saying the IP was as horrible as everyone on the talk page that ever argued against the consensus that the name "Battle Isle Iced Tea" is a reference to "Long Island Iced Tea"!

I do not see how you connect "this could be offensive to this person" to "this must be a personal attack against this person". Were the wiki a corporate workspace, I might entertain such an argument for reasons including the legal safety of the corporation, but it is not.

Your list is silly; I conclude that it is a witch hunt and/or trolling and respectfully ask you to take it elsewhere. If you wish to argue that it is neither a witch hunt nor trolling, I welcome you to bring such up on my talk page, where I can conveniently ignore related discussions all in one place.

Rainith, if you would prefer that this section beyond the first two posts be moved to my talk page so as to not continually ping you, I would be more than happy to accommodate that.

-- Armond Warblade 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, this can stay here, and if anyone has any additional question/comments for me they can add them. --Rainith 01:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My worry was more that the discussion was swerving well away from focusing on you, but if you're sure, ok. -- Armond Warblade 02:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the list is to collect the aspects of the message that have been brought up in the previous discussion; a summary.

"I could have been saying the IP was as horrible as everyone on the talk page [...]" -- and that, too, would be a comment on the contributor, not on their content. Read the second sentence of GWW:NPA to see how this applies. --mendel 09:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to take it that far out of context, I'd be breaking NPA any time I said something like "Wyn has made many edits on this wiki" or "TEF is a valuable contributor to this site". -- Armond Warblade 22:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're saying that on a page where we're not discussing them (e.g. Wyn's RfA or TEF's talkpage), it detracts from the argument at hand and isn't good discussion style; the difference is that your new examples signify agreement (so it's not an attack), while "horrible" signifies disagreement. I'd discourage either because it amounts to trying to solve a problem by posturing instead of thought. --mendel 08:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Am I the only one who finds this whole discussion completely redundant? It's semantics. - Reanimated X 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's bonkers is what it is. Paragraphs of analysis, Venn diagrams, legalese and references about the words "go away"? Fucking hell. pling 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Semantics are the only reason to have discussion pages on Wiki's. --Briar AHOY! 09:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If only...

"I didn't block Nathe because I am loathe to block people for responding to comments on their own talk pages, unless they are violating some other rule." I wish all sysops held this very same standard. Unfortunately... 76.106.245.213 16:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Anything specific this is referring to? Out of curiosity if nothing else. --Rainith 19:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a quote from one of your edits. I feel that, if I elaborate on its significance to me, it would cause more trouble for me than it is worth... again. I simply found what you said to be fair advice for several members of the sysop team. That is, if they ever find it within themselves to care about ethical administration. It's just a compliment. Nothing worth reading into. 76.106.245.213 21:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I remembered the quote, where it was from and what it was in regards to. I'm guessing this has something to do with the current discussion on the Sysop discretion log but I wasn't sure if I had missed something else that it might have been in regards to. No worries then. --Rainith 01:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You did, but you weren't involved in it at the time. It's an old issue that was dealt with very poorly, both during and afterward. It wouldn't solve anything by getting into it now. Again, I just like the logic in your quote and how it fit my situation so well, only a bit late. 76.106.245.213 12:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify a possible misconception here. (Note the following is all from memory as I'm just too lazy to go back and get the exact particulars.)

There was a conversation that was becoming somewhat volatile on Nathe's page and another sysop had told everyone to let the matter drop and that blocks would be handed out to those who did not drop it. Two people responded by posting more crap and essentially egging Nathe on. Nathe responded to at least one of those people but did not break any actual GWW rules even though by responding he specifically went against a sysop's request. I blocked the two who were egging Nathe on, but did not block Nathe himself, for the reason you quoted above. Had Nathe used anti-semetic/racist/sexist/homophobic/etc... remarks in his response, I would have blocked him in a heartbeat and probably would not have even felt that a post on the Sysop discretion log was necessary or warranted.

Let me state that I am not familiar with the situation on said sysop log, as I haven't looked into the backstory, so I am not saying that any of those things happened. I am just saying that I have no problem for blocking people for what they say on user pages (their own or someone else's), but I won't do it unless I feel a rule has been broken. --Rainith 01:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was referring to. I'll elaborate. I made a comment on the admin noticeboard, telling a user they were using said noticeboard inappropriately. This user, some months prior, had a disagreement with me on some talk page and, in an effort to report me out of spite for an NPA violation that never existed (other sysops agreed there was no violation), slandered me on said noticeboard. My warning admittedly teetered on the edge of hostility, and I had apologized for that. However, shortly after the issue was resolved by a sysop regarding my warning on the noticeboard, at least two other sysops began badgering me on my own talk page regardless of however many times I'd asked and told them to drop the resolved issue. They began bringing up non-issues that had nothing to do with them in an attempt to goad me into violating NPA. Mind you, the interference by anyone beyond the very first sysop (who resolved the original issue) was kept on my talk page throughout the entirety of this event. One such sysop began using profanity on my talk page to provoke a similar response. Eventually, one sysop banned me for three days. Again, the length of the ban is irrelevant. Said sysop banned me not only without warning but without justification, and the trolling sysops involved remain without reproach. I broke no rules nor violated any policies that weren't already resolved. I merely responded to other sysops harassing me on my talk page. I was bullied into an unjust ban and, to this day, not even so much as acknowledgement of that fact has been seen. That is why I found your quote so refreshing, while ironically late at the same time. 76.106.245.213 03:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yo

Good to see you're alive. - Tanetris 04:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, still alive, popping in on a (usually) daily basis to check my watch list and the last few edits on RC. Which is how I saw the couple minor things I've done in the last week.

Congratulations on your 'promotion' by the way.  :) --Rainith 23:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And yeah, that's about where I stand lately too. On both wikis, really. And yet nominally "in charge". Funny how things work. - Tanetris 03:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)