User:Dan Dan Teddy Bearz/Archive 1

GW1 wiki sysops are corrupt, hypocritical, unreasonable, irredeemable, trolls and should all have their privileges revoked due to numerous instances of abuse of authority and overall disruption. They are more a plague than a cure and should be purged. In addition, they should all reexamine their lives from a logical perspective so they can mend their obnoxiously flawed existences. An unjustified ban is proof of this. Inb4unjustified-ban#2. Teddy Dan, yo. 00:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're aware there's some overlap, right? Anyway. Your ban on the other wiki isn't held against you here, but by the same token, if you're just here to rage about the other wiki, that's not going to work out well. Just an FYI. Happy editing and all that. - Tanetris 04:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did know that. Auron, himself (the most infamous troll on either wiki), is often all over this RC. I just wanted to get it off my chest. GREENER stepped in and made the point I was trying to make from the start (and I thank him for doing so), so I don't have much else to say on that matter.

I plan on turning this page into a planning page, like what characters I plan on making and how I plan on using them. I already have plans for a Sylvari water Elementalist and an Asuran Warrior, so we'll see how GREENER's latest words are received by the rest of the herd and whether certain people can keep their unjustifiably trigger-happy fingers off the shiny big red buttons. But, yes, I do plan on adding something of relevance to this page and possibly my user page in the future.

Though, I would like to make note that it is nearly impossible for actions on one wiki not be held against someone on the other as 90% or more of the admins of one are editors and possibly also admins of the other. Passive or active, there is going to be hostility. I can only hide my own and plan to do so from this point on, provided the favor is returned. Teddy Dan, yo. 04:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Kay, cool. - Tanetris 04:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably become something of a useful contributor only after I buy the game, because I don't like to speculate. I dabble in "if"s rather than "are"s, especially before all of the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s are crossed. Hopefully, when the time comes, things will be different and I will finally be free to do so. As it stands... well, I'm a cynic, so we'll just have to see. Teddy Dan, yo. 05:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I too loathe and despise the sysops of GWW, and I wish them pain and suffering unto the end of their days. 08:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This all strikes me as being 18 days late. A F K When Needed 08:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I can't imagine that a lot of people get along with Auron. You don't see him much on here except when he has to delete a batch of articles now and then. :) --Xu Davella 10:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

On one side, there will be new RFA's here eventually, with a new perspective (due to many new faces unique to GW2W) that will sort out the admin lists. On the other, I really don't think Auron is that bad, as long as people don't do something relatively or down-right stupid. But that's how I see him anyway. But at least it's great to have you here with us! - Infinite - talk 12:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I like Auron. He's good at what he does, which is all that counts (imo). A F K When Needed 12:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Trolling and abusing authority? Yes, he's certainly adept at that. Teddy Dan, yo. 23:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If any more admins on the GW1W continue to discuss the "dead issue" of me simply defending myself on said wiki, I will start reporting them for unwarranted personal attacks. This is your one and only warning. If you wish to continue the discussion, wait until I return. Don't be petty little cowards talking $#!% about me while I'm unjustly blocked. Teddy Dan, yo. 23:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You've been asked not to use this wiki as platform to be heard on the gww. Please follow the advice. Most of us are willing to ignore your history on gww if you are. -- aspectacle  23:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to prevent as many reports I'll have to make when I return to it as I can. Potentially helpful to both sides, unless I'm missing something again. However, I'll take this into consideration. I know how intolerant adminship can be about opposition, no sarcasm or offense intended. Teddy Dan, yo. 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We should pull a North-Africa. - Infinite - talk 23:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As Tanetris pointed out to you, there is a great overlap in the GW2W and GWW admin groups. Right now it just seems like you're trying to pick fights, which gets nowhere. Also, just because you get a clean slate doesn't mean it remains clean no matter what. Don't use this wiki as a way to trash talk and/or bait the admins; that helps no one. Aqua (T|C) 00:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? "I'm trying to prevent as many reports I'll have to make when I return to it as I can." I explained my intention. If you perceive it as something else, that's not my fault. Please, don't take it out on me. I don't like being misunderstood. I dislike being punished for being misunderstood even more. My first comment on this page was the only trash-talking I've done, so far. As evidenced by many of my other contributions and peaceful discussions on both wikis, I'm not 100% @$$#*!& 100% of the time. Only when I'm provoked, even if the provocation is old to the wiki but new to me. I'm asking, practically begging, please drop it. Everyone. On both wikis. Deal? Teddy Dan, yo. 01:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, maybe what I said about Auron can be perceived as trash-talking. I can admit to that. I didn't see it as such when I typed it, so I'll stop. But just don't talk about him on the talk page of my user page for this wiki, please? I dislike him, so it would be best not to dig him up on a talk page about me/my involvement in the GW2W community. Does that sound fair? Teddy Dan, yo. 01:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, seriously? You guys have the gall to goad him on his own talkpage and then threaten him with administrative/community action? 8/10, I'm still raging. --Riddle 07:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Same thing happened on the other wiki. Thanks for the defense, but don't drag yourself down with me. Teddy Dan, yo. 11:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No sysops have issued any warnings I can see. Trolls complaining about bans is commonplace. It's almost like they think we haven't seen it before. It's adorable ^_____^ -Auron 11:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot a colon. For someone with such a similar nature to that which he missed, one would think he'd be more careful. Teddy Dan, yo. 12:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't pull a Scythe. For the love of all content on this wiki, just do not pull that Scythe. - Infinite - talk 14:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Let the record show that I don't edit GWW and my impression of you has been completely generated by this talk page alone. Also, what are these reports you're trying to prevent? Aqua (T|C) 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued slander on GWW whilst I am blocked. I was aware of the overlap, so I placed a warning where I was still able so as to give me fewer reasons to spam Aiiane's and other bureaucrats' e-mails with reports of NPA violations. While the issue is important enough to warrant their attention, I'd like to keep their involvement at a minimum as I'm sure they're already busy enough with other issues. I did report one issue to Aiiane via e-mail (as I've read a few of her discussions on GWW and feel I can respect any decision she makes provided she understands all of the details), but it was unrelated to this wiki. Hopefully that will continue to be the case. I do know that this wiki is not a "platform to be heard on GWW", but it seems to be the only place I can issue preventive warnings. I had thought prevention of violations would be beneficial to us all. Was I wrong? Teddy Dan, yo. 21:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On another note, I'm curious. Based on all of my contributions to this wiki (mostly on talk pages and in suggestions), and not just the disagreements on this page, what is your impression of me? As a waiver of sorts, to be left in the history of this page for all to see and none to challenge, if it is within my power to do so then I waive any violations of any NPA policy on either wiki that exist or will exist for your (Aquadrizzt) next statement. I already know it won't be positive, so I may as well give you the option of honesty. This applies only to "Aqua". Any other negative statements attempting to take advantage of this, such as those by Auron, will be considered personal attacks. The warning is there not to threaten but to prevent. I don't think it is within my ability to be any clearer. Teddy Dan, yo. 21:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "Don't break policy to try to win an argument, because you'll just get on the admins' bad side too." I just read this from Kyoshi's talk and it was like a freakin' epiphany. Like there was a dam in my brain and behind it was a sea of "STFU and let them have the last word, damnit!" and that sentence tore it all loose. I'm sure you still have your questions, but if we drop it here I won't bring any of this up again and we can all focus on the wiki itself more-so than each other. If you still want answers, I'll try my best to answer any questions with minimal hostility. Does that sound like a good idea? Teddy Dan, yo. 21:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not one to break NPA ever (whether wanted or not), so I will phrase this in the following way: I do not take you seriously, yet. This is stemmed from several things, all of which are from this page

Besides your utter hatred of admins, you seem to be intent on generating drama for the sake of some personal crusade. If you are trying to appear like you are actively hunting for a ban, then by all means, continue on your current course of action. I feel that you are trying to alleviate a real or perceived problem (I'm not investing time in doing research on this, so I guess I'll never know which it is...), but you have no idea how to go about it. If you want action to be taken, tell the whole truth in a non-biased (or only slightly biased, we're all human after all) way. Maybe then people (especially people like me) would take you more seriously.

This ties in perfectly to my next subject: word play (also known as "How to Lie With Facts"). I feel like you play games with how you phrase things, in an attempt to show that the situation is worse than it actually is. One example of this is when you said "[GW(2)W] sysops are corrupt, hypocritical, unreasonable, irredeemable." All that shows me is that you are biased. That doesn't help your case at all. I also have my doubts that you meant what you said sometimes (which is even more evident by your crossing out of certain parts of your many comments here.) If you are going to say something, say it and mean it, or don't say it at all.

If you want a tl;dr version of the above here it is. You are creating drama, whether intentionally or not, and I don't take you seriously right now, and think that perhaps the admins were justified in banning you, but I still will wait and see if something good can come of this. Aqua (T|C) 22:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was hasty and flustered when I posted that first comment on this page. I've just noticed that I have yet to apologize to those admins it does not apply. So, I apologize to those such admins it does not apply. There are several of you, and I shouldn't have been so general. Also, I said GW1 wiki sysops, but that's just me being a quote nazi. I do not hate all admins. There are maybe two or three that I do necessarily hate. Some of you have actually been rather polite and helpful, including you at this point. If I felt any differently, I wouldn't have attempted to give you absolute freedom to express your opinion of me. I don't care about the opinions of people I dislike, only those I respect. So, the first comment on this page is obsolete and is admittedly false to begin with. Again, I apologize for it. I hope that eases at least some tension.

I am trying to honestly alleviate a problem and, yes, you're correct in that (as evidenced by all of this drama) I'm not quite picking up on how to go about it. I can type honestly of how I perceived the issue, but bias is unfortunately a product of discomfort. Until I'm no longer distressed, I don't know how to be unbiased. (no spell-check red squiggly line, so I guess unbiased is a real word, lucky me)

I only know how to speak/type one way. If it indeed appears as though I'm inflating the facts or representing them poorly, please discuss it with me so that I know what I need to clarify or reexamine. I suppose, having been trolled so often in so many places, my communication skills have suffered. I'd like the opportunity to fix that. Teddy Dan, yo. 00:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the admins on these wikis are the same (except for GWiki and the absence of Raine and Greener...) Aqua (T|C) 01:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, I was just correcting the quote. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that, at the time, I did mean what I said. I was just too general in my statement. I do still feel the same about certain individuals, whole-heartedly, just not as many as I'd originally suggested. I try not to say things I don't mean, but changing one's mind is human nature. This edit is a bit late, as per my request two sections down, but I had to reread your comment to catch the misunderstanding. Teddy Dan, yo. 10:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unjustified

Doesn't really matter if it is. You got blocked, in which case opening fire on said block will only affect the block negatively. What I recommend you should do is forget about it and sit it out. Due to this wiki not carrying over bad behaviour, you have a clean slate here. On the flip-side, you are playing with that clean slate carelessly to attempt to shorten a short block. I recommend forgetting about it and focussing on other stuff, like this wiki. You really should not waste the fresh state you are in here. - Infinite - talk 22:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

While justification is relevant and significant, it'll serve no purpose until after the ban is lifted for any reason. I don't want it shortened. If I did, I'd simply circumvent it. I'd go to the local college resource room (to which I still have access even though I still owe them like $3k), hop onto several computers at the same time, troll a bit to vent my frustration, go to the local library where the IP range should be slightly different and repeat. However, I am waiting out my ban. I disagree with it and have expressed such, but shortening it is not on my agenda. Perhaps some retribution after it exhausts its duration is on my agenda, but again only after the fact. Are my intentions still unclear? I'm beginning to feel like I'm speaking a new language that nobody can decipher. If so, please (politely) ask specifically about what it is that is unclear. I don't mind clarification. It seems my intentions have been misunderstood almost entirely since the very beginning. I'd like to rectify that at any and every opportunity. No sarcasm was intended in any of this. It can be difficult to tell, in text, so I'm clarifying it now. Teddy Dan, yo. 22:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Harsh as it may sound; from your current position it is unwise to contest the block, including expressing yourself as such. Not because you are not allowed, but because the methods resorted to make you sound as though you have a vendetta going on. A crusade against admins because you ended up with a block. Just stop mentioning it and it'll be fine, you're not doing jail time or something serious. - Infinite - talk 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just very intolerant of unpunished wrongdoing, especially against me. It's a personal trait that I've tried to soften but it just returns with a vengeful fury every time something just isn't right. It does indeed make me look bad, and I recognize it every time, but only so because I'm easy to goad. Letting things go is just difficult for me, as evidenced by my continued responses. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm not trying to sow chaos. I'm just trying to be treated fairly, perhaps much too hard. I'm not asking that I be excused, because that would be hypocritical. I'm just asking for justice, preferably of a peaceful sort. But I won't knock on that door, anymore. It has only served to vilify me more and more. So, I'm trying to let it go. Understand that it just won't be easy. Certain people I've expressed my intolerance of (not you, Inf) trolling my talk page just to goad me doesn't help. Teddy Dan, yo. 23:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Been there (see my only block). Sometimes we all just try too hard. And because of that it is hard to lay it to rest. I am sure you will manage and that we won't have things escalating some more. :) - Infinite - talk 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I honestly would never have guessed. You don't seem the type to fluster as easily. No sarcasm. Teddy Dan, yo. 00:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I care much too much. This is mostly a good thing in the present, astonishing friends and foes alike. But it's a double-edged sword I'm sporting. ;) - Infinite - talk 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Leave it to you to bring up swords.XD (Joking.^_^;) Teddy Dan, yo. 00:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

May I?

Archive all of the above? As the turning of a new leaf? Any objections? Teddy Dan, yo. 05:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reasoning to defend the action should it be attacked.

If you still wish to; go for it. People can come to me for answers if they want them. (Would you mind keeping this section? It'd help lots.) A F K When Needed 09:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Aye-aye. Teddy Dan, yo. 10:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I owe you an apology. I read that incorrectly.

For some reason I read it as 'remove', not 'archive'.

Archiving is no problem at all. A F K When Needed 10:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can delete it, too?! =O Teddy Dan, yo. 10:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleting's the tricky bit that's a tad more frowned upon.

You can archive anything you like on this page (currently; generally any active discussions should be kept for three days, though there are exceptions).

If you really want to delete it you can see if people will allow it (it's generally on a per-case basis, tbh). As above, I'll talk with anyone who's unhappy about it. Not that I'm an Admin or anything; I just have a few arguments in favor of it that are somewhat relevant to the way things are done, priorities on the wiki, etc. A F K When Needed 10:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Should I wait for approval from an admin, to be safe? I don't want to put either of us in an unfavorable position... like doggy st-wait, no... I mean... Teddy Dan, yo. 10:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No idea what you're on about. I love doing it doggy style. A F K When Needed 10:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not with me... you... don't... Where exactly is this going? >.> Teddy Dan, yo. 11:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what she said. The first time. A F K When Needed 11:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Luckily she eventually warmed up to the id-Hey, I see what you did there. Teddy Dan, yo. 11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x2 Deleting should only be done (without mass-rage incoming) to obvious vandals and very insensitive and cruel trolls. Content that you really, REALLY don't want to keep because it loops you into negative emotions (such as a fanboi calling you a Nazi). (True story.) Other than that, archives are go! - Infinite - talk 11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the conflict tag? We's jussa playin', suh. O_o Teddy Dan, yo. 11:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

An edit conflict is when you hit 'Save page' and get an edit conflict error.

It means the page has been saved by someone else since you started editing, so the version you're trying to submit would automatically revert the latest edit(s). Thus, it gets rejected by the software. Tends to be annoying. A F K When Needed 11:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see the emphasis now. It is an edit conflict rather than it an edit of a conflict. I always thought it was the latter, since I usually saw it during "heated" discussions. Knowing is half the battle. Teddy Dan, yo. 11:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Having better armor and weaponry than the opposition is the other half. A F K When Needed 11:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Superior numbers and higher morale, as well. Teddy Dan, yo. 11:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Or distance.

And a nuke. A F K When Needed 11:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be a healer! Oh.. - Infinite - talk 11:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)