User:Dan Dan Teddy Bearz/Open Drama

Hey, I come in peace

→ moved from User talk:Dan Dan Teddy Bearz

Yeah, I'm acting as a neutral third party to politely inform you that you might want to tone it down. It's understandable that people's personalities will clash, it's a fact of life. But you shouldn't poke trolls or always feel like you need to "get the last word". This sort of non-productive wiki-ing may get you a one-way ticket to bansville. Also, for future reference, an IP is generally a person too and should be treated the same as if they had an account. There are several reasons as to why a person does not create an account. Nevertheless, try not display such aggressive behaviours when discussing topics with people, it'll serve you much better. Venom20 02:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

1) I wasn't the one who moved those discussions from the Engineer talk page to those IP's pages, so there's nothing there I should "tone down". 2) My post on "Briar's" page was strictly to inform said individual that whining about how other users use their own talk pages is an improper use of a help board such as "Ask a wiki question.", which is productive as far as I'm concerned. Briar is the one who blew it out of proportion and mistakenly took it to a mainspace talk page. 3) How I communicated on the Engineer talk page has already been addressed and amended. Bringing it up now isn't helping anybody. 4) Had I the desire to troll, poke trolls, whine like a butthurt little Auron-fanboy or about said fanboys, I'd do so on my own talk page (where I should be free to do so, unless I'm being singled-out again) instead of on their talk pages where I could legitimately be accused of trolling. Unfortunately, simply because of some bias over a previous event, my good intentions were misunderstood. Of course, the title I gave to that section didn't help, but it's no worse than the titles admins give to the sections they post on users' talk pages about perceived trolling. I understand what you're getting at, but it's either late or misinformed/misunderstood, which are neither anything to be ashamed of. Thanks, anyway. Teddy Dan 05:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that we're smart enough to catch drive-by attacks like "butthurt little Auron-fanboy." 08:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But not "wiki-noobs"? Seriously, this double-standard nonsense is tiresome and borders on the edge of being considered a personal attack, itself. Waving a flag you don't represent (or represent poorly) is embarrassing. If you're gonna ban me for no logical reason, just get it over with. Don't troll me so obviously with such clear intentions. Teddy Dan 09:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Teddy Dan 09:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you're a really active editor... --Xu Davella 09:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's because I spend roughly 90% of my time on either wiki defending myself. Being singled-out on a regular basis isn't fun. I also have a fluxuating sleep pattern due to my occupation. I'll likely be getting some rest soon, though, in case "get a life" was the hidden message. Teddy Dan 10:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I assure you I do not enforce any double standards. Despite my namesake, I am not actually an omniscient wiki spirit. I choose not to read the chaos that is the Engineer talk page; your talk page is more interesting.

That being said, I do not consider "wiki-noob" to be a personal attack. It refers only to a person's capacity as an editor. Butthurt little Auron-fanboy, on the other hand, implies that a person is acting out of spite or vengeance rather than a desire to improve the wiki, which violates the central collaborative tenet of assuming good faith.

Lastly, it would be in everyone's best interest if you could release your resentment of Auron, or at least repress it until it becomes a lurking nightmare deep within your subconscious mind. I was in a very similar position to yours long ago. Auron and I exchanged mutual poor first impressions back on GuildWiki, and it literally took years before we could settle our personal differences and work together. Fighting it out is not worth your time or effort. 10:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing. It might interest you to know that I'm not a sysop on GWW. I'm actually a bureaucrat of GuildWiki, the original Guild Wars wiki, and we subscribe to a very different philosophy when it comes to blocks. So you can stop worrying whenever you see my name on your talk page. I mean you no harm. 10:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "noob" is just as derogative as, say, "stupid". It is used derogatively throughout the internet. This, in turn, not only violates the central collaborative tenet of assuming good faith but also reflects nothing more than spite. "New user" would have sufficed, regardless of however wrong it would have been in that case. However, if I were to use your logic, I do not consider "butthurt" to be a personal attack. It refers only to a person's capacity as an editor (in the manner they express themselves as an editor). "Auron-fanboy" states only that one is a fan of "Auron". Lastly, my resentment of "Auron" is a personal problem. I don't have to suppress it. If anything, I simply shouldn't be outspoken about it. However, if you'd kindly read the section in question, I wasn't the one who dug it up out of spite. If I'm wrong, please humor me with better explanations. I don't truly enjoy being so disagreeable, it's just difficult for me when things that seem like hostility directed at me, but are explained as good intentions, just don't make sense to me. I'm very much the "I must make sense of this." type, so it's not easy to simply walk away from. Teddy Dan 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This page says otherwise. My bad, misread GWW as GW2W. When did I say you're a sysop on GWW? O_o Teddy Dan 10:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sleepiness is causing me to typo beyond acceptable parameters. I'm just gonn-...zzZZ Teddy Dan 10:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Me, an Auron fanboy, Thats rich.--BriarThe Spider 11:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as a double entendre. I don't really put much thought into my edits. Thinking is hard. Too hard. I write shot sentences to compensate. --Xu Davella 11:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I assure you that Auron is actually really cool when you get up close and personal! :\ - Infinite - talk 13:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I'm unwilling to see it, it's simply that I haven't yet. I doubt whole-heartedly that he even gives a damn. I can't think of any reason he should. In so being, no offense, but I don't know why anyone else cares so much in his stead. It's between he and I. Mostly me, considering I doubt I'm even on his radar. Someone else bringing it up, for absolutely no reason but spite no less, is completely inappropriate. My only concern is why I'm the only person being reprimanded for so much as mentioning his user name, especially only after it was originally brought up by someone else with the intent to offend or belittle me. It seems unfair. Teddy Dan 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been two days and still I'm the only individual from the situation against whom any action has been taken. I still feel singled-out, as usual. Teddy Dan 21:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what situation you're talking about, so I don't really have any comments to that, but I can tell you why people cringe so much when my name is used in vain. Generally people who hate me make a big deal about it, run around violating policy or just act like enormous douchebags to get noticed so they can stand on a soapbox and preach about how evil I am. When they do that, the wiki suffers, and most of those people end up banned anyway (and none of them by me). Nobody wants to see you go down that path, me included. You are free to hate me for any imagined wrongdoings you care to pin on me, but keep in mind == Hey, I come in peace ==

You neither play, nor give a shit about either GW1 or GW2. So I'm calling bullshit on that entire paragraph. --BriarThe Spider 00:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Shut up Briar. 01:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the comment not the commenter. Also, why can't you guys just let these arguments die? Not posting will solve a lot more problems than trying to have a "rational" discussion. - 01:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

But I got called an Auron Fanboy. I'm hurt and offended! :( --BriarThe Spider 01:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "It's been two days" yeah, that's because no one gives a shit about your issues that happened 2 days ago, let it die already. And you apparently think you were singled out for some reason. News-fucking-flash, read the block list. You'll see that 2 IP's were banned for personal attacks within the 2 day magical window. Friendly advise for the future, when something dies, don't resurrect it unless you are (a) trying to troll everyone or (b) apparently just looking to get flamed. Things were said, blah blah blah, let it go, move on. Try to contribute as you would like to and just be aware that people are here trying to coach you and not get you banned, but you are well on your way to working towards it. Venom20 02:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't fit that description, so the implied accusations are misplaced. I dislike you for factual wrongdoings, whether you believe in them or not. However, arguing about that is pointless.

You haven't once proven to me that you're capable of anything but talking sh__ about and improperly blocking people while hiding behind some badge of adminship. I don't expect you to care to, either. Sometimes what you say is correct, but it's the manner in which you communicate with and otherwise handle people and get away with it, especially while nearly all others (including me) are reprimanded for it, that annoys the crap out of me. That is why I dislike you. Due to your commentary on this subject, I'm left questioning if you truly do care and why. I have my suspicions, of course, but it would interest me to know directly from you why you would bother with this.

If you truly held no stance on the wiki beside it's sole use being that of documenting the game, then you wouldn't be here on my talk page. You'd edit strictly mainspace pages and maintain absolute avoidance of any userspace. Just clarifying that part.

I would be interested in documenting the game but I don't have it, yet. It's also highly unlikely that I'll find any information that nobody else has. So, I can't document the game. However, unless I've been mislead, another part of this wiki is improving this wiki by offering wiki suggestions, voting on wiki suggestions, asking wiki questions, helping other users, etcetera. I do some of that. It's difficult to notice, being sandwiched between layers upon layers of other discussions, but it's there. Teddy Dan 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone else: No offense intended but Auron has demonstrated his capability of speaking for himself. I understand that some of you are either fond of him or have other motives for coming to his (albeit unnecessary) aid. Still, in the future, please don't metaphorically tear down the doors to my talk page, especially regarding this subject. Thank you. Teddy Dan 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No offense intended, but not posting solves nothing but a spectator's grief. Not settling an argument actually serves to encourage misunderstanding. Teddy Dan 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Pay attention. Those block issues are irrelevant. Also, don't troll my talk page. At least not so poorly. Teddy Dan 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I imply nothing. No, you don't fit that description - yet. I was using it as an example, as several users have gone down that path, and I don't want to see any more follow. And... pray tell... over numerous Requests for Reconfirmation on GWW, I've put out the call time and again, asking for proof and evidence of any abuses of my sysop tools. The best anyone has been able to come up with was me voting neutral on an RfA with the reasoning "meh." If you have links to "factual" wrongdoings, feel free to share them, since apparently the entire rest of the community has missed them time and again.

You want me to prove myself to you, yet you've done absolutely no research regarding anything about me or my service as sysop. Have you read a single page on GWiki? Have you perused my talk page archives over the years to see what causes I've fought for, what conflicts I've resolved, and what I've done for each of the wikis? No, you got blocked for trolling, and before bothering to learn what you were talking about, you instantly posted on this wiki in protest. I'll make a deal - link to a single place where I've improperly blocked someone, and I'll start caring about proving myself to you.

The line about documenting the game is a fallacy and you know it. One does not have to exile themselves to a single narrow focus to be a valued contributor to the wiki - and for my single narrow focused efforts to provide content to wikis, check my contributions on the GWiki, part of which led to the creation of PvX (via the builds section on gwiki).

Again, refer to my previous comment. A user does not have to run around and type out every quest log in every zone to be a valued contributor or to be considered someone that documents the game. The wiki is served by designing pages to look better, coding tables to sort information more precisely, and simply browsing the web for information about the game. You don't have to wait until GW2 release to start documenting the game, and there are many options aside from simply typing text from one monitor to the other that are all equally beneficial. Any discussions on suggestions and aiding other users is part of that, too. Nobody is asking you to break into ANet HQ and play GW2 to get info for the wiki. Just keep doing what you're doing and try to keep drama to a minimum.

Unfortunately, wiki discussions are wiki discussions, and "the crowd" is free to post whatever they feel. Many other users have actually been around me for years, and many of them can answer any questions you may have about me with amazing accuracy. Don't ignore their opinions simply because they've had the time to get a more well-rounded impression of me; ignoring the wiki crowd is what Scythe and Ariyen did, and you see how well it served them. -Auron 06:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Correction: Perceived trolling. Trolling is an active intention. Trolling was not my intent, as stated numerous times.

One particular wrongdoing I speak of is precisely that ban. One of GW1W'a policies includes assuming "good faith". You banned me because I was explaining on my talk page, perhaps with some degree of contempt, a reasonable misunderstanding and its consequent mistaken label. You completely bypassed any such "good faith" during my numerous attempts to clarify the misunderstanding and, without warning, blocked me. Granted, it was a mere three days. The action itself was wrong, regardless of any perceived leniency. Your reasoning? Disruption. Disrupting the wiki? Seeing as it was my talk page and not a main space, it had mostly nothing to do with the flow of the wiki. Disrupting my own talk page? How can I disrupt my own userspace? Granted, that was all on GW1W. Still, it is partly why I dislike you. It is a legitimate reason, regardless of however fruitless.

No, I have not researched all of your edits throughout the internet. I should no more go out of my way to find a reason to like you than you should go out of your way to do the same with me. Do you know all of the suggestions to both the games and the wikis I've made? Do you know my every edit since I created this account? Since we're going to bring up wikis not directly linked to this one, do you know of my contributions to wikis of other games? For that matter, do you know of my charity both online and off? Asking me to research every aspect of you that I possibly could, barring the illegal invasion of privacy (for which I could be held accountable), just to find something about you to convince me beyond all else that you're a good person is unreasonable.

My implication about your stance toward the wiki was a response to this: "... the ultimate goal of the wiki is simply to document a video game. If you're interested in documenting the video game and I'm interested in documenting the video game, we're on the same team, and any differences of opinion we have are secondary to the goals of the wiki" Mentioning that at all is pointless unless one holds such a narrow view as to imply all other edits are insignificant. This whole discussion is completely irrelevant to the game and the documentation of it. All participants in this discussion are equally at fault.

I tried being ahead of the crowd a few times. Whenever I found something that seemed like news to me, someone else had already mentioned it. I'm slow. Most of the people I know in person play other games. Mostly FPSs. This narrows my network of information quite a bit, and I have neither the patience or the attention span to stalk likely sources. Even now, writing all of this is a bit much for me. I'm running a few different programs and am on a few different sites; like uTorrent, a manga reader site (yes, I read manga), YouTube (listening to my channel playlists while doing all of this), UESPWiki (checking up on Skyrim), FreeMMORPGList (checking new additions), hotmail, Facebook, and a site for a program called malwarebytes which I was just told about. Attention span=shot to Hell. Which is why it's taking me so damn long to write all this.

I try to minimize indirectly involved additions because all they do is aggravate the situation. I'm a 1-on-1 kind of guy. If someone has a problem with me, I prefer it if they alone discuss it with me. Equally, if I have a problem with someone else, I ask that anyone else who may desire to jump in my defense refrain from doing so. I hate bandwagon jumpers, even when they're "on my side". I also dislike the notion of sides, as it implies there's no common ground to agree upon, (even if it means agreeing to disagree).

Now, I'd also like to mention that, during this conversation, I've begun to dislike you slightly less. You have indeed proven to me that you can talk to someone, namely me, without sarcasm dripping with hostility. I didn't have to go far to see it, either. If I can't remember or find any other wrongdoings, specifically and with links, consider this an apology for the accusation(s). While we may never be drinking buddies, we could at least be civil. I'm willing to find out how long that may last. Teddy Dan 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why this section is here almost completely twice, but I just want to chime in the: Please don't feed each other on. I am sure everyone is mature enough to ignore things, or vent them away from wiki regardless of source or intention. This rather looks like Dan being trolled on his talk page for the sake of provoking an argument that passes a line, rather than it looks like a civil discussion. Save for (ironically) Dan and Auron, this conversation shouldn't have been remarked on in the fashion as shown above. Dan replied to the OP, who may or may not be perfectly right about his comment, in the manner he deemed correct. He explained his actions, the topic carried on and it should have ended where Dan went to catch some sleep. Briar reignited the topic unnecessarily, I tried to mend some of the (clearly) open wounds and Dan explained that this is not a matter between anyone but Auron and him behind the scenes.

tl;dr: Dan may have a problem with Auron's attitude and may experience a feeling of alienation but there is no real reason to bait someone into defending themselves for the sake of watching them go ballistic. Not cool.

Alternatively, if Dan has a problem with Auron's attitude, I am sure that Auron is in the right to question Dan's stance. Since I have full support in either party here I just want to say this and hopefully conclude this section as well.

We have had users with an ACTUAL detrimental stance on this wiki; please don't shove Dan into this category because of what he feels and experienced. I don't see his edits to main space reducing in quality because of these personal aspects anytime soon and I have not seen him purposely starting edit wars either.

Bottomline I want to restate myself that both Auron and Dan are very nice once you get to know them a bit (a trend I hope both carry on in the future).

I replied here due to the request (although removed) on my talk page and have no intention to reply here again in the future. - Infinite - talk 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Due to reasons beyond my reasoning, I am refusing to provide a sound argument that would otherwise be detrimental to this talk page. Instead... Rock butter poopies in a dim setting rain sauce with red rubber steel and broken jaws on purple watered magnifying glasses go well with curdled malted milk and two lightly scrambled bicycle tyres with a side of dirt covered shoe laces - twice removed. It's the only way to have it. --Xu Davella 14:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Dan, I am wondering if you believe that this discussion, and your several (dozen) edits on Talk:Engineer and Talk:Mesmer are doing anything but disrupting the wiki. I just finished a quick check of your edits, in addition to maybe a 30 or so edits to Talk:Mesmer and Talk:Engineer, you have ~100 edits on your talk page, and few edits elsewhere (notably none in the mainspace). I think that you should heed some (if not most) of Auron's words (particularly "The point of the wiki is to document the game..."). If you are to going to continue using the wiki for nothing other than to be disruptive or fulfill some personal vendetta, then you should be probably be prepared to lose editing privileges shortly. Aqua (T|C) 20:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

After taking a decent leave of absence, what I have to say about this is "You were wrong." I'm not "back", just momentarily correcting your erroneous assumptions. First on the list is this: "One cannot disrupt one's own home." If discussion on one's own talk page can be considered disruption then, by all means, pin the label everywhere it belongs and not just here. If attempting to stem the flow of the same unnecessary commentary on the discussion page of an article can be considered disruption then, again, the same. If sharing a new opinion on a discussion page of an article where several others are sharing their own opinions on the very same subject, only they without reproach, can be considered disruption, ditto.

I have so many edits on my talk page because this is where I preferred to discuss problems others had with my edits, which is what most of you do as well. There are so many edits here because, when I make one edit that somebody doesn't like, I'm bombarded with criticism from an angry lynch mob. You haven't helped that matter any, either. From the evidence, it seems clear to me that you've been hell-bent on removing my privileges from the beginning. I don't care for any excuses or assumed corrections you may have. I was away for three months. I decided to check up on any new information on racial skills and biographies, believing the latest media for the sylvari and underwater combat may have filled in a few gaps. I was automatically/still signed in because I'd never unchecked the remember box. As this wiki remembered my info, I was reminded of why I stopped editing. Your slanderous assumptions bothered me and I felt you've had the last, erroneous word long enough. I don't intend to edit anything more than this change, even if I do somehow find information about GW2 relevant to but not shared on this wiki. Any further commentary on this subject by you is unnecessary and would then be just as disruptive as anything you've pinned on me. Again, I don't care for your excuses. I don't care for your opinions. I don't care for your threats. Nothing you could possibly say would possess any meaning to me. The most beneficial thing you can do is move on and not care. That is all. 76.106.245.213 17:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)