User talk:Defiant Elements

What??

Your "Sandbox" thingie is incorrect. I believe the correct term is "soapbox"! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xerir (talk • contribs).

ToCRights

Already with the ToCRights, huh? Those drive me nuts. :P

I won't ask you not to do it, because it never works because people love them for whatever reason. I'm just letting you know that someday, in my memoirs, I'm going to list you and everyone else who uses that template as causes of my eventual insanity. :) —Tanaric 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Eventual insanity :P? Didn't mean to drive you nuts though. For whatever reason, it bothers me what there's a bunch of lines of text (the introductory stuff) and then the ToC which seems to be completely out of place and disruptive, whereas ToCRight makes it kind of blend into the rest of the text. Besides, you wouldn't be the first person (nor the last) to list me as a cause of their personal insanity :). *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the disruptive ToC. It gives me a summary of what I'm about to read, which puts it all in context. It also lets me skip stuff I don't care about. But meh, it's a battle I've lost again and again. :) —Tanaric 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, Tanaric. I don't like the huge white space before the text, but I don't like the TOC being on the right, either. :P

And by the way, OHAI BEN! /WAVE Armond 07:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I just go No ToC. And Tanaric, I think you're already off the deep end, but hey, what does that matter? Congrats on the upcoming (or so you say :P) marriage, DE. Calor (t) 02:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

He's like vanished from MSN, so I'm inclined to believe him. :P Armond 05:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Once New Years rolls around, don't expect to see me period for a week minimum. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DE does win life, after all. — Skakid HoHoHo 20:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on the upcoming marriage! How's the planning coming along? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering the ceremony is December 31st, one would hope that the planning was well under way :P. And thanks :). *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, lucky you - almost to the finish line ... mine's in June '08, so still quite a ways to go. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, have fun. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

you old ppl scare me :p ^Teo^ 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, DE. Hope your married life is happy and harmonious and suchlike. and that it shan't interfere too much with your ability to visit the wikis. =] --Edru/QQ 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

congrats and happy very special new year. Coran Ironclaw 07:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My sources tell me he'll be out from the thirty-first to the seventh, possibly the thirtieth as well. :P

In the interests of spamming your talk with something other than "congrats", once again, thanks for the insight four years into my future. :P Though I do feel I should say that some of us are already married, just waiting for the papers. :P Armond 07:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Big Problem on GWW Created by Strict Admin Standards

Where do we have a big problem on GWW which has had demonstrated dire consequences as a result of our "weak" admins? The case of Raptors has been brought up time and time again and the most damage it has ever done was the paranoia of the admin there (they are responsible for their own paranoia not raptors). Ryudo was the only user who left, over what most people admit is unreasonable response to someone elses welcome message. The raptors case should have been brought to ArbCom long before it reached that point anyway. Aside from that most other issues were covered by policy. The most conversations about wishing for bans on other users, which would be covered by this discretion, is an admin who disagreed with someone or a stance they took and wanted to ban them for it, which is not fair at all. Again, where are the example of these weak admins which are so dire that the system there is to be considered a failure? 58.110.142.135 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember the IRC convo yesterday? —ǥrɩɳsɧƴƿıę 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Auron and I went over this question at length last night on the IRC. *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Because you've seemingly forgotten (or are conveniently ignoring) the conversation last night, I'll make a short list of GWW failures for you:

• Me. I should have been blocked for trolling and NPA countless times. I was aware of policy, and my trolling was disruptive behavior.
• Skuld. NPA and random outbursts. Taken to ArbComm because sysops didn't just block him. When one finally did, people bitched at him for it. That's a weakness in the system.
• Karlos. Alienated a bunch of users, was disruptive in discussions (i.e., would target users and their views on totally unrelated pages, seemingly held a grudge against pretty much everyone, etc), broke policy a bunch (near the end) and was only blocked once (for 2 hours) for a minor violation.
• Erasculio. Endless trolling in countless policy discussions - started back with Karlos, hasn't stopped yet.
• Raptors. This one speaks for itself. He has danced around blocks for months exploiting loopholes in policy. Afraid of repercussions, nobody just banned him for being an asshat. Thus, he was allowed to take things as far as chasing Ryudo away. Outside of the blocks for NPA, he should have been blocked for trolling way earlier. Lemming64 had the right idea, but placed too short a block (too short by about a year).

This is just a short list (off the top of my head), but it details pretty well the shortcomings in the system.

GWW's sysop policy is probably the worst one possible outside of requiring a committee-like discussion on every single block and page deletion - but GWW's isn't far from that. It's horridly inefficient and basically a bad system - when you have to take a case to the bureaucrats because you can't trust your sysops to use their heads, you've fucked up.

We aren't wikipedia. We don't have millions of users and millions of edits per day. We don't need blanket policies and admins that can't think (because, on Wikipedia, it is the only way to assure the admins are doing their job and only their job). On a wiki as small as this one, it is an exceedingly simple task for the Bureaucrats to keep tabs on their sysops and make sure they aren't abusing their power, and thus is makes zero sense to follow a Wikipedia-like admin system.

GWW did a number of awesome things - off the top of my head, I really like their image policy. GWiki had no such policy and, in two short years, had over 25,000 images - most of which were untagged. Porting over the policies that are effective is a great idea, but porting over policies that failed miserably is not. -Auron 06:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The reasons you site for you and Skuld include NPA... Well they can block for that so the admin not doing what policy allowed them to do is not an issue here. That's two down by your reasoning already. Erasculio was brought up for ArbCom request rejected. OBVIOUSLY he was a HUUUUUGE problem to the wiki which caused sooooo much drama! A whole ONE comment was put on the discussion page. Man that Erasculio was a huge problem to the wiki, there was a clear demand to deal with the problem (quickly, propose no sarcasm, please). In the rejection reasons two of the BC even said they recognise that almost no options had been taken to deal with the conflict prior to ArbCom request and they listed both RFC and the Admin Noticeboard as well as his own discussion page. Well that's three down.. you're not doing to well. Raptors, as I stated above, was the only case I saw a huge drama about, however it has been dealt with and he is effectively gone from the other wiki aside from maybe two sock puppet incidents (and a lot of paranoia from overzealous admin). People have stated since then raptors is an extreme case and seeing as he is known on all three wikis I think it is clear he was a rather unique case and the only legacy he has is perpetuated by people continually citing him over and over. If his actions are a reason to not do something then Gem is right and you have lost. Concerning Karlos, my knowledge on the wiki does not go back that far, but even if I concede to you two examples, Raptors and Karlos, from what I know about Karlos he is a rather extreme case as well. In the span of almost a year we have only two example of these "huge failures" and "dire consequences" as a result of weak admins. Sounds like GWW was doing a pretty good job to me. 58.110.142.135 07:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting about yourself -- trolling on various important talk pages, tossing your issues everywhere vainly hoping to find a forum in which you can feel valuable, and hiding behind a anon/proxy server in order to conceal your identity. Your egoism and sarcasm is beginning to anger me. —Tanaric 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am more revealing than any of you other registered users. My ip allows people to find out the state I live in for crying out loud! All I know about you is your user name and what you have told people, all of which could be lies. If someone opposes admin action and cites reasoning for it, it is not trolling. When our administrators are no longer accountable for their actions like you seem to want that is when GWW policies have failed. 58.110.142.135 07:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I got Brisbane Australia with a random ip checker I found on google. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I requested that you bring me up for reconfirmation or report me to the ArbComm. Nobody has done so. You have various available opportunities to hold me accountable for my actions -- nobody as of yet has availed themselves of them.

As for your IP, it's clear that you're hiding behind a proxy to shield your registered name from your honest opinion. That sort of cowardice doesn't do much to make your opinions meaningful. If they were worth a damn you could say them with the full force of your reputation and personality. —Tanaric 07:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'd just like to point out that Cory never said that disagreeing with him equated trolling. The fact of the matter is that it's not what you did, it's how you went about doing it, spouting rhetoric on a half-dozen talk pages and escalating the conflict before ever attempting to resolve it. Pointlessly escalation that disrupts a Wiki is indeed trolling. Disagreeing with an Admin need not be trolling (I told you already, people have, in good faith, sent me emails on PvX disagreeing with my decisions, that's not trolling). On the other hand, what you have done is much much closer to the line (if not over it). *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, DE. I agree completely.

Oh yeah, and about my identity: anybody here could, with the aid of Google and some DNS registration searching, find my current address and phone number. Give me a call if you really need me to verify my identity. —Tanaric 07:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that Tanaric's point needs re-reiterating; he's invited you to contact ArbComm, yet you are obviously concerned about admins being unaccountable for their actions. Huh? -Auron 07:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please learn the appropriate actions to take when a conflict arises on a wiki before commenting on my choice not to do something. I have chosen not to take it to arbcom and have explained on pages which you have all read from what I can tell why I did not bring it to arbcomm. I chose to approach both admin I disagreed with on their discussion pages and to some extent those discussions are still ongoing. I will not restate my reasoning for not taking it to ArbCom which I find to be sound - and from what I have read arbcom would come to the same conclusion I did about what I should do. I will not defend my ip as it is a ridiculous argument anyway and nothing to do with anything. 58.110.142.135 08:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we've gotten to the point where I would respectfully ask all involved in this discussion (as it pertains to Cory) to move it to an appropriate locale (i.e. not my talk page). *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But DE, apparently this discussion is only meaningful if it happens on six talk pages across two wikis simultaneously. You're obstructing justice.

I'm kidding, of course -- this is my last post on this topic on this talk page.

—Tanaric 08:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes to self

lol, loved them. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So true. Unfortunately, that means I can't argue with anyone where I live... Lord Belar 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[1]

Grats! =) --Xeeron 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :). *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye, congrats. I hope you enjoy it. Calor (t) 23:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

hope you have a long and happy marriage.. ^Teo^ 14:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Busy I see. Some advice:

• Don't let this place become shit. GWW is bad, policy is bad, and the admin team is bad.
• Ban anyone who starts "wtf" chains.

By keeping these two things in mind, you cannot possibly lose. O, and hi. --Readem 11:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I guess Marco and Co. will need to go cold turkey on any sort of spam. Most, if not all of the admins are perfectly competent. They were just bound by fourteen million policies on GWW. Policies are like cream and sugar in coffee. Some is good, but too much ruins things. Calor (t) 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Question...

Can I make my own sandbox? If I can, where, how, or why should I do it? And hi btw. Nukleaer VII 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea. User:NuclearVII/Sandbox should suffice. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Damnit, I need to type faster. Lord Belar 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't beat DE. He can't beat Skuld. God beats skuld, but only if he is fighting with Tanaric at the same time. It evens out. Nukleaer VII 15:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This seemed appropriate :P. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But... dah, I can't make interwiki links, I'd link to the wrath of skuld. You get the idea. Besides, Skuld has the internet connected directly to his brain... Nukleaer VII 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've seen Wrath of Skuld before. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. Ehh... <insert snappy and yet creatively and dramatically ironic comeback here> Nukleaer VII 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki links. Although I suspect you meant this. Lord Belar 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nukleaer VII 10:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The PvX helmet icon

is most likely a copyright violation. Is there a message by the original creator saying it can be used under the GFDL, or is it just for the CC? -- Plingggggg \ Talk 18:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus christ, we've been over this like fifty thousand times on PvX. The dude who made it doesn't give a crap what we do with it. >.< (Sorry, just so many copyright discussions when PvX was made...) -- Armond Warblade 16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

May I steal you WotD?

Title says it all. -- NUKLEAR IIV 13:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, knock yourself out. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

GRAPPLE! -- NUKLEAR IIV 16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Dropping a line for no particular reason at all, mostly because I felt like it. BTW, did you throw out the instruction book on archiving? :P 42 - talk 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well

This can go by now, can't it? - Infinite - talk 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi hi hi hi hi pling 23:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)