User talk:Defiant Elements/Archive 1

With all due respect...
With all due respect, I have a bit of a problem with you coming in here, reading up on what can only be a minute part of this entire controversy, and then criticizing the way it has been handled based on your position as a bureaucrat. Our sysops work tirelessly, through badgering, abuse, and personal attack, to keep this a clean, informative, and fun community. This particular controversy was admittedly not worked out as best as it could have, but you seem to be trying to undermine their competency, dedication, and ability by presuming that their 'victims' were not at fault sufficient to justify their punishment. The fact of the matter is, their initial infractions were not sufficient. It was the accompanying responses to the initial punishments that were despicable and deserving of the bans. Please refrain from vocal critique until you know and understand the entire picture. Semicolon (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A coupla things. Not to bandy semantics with you, but I wasn't based my critique on my position as a Bureaucrat, I was basing it on personal experience from the perspective of an outsider.  On a related note, I purposefully made it clear that my post was made on the basis of what an "outsider" would see, and that context is vitally important to understanding my post; I'm well aware that I don't have the full picture; instead, I'm presenting the picture that an outsider would see.  I don't doubt that many of the sysops are excellent, nor do I doubt they take a lot of abuse; heck, I've been threatened with a lawsuit for banning someone as a Sysop because the ban was supported by CheckUser.  And it's not an attempt to undermine them either, though I can see with little difficulty why it might come off as such.  As I said, I have no stake in the success of this community, but I felt obligated to post because I saw a problem that had not, as far as I could tell, been thoroughly addressed elsewhere in the hopes that some good might come of it.  My post may come off as strident or rabble-rousing -- indeed, I expected people might think that -- but that was not my intention.  However, I presumed nothing.  Indeed, if you read my first post you'll see that I'm perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the bans themselves were justified, but the manner in which the sysops responded/handled themselves is at least as much, if not more of a problem than the bans.  In truth, I don't expect anything to come of my post, but I made the effort because I thought that perhaps it would give people something to think about.  Defiant Elements 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case I would suppose we are in agreement. Semicolon (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreement about...? –  Defiant Elements  19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The the manner in which this fiasco was handled was unfortunate. However, I would like to make something clear. We here at SmashWiki do not need to be rescued. We do not need direct intervention from administrators and bureaucrats from other wikis. We do not need your patronization. Your perspective may have assisted, and that was, I believe what you in particular were trying to do. However, we have good sysops and a good community. This isn't an unprecedented event; if anything, it has been blown way out of proportion and an argument could have been made for you and the other users from foreign wikias 'butting into our business'. It is, in fact, the opinion of the majority of active sysops that the permabans should be removed. We will settle this dispute ourselves. The bottom line is that the site is still up, we still have active contributing users goaled toward the continued excellence of the wiki, and it sites continues to serve the community. In the end, that is the only thing that matters, and there's no argument for the contrary. Semicolon (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Judging by what I've seen, and No, I have not read all of every contribution on this wiki, the sysops on this wiki are bad at being such. They don't seem to understand that, if a majority of users thinks that its unfair, than they're not doing their job right. Sysops are thinking "Mkay, that guy insulted me, so I'mma ban him for 2 weeks". Insulting somone consistantly for 2 weeks and taking every snide oppertunity present I could understand their ban for 2 weeks.. for a couple of mild insults, or perhaps just a decleration that they don't like the way that its run, you wouldn't get a one hour ban- never mind a 2 week one. The vandals are getting the same ban-time as people who are insulting others, which is just dumb. "However, we have good sysops and a good community." - and I quote; "lolurite". In short? Your sysops suck. Replace them. I'm gonna get a ban for stating this, but hey, I don't think I was planning on doing much anyway. Just came for the epicness, and stayed to try to point out the flaws. I quite like your "we dont need your help GTFO". Pretty funny.. :] -- Warwick 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my 'We don't need your help' line. You sir, possess a lack of propriety that is, as you say, epic. We could never use the help of someone who demeans the efforts of hardest workers. What you are discussing is poor behavior by a single sysop, and your generalization is doubtless an indication of your knowledge on the subject. Your comments are ignorant and they are offensive. You, sir, are what is known as a 'troll'. Trolls get what they deserve, generally. You clearly have no idea what went on, and I won't outline it for you, because you likely possess a mental faculty that could barely get you through the first characters in this response. Leave for good. Semicolon (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ur dum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.40.185 (talk • contribs)
 * wakaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Lord of all tyria (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this the community that you are boasting about? Um...lol. Who's dumber, the guy who has a clear command of english, or the guy who says 'ur dum' or 'wakaaa...etc.' Seriously, this is really why we don't need your help. You guys brought these...contributers...here, and now you need to take them back. I'm starting to think you guys have made the problem worse by coming here and lecturing us and bringing all of your riff-raff along. In fact, I'm sure of it. Please leave. Semicolon (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Riff-raff? I doubt with one contribution I have lessened the ability of this wiki to document Smash Bros. Apparantly you misused ipso facto somewhere by the way. Lord of all tyria (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite. 'Ipso facto' is latin to mean, literally, the deed itself from the ablative of the intensive pronoun ipse, ipsa, ipsum and factum, -i. Since the ablative infers a preposition, it could mean within [the deed]. Translated into colloquial English, it can be found to translate as 'therefore'. Literally, it would mean, in context, "Any comparison drawn is a fallacy and within itself invalid." So no, it's used correctly. Semicolon (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * riff-raffed your mom last night
 * edit conflict First of all, don't you think it's just a little hypocritical to generalize the GWiki community based on three people, none of whom are Sysops. Yes, yes, I know sarcasm fails on the internet and isn't particularly helpful either, but really, come on! They're just trying to be funny/amusing/etc., they all have a perfectly good grasp of the English language. Not to mention that I didn't "bring" them here, they came of their own accord when they saw what was goin' on. As to your penultimate point, again, I'll thank you not to generalize, and, as to your final point, I'll leave only when I'm convinced that trying to do some good is hopeless. Good day. – Defiant Elements  19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)