User talk:Shadowcrest/wiki archive 3

"minor" PA
Check out this PA: http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Speedy_Delete&diff=next&oldid=254454  -Zixor (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If that were bannable, pretty much all of the admins would be banned by now. You're welcome to take it up with Sky, but administratively there's nothing I can do about it. -- Shadow  crest  15:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So admins can just up and say stuff like that?  Blue  Ninjakoopa  15:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For once, I agree with BNK. Zixor (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I do not mean to say that it's acceptable, but just that if we were to ban our admins for the comments they have made we'd have like 3 admins.
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6
 * 7
 * 8
 * 9
 * 10
 * 11
 * 12
 * Things I have to say about this:
 * These are all things that I personally find overly aggressive or personal attack-ish.
 * [edit] Also note that I do not necessarily disagree with what was the point of the message, I disagree with the manner it was said in.
 * I was going to look for more but I'm tired and I got bored. So whatever.
 * I am aware that I am not on this list despite others thinking that I should be. I plead the 5th, and if another person wants to go through my contribs and find stuff fine.
 * Summary: Yeah, I know the admins make personal attacks that (I think) they shouldn't. Hopefully after reading this they'll change. But unless they do something really bad, I'm not going to block them. What would the very few remaining admins do? Take 8 hour shifts? Lol. --  Shadow  crest  16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. They're... they're bullies!  Blue  Ninjakoopa  16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an organized troll, remember. Organized. Semicolon (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I would have to agree with you entirely (with the exception of SilverDragon's edits [7,8, & 9], which I feel were [generally] accurate and constructive assertions). -Likely nothing any admin has done recently would be considered ban-worthy, but this behavior is entirely unacceptable from any user, and they must be reprimanded. -And this is something I think you should do.
 * I have added in an afterthought in response. -- Shadow  crest  17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is virtually no chance that any admin reading this thread would change their ways as a result, as they are all undeniably aware of their poor choices already. Attitudes toward PA's have become disgustingly lax, and must now be renewed. Zixor (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that my edit above isn't intended to be anything even close to a PA. That's my (not very) humorous edit summary when I correct spelling and grammar errors.  I can cease that behavior if some find it offensive -- I only meant it in a joking manner. I would guess many other admins feel the same about some of their edit summaries (I think this is roughly the same idea).   Miles ( talk)   17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Miles. -As for the link, I would say that "LOLcat" (whatever it might mean....) is less an insult than a fairly harmless assertion of amusement. Assuming it was written along side an actual explanation, I don't think this would constitute a PA. -Zixor (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict Alright, here's my thoughts on the matter. First, there's a big difference between a slight jab and an attack. The comments above fit into the first category (or at least I felt that they did when I was writing them and apologize if they were interpreted differently). An example of a personal "attack" would be something like this or our recent "friend" African American Ninjakoopa (the vandal account). Now, if every little comment about someone not being able to spell properly was considered a banable offense, Shadowcrest is right that we wouldn't have anyone around. Also, there's a difference between just up and telling some one to "fuck off" (unacceptable) and telling them that you don't accept their apology because you think they will continue until they are blocked (acceptable). You were perfectly fine in saying the latter (I'm not passing judgment on if I agree or disagree with you), but under the logic I see you presenting, you would be in fault as the comment could have been the same as "fuck off." Basically, what it boils down to is a matter of how things are taken by all the users. I really haven't seen any uproar from people about the "learn English" comments, and if there was, then there would be discussion about what we should do about them. As for the edit you originally questioned, my advice would be get over it. If one person on the internet calling you an idiot for one thing you did is a big enough deal to cause you emotional turmoil then you life must be pretty good considering you can spare emotional energy to be bothered by something that trivial. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference between a jab and an attack is in severity, not principal: Both are wrong. Though it may at times be quite clear, the severity is generally open to a large amount of interpretation by the readers, and the exact distinction is somewhat unobtainable. (-And, let’s face it, we are all human, and frequently tend ‘’not’’ to assume good faith.) As such, and for other obvious reasons, it would be best simply not to make use of either. Regardless of the size, “every little comment” makes a difference; a negative one, in this case. –and ‘’any’’ amount of uproar is no excuse for this; discussion is happening right now.


 * Your final two sentences are irrelevant, overly personal, and (most importantly) based on circumstantial and largely imagined evidence.


 * -Incidentally, when have you ever known me to "get over" anything? I plan to have a nice long chat with you about your own numerous and egregious PA's. -Zixor (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is weird. Admins doing these things!? This is insane! What do we need to do?  SapphireKirby  777 ~Behold! -.-  14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there is nothing we can do -.-  Blue  Ninjakoopa  16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jab is a loaded word because it implies that an attack (albeit a small one) is taking place in the first place. Better might be to say that there's a difference between attacking another user and being blunt, which, believe it or not, can actually have a positive impact (meaning that it is, in fact, different in principal from an attack).  What you're essentially proposing is that we can analyze the action without analyzing the intent (i.e. you're making the blanket statement that anything resembling an attack in character is automatically wrong/in bad faith/whatever you want to call it).  The distinction isn't always clear, but there is a difference.  –  Defiant Elements   +talk  16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree; though I don't particularly understand what you mean by:"What you're essentially proposing is that we can analyze the action without analyzing the intent (i.e. you're making the blanket statement that anything resembling an attack in character is automatically wrong/in bad faith/whatever you want to call it)."

One can be blunt without being unkind, yes. -Zixor (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You said "The difference between a jab and an attack is in severity, not principal: Both are wrong." "Jabs," if you want to call them that, usually serve one of two purposes.  Either they're intended to be funny or they're intended to be blunt.  "Attacks" are purposefully aimed at another editor and are inherently non-constructive in nature.  By equating "jabs" and "attacks" and saying that both are principally wrong, you're saying that, regardless of intent, anything that resembles an attack to any degree is inherently wrong.  Intent matters.  –  Defiant Elements   +talk  17:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that wouldn't be my choice of wording. -We simply need to be more mindful of the negative effects of the particular way we say things. Zixor (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And people need to stop taking things so personally and be mature enough to get over them. There was no problem with any of this until you showed up and started whining about it.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Negative effects of what I say=somebody else's problem. My words aren't meant to be hurtful; believe me, when I want to be hurtful, I can be extraordinarily hurtful. This is my matter-of-fact sometimes called my just-shut-the-hell-up tone.  It's candid, blunt, and not very forgiving. I am very aware of what my words will do.  I am hoping that my words will affect someone in a way that I desire.  The way I desire is that the stop/start doing whatever it is I request. I don't do that by pandering. It is neither useful nor my style.  I don't do it by not telling the truth about things. I don't do it by being so soft the message doesn't get across. I do it by telling the truth, telling it plainly, and not pulling any punches if I have to. It's not my problem the way these things are taken. I'm doing my job, and that's what's required of me, and all the other sysops and users on this wiki. Semicolon (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

-Both of your main points are dead wrong, and the root of the problem. Zixor (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to think that justifying arguments is pointless, I'll respond with something simple enough for you to understand: "No, you're wrong."  Guess what?  I've got as much standing here as you, but as of right now, I'm ahead because we actually took the time to justify our reasoning.  Please, if you're going to continue this discussion (which I would prefer you didn't) actually take the time to argue, not just assert that you're right.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I could copy and paste your arguments and add "not" in front of everything; but I don't think that would please either of us.

So, does that make us even? -or, am I ahead? -How exactly do we keep score? : ) Frankly, I don't know why you even bother arguing against me, as our styles are so obviously incompatible. Why not just let my insufficient arguments fail on their own?

-You've already insulted me several times throughout the course of this conversation. -Zixor (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't keep score, I just win. Your arguments have already failed for being insufficient.  I pointed it out so that maybe you would learn something, but you obviously haven't.  Oh, and there's no such thing as "incompatible argument styles."  That's what someone who can't argue uses as a cop out against someone who can.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoth the South Park: "If you would look at my opponent, he is a Turd Sandwich"--"You're a turd sandwich."--"No, if you would excuse me, sir, you are, in fact, a turd sandwich."--"You're a turd sandwich." Semicolon (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a game tbh; there is no score.
 * My response to this argument and indeed this entire topic is: don't be a dick. Intent is important, but so is what you say.
 * This is the internet; there is no urgency to pretty much anything that this discussion could pertain to. You don't have to respond in a second like you do in real life. So take the time to make sure you're not coming off as a douchebag. Re-read what you write, especially if you're arguing; if you're angry, go jog around the block a couple times before you post something you shouldn't. Also keep in mind that while you may not think you're being a douchebag and that everyone else is, you might be. If you think you're going to say something slightly jerkish just to get even with people who were jerks before, though of course what you're doing isn't half as bad as what they did: you're being just as much of a jerk as they were, if not escalating the douchebaggery past what it already was. Also keep in mind that being a dick is not the same as being impolite/uncivil; though many dicks are impolite and uncivil, you can be a polite dick too. Keep in mind that what you say and how it comes across matters. (I strongly disagree with what semi wrote above- I believe that if you offend someone, unless it's clear the other person is overreacting then you are at least partially at fault.)
 * But, intent matters too. What DE and Semi said above about intent being important is true, though being my righteous-crusader carebear self my line is a lot shorter than theirs is. If what I'm saying is assholish but it's a joke and everyone knows that, that's ok. If the comment isn't damn clear that it's supposed to be a joke, you should probably rephrase it. If you make a blunt comment that is construed poorly but you're trying to benefit the wiki/its users/whatever... maybe. This is what administrators have discretion for. Does intent excuse a personal attack? Not necessarily, but it is taken into account. Blanket rules- in this case "any unnecessarily blunt comments are PAs and are a bannable offense"- are always stupid.
 * I guess what I'm really trying to say is be nice if you can. For people on the dickery side of the argument, just because we won't always ban you for minor asshattery doesn't mean it's cool. Don't be harsh unless you have a seriously good reason. I know being nice is a stretch for some people, but suck it up. For people who are offended by every less-than-perfectly-polite comment, QQ less. Not everyone is going to be perfectly nice and sugar-coated all the time, nor do they have to be. Keep in mind that they may have good intentions behind their slightly dickish comment.
 * Yeah, I'm overly idealistic and realize that not everyone is going to be nice, no matter what. But it trying to meet the ideal really so horrible? -- Shadow  crest  20:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarification: I'm not saying that I'm not culpable if someone get's pissed off because of my comments. I'm saying it's not my responsibility. I don't go around trying to piss people off, I go around and do my job. If someone is offended by something I said, I can understand it. I'm not the most fuzzy admin around here, but the fact of the matter is, it's their problem if they're pissed about it. It's the internet--if you take personally what happens here, then you're in for a load of hurt when you get into the real world. Sh-t happens. Get over it. Semicolon (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, SC. I hope this will help for now, if only a little; and I will take what you've said into consideration. (-btw, what does "QQ" mean?)

-C-Hawk: You continue to insult me at every turn. I have asked you to stop, but you don't. If I'm to understand correctly, this is my problem. -I'll try again to "get over it". -Zixor (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's play a fun little game. Where are the insults? Semicolon (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd badly like to make one against you right now. -Zixor (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm giving you a chance to present your case. I'm being charitable--really, I am, because at this point most people who know how to argue would already have shut down and stopped listening, assuming you have no idea what you're talking about. Indulge me; what's your reasoning?  Where are the insults? Lay your case down. Argue with us. Please. I'm not gonna give you another chance, because I already assume, based on most of your edits, that you have no reasoning, no logic, no case, evidence etc., but I'm willing to revise my assessment this one last time.Semicolon (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's nice. Did you know that false claims such as accusing him of personal attacks are libel? Additionally, you say above "C-hawk:You continue to insult me...", but the problem is you talked to C-Hawk while replying to semicolon. --  Shadow  crest  23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Encouraging personal attacks violates NPA, doesn't it? -hopes not-  Blue  Ninjakoopa  23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so, though it could be construed as baiting. -- Shadow  crest  23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that I intended to end this conversation, which is what you and C-Hawk wanted, but very well. I'm not particularly interested in your charity, nor in indulging you. I suppose I can, however, humor you.

I'm of the mind that people generally don't acknowledge that which they disagree with; therefore, I would think that you are actually aware of what I perceive as an insult, futilely deterring me from pointing it out specifically. -But let's try it out anyway:

You said, "Let's play a fun little game". This is the kind of thing one would say to a child. When I'm treated as a child, I am insulted. This should've been clear from my hostile reaction. Based on examples within this thread, it should also be clear ("based on most of my edits") that my responses are far more intelligible when I am treated with respect and dignity. If you wished to illicit such a response, why did you not treat me in a polite manner? (This would be an example of "incompatible argument styles")

I am frequently accused of "bad" arguing (by C-Hawk), which is a naive view, as it is perhaps merely "different". Simply because I choose not to point out "evidence" or "logic" which can be easily extrapolated based on what I have said, you say that I am without reasoning; when, in fact, I have simply not always yet stated it as such specifically. I would imagine that you already know this, but simply choose to argue your way around it.

At that point, I would perhaps usually elaborate on the point in question, but (when talking to you or C-Hawk) there has usually been a deterrent (insult, tangent, etc.) which I might choose to address first, or ignore entirely as it hardly discounts what I've written.

This is all part of my argument, and while my methods may be in question, there should be none as to whether or not I have any idea what I'm talking about.

-Regarding you comment, SC; I am unsure why you meant by "liability", nor why you thought I was replying to Semi. -Zixor (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you were replying to Semi because you quoted something of his in a response you addressed to C.Hawk.
 * I didn't say liability, I said libel. They're not even close to the same thing. -- Shadow  crest  14:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, just no to the argumentation point. Look, there are books on how to reason and argue effectively, and highly established methods and standards for the art.  I wasn't a high school debate champion and a standout political science student because I chose not to present evidence or construct logical link stories.  Also, don't let your opponents extrapolate the evidence for you.  They will either extrapolate it in a way you didn't intend them to or they will (rightly) present the fact that you haven't presented any evidence as their primary counter-argument.  This is basic rhetoric.  Please, show me the scholarly writing that defends the "style" of argumentation that doesn't use logic, doesn't present evidence, and accepts appeals to emotion and continual reassertation of debunked claims.  Oh wait, it doesn't exist.  As for things being "inherently" obvious, the burden of proof is still on you under the rules of rhetoric.  I don't question that you have an idea of what you are talking about.  I question the validity of it.  Asserting that you believe something is great.  It's a self proving hypothesis.  It also does nothing, absolutely nothing, to help the question of if what you believe is true.  In the case of the normative argument, showing that X should be true does not prove that it is true.  I attack your argumentation methods no longer out of any desire to help you (that ship has long since sailed) but instead to help bolster my position in this by not only providing a strong case against you, but also proving that your case doesn't even have standing in the argument.  It's called a multiple win situation.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 06:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to chime in here too, if you don't mind. I said 'Let's play a little game' as a challenge.  I don't think you have jack, tbh.  And in my defense, you're arguing like a child. That isn't a statement meant to insult; it's factual. You are repeatedly asserting what you say, and providing no evidence. You're saying 'Because' and that's your reasoning. I'm sorry, I think I heard my 7 year old cousin use that last, tbh.


 * As far as your respect and dignity goes, you're saying that to try and put the blame for your marginal contributions on me. I'm sorry, your edits are your own responsibility. You haven't been abused on this wiki, particularly not at the start, but after some time your edits were called into question because they were repeatedly of the 'nonconstructive' variety, and once again tbh, they were sort of annoying.  That means usually that an admin has a chat with you about it, and you get the picture.  Clearly, this case has not turned out to be such.


 * I have been polite to you. I'm being polite right now. I'm not insulting you, I'm just being direct and honest. I said that you were arguing like a child...nyuuhh--because you were arguing like a child--literally.  As C-Hawk has thoroughly explained, there are two types of argument styles: one that works and makes sense, and one that doesn't.  You're using the one that doesn't. Semicolon (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand what Clarinet Hawk is doing. I misspelled "aggressive." What Clarinet Hawk is doing is perfectly logical. He is trying to prevent embarassing grammar errors. If you look at his contributions, you can see what I mean.  SapphireKirby  777---I'm a leprechaun! -.-  19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow.. seeing all of this is making me stay away from this site even more now...  Fried beef1  Screech   23:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're really late. -- Shadowcrest  23:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Name?
Something's wrong I think. Check this and this.  SapphireKirby  777---I'm a leprechaun! -.-  19:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Salad is a shoepuppet of mine used for testing purposes. --  Shadow  crest  19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to ask, but whats a shoepuppet?  SapphireKirby  777---I'm a leprechaun! -.-  19:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like a sockpuppet, but without the negative connotation of one. You basically just use them to test stuff. -- Shadow  crest  19:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. By the way, happy birthday (early b-day).  SapphireKirby  777---I'm a leprechaun! -.-  19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's today actually, guess I need to update my message... thanks <3 --  Shadow  crest  19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

question
What happened to your page? ] ( U - T - C ) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of comments like this. It is not, (afaik) never has been, and never will be (at least as long as I'm around) against any rules (whether formal or informal) to ask a question. I'm tired of being treated like someone on a pedestal. I'm a person, not a god. (Yes, this may come as a shock considering how amazing I am, but it's true.) --  Shadowcrest  20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay... But what's that got to do with the original question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blue Blur (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's important enough to me to warrant a noticeable message such as this. --  Shadowcrest  20:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess... (Sorry if i'm spamming your page with these images...) Anyways, I g2g in a sec. If you want to, we can continue this convo tommorow. [Image:My_signature!.gif|50px]] ( U - T - C ) 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That one user again
Here is what you and I put on CH's talk page. I'm putting it here to avoid fragmented conversation: "Hi. I have looked at this user's contributions, and maybe it's because I absoultely HATE Jigglypuff, but it seems to me that he/she is biased for Jigglypuff.  I wouldn't call him/her a vandal (that's why I didn't put this on the vandal section) because he/she doesn't replace articles with "GAY GAY GAY" or anything like that, but I do think this user needs a warning or something like that to quit making Jiggly seem like the best character ever no matter what it takes.  However, he/she may just be a normal user.  I can't tell because I'm biased against YOU FAIL!.  That's why I wanted a second opinion. Enigmatic Mr. L (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agf that one. Maybe explain to him that reverting the same comments over and over again isn't allowed, but otherwise he looks like a good-faith editor. --  Shadowcrest  01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)"

Now things are really out of hand. Just look at the history on the Jigglypuff (SSBB) page. I'd say something to Phayz but the last time I did that he didn't even respond. Maybe you could say something to him for me? Unless of course I was the wrong one in the history of that article, in which case please explain to me what I did wrong. --Enigmatic Mr. L (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry to be a nuisance. But i just felt the attributes article was too long, a have merely reworded it an a shorter, i only removed one piece of information about projectiles, cos that conflicted with an earlier statement. oh and i felt that you needed to explain what you meant by "hurt by brawl's new physics". Phayz (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Engaging in an edit war is highly unproductive. While I don't claim to speak for Shadowcrest, I would suggest that the two of you work this out rather than continuing to merely reverse each other's edits. – Defiant Elements   +talk  21:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and done, Defiant Elements. --Enigmatic Mr. L (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why?
Why did you delete my talk page? FyreNWater (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Disregard the faker. SD706 / F n W - (U•T•C ) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the page was deleted because another user had created it by mistake. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic  The Stats Guy  The Table Designer  21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Do you know where that came from?  Blue  Ninjakoopa  01:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 
 * Solution.  Blue  Ninjakoopa  01:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this you?
&rarr; moved to User talk:GT5162

Your block of me
Dear Shadowcrest

This is Sir Evan Tidalwave Schroedur, Esquire, who you better know as 13375poolR. You have blocked me, for what I believe to be unjust reasons. You blocked me for 'intimidating behavior/harassment.' I am using a different IP because you refused to let me edit my own talk page, unjustly, as well. I have not 'harassed' anyone, or intimidated anyone. I would retract this if you can find anyone, anyone who can come forward saying that they have been harassed by me in an intimidating manner, but I am sure you cannot. You seem to have a personal dislike for my continued interjections of humorous (and true) anecdotes, as well for the instances where I have in fact provided true and helpful answers in these anecdotes. Please unblock me, shorten my block, or consult other admins about this block, because it is tyranny, sir, and as I shouted with others those many years ago, 'Taxation without representation is tyranny.' Sincerely, Sir Evan Tidalwave Shroedur, or 13375poolR. 74.63.87.134 00:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well obviously your problem is that the temperature on SmashWiki only exceeds 10% humidity, so you can't become a yipnik. So sorry.
 * I unjustly restricted use of your talk page? Not really. I don't really see why that was ever implemented in the first place- blocked users aren't supposed to be able to edit the wiki, not the wiki minus their talk page. But that's still not the point- I left email open for a reason, use it.
 * "I have not 'harassed' anyone, or intimidated anyone." I selected the closest applicable wiki-generated reason, and if that caused you confusion then I apologize. However, I suggest you look at the second part of the block reason, "trolling", and if we're going even more in depth I would have added "disruption". So while you may be correct that I may not find anyone who was personally offended by your posts (though btw, you've done it before), I am correct that I am well within my rights to block for disruption.
 * "You seem to have a personal dislike for my continued interjections of humorous (and true) anecdotes" Yeah, I dislike them. They're most typically annoying and divert the subject from its intended topic. But apparently I'm not the only one- other people seem to agree.
 * "as well for the instances where I have in fact provided true and helpful answers in these anecdotes" Cool story bro. But that doesn't change the fact that your posts were disruptive. If I answer someone's question and then proceed to rant about how they're a dumbass for not knowing, does that make me not guilty of personal attacks? No.
 * "Please unblock me, shorten my block, or consult other admins about this block." In my opinion, you don't deserve it. You've been given multiple warnings on your talkpage and been blocked for this twice and you continued the behavior. We've done our best to make it exceedingly obvious that you need to stop what you're doing, and the only fault in this situation is on you for missing that. And it's only tyranny if I have absolute control and I'm abusing my power- and neither are true. You are welcome to ask the other admins to shorten the block, but they'd still have to discuss it with me and read this discussion, so it's probably not happening.
 * Have a nice day,
 * Shadowcrest 02:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While I'm not going to shorten the block for the reason of 'general douchebaggery' I would like to point something out to you, Shadowcrest. 13375poolR is far less disruptive than the character page vandal.  In fact, he's made some constructive edits, and answered questions, albeit in some very peculiar and often cryptically laced with the not so subtle undertones of the influence of hallucinogens.  The character page vandal did nothing but be more disruptive to the actual content of the wiki, rather than just troll the forums mildly with his inane babblings.  And I'd also like to point out that his intentions don't seem to be nefarious, he just seems to be a bored idiot with a keyboard who decided to mash together historical events with no particular order or sense applied to them.  Other vandals, who you are quite squeamish about giving their due have no such clarity of their intentions.  It would seem even less to me like he's really even being that disruptive; most often he's simply ignored, which he seems perfectly fine with.  He doesn't really flame, with the only possible exception being the 'slug king' reference, but I honestly don't find that to be offensive so much as humorous.  My point being is that 13375poolR is nowhere near as bad as they come, because he's at least got a sense of humor, and isn't ruining anyone's day unless you let him. But I'm not unreasonable.  You have been a bad bad little troll at times, and yes, you can be exceedingly annoying, and you don't exactly contribute anything, so I'm not shortening the ban, but let's have some understandings, here. Semicolon (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly clear that this person desires little other than self amusement by way of irrelevant, nonsensical rants, which are generally laden with unacceptable and inappropriate behavior. They are guilty.

Considering this, and though I know you are a polite and considerate person, I'm somewhat surprised that you've continued to treat them with such respect, offering in-depth answers to (in reality) fairly shallow questions. -Still, one should hardly criticize you for this.-Zixor (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'd like to say the same thing, but that would be repetitive." Miles ( talk)   17:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tl;dr (whatever that means) version of everything said right now: 13375poolr, you gave us a laugh, but you do nothing but post nonsensical, inappropriate, and overall unnecessary rants on otherwise serious forums. Start being a good contributor, and you might not get banned again. L33t  Silvie  Your epidermis is showing. |undefined 20:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your RfB
Shouldn't you have a link to it on your page? That might be why it's lain dormant for about a week now. L33t  Silvie  Your epidermis is showing. |undefined 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was srs
On the IRC. Next time I'm in there, I think we need to have a chat. Semicolon (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, I went to dinner and forgot I was on. We still need to have this chat, but I hope next time you come with a little more open-mindedness than you displayed in the IRC. Semicolon (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

block length discussion
&larr; conversation moved from User talk:151.199.155.94 Can you unblock me, the block is taking forever in this wiki...--151.199.155.94 10:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess what, one month in the same anywhere. Shut up and enjoy your block. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 16:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in case that wasn't clear enough, the answer is no. Times one hundred million. And when you come back on this IP and vandalize when your block expires, I will block you for 11 million years. Semicolon (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I think he gets it Semicolon (just say infinite and let it rest; doesn't make a difference).  Mario Galaxy  May Guthix be with you... 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of Shadowcrest's somewhat irrational staunch opposition to permanent bans, and with the intention to respect his opinion on the matter, I think 11 million years is appropriate and functionally the same as an infinite ban. Plus, it's more fun, and colorful. Semicolon (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't think Sysops are supposed to enjoy banning users, IPs, etc. But I'm not one, so I don't know. But hey, it's your call (as for what this IP's asking from me, forget it; this guy never leaves me alone on any of his sockpuppets).  Mario Galaxy  May Guthix be with you... 20:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that changing infinite to  years is respecting my opinion? And yes, MG, we're not supposed to enjoy banning. --  Shadowcrest  20:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does it say I shouldn't enjoy blocking, and no, I don't. Semicolon (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's called "banhappy", and apparently I fail to see the point of your message then. -- Shadowcrest  21:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe 'banhappy' refers to someone who blocks unnecessarily for his own amusement. I block necessarily, and am amused when I do it. Check my blocks. They've been justified.  And perhaps, in regards the other thing, your failure is in presuming there was a point. Semicolon (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you need to state less opinions, because I feel that a number of your blocks have been unwarranted. So zzz. --  Shadowcrest  22:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I think a number of your non-blocks have been unwarranted. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, what? Then you're wrong. End of story. And even if, if, they have been, your argument is that I am 'banhappy' which as has been defined means that I block unnecessarily and for my own amusement. I can simply counter this if you manage to somehow prove that they are unnecessary (which I contend isn't possible) by saying that I was not amused during those particular blocks you deem to be unnecessary, so basically what I'm saying is that you have no way to prove what it is you are imagining, so you should just give it a rest. Semicolon (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarinet Hawk, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, because the problem here isn't whether I would have blocked the person that Semicolon blocked, it's whether I would have blocked them for the same time. I can only think of 1 time in recent memory when Semi blocked someone I wouldn't have, so your comment doesn't really apply at all.
 * Do you find it humorous that you just declared my opinion wrong, semicolon? Because I do.
 * I wasn't calling you banhappy. I was replying specifically to "Check my blocks. They've been justified." I disagree; I feel that multiple have been unjust, specifically because of the length. So honestly, what was that above paragraph referring to? I'm having trouble determining relevance. --  Shadowcrest  00:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't find out what I was talking about, I don't have time to explain it to you. Figure it out. Semicolon (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I'm saying this, but you guys are using a blocked IP's talk page to argue over something unimportant. Go argue on the IRC.   Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Owned.  Blue  Ninjakoopa  00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well obviously you do have time- if I may quote you, " i think that arguing is fun; it's not trouble for me, i enjoy it." So really I don't think that's what the issue is here. And you missed the point again; I am not saying that I can't understand what you were saying, I'm saying that I missed how your above paragraph applies in any way to my last response, since you're arguing a point that isn't relevant. Again, the issue is not whether the people should have been blocked, it's how long they should have been blocked for, which your paragraph really has nothing to do with. -- Shadowcrest  00:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. I have a take home final due tomorrow that's stressing me out and I have a final at 730 in the morning. Stop contradicting me if you have no clue what you're talking about. Semicolon (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then stop contradicting yourself. And by the way, do remember we're on a wiki- you have days to respond to something before it dies, so to speak. --  Shadowcrest  00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. When I said you're wrong, I said you are wrong to feel that way. Not that an opinion is wrong. That's obvious. I can't fathom what else you could not be understanding about this. And I'm not contradicting myself. Semicolon (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are qualified to declare my feelings (&rarr; my opinions) wrong because?...
 * You are contradicting yourself. Does it or does it not trouble you to argue with me? More quotes from you: " that's not really in my interest, now is it? my interest is in seeing what i think to be right exercised. if that means that you need to write walls of text to defend yourself, and you don't like that, then i have the advantage, don't i?" Pick one and stick with it please.
 * There is obviously some miscommunication going on, because you seem as dense to me as I seem to you right now. What do you think we're arguing about? I'm arguing against infinite blocks and that some of your blocks have been unjust because they have been too long. What are you arguing about? --  Shadowcrest  19:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you see that as an opinion, then yes. I'm telling you that your opinion is wrong, just like you're telling me that my opinion that they are appropriate in length is wrong. And seriously, I still have no idea what you're getting at quoting me. Let's recap:
 * I say that I'm going to ban someone for a long time.
 * You say it isn't respecting your opinion.
 * I say you're right.
 * You say that I'm banhappy.
 * I define banhappy and show how it doesn't apply to me.
 * You disagree, providing no evidence but rather your own opinion about my blocks, and accuse me of contradicting myself.
 * I continually ask you what you're talking about.
 * I do this list. Semicolon (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As per the above comment, I did not call you banhappy. I quote: "I wasn't calling you banhappy." So I fail to see why you are still lingering under that notion. You then proceed to provide no evidence but rather your own opinion about my own opinions, and then ignore the numerous contradictory comments of yours that I've quoted. So where does that leave us? --  Shadowcrest  21:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Reset indent) A possible solution to this ban length discussion? Here goes...an IP vandalizes.  We ban then for a week.  They come out of the block.  They vandalize again.  Banned for a month.  They come out of the block.  If we get more vandal action from that IP, they get the permabanhammer.  As for vandal accounts, they can be permabanned.  If they went to the trouble of making an account and THEN vandalizing, there probobly isn't any good faith to assume. L33t   Silvie  I see wat u did thar... |undefined 01:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed, and I am still not pleased because the issue with permabanning IPs can't be resolved except by keeping the ban durations relatively short (as in, a year is still too much). I don't understand why you people are so dead set for permabans; what do we lose if the vandal returns when the ban is over? A couple reverts and maybe the 30s it takes to fill in Special:Block? Compared to the possibility of banning innocent users, I still fail to see where you all are coming from on this.
 * I already have no issue permabanning vandal accounts, because there's almost no way any innocent bystanders could be harmed in the process. -- Shadowcrest  19:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: NPA
Ok...I'll refrain in the future. But still, why is it that I get scolded for PA'ing a vandal IP, but some admins go untouched after insulting a non-vandal user here? L33t  Silvie  I see wat u did thar... |undefined 20:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I happened to be online when it happened, and there's a section in my last archive detailing something related. -- Shadowcrest  20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops
Thanks for fixing the YAV that I forgot to yesterday. :/ Miles ( talk)   15:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries :p --  Shadowcrest  15:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Truly, I am. If I do violate it again, don't hesitate to ban me. L33t  Silvie  I see wat u did thar... |undefined 18:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Idea
In order to possibly decrease the amount of non-notable Smasher pages being created, should there be a site notice saying something like "Please do not create non-notable Smasher pages"? I know we already have something about tagging non-notable Smasher pages, but this would be more direct, in my opinion.-- Bek  (talk)  15:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Most people wouldn't know it is there or would not even care to read it. Y462 (T • C  • E ) 18:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then maybe something with the MediaWiki that comes up in bold, capitalized letters whenever someone tries to create a new page on the Smasher namespace? Just throwing ideas out there, because I do see this as a big problem.-- Bek  (talk)  21:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a problem, but people who make those smasher pages don't know what counts as notable and what doesn't. And even if we defined notable and non-notable, they'd probably still make the page.  It's good that you're thinking about it because this is a problem.   Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Pikabro's personal attack
Does that seem kind of suspicious to you? As my activity at this place hinders more and more every day, I would like to know if I'm still accountable as an actual user of this wikia and not a vandal IP address, thanks.  Blue  Ninjakoopa  15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Zero Suit Samus (SSBB)
I seem to have gotten myself into a problem with another user... AGAIN!!! At first, I just explained why I changed the article in the edit summary. But then an IP user changed it back without saying anything in the edit summary. PoD tried explaining to the IP in one edit summary why the article was changed, but (s)he still just kept changing it back without an explanation. I then just fought fire with fire (kept changing the article back without another explanation) until I realized that this IP wasn't going to give up (which I admit I was wrong for doing). I then tried talking to the user, but (s)he still just changed the Zero Suit Samus (SSBB) article without saying a word. What should I do? Enigmatic Mr. L (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
Out of curiosity, why did you do this? --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 01:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to have my full real name displayed. I'd have used revisiondelete, but I don't have that tool, so I had to delete the revision so at least non-sysops can't see it.  Shadowcrest  02:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know you had it in you...
But I raise my glass to you nonetheless. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't either, but I guess I surprise myself sometimes :p  Shadowcrest  02:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

13375poolR
He's back, and he doesn't appear to have learned his lesson. L33t  Silvie  I see wat u did thar... |undefined
 * I don't see the harm of perma-banning this user, since he continues to troll whomever he can. Paper Bowser (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand what everyone's problem with him is. He's not harming anybody. Yes, he's taking up space, and yes, it's generally nonsense, but it's funny, and we all could use a little more humor around here. I think everyone is taking him too seriously. If he was flaming people, then yes, I would ban him instantly, because what he does borders on jackassery, but some of the funniest people I know are jackasses, but he is doing no harm. I'd say let the guy be. I don't think he has many friends. Semicolon (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PAs and trolling are funny? If that's the case, BNK is hilarious. Paper Bowser (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised Semicolon thinks that humor is funny and that WE are taking things too seriously.  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 17:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Humor is funny, that's the whole point, and yes, you are taking him too seriously. I know you are because he bothers you. BNK is way different, because BNK followed up, was caustic, personally attacked people, and fanned them flames whenever he stirred controversy. Point to where 13375poolR did those things. Semicolon (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you him?????????????????????????????????????????? And no offense, but you troll a lot too... Paper Bowser (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a misconception that needs to stop. I used to troll a lot. I don't troll a lot much anymore. Please look through my edits, and you will see that what I say is the truth. Semicolon (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But if you were him, you wouldn't need to troll on this account O.o... lol jk.  I'm just surprised your taking this guy lightly but you won't let someone say that Roy is his main in brawl (which it is).   Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I explained on the Roy-in-Brawl talk page, I only disrespect people with ridiculous opinions who are serious about them, hence my reaction to the famous control-smash-with-your-mind thread and generally any thread started by TheLegendTamer, as well as to the idea that you can main Roy in Brawl. Yes, I understand 13375poolR is playing a fine line, and I won't hesitate to ban him when he clearly crosses a line.  I just haven't seen him cross a line since his last ban, and since I find him funny, I'm not going to be the one to draw a line I know he'll cross. Other sysops may do that, and I won't take issue with that or their bans. I'm just saying I find him harmless. Semicolon (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick analysis of 13375poolR's contributions and came up with the following: In other words, almost two-thirds (61%) of 13375poolR's edits are unconstructive and can be considered trolling. While that may not be worthy of a block as of now, he's definately on thin ice, and he has been warned about his attitude before (although he was never actually blocked). Toomai Glittershine  eXemplary Logic  The Stats Guy  The Table Designer   cntrbs 02:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A decent amount (36%) of his edits are rants (not counting his newly-formed user page). Yes, they're funny to an extent (to some people), but they're disruptive, and there are better ways to be funny (such as using brevity and relevance).
 * A quarter (25%) of his edits include what I would consider personal attacks (of any severity).
 * Some (18%) of his edits have bad language.
 * Some (14%) of his edits can be considered constructive.
 * I fail to see how his rants are disruptive. Practically everyone just ignores them, don't they? I don't see how that causes harm. He's not asking for people to pay attention to his rants, either, he just does his thing and goes away. He's sort of like a dog, really.
 * I believe the personal attacks are what he was warned about/banned for before. If I see him do it, I'll ban him, no question.
 * Most contributors and sysops on this wiki are prone to bad language, myself included, and there is no rule against it. Though some may find it distasteful, I think there's hardly anything 'tasteful' about 13375poolR, though nobody's expecting it from him and there's no rule against it.
 * Really? I thought they were all rants.
 * I don't think that posting nonsensical rants in threads is trolling per se. I mean, sure it's nonsense but it's not hurting anybody. My logic is that trolling is not itself a bannable offense, in moderation, but a consistent history of trolling may be cause for a ban, and certainly anything that even resembles a step over the line for a user who is prone to trolling ought to result in a ban.  Since I don't think that trolling in moderation is necessarily a bannable offense, and since I don't see posting nonsense as an issue as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, I don't see a reason to ban him.  Doesn't mean I won't pull the trigger if, as I said, anything that even resembles a step over the line ought to result in a ban.  But 13375poolR appears to be a one-trick pony.  He does one thing, and he does it very well, and that's posting benign nonsense in the middle of hot discussions. Semicolon (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Quick"? :/
 * I may comment on this section when I have time (I'm gone until sunday), but just for the sake of correction he was blocked. Shadowcrest  07:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, guess I wasn't using the AllLogs page correctly. Toomai Glittershine [[Image:Toomai.png|20px]] eXemplary Logic  The Stats Guy  The Table Designer   cntrbs 11:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was amazing what Toomai did. Obviously, this situation is troll-stick-up-for-troll. I think this pool's closed guy at least needs some warnings. Remember, BNK was kept alive by Shadowcrest, but look at him now (I learned this on AiB). He just seems to come back for, eh... "moar". Paper Bowser (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, branding another user a troll is a pretty strong allegation to make. As far as I know, Semicolon has never abused his powers as an administrator, and has never made a bad faith edit, though the tone of his comments occasionally borders on trollish. 13375poolR has already been given "some warnings" - he has in fact been blocked several times. This is because his comments, unlike Semicolon's, quite often overstep the mark. Blue Ninjakoopa wasn't the best example you could have picked as he only trolled occasionally, and frequently made good faith edits, but one time he overstepped the mark so far that it was decided that he should be banned permanently as the good faith edits didn't make up for the bad faith ones. 13375poolR, unlike either BNK or Semicolon, talks utter nonsense most of the time, and while his edits may be in good faith, only six of them have actually added anything of value to the page. 13375poolR's a trouble-maker, Semicolon just sometimes argues his point in an overly harsh way. Also, it seems like some people are trying slightly too hard to get 13375poolR banned, but without providing really solid reasons (preferably quoting policy and times when he's infringed it). O yeah, and he's called 13375poolR - where did the "pool's closed guy" comment come from?  Penguin  of  Death   09:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, semicolon even admits he can be a troll at times. Like you said, he doesn't "cross the line" the way this pool's closed guy certainly has.  I don't really believe in perma-banning (then again, I'm not a mod so it doesn't matter) unless a clear vandal is being dealt with.  Perma-banning is a very powerful tool to use, and with great power comes... yadda-yadda, etc.  Pool's closed guy has certainly earned himself all those shorter blocks he's gotten, but his actions don't warrant a permanent block.  Just keep giving him longer and longer blocks (only if he continues to consistently troll) until he learns his lesson.  He'll get bored and quit this place or become more good-faithed eventually.  Either way, the wiki wins!  Or i could just be rambling.   Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have a solution. We could ban him from talk pages, but let him edit normal pages. 98.117.158.220 23:56, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, you may want to check the date stamps at the end of each sig; this argument ended 5 months ago.  R A  N 1 00:20, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Protection log
When you unprotected Semicolon's Treatise you said something along the lines of deal with vandalism when it comes up. Don't protect a page for an eternity. Just to let you know, Template:SSBTiers, Template:MeleeTiers, and Template:BrawlTiers are all protected due to being "likely target[s] of vandalism". Plus, their protection is almost 8 months old, and I personally don't find templates likely targets of vandalism. So, should they be unprotected? Enigmatic  Mr.   L  13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Templates are likely targets of vandalism because if they're edited, it affects (effects?) all the pages that use them. That's why templates that are used in a lot of articles are protected. --Warwick 13:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially the Tier list templates, as I'm fairly certain that they would be subject to a lot of vandalism if unprotected due to people who either don't like tiers in general, or don't like these specific tiers. I think it would be best for the templates to stay protected as there's clearly a lot of antipathy towards some Brawl characters given all the vandalism of the character pages.
 * @Warwick: affect (verb) = cause something to happen to; effect (verb) = make something happen. "Affect" was correct.  Penguin  of  Death   14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You've been vandal caught
You may not discuss this catch with {{Vandal catcher} } or another. Vandal catch ID #004Vandal catcher (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few of your least favorite words.
We need to talk. Semicolon (talk) 03:06, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

lol he rly madd
This is getting a little too out-of-hand. I don't go to the IRC channel to play 2nd-grade-bicker with PoD, I go there to talk to my friends. I don't hate PoD, no. He may hate me, but I don't have any reasons to hate him. If there is a way where as he and I can co-exist without fighting, please let me know. I've been dying to tell you an interesting story of mine. Paper Bowser (talk) 19:14, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Favour
Hello Shadowcrest. I stopped by and noticed that my user page has been edited unnecessarily. Would you mind protecting it for me? I don't want it to be touched anymore. Thankyou.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  22:11, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Experiment
So, I (Semicolon) created this account to be a sock-puppet referencing a prior vandal who was recently asking to come back and I thought his name was funny so I used it here. I haven't actually caused any harm to the wiki nor is my intent to. However, let's say I (Semicolon) now make an RfB, and Common Welsh Dragenah supports it. Would that be abuse. Or say I just used this account to oppose Smoreking's nom without telling you? I'm just doing this to prove a point.

Btw, I intend to use this as a shoe puppet to test autoblocks and user-rights with. If you'd rather I didn't, that's fine and I'll be happy to block this account, knowing full well that I could unblock it whenever ;-). Have a nice day.  Common Welsh Dragenah (talk)/Semicolon (talk) 04:42, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Shadowcrest  18:37, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Shadowcrest: How exactly did he (and I quote) "disrupt" SmashWiki by creating "a shoe puppet to test autoblocks and user-rights with"?
 * Semicolon: Your hypothetical situations involving you and Common Welsh Dragenah are entirely different from the current situation as Smoreking never used SZL for things like supporting his own RfA. Even if he did, as RfAs and such aren't done on a simple vote basis, and it's the actual content of each comment that matters, it shouldn't really be an issue - it might be bad form, but there isn't a policy against it.  Penguin  of  Death   20:08, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Trolling, 'socking' (not really inherently disruptive in my book, only in his) Shadowcrest  03:49, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't Dragenah a famous vandal name that is a cross-wiki vandal that keeps coming back with a different variation of the name, like Willy on Wheels? (see this and this and this okay, that last one isn't a Drageneh per se, but the name is in the same vein.)-- Bek  (talk)  07:42, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the point, I believe. OK, this wasn't really disruption per se, but it probably wasn't really smart either.  How bout we all just accept what happened, move on, and no more socks?  Sound good to everyone?  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:49, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

You're trying too hard.
http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/User:Paper_Bowser

Paper Bowser (talk) 20:01, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? Shadowcrest  20:23, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Ha! My blank user page represents the fact that I indeed have nothing to do! In regards to contributions towards the Wiki, do you have any suggestions? Paper Bowser (talk) 21:21, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

It's been a little over a month.
And I'm still banned from the IRC channel for SmashWiki. There's a saying: "A disabled police officer can not physically help out one in danger." I actually want to discuss topics there and contribute here too, but I can not do that with: I'm having a hard time figuring out how PoD is in control over how the IRC channel works when you have more power. You both did agree on my block for a little while, but you sent me a personal message at AiB telling me that he is the one who decides. If I have to say it, I have learned my lesson. I don't know why I even bothered trolling (?) him in the first place. (Oh, and please respond to this message, too.) Thanks, Paper Bowser (talk) 18:08, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * You and PoD ignoring me (lol).
 * Being blocked from IRC. I'm not banned here, but again, I would like to discuss things with you guys at the channel.
 * You have an AiB account, you use IM, you're not banned on SmashWiki - there are plenty of ways for you to talk to people who use the IRC channel without actually using the channel yourself, so I don't see any desperate need to unban you, nor am I inclined to do so anyway given what you did to get yourself banned in the first place and the way you acted following that. Sorry, but unless you show me that you've really changed and won't just go back to your old behavior, I don't see a compelling reason to change the status quo.  Penguin  of  Death   20:42, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue that "status quo" is not being banned, unless the user has a long history of being banned and deserves it in many people's opinion. Also, I'm interested in knowing how someone can prove anything about their predicted future actions over the internet. (However, I am unaware of the circumstances of this incident, so I'm possibly/probably/certainly wrong.) Toomai Glittershine [[Image:Toomai.png|20px]] eXemplary Logic  The Stats Guy  The Table Designer  22:19, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that "status quo" was the right phrase either, but that's what Shadowcrest said to say (he proofread my comment and made changes as he felt were appropriate). I think "the current situation" would have been better, but the meaning was clear enough. You can't "prove" anything about predicted future actions, but you can predict said actions with a reasonably high degree of accuracy, so it's not exactly unfair to make decisions based on those predictions. And yeah, there are very few people who know the full story.  Penguin  of  Death   10:28, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Status quo = the way things currently are = he is currently banned, srs. Shadowcrest  20:00, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have a much easier time thinking that you have a reason to come back if you actually mentioned anything that you had to discuss. As it stands, all you have demonstrated is that you think the IRC is a place for you to be a douche to other people.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:13, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * @Clarinet Hawk - Shadowcrest isn't being a douche. As you can see, I'm trying to reason with him. And tbh I don't think PAing him is a good idea right now.
 * @Glittershine - Huh?
 * @Salad - Yeah, and I'm wondering if you can fix it. I can't really show a change in behavior on a channel... if I'm banned from the channel (lol).
 * Oh, and I don't use "IM". I don't even know what that is. Paper Bowser (talk) 23:56, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Errr... CHawk was talking to you (Paper Bowser) not Shadowcrest. And that wasn't a PA anyway. Also, your behavior on the wiki is demonstrative of your behavior on IRC, so when you start being a productive and civilized SmashWiki user, you'll be unbanned on the IRC channel. Also, I actually have logs where you mention that you're talking to people on IM (Instant Messenger, in case you'd forgotten), and you even call it "IM"...  Penguin  of  Death   00:40, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out when calling someone a douche isn't a PA (Personal Attack, in case you've forgotten). Perhaps Clarinet Hawk's comments towards myself and other users is why people rant about him elsewhere (I hope he doesn't care)? Nonetheless, he should refrain from calling me "names" and instead approach my comments like the college student that he claims to be. I think it's a bit more versatile that I can show my change in behavior there than here, but if we MUST split hairs, I can demonstrate good faith here too. You've just got to stop being so upset all the time, and I in turn won't snap back at you with smart remarks... or as you guys like to call it, "troll you". And because of the stupid life that I have outside of the internet, I'm not on as much. When I requested what should be done around here, I was actually asking for links to projects or some articles that are in need of clean-up. I can, however, just click the random article link and weed out tiny errors such as grammar mistakes and coding malfunctions. Sorry for the inconvenience, and I would like a response from one of you if not all. Thank you, Paper Bowser (talk) 01:56, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * What are they talking about? You just made a series of very constructive edits to the wiki. And to C-Hawk: that wasn't very nice. Paper bowser was being polite. Also, how can Paper Bowser show that he will improve his behavior if you guys block him? 98.117.158.220 05:06, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * IP: He can "show that he will improve his behavior" on SmashWiki because he's not blocked here, only on SmashWiki's IRC (which doesn't affect his ability to edit the wiki in the slightest).
 * Paper Bowser: We're not upset at the moment, whereas you're still being rude, and not "smart". I'm not very happy with the idea that you rant about fellow SmashWiki users on other websites, but there's nothing I can do to stop that - however, telling them on SmashWiki that you're ranting about them behind their back isn't sensible. What Clarinet Hawk said wasn't a PA. He effectively said that you have acted like a "douche" on IRC, which in no way means "you're a douche" - quite the opposite, in fact, as he's saying that such behavior is not typical of you. Don't say things like "claims to be" - he's a college student, fact. Casting doubts on obvious truths will encourage no one to take your side. Also, I never said that I'd never heard the term "PA" before, or didn't know what it meant, whereas I know that you use IM, and therefore know what "IM" means and what it is, so I really have no idea why you're claiming not to know about it. You say "I have learned my lesson", but I don't see any difference in your behavior at all. The content of your comments isn't exactly persuading me that you won't just go back to trolling people if we unban you.  Penguin  of  Death   10:15, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've once again, PenguinofDeath, selectively read my message. I never said that I "went to other websites to rant about you guys". That's very immature. All I said was that OTHER PEOPLE rant about you at other websites (seldom AiB). Honestly? Blasting PAs at someone who is nonexistent elsewhere? That's not very smart. Stop shoving words in my mouth. I still question your thesis on calling people names, however, and to be honest, it's just your way if slipping personal attacks past users. Wrong, again, for the third time. I do NOT use instant messenger. Maybe chat sites that other friends go to, but NOT "IM". I'll repeat: I do NOT use "IM" (I had to use upper-case words for emphasis, sorry). IIRC, I wasn't banned for "trolling". You got really angry with me for playing around (my bad) and blocked me from the channel. Now you're using trolling as my excuse. PenguinofDeath, as much as you would like me to disappear, I won't. I'm still going to contribute to SmashWiki (lol). Do you have solid proof that Clarinet Hawk is a college student? Then again, none of us on the internet have proof of anything without "pictures". I take CHawk's word that he goes to college, but I'm not fully sure. Even so, his behavior towards a certain group of people is very unreasonable (he no longer is a dick to those users, however). By the way, I hope that I'm not giving the impression that I hate or that I'm mad at any of you. Again, PenguinofDeath, please do not "be a douche" and state the obvious to me. If I knew any better, I'd say you're trying to troll me at the moment. A regular admin handles an argument with reason, and doesn't add gas to the fire. Your "smart" (yes, I called them "smart"), snappy, troll-esque responses to my posts only provoke more "rude" responses from myself. You should learn to control whatever negative feelings you have for me and not to dump them out here. Paper Bowser (talk) 18:58, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey PoD, if that's the case, whats the use of the IRC in the first place? So that users can interact live. Since I'm a lowly IP, I can't use it but I understand that this isn't just an encyclopedia, it's a community of people who love smash. Smash lovers are few in number, so we have to interact somehow. Paper Bowser has proven himself worthy by now. There's no harm in giving him another chance. 98.117.158.220 00:01, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * The Administrators will decide when he "has proven himself worthy". And Smash lovers are in no way few in number - click here for proof. Read Clarinet Hawk's comment for my response to your first two sentences.  Penguin  of  Death   09:39, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Shadowcrest's page. Let's hear his opinion. Also, I would like to say, it seems we're on the opposite sides of everything PoD. That is not the case. I actually admire the way you handle things responsibly and respectfully. You're a role model for many. Btw, the reason I said that is because whenever I talk about Smash at school I get made fun of. 98.117.158.220 02:57, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent)
 * If Shadowcrest were to get involved it would just be as an arbitrator, as the real issue is between me and Paper Bowser. The discussion is only taking place on this page because Paper Bowser believes he has a better chance of getting Shadowcrest to unblock him than me.
 * Though I don't use AllisBrawl myself, from what I hear, it's perfect for smashers who don't have many people to play against locally, and no one there would make fun of you for talking about Smash. And about what you said about me being a role model: Thanks man, I appreciate it.  Penguin  of  Death   10:58, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I, of course, would only believe such because Salad isn't really in full favor of my ban but knows that I deserve it for trolling you. He told me not to make him choose between you and I. It's like a mom/dad thing lol. Paper Bowser (talk) 03:34, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

BNK
In the Kirby wiki, Blue Ninjakoopa is an admin. Recently he asked me to tell you that he felt you were being unfair about his ban. I don't think he should be banned, he's not a vandal. I heard the reason was because he uploaded one of your pictures as an avatar. I don't know details, but that doesn't seem to be enough to ban him. Do you think you could consider unbanning him? 98.117.158.220 02:27, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * The incident you describe was not the reason for the banning - it was merely the tipping point of a long line of quibbles and other incidents, some of which merited (and earned) bans by themselves. BNK is no vandal - but I'm sure that few (if any) people here would like his attitude back. Toomai Glittershine [[Image:Toomai.png|20px]] eXemplary Logic  The Stats Guy  The Table Designer  03:33, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the ban I placed was entirely fair. During the period before I blocked him, I was the only admin who didn't support a permaban, but for whatever reason people didn't argue it much with me so I didn't perma him. As Toomai said, that event was just what made me personally distrust him- I was just the one to block him because I knew everyone else already supported a perma and he'd already been blocked by 6 different admins.
 * And actually, Toomai, I'm not so sure- many of our users seem to be unable to separate personal feelings from what is best for the wiki. Shadowcrest  16:27, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Salad, I think you need to protect Sonic (SSBB) again. There's been some recent vandalism. 98.117.158.220 01:04, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of contacting Administrators directly, just post a message at the top of the Vandal Reports section on the Administrators' noticeboard.  Penguin  of  Death   12:45, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Archive?
This talk page is at a massive 104 KB. Needless to say, it's way over the 30 KB limit for archiving; plus, it's flooded.  R A  N 1 05:50, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no set "limit", so he doesn't have to archive his page, tbh. Though it could probably do with it at some point soon, the page isn't used enough for it to be a very pressing concern.  Penguin  of  Death   12:45, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * The "some point soon" actually is in the past, PoD; this page was at 60 KB about half a year ago, and over 30 KB since last March. Also, by that last supposition you made, nobody on SmashWiki would have to archive, since user talk pages are rarely ever used. That defeats the purpose of archiving. So, :/.  R A  N 1 16:59, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * This talk page has been around since March. As the start of a new year, it would be nice to "restart" your page :P. 98.117.158.220 18:25, January 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, RAN, that's exactly what I'm saying - in no way, shape or form is he, or anyone else, obliged to archive his talk page.  Penguin  of  Death   23:27, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, we wern't forcing him. We were just telling shadowcrest that he should archive his talk page as it's quite long. 98.117.158.220 23:56, January 1, 2010 (UTC)