User talk:Puppy/sigthing

Apologies

Huge trousers.

For perhaps crossing the line by giving you a temporaty deopping there. Of course, there's no other reasonable way to discipline an admin harassing an established user over the most trivial of issues, but hey, if Zombiebaron doesn't think it's the right move then there's no point in arguing. You hear that? There's no point in arguing. Words to live by, please. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:38, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

What were you trying to achieve? 1234 ~ 09:42, 12 March 2012

Perhaps you calming down and/or getting perspective on your actions? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 11:11, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

For curiosity's sake, I must ask - what was it that gave you the impression I needed to calm down? And what perspective would that have been? 1234 ~ 13:41, 12 March 2012

Have people seen the size of my trousers recently >>>>>  ? Huge I tell you! >>>>> MrN 13:45, Mar 12

Yeah they're something around fiveteen cm:s! *watches the screen again* yeah they're HUGE! OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 13:57 12 March 2012

Well, for one, you really have been talking in huge chunks of dramatic text lately. This is a usual indicator that people are taking things on the internet seriously. Secondly, you still don't (or worse: do) realize how passive aggressive your responses are. Now that I've pointed these things out to you, I hope you take strides towards fixing them, instead of being irresponsible and dodgy in your usual way. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 17:53, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. In the future, however, please consider mentioning you feel these things are the case before unilaterally deopping another admin. 1234 ~ 21:19, 12 March 2012

Lord Acton. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:06, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Is unilaterally de-opping someone for a period of time better or worse than unilaterally banning someone for a period of time? (Assuming in the second instance the person can't just reverse the ban?) Pup 09:19 13 Mar '12

In either case raising concerns with the person first helps, and always when one has a contentious opinion on something they should probably talk to someone else as well prior to taking action just to be sure they're not overstepping themselves. But the thing is, deopping people and banning people just ain't the same thing, and if an admin really does need to be banned, then perhaps they oughtn't be an admin in the first place... but neither is that something for any single person to determine, otherwise that just tramples on the decisions of everyone else who voted to make them one. Seriously, if you want me deopped, make a forum; you've always had that right, but at this point I'm not sure I'd even care anymore. 1234 ~ 17:28, 13 March 2012

Poop a de poop a de poop. Nobody wants you deopped, as far as I can see. Except the guys behind the pool hall, but they want everybody deopped. You are the wind upon our wings. Iz true! And more play and less work never hurt anyone, except the guys behind the pool hall. Al 19:14 this day this month this year

Doctor Pangloss I presume? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:47, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

@Lyrithya: I understand your perspective, but I think you're wrong. There are a number of times where users have been banned without any consultation and discussion. You'll have even done it yourself. And it's usually done as a way of starting to point out to someone they're being a dick. In this case, TKF saw an argument between two users who have good standing within the community, and he felt both of them needed to have some time out. The de-oppage was always intended to be a temporary thing. As for acting unilaterally - Dr. Skully banned Zana, and no other admin would lift that ban as he was the one who dd the banning. Wether he was right or not, he acted unilaterally at the time of banning, and given this stance between admins for it to continue the decision has been left solely in his hands. Right or wrong decision, it's his because he was given the position due to a community vote.

We give this authority to admins, and it's long accepted and upheld. We give the right to give/revoke user rights to a 'crat, but when he/she uses it all of a sudden it's the wrong thing to do, despite having the same thing done to multiple users on a daily basis? As a banning technique it wasn't even that effective - PIGGY could have lifted your ban without a second thought

As for your final passive aggressive note of not caring if you do become de-opped... I can only assume you mean on a permanent basis, which is very different to what was the situation earlier where you were de-opped for the period of an hour. If you no longer care, then you probably shouldn't be an admin any further. That kind of comment would be the sort of thing that would make me vote against a nomination at VFS. Both Al and I have said exactly that on previous nominations. So maybe you should consider a wiki break, or requesting a de-oppage, or something that will mean that the Lyrithya that I would nominate and vote for at VFS comes back to play with us at some stage. I really like her. This current negative version, not so much. And whatever it is IRL that is making you feel this way, I really hope it doesn't last, because we - I - care about you too much to see you feeling this way. Pup 10:47 13 Mar '12

Lyrithya, I'm sorry you're bummed out right now about something on the wiki. Clearly, very bummed out. I think everyone likes you too much and is too greatful for everything you do to not say anything nor slap anyone on the wrist for the things said and they way they are said. I have a voodoo doll of you and I stick pins in its eyes and liver every night...at least 500 of those pins ... but I don't think you should not be an admin. No way. I hope you get over being bummed out before you decide to throw in the towel. Hopefuly --ShabiDOO 23:30, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Mon, don't read into it, please. Some people are just morons, so if they want to make a fuss about me without offering anything constructive, I told them where to go. Meantime I'm busy enough without having to deal with people defending their own and each other's bruised egos against whatever the latest perceived slight happens to be.

And for you two, and you know who you are, before you call this passive aggression, please look up the meaning of 'passive aggression'. This is not passive aggression. This is actual aggression. Passive aggression is what people do when they don't like something but also don't actually do much of anything about it besides perhaps some non-directed passing words, much as is typical of diplomacy and satire, whereas currently I'm actively challenging you to continue making utter dicks of yourselves if you'd like. Good day. 1234 ~ 09:41, 14 March 2012