From GuildWiki

Contents 1 socking 2 block 3 the coveted first spot. 4 Moved comments 5 Hi 6 i found something :D 7 so i herd facebook was bugged 8 sorry <333 9 List of Cool People 10 hi lurker

[edit] socking

Although I admire your admitting to the situation instead of pulling a Stabber, I an nonetheless disappointed in you. What reason do you have for socking, anyway? (T/C) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I enjoy answering questions not directed to me. Mostly so he could be blunt(er) without being himself, iirc. :] 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A sockpuppet can be harmless - useful at times. Some things cannot be said because of some personal or background emotion/likes/dislikes. An "old hand" coming back to comment on what could be described as controversial discussions would have those effects when commenting. Sometimes it requires a new pseudonym to just start over, without stigmas or thoughts about the past. While I can't speak for Defiant (and no, I'm not him either...), I can understand (but probably not articulate) his reasons. Even you said that sockpuppets can be harmless, Entropy, and it certainly was in this case. --Dr R. Phalange 10:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Maui and Phalange are more or less correct. The persona I've cultivated on this account, which spans three wikis, is rather unsuited to just having a bit of fun on User talk pages, etc. I made a sockpuppet because I wanted a bit more attitudinal latitude. *Defiant Elements* +talk 13:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"A bit of fun" and "attitudinal latitude", eh? I would expect more from an old hand I once respected for his integrity, and an administrator (albeit on other wikis) on top of that. I don't care about sockpuppets until they cause trouble/drama - which you have, rightly or wrongly. (T/C) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

“A bit of fun” and “attitudinal latitude”, eh? I would expect more from an old hand I once respected for his integrity, and an administrator (albeit on other wikis) on top of that.

In some ways, I think, that sums up why I created Banjthulu. "Defiant Elements" is largely dead on this Wiki and I wanted a fresh start. I came back (both as Defiant Elements and Banjthulu) because I still feel somehow connected to this community -- even if the community has largely changed since my day. “Defiant Elements” is merely a persona, one which I felt was not wholly appropriate for the role I wished to play, even if that role is merely chatting with User:Maui. To be honest, it felt nice simply being able to chat with other users without any pretense arising from my status as an “old hand.”

In various discussions on Banjthulu’s talk page and elsewhere, a distinction was drawn between a sockpuppet account and a new account for a returning user. By strict definition, there’s really no difference between the two as near as I can tell. Perhaps the distinction lies in the fact that the primary account of the “returning user” continues to appear inactive, whereas I had recently stated that my primary account was active. Either way, I firmly intended that Banjthulu would be my new primary persona on GuildWiki, if that makes any sense. Yes, I did edit pages as Defiant Elements after I created Banjthulu, but I tried to do so only when I felt that it the sentiment I wished to express was only in keeping with my Defiant Elements persona.

Looking at the various Wikipedia definitions for a sock puppet, I cannot help but feel that Banjthulu doesn’t quite fit the bill. Yes, it was a deception in so far as I made Banjthulu appear to be a new user when, in fact, he was not -- although, I didn’t really go to great lengths to do that either -- but, in my own mind at least, I didn’t feel that it was a deception because, in effect, Banjthulu was a new user. He was a “new me,” intended to be wholly separate, one without regard for the other.

I cannot help but see the irony in that, had I not made it quite so clear that Banjthulu was the account of an “old hand” -- distinction between returning user and sockpuppet not withstanding -- there would have been no drama. Deception was the more prudent course in retrospect (well… not creating the sockpuppet in the first place would have been even more prudent, but…).

Regarding any trouble that may have been caused by Banjthulu’s edits. First off, persona distinctions aside, I stand by my arguments in favor of Felix’s banning as being non-biased and will continue to do so. To be honest, while I may have edited as Banjthulu with a somewhat different attitude, the content and personality that serve as the underpinnings for my comments were really no different than when I edited as Defiant Elements -- which explains why a number of users who know me well were able to immediately discern that Banjthulu was my sockpuppet. If I caused some other trouble of which I’m not aware at the moment, please link me to the appropriate edit(s).

As far as my integrity goes, I will admit that that comment stings because I have nothing but respect for you. On the other hand, I personally tend to be believe (setting aside for a moment the question of whether I am merely rationalizing my own misdeed) that the intent outweighs the result. The spirit of the anti-sockpuppet “policy” lies in the potential for the abuse of sockpuppets, it is not, as far as I’m aware, an attempt to prevent users who wish to edit with some level of anonymity -- yes, I could have edited as an anon, but it’s generally harder to establish solid community ties as an admin, examples to the contrary notwithstanding. “Defiant Elements” has no formal responsibilities on GuildWiki; however, there is a certain gravitas attached to the name itself; I desired the freedom to edit without the burden of that name.

Anywho, I’ve become much too personally involved as far as Felix is concerned. I’d like to think (if nothing else) that I would have responded in the same fashion to anyone who had made a similar comment, but I can’t say that with any certainty -- at least not without lying to myself. Yes, I thought that Felix was something of a prick well before he made that comment, but... that comment truly did disgust me. On the other hand, I fear that part of my disgust lies in the fact that I was blinded to the possibility that Felix might be complementing you in some fashion rather than insulting you. I haven’t yet decided whether that bias is the result of my own interactions with him, the interactions I’ve seen between the two of you, or some combination, but there was undoubtedly some element of bias I suppose. I doubt I’ll ever be ascertain with anything approaching certainty the true motive behind my comment, but I’ve been doing my best to try. Regardless, it’s a moot point because any future interaction I might have with Felix is undoubtedly tainted at this point (which is why I have every intention of never speaking with him again).

Unfortunately, this fiasco has undoubtedly tainted any further contribution I make to this Wiki, so, with the possible exception of my entry to Ereanor’s contest and perhaps a talk page here or there *cough* User talk:Maui*cough*, I think it’s best if I once again withdraw myself from this wiki (although on far worse terms this time around I fear).

Unfortunately, I’m tired and I’m having more and more trouble putting together coherent thoughts, so I’m afraid that’s gonna have to be it for me for now. And again, I do realize that I’m biased toward myself, but I’m doing my best to analyze my own actions as thoroughly as possible.

P.S. Please excuse any syntactical mistakes and general incoherence, I'm tired and I wrote this rather hastily. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Long text is looooooooooong. Getting back to the point: There have been things like this before, and they clear up pretty quickly. Don't leave just because of one little mistake. You're only human, and everyone screws up sometimes. Any taint on yourself will clear up in a couple days, if anyone blames you at all.Entrea [Talk] 22:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comments on the admin notice board regarding this: linky!—♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 22:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's just more long text. In any case this kind of thing has happened hand been shrugged off before *cough* so Defiant Elements shouldn't feel obligated to take a permanent vacation as he's suggesting.Entrea [Talk] 23:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I said indefinite, not permanent. Besides, my wikiholism will probably prevent me from withdrawing entirely (i.e. I'll probably still check in on a pretty frequent basis if nothing else). *Defiant Elements* +talk 12:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of being able to create a new account for every aspect of one's person. This is my "helpful" account where I edit the mainspace; this is my "admin" account where I hand out bans; this is my "troll" account where I dispel my grudges; this is my "WikiDragon" account where I shake up the foundations...etc. It becomes difficult to assume good faith when socking arises, for a number of reasons...Now, if no one ever finds out, that's one thing. But when suspicions arise and accusations are leveled, that is when things turn ugly. How can you trust someone who would willingly deceive by concealing their identity? What is their motive? Does it benefit the wiki (intent) to have a split persona like this? Prior contributions are a HUGE aspect of evaluating someone's character...kind of like how people (still?) distrusted User:Warwick because there were some less savory edits in the past, but they were supposedly from a different perosn. It's like that with a sockpuppet, only the distinction is more clear between the contributions - the sock's are new and unlinked to the old persona's. So, you have all of DE's old edits, which convey a sense of experience, intelligence, respectability, what have you. Building anything on top of that assumes some prior foundations, as you say - that is why you grab a clean slate with Banthjulu, because to make such remarks and edits as that under DE would be...markedly strange. The problem is that as soon as people suspected it was a sock, Banthjulu's credibility became zero, and DE's reputation was injured...

I can understand the value of a sock if you want to, for example, experience what it is like for a "new" user here. This allows an admin to identify and relate to some problems that they experience but that normally a new user can't do anything about. This is a harmless way to use a sockpuppet. The problem really was that as soon as Banthjulu requested a banning on Felix...well, that was wrong for a number of reasons. Problems started to arise when Banthjulu got involved in trying to ban Felix. "I desired the freedom to edit without the burden of that name." That is fine - but not when you start treading deep water like ban discussions. If Banthjulu never did anything but chat with Maui, even if people thought it was a sock - who cares? Harmless...

I still stand by my assertation that Felix is undeserving of a ban at the moment. The only thing you might consider as a reason is "general asshattery", but that's really pushing it, even for a coverall reason. Besides, if it really was warranted, I am sure Auron or some other admin would have taken care of it already...

I am glad that you realize further antagonism between you and Felix will be unproductive, although I do not wish you to extrapolate a general desire to leave from that. Other than that issue, and some minor copyright quibbles, you've done nothing wrong while being back. (T/C) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I requested the blocking of User:Felix Omni. Banjthulu simply put his, very logical, reasoning as to why he should be blocked -- something that anyone should be able to do. As far as I can see, Banjthulu simply discussed things. Perhaps they were a little more blunt than DE's normal posts would be, but nevertheless his discussion was somewhat constructive. --Dr R. Phalange 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe we are discussing two different bans here, or else I am very confused...? (T/C) 00:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean the User talk:Felix Omni#Block?; I'm not aware of another situation where "Banthjulu requested a banning on Felix" or where Banjthulu was involved in anything relating to a block of Felix Omni. --Dr R. Phalange 00:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh...on reading the talk page, which was given as evidence, I was under the impression that Banthjulu had added the tag. Checking the history, I see that you are right. However, I don't think that changes things much...It seems like semantics. I appreciate your clarifying the matter, but I think my point remains the same. (T/C) 00:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And so does mine; anyone, whether using an alternate account or not, can and will put their opinion for a block forward, especially in a situation such as that. Had it been a discussion of policy or something in the GuildWiki namespace, it would probably be a good assumption that DE would respond with a logical, clearly thought argument -- as he did on Felix's talk page. Only the circumstances are different -- one was on a user talk page, one would be in the GuildWiki talk page. If Defiant wished to use an alternate account to discuss something in a user talk page, so be it -- as he said, using Banjthulu gave him a wider door into user talk pages; something that seems to be the crux of GuildWiki nowadays. In such a case (i.e. to discuss things solely in the user talk namespace), an "old hand" who is used to the older contribution areas (and more importantly, known for using them) would find said alternate account more appropriate. --Dr R. Phalange 00:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See, the thing is that even if DE had never created Banthjulu in the first place, and then made all the same contribs - I would still be upset about it, since everyone hates drama etc. and I feel that while DE originally did start out with a logical, clearly thought argument...no problems with that...it devolved from there into a personal feud. The use of Banthjulu to do such things makes it somewhat worse, though, because even though DE had good intentions, he thusly created a "malicious sock" whose purpose was to take down Felix...and socks tend to intensify drama once people suspect them, and DE purposely made that easy, so Banthjulu was suspected by Felix as a sock. DE knows that, I think, and so I'm kind of upset that he did it anyway...it just seems he didn't think through fully what would be the consequences. (T/C) 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel strongly compelled to respond in a meaningful fashion because I can't help feeling as if you're misrepresenting me to some degree or another. However, I feel even more strongly that nothing (or at least nothing good) can come of prolonging this discussion, so I'm going to refrain from doing so. On a related note, I think this entire situation can be compared to <insert analogy to Hitler and/or nazism here>. *Defiant Elements* +talk 12:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying I am a ruthless Wiki dictator who rules with an iron fist? All the more reason for me to quit, then, and free the proles. (T/C) 19:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm failing to see what's wrong with being a ruthless wiki dictator that rules with an iron fist. Armond 21:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] block

I've blocked you for a day for the personal attack on Felix. Please take the time out of your vacation to sit in a corner and think about your actions :p
You knew it was coming, though. -Auron 09:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Test. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused... I appear to be blocked and yet I seem to be able to edit :/, I demand this situation be remedied (I fully intend to treat this ban as an intervention for wikiholism). *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That is odd. I'll try unbanning/rebanning you to see what happens. If I don't see another edit from you, I'll assume it worked. XD —Dr Ishmael 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I asked Auron about it, apparently it's a Wikia thing so you can contest the ban -- I can only edit my talk page -- or whatever (although it seems like it just lets you flame people from the safety of your talk page...). Anywho... 3 days = remainder of a 1 day ban? *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I typed "17 hours" in the "Other time" box, but didn't realize I had to select "other" in the drop-down list. I don't have much experience with the block form yet. —Dr Ishmael 16:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the coveted first spot.

I can die happy now: I am the first person you added on Feebbook. ;D 03:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction: you are the first person who accepted my invitation on Facebook ;). None of my real friends, with a coupla exceptions, use Facebook :P. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

They're clever. --R Phalange 20:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite. I made a Facebook about three years ago that I had for maybe two weeks before I decided Facebook had no value whatsoever. At the moment I'm just planning to use this account for Scrabble matches, Chess matches, posting Old English double entendres on Maui's page, etc. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

All of my real friends use Facebook, which is easy to say as I have, like, five. ;] Maybe it's the age difference. (Though most of said friends are older than you are...) 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"...I've got people begging for my top 8 spaces." --Nova 02:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's myspace, but you're definitely too white and nerdy :P --Shadowcrest 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved comments

In response to your objection to my moving of your comment from between two existing comments and placing at the bottom of the page here, please note that it is generally accepted that comments go at the bottom of a page, to quote the edit screen itself:
"Please place new topics at the bottom of the page if you want other people to notice them. Experienced users generally assume comments at the top of the page to be oldest, and often ignore them."
If you want to respond to a comment that is higher up the page it is generally accepted practice to use quotation marks or otherwise just respond to it anyway, perhaps with @(username) on the front of your comment, as most people will know what your talking about.-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware. However, my comment responded to a specific comment you'd made, moving it down (and changing the indent) took it out of context. With a talk page that small, I didn't think it mattered whether I put it in the middle or used @ or whatever. Obviously, you noticed it, so it's a moot point. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Read.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay... it's nice you think that I guess... and your point is? *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i found something :D

Sadly, there was no balloon Banjthulu, but this made me think of you anyway. Hearts! 08:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] so i herd facebook was bugged

Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Host '209-20-77-222.slicehost.net' is blocked because of many connection errors; unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts' in /home/rebel/topfriends/facebook/include/db.php on line 34 Host '209-20-77-222.slicehost.net' is blocked because of many connection errors; unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts'

— Nova — (contribs) 16:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sorry <333

I sincerely apologize for ignoring you for, like, four hours on MSN. D: I was in an instance and getting my cute blue space goat butt kicked... And I'm sure your game was much more interesting than talking to me anyhow. ;] However, I found an amazing link a few minutes ago and thought I would share it with you since you're the only other person I know who plays D&D still. ): Voila! 10:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think only D&D players find this funny? :-D Anyhow, how do you like the "something awful" site design? They have the 300x250 in the upper right, but integrated into the nav bar. Should GuildWiki put the nav bar on the right as well? --◄mendel► 12:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said that only D&D players would find it funny, just that I don't know any other active players. In fact, the fact that I posted it here, instead of e-mailing or Facebooking him the link, would imply it's for the rest of you to read, too.  :P And the layout is fine. Their navbar is actually along the top. The links along the right side are to featured threads and articles. 15:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm-mmm. If we get a few drama-free days, maybe I can make a Monaco skin that looks similar. Though it probably won't let us take the ad out of articlespace. :-( --◄mendel► 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I wasn't paying any attention anyway: I was laughing too hard as a result of my game to pay attention to anything else :D. Ironically, they're fighting a semi-modified Young Red Dragon (as well as some trolls). We spent like... 4 hours in that fight and they've yet to kill anything :/... 4e sucks... Then again, we're all still learning the ropes, so hopefully things will speed up. That link was pretty amusing. Some parts were kinda dumb, but it's definitely amusing (not to mention true ;/). *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cool People

WTB

List of Uncool People

User:Suicidal Tendencie

etc.

-->Suicidal Tendencie 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hi lurker

Header. (T/C) 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DE for sysop — Warw/Wick 12:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Hi to you too. Yea, I still check in here on occasion -- in fact, I probably spend more time here than on PvX nowadays -- which usually means takin' a look at my watchlist and then leaving. To be perfectly honest, giving up wiki-lurking altogether has proven a great deal more difficult than I might have anticipated. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot like voyeurism :) But don't worry, ReaLife^(TM) always wins eventually. (T/C) 07:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How very reassuring ;). *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)