Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2008-02-07-User:Readem

If examples is wanted, I will try to provide such links. For now, I just wanted to get this up for discussion. - anja 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Readem is already currently blocked for a month; is this discussion necessary before that time is up? Has Readem attempted to continue editing via proxies or the like? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know. However, this is the fourth time he is blocked for NPA vios. Previous blocks haven't caused him to change his debating style. I highly doubt this one will. Backsword 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me four times they just need to go away. If they dont learn to act like a human being because they have that disease that makes people stupid on the internet, just block them forever. Let the other trolls bitch and follow him down that path to nowhere. You are supposed to cut cancer out of your body before it spreads.--riceball 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If he's already banned for a month, how will he give his statement and stuff? We going to unblock him or just be like "Screw you Readem, no chance for redemption for you!", or what? — ク Eloc 貢 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To Aiiane, yes, I felt this was needed now because in a months time it will be mostly forgotten or just left as it is until the next time he is disruptive, like it has been "in the past". If you feel we should wait for the block to expire, that's fine with me. - anja 06:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My thinking on the matter was this, Anja: normally one would request ArbComm's examination of a case when it had moved beyond the point where it could be adequately handled by sysop action. However, the fact that Readem is blocked for a month seems to indicate that he is currently being dealt with via sysop action (since a month is much longer than would be necessary simply to stop an ongoing disruption). Thus I would normally consider this as unnecessary at the current time since it appears to not have moved beyond the 'adequate handling' via sysops.

If such is the case, then I would think it'd be better to bring the matter up after the block is up if the problem persists.

If such is not the case, then I question why such a long block was utilized rather than a short block concurrent with the ArbComm request. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My block of Readem came about to stop his disruptive behavior. Only after that did I think of bringing him up for arbitration. That's why it might not seem logical with a month block and then an arbitration case.
My stance is that several long blocks does not change Readem's behaviour, as shown, but his behaviour is getting out of hand. I simply do not feel that I can handle this case as a sysop, I can only give him longer and longer blocks which basically does nothing. - anja 11:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest, then, altering the block to a duration that would suffice for ending current disruption while continuing to pursue ArbComm involvement? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will shorten Readem's block to one week. - anja 17:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(To Eloc) Has there not been several chances that this user has? Though, I agree, there should be a statement; but that may be very well what he wants. This one is hard to play by ear... --People of Antioch talk 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

During Raptors' arbitration he was unblocked to make a statement. I don't see why, should this arbitration be accepted, we would not grant Readem the same privilege. LordBiro 08:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cos he'd just post on izzy's page, flaming more people. Kind of like what Raptors did :) -Auron 11:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I support accepting this case, for the same reason Raptors' was. For what it's worth, I'll also support a permanent ban; he brings drama and headaches wherever he goes, and generally for the wrong reasons. Incidentally, this was a part of why he was blocked on PvX. -- Armond Warblade 10:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if my vote counts for anything here, but he has admitted that he doesn't care about this wiki. Every reply he made on Izzy's talk page has been a variant on 'epic fail' with about 1% valid arguments. As such he actually prevents the community from aiding in the improvment of the game by continuously harrassing him. That may not be the reason Izzy no longer posts, but it doesn't help either. Basically, what I mean is, I think he's intentionally trying to undermine our efforts build a good wiki. Nicky Silverstar 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anja told me that my post was too much a personal attack, I apologize for that, please ignore it. Nicky Silverstar 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My post was about another comment, see your talk page. - anja 00:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because we can't (or don't?) moderate out talk pages comments I think that a firm stance should be taken against those who continue to take an inflammatory role on talk pages after repeated warnings and bans. We cannot afford to allow or encourage those who continually antagonize, because, unlike most forums, the design of wiki is poorly equipped to cope with heated discussion. (For instance; anonymous posters are allowed on the most inflamed discussion pages and attacking comments are left to be read and cause hurt and annoyance even after a ban).

Readem has been banned several times and is likely quite well aware of the effect he has on discussion. For the reasons I state above I think Readem has had his chances, the wiki cannot afford to tolerate him. --Aspectacle 23:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this case belongs in arbitration, since the block has stopped his behavior. If he's disruptive once he returns, block him for a year (or permanently) without arbitration. There's no need to involve ArbComm in this. —Tanaric 04:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Tanaric. ArbComm should be involved when there's a question as to the proper course of action; while I often find myself agreeing with what Readem has to say, it's unquestionable that he's disruptive, and a ban is the logical outgrowth of that disruption. Since there's no real question to be answered here, I don't see why this matter should be brought before ArbComm. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: what's the time limit on these verdicts (if any)? Nicky Silverstar 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Afaik, whenever the Arbcomm gets their act together and decides whether they take on the case. That is; there is no time limit. --Aspectacle 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Anja offered to provide evidence above, that would be helpful. --Xeeron 13:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Readem has been blocked 4 times for NPA violation. These provide a general idea of what he has been blocked for, although it might not be the exact reason for the block. [1] [2] [3] [4]

These links points out a few of the occasions where I see Readem's behaviour as problematic, they are not all inclusive, but his contributions list is long. If these were single issues, I would not have brought them up, but it is the "scheme" that makes me request ArbComm intervention. I could take more time to provide more/better links and arguments if needed, but not today. - anja 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I can dig around and find a couple more if necessary. There are about twenty NPA violations in his last fifty contributions. Calor 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The more evidence is easily linked here, the better. Means not everyone interested has to go out and search his contributions again. --Xeeron 10:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to contibute this evidence as well. Although it is not posted on this wiki, it does show that Readem has no intention to change his ways. He doesn't care about the rules anywhere, so this can be viewed as a testiment to his character. Note that this has been posted after this Arbcomm has been requested. [5]

What is this failure?

title says it all? --Cursed Angel 10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to know your way round the wiki, especially talk pages. I am sure you can find out by reading Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee and the links provided in the section above. --Xeeron 11:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, Cursed Angel seems to be a smart one ;) — ク Eloc 貢 17:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am slow, I know, but I don't understand what you mean. Nicky Silverstar 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What Cursed Angel means, or Eloc? CA calls everything fail. He's kinda like a mini-Readem/Raptors, or at least was, and CA's humorously asking why this ArbComm session is needed, by calling it "failure". If you're talking about Eloc's comment, he's just being sarcastic. Calor 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well from talking to Cursed, I've found that he's smart in 2 things.

1. His knowledge of how to get around a Wiki and use it.
2. His knowledge of metal

As for anything else, I dunno. — ク Eloc 貢 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

metal > knowledge :D, anyway back to the issue, blocking him doesn't help cuz he really don't seem to care, and most of the things he write is made of awesomeness and truth --Cursed Angel 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, as I see it, of opinion and vitriol. I won't say all his contributions are meaningless, but he has some strong opinions and a complete lack of tact. Also, what do you mean about blocking him not helping? If you simply mean as a motivator for changing his ways, then history would seem to agree; if you mean a permanent block, then it is helpful in that we don't have the pleasure of seeing his contributions any longer. Seems like a net positive to me. - THARKUN 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking him forever or for a long time only seems to encourage proxy use. Blocking should be something not taken lightly. — ク Eloc 貢 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Any sort of blocking encourages proxy use, by your logic.... -- Armond Warblade 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

True, in Readem's case it certainly does, and I suspect it would in a fair number of other cases. However, its a tradeoff; if you're not blocking because you fear the user will just circumvent with a proxy, creating more work, you're also not dealing with the problem the user is creating in the first place. If you are blocking, then you have to deal with proxies. Both cases have tradeoffs, but its simply a matter whether you think the proxy hunting is worth doing in order to avoid the harassment and/or abuse of the user.. even if it is imperfect. I agree that it shouldn't be a trivial matter (as I am an admin on another game, I have to deal with the same problems there), but doing nothing doesn't always seem like a winning solution either. Anyway, I don't think this particular debate really belongs here, as if blocking weren't even an option for fear of proxy bypass, we wouldn't have this request or this committee in the first place. - THARKUN 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Armond, it's true. Any block that's a long duration will encourage proxy use. Look at Raptors and how many times he has come back total. — ク Eloc 貢 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Eloc: However, you'll also note that the proxies stopped after a while. Even the most obsessive flamer has a limit to their stamina. -- Hong 23:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I know. I'm just saying that blocking should be taken seriously and be decided upon carefully. — ク Eloc 貢 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I misread CA's title, I now know (when it is not 2:00am) what he means. Thanks. Nicky Silverstar 08:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Eloc, that's not what I said. I said that you were implying that any block encourages proxy use. Look at Riven. Does this mean we don't block people? No. -- Armond Warblade 06:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can some1 tell me...

...What this is about? Dark Morphon(contribs) 15:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You can find out if you read the main project page, the evidence up above, or by going through Readem's contributions. Basically, it's a process for the bureaucrats to find a solution to the case put forward. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

am i able to vote against this failure? --Cursed Angel 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Lord of all tyria 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Readem is banned right? Dark Morphon(contribs) 13:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, his block has expired. - anja 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote for No

For starters, i dont like readem, i think he's an over-dramatic douche. That being said, in the particular cases we're discussing here, he's an overly dramatic correct douche. I hate to bring this to light for some of you, but izzy sucks at balancing. The game is dominated by stupid gimmicks that take the skill out of the game by virtue of the fact that they are too powerful. Read readems user page, that is not good balance. Could readem use a bit more eloquence when he speaks, hell yes. However, i still feel that the spirit of the rule trumps the letter( i know that's blasphemy to the bureaucratic nightmare that is this wiki) and the spirit of no personal attacks is to stop random and uncalled for insults or attacks on users. If someone is an idiot, is calling them idiot an attack? If izzy cant balance for shit, is saying that to him an attack? Maybe. But not an attack worth a months ban over. Heck, not even a bannable offense imo. Perhaps ive missed the posts where readem has gone to even greater lengths with his insults, and if so, then i will retract this argument, but i dont think that to be the case. I know most of this will fall on deaf ears, since it's blatently apparent that the population of this wiki is littered with crybabies and policy nazi's, but it doesnt hurt to try. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.78.172.125 (talk).

I agree with you that Readem is often correct. That said, when it comes to NPA violations, whether or not they're "true" is irrelevant. Calling Izzy an idiot is an argumentum ad hominem, and whenever you stray into the real of ad hominem attacks, you're going to be violating NPA. Consider this however: let's assume for a moment that calling Izzy an idiot didn't qualify as an attack under NPA. In such a scenario, I would argue that it is more in keeping with NPA to ban him; if nothing else, he's being a troll and he's being disruptive; in short, he's being an asshat. Having known Readem on PvX, I tend to like him, and again, I agree with most of what he has to say, but when someone demonstrates a complete and utter disregard for the wellbeing of a community time and time again, then it is wholly in keeping with the mission of the Sysops to ban that person. As to the length of the ban, I would argue that it was appropriate not because this particular instance warranted a month-long ban, but, rather, because it is in keeping with a pattern of behavior on Readem's part, and shorter bans have had no demonstrable effect on him. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A valid argument. As we both know ad hominem attacks are fallacious in debate and are often counterproductive. However in this case, the "debate" in question regards skill balance, and the fact that it is often handled rather poorly. Izzy himself is intricately related to skill balancing. Calling izzy an idiot may still be an ad hominem attack, but a much more relevant one than if i was to, as an example, call you an idiot if we were talking about abortion or some other debate. Since izzy is symbolic of skill balance and the arguments itself often relate to balance, calling izzy an idiot is less of an attack on izzy himself, but rather an attack on izzy's ability to do his job. I agree that, regardless of the situations, that when told to stop readem should have been more mature and stopped, however that being said i don't think he was ever wrong to begin with. As for it being disruptive or trolling, the level to which it is would be in the eyes of the beholder. I never found it disrptive, i found it rather eye opening. A shame izzy doesnt see it the same way. Like i said, i dont like readem, i had more than 1 dispute with him on pvx, but i still dont see how his actions here are truly so terrible as to contitute all these bans. It seems to me that there's a borderline inept administrative staff covering for an inept skill balancer and basically alot of QQing.72.78.172.125 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I am not behind my pc, I don't hear people say: "Whoever keeps buffing VoD just die!" Then I log onto this wiki, and I am again reminded of the fact that not only this type of langauage is very common, but that people actually defend people using this kind of language. And I have heard people calling this wiki overprotective? HUH? Nicky Silverstar 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

72.78, let me remind you that Izzy's said nothing here, and this arbcom isn't simply about Readem's attacks on Izzy. For all we know, Izzy might agree with you (heck, if we're going to be paranoid we could even claim that you're Izzy without logging in), but that doesn't make it right. -- Armond Warblade 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

lulz

This arbitration is a joke. Here is my reasoning as to why:

• I was compared to cancer? Yeah, that is not an NPA breach. 3 close family members of mine have been diagnosed this year, dipshit.
• I have been banned for many different reasons. Mostly for NPA, and user page violations (lol). Some administrators, even wanted to ban me over my sig being black ;/. How reliable are these people? Are they incapable of holding grudges? I think not.
• I do not break policy for the most part. I do not go out of my way to disrupt text, or vandalize articles. Nor do I ever use a proxy to evade my bans.
• I do not go out of my way to flame people. They say something stupid; I tell them this; they become insulted and (usually, not always) insult me.
• Who have I outright "flamed". Izzy? I have stated on multiple occasions, that I sympathize for him. That his job, is made increasingly difficult by the bs people feel necessary to post. Nicky? That was just an argument, with both sides bitching. My insults never once related to something outside of GW. "Being bad at the game", is really not a tear-jerker. Saying someone "Fails at life" or "Is a 13-year old child", is much more personal. Finally, shaard insulted me first. Not the other way around. He found some need to "pipe-in", when no one really cared about his opinion.
• My talk page violations were rather minor. Saying that the majority of American players are bad at this game, is not so much hurtful as it is true. Why do you think there are only 3 top ten guilds? Other violations include:
  • Calling Gaile Grey a care-bear. Sorry, but she is.
  • Saying that Izzy is bad at his job.
  • Mentioning how terribly strict, and biased, GWW Admins are. How they (GWW admins) are not very well suited for their job. <--- think I am on to something
• Those links are pretty bad.
  • I said Izzy was bad at game balance. (Has this not been said on multiple occasions?) Then asked him questions as to why those skills specifically? (He never responds...ever) I then swear at some anonymous entity, who may very well not exist, and am then hit with NPA? Logic more plx.
  • I insulted Nicky, who said I put up no valid arguments, and spew bs through my ears. None of these "supposed" insults btw, are non-game related.
  • The third is me sticking up for people. Xeeron felt some need to gain a power-trip over other users, and disprove/disregard their opinions completely. He even tried to make them feel stupid at one point, by making some irrelevant comparison with Adolph Hitler (misspelling various words simultaneously).
  • If he balances wrongly, and makes the game less playable, is he not failing at his job? Is that not the point of a game dev? To make skills more playable? How many countless times must good people repeat themselves, before a change is actually made in the right direction? ffs, logic is good.
• I do not troll to troll like many others do. I often have valid arguments, with evidence to back up my responses. If you feel uncomfortable, or intimidated in any sort of way, just tell me ffs. I don't post unless something strikes me as extremely dumb or profoundly lulz.
• Armond, I was not banned for disruption on PvX. Stop making up such nonsense, and turn off the airplane. Herd cleave warrior took skill? c/d?
• In conclusion, I do not care if I am banned or not. It will just add to the amount of fail this wiki already has (a bucket-load). If I so may request, I would appreciate if Cory would ban me. I at least respect him, and believe he does have some common sense (which is an amazing quality). --Readem 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I know nobody here knows be but I have frequented the wikis for over a year accountless (well the original one mostly at that time) and Readem has often been a very valuable contributor. Banning him for a few days for being harsh with Izzy seems acceptable, but some people are too partial here. --Usual 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

readem is the most important and valuable person on the wiki --Cursed Angel 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know for a fact that PvX would be nowhere near what it is without him... --Usual 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we'd have missed out on some entertaining drama. Lord Belar 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Half the builds have "Checked and reviewed for viability". --Usual 00:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a PvXwiki and this wiki. As to Readem's response, attacking a user because they attacked you first should be no excuse. It's still a personal attack. Also, whether registered or anonymous, personal attacks are personal attacks. And since when are personal attacks specific to non-Guild Wars things? -- Brains12 \ Talk 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I have little knowledge of Readem's contribution on this wiki. But IMO his "trial" will be heavily biased. --Usual 00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure that? -- Brains12 \ Talk 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

because the admins are douche bags defending a shitty skill balancer, and have shown bias in the past. Come now, does saying "americans suck at gw" on your userpage really sound that bad? This wiki is a nightmare.72.78.172.125 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many who consider an environment where everyone goes around calling each other "douchebags" to be a nightmare. I don't see what the comments of a sysop have to do with an ArbComm case, though, given that the entire point of ArbComm is to move things beyond sysop intervention. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry i guess i meant to say b-crats. That nit picking sure showed me.72.78.172.125 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Every decision made by a human being is biased in some way, shape, or form. In general we tend to call things "not biased" if they are in reality biased towards established policies and beliefs. In this case, these established policies and beliefs would be the prevailing atmosphere and policies of the wiki. If it is that atmosphere you dislike, attempting to subvert it in a single ArbComm case isn't going to do much.

On the other hand, if you do not believe a bureaucrat's actions are undertaken with the current atmosphere and policies in mind, that would be something concerning the bureaucrat elections which anyone is able to take part in. If you did take part in them and yet they were still elected, perhaps it is because the community at large disagrees with you.

Either way, the matter is not specifically relevant to this case but rather to the issue of bureaucrats in general, so might I suggest discussing it somewhere more suited to a more general topic. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic and off-topic, not everyone can participate; I couldn't, due to my <100 contributions. Lurking means you're not a full wiki member. - THARKUN 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is an insult that is not game related worse than one that is game related? Why is calling Izzy a "failure who should quit his job" not an insult? Finally, when I read your comments, you never seem to allow people to have different opinions: it is either "your way" or the "noob way". That in itself can be seen as an insult. Nicky Silverstar 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Readem, I want it known that I agree with you on many of your points (80%-ish?), but that doesn't mean you can go about bitching however you feel. Yes, Izzy is literally failing at his job, as Gaile has done in the past, and you do have lots of evidence to go with your statements, and you've been provoked in the past, and the admins have banned you wrongly for various things, yadda yadda yadda, but that doesn't mean you can be a huge dick about it, which is the problem at heart. On PvX, you were banned for disruption, even if you weren't told that to your face (and your IPs didn't help your case). Gcardinal took that to the extreme end of the spectrum and tried to convince Auron, DE, and myself that you should be permanently banned for abusing your sysop powers, period, end of subject. (Believe me, I remember that conversation; my biggest grudge against you is that you got me pulled into that, which started around 10 and kept me up until 2 in the morning when my girlfriend was staying the night, but I guess I can forgive you :p) As for my airplane and cleave warrior, I'll pass by the obvious of "lolstrawman" and say that you guys were the ones that wanted me on vent, you played the build too, and you know I don't play Guild Wars anymore. -- Armond Warblade 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I got along quite well with GC :/. Our biggest problem, was communication. Once that was resolved, we were fine for the most part. DE has always been a cool guy to discuss various topics, even non-wiki related. I do not believe we have ever been in an argument. Auron and I share many common beliefs. All-in-all, he is a pretty neat guy (who also doesn't fail at GW). Although we may bicker, it is more an epeen inflation contest (I really don't give a shit who is right/wrong). Finally, we didn't care for the most part about the vent/cleave warrior (though your vent sounding like a giant airplane was pretty lol). As a whole, that build failed, and was just something they asked me to do.

How I may have been thought to abuse my administrative privileges:

• I banned quite a few users. Why? I was on Wiki for 5-6+ hours a day.
• Vote removal? Somebody had to do that shit. At least now with the BM's, no questions are asked.
• Deletion? Oh, sorry, I cleared it several times a week.

Other then that, I am not sure what I abused ;p. I didn't really handle policy, nor did I do any coding. What else is there?

--Readem 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't mention any of that. I could care less what your relations were like with the rest of the admins, and I don't think you abused your admin powers (that was gcard). I just think you were a dick about how you did what you did. :/ -- Armond Warblade 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked

I've reblocked Readem -- when ArbComm needs him, feel free to revert. —Tanaric 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SAVE THE READEM!

call 1-800-sav-read.. give today... 24.141.45.72 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah, that's my cell, feel free to call and give me moneys. -- Armond Warblade 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or...

It hasn't been a week yet since you've declined, and already he's causing trouble again. User_talk:222.127.198.144
You say you see no reason to get involved. Yet despite the fact that there are other people flaming on Izzy's talk page, it is Readem who usually starts the flame wars. A sysop may be able to handle this? They don't. It took them 2 weeks to post this request after Readem pretty much trashed Izzy's entire page. I may be no angel myself, but the only times I've ever flamed were in response to Readem.
The people get a leader they deserve. I can honestly say that you deserve him. Don't worry about me though, you won't see me returning to this website. Yes, I know nobody cares. I don't care that nobody cares. Nicky Silverstar 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, explain to me how Readem trashed Izzy's page, or how he's causing trouble on that link? -- Armond Warblade 08:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "Wow. You are a fucking scrub. --Readem 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)" This is OK to say? Nicky Silverstar 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is something that needs immediate administrative attention, put it on the noticeboard. Help us to help you. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw he was blocked for three months. Finally a sysop/admin who is willing to adress a problem. There might be hope for this wiki yet. Nicky Silverstar 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

None of us have time to trawl through every page in the izzy section or every edit Readem makes, I understand your frustration but we are only human. so if you spot him being so blatant such as the example you posted up there, please put it on the admin noticeboard and it will get dealt with much more swiftly. --Lemming 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Nicky, please don't make promises you can't keep.

Secondly, I am sure that any sysop on the wiki would agree that calling someone a "fucking scrub" is a breach of NPA and dish out a ban. I see he has been banned now, but in future if someone says something that you think is a violation of NPA then post it on the admin noticeboard. It is not the job of the arbitration committee to deal with offences that are already clearly covered by policy.

Thirdly, I feel I should expand on my reasons for declining a little more explicitly. I said that I didn't think this required special intervention. I was originally going to qualify that by saying that Readem is perfectly capable of getting himself banned without help from the arbitration committee. I decided not to post that since I feared it was too inflammatory, but by that I meant that I believed this issue was covered by existing policy. LordBiro 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My apologies for offending you, but I was getting really fed up with Readem posting who knows what, and people agreeing with him. I'm glad you guys have better manners than him. I'll just stay out of your way then, and won't disturb you again. Nicky Silverstar 08:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Readem wins. You sir, probably don't.

Face it, he may be a dick at times, but Readem is usually right. Be a fag, he'll return the favor. If people weren't being smug faggots all the time, there wouldn't be any need for Readem to flame, or anyone for that matter, and NPA wouldn't even need to exist. 61.69.196.118 09:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

when facing someone you found stupid, it's not a proof of wisdom to act in the same way. what i mean is that what you said don't prove readem is right, far from it. even "If people [are] smug faggots all the time", it don't gives any need or right to "flame". if you call winning, being and acting more stupidly than your opponen,t indeed, you probably both won. lussh 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)