Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2009-10 bureaucrat election/Salome

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2009-10 bureaucrat election/Salome

seconded.- Zesbeer 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll vote for him. He let me steal his character bar code :P-- anguard 15:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

On a more serious note, why Salome? NuVII 15:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cause we can't vote for pling or aberrant. ~Shard 02:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

^ -- Halogod35 02:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL I think Shard just gave me a campaign slogan. ;) -- Salome 15:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

:/

To mirror vili's vote, I'm not comfortable with this user serving as a bureaucrat. As a sysop, Salome has neglected doing simple things like bothering to understand situations before jumping in and making decisions on them. Further, the user did not wait until he had contacted the original blocker to see if there was something he had missed - and in that most recent case, there was. Behavior like that is not tolerable in a bureaucrat seat, and I'm reaffirming my oppose vote and urging any supporters to reconsider their vote. -Auron 07:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

low blow is low, dude just because you don't like me for whatever reason, doesn't matter but it wasn't that big of a deal nor was it disrespectful of him to do it. it says in the ban that you can contact any other admin. and so that's what i did. your ban came with out warning and really wasn't warranted if you would have noticed or warned me i didn't know about the agf policy until wyn pointed it out which was after i made my first posting on that guys page, and if you would have warned me i would have stopped. who really cares i mean really you guys are being ridicules about this hole thing if you dis like me then dislike me don't penalize salome because one person says so. i am sure you already ate him out for what he did but i would also like to point out that he said he was sorry for it. and this bs that you guys are playing into is a huge turn off for the wiki, be less about politics and make this less of a popularity contest.- Zesbeer 08:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Auron didn't say "He unblocked Zesbeer, he sucks". He's talking about the principle of what he did: unblocking someone before talking about it. But now from what I've seen B-crat elections became less of a popularity contest, and more Policy, which is what Auron is referring to in his post. Titani Ertan 09:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it's called preventive bans, it must be so hard to understand that. You deserved the ban, to cool yourself down. Secondly, it is part of SOP to contact the banning admin in question before reversing the ban. If you can't contact, at least leave an email. It's only logical to not make someone incapable of following policies a bureaucrat, or any position of "authority" so please fanboi more. Thanks. P.S. No offence, but it's really painful to try and read the huge wall of claptrap you typed. Please do something about it. Pika Fan 09:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

because banning someone is going to make them "cool down" ya right that's the biggest joke i have ever seen and no u be more of a fanboi, also i don't care enough if you want to edit it and brake it up be my guest. also my record shows me blowing up after "insulting" one person no i know where the line is and when to cross it. @titani ertan he didnt have to say it he implyed it.- Zesbeer 09:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with what Zesbeer did, contacting another admin regarding his ban, there was something wrong with the way Salome handled the situation. It is a matter of administrative etiquette. It sets a bad precedent for how he might act as a Bureaucrat, and I agree that a Bcrat who doesn't communicate with the rest of the administrative team would be a bad thing. I've been on Salome's end of this issue once in the past, though more indirectly, and I would never do it again. -- Wyn talk 09:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Banning someone to prevent him from editing for a while and showing him what his posts lead to is normal procedure; it's common sense. And I didn't see Auron "implying it" anywhere; he just wrote what Salome did wrong, so I don't see where. Also, what Wyn said. Titani Ertan 09:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You DO know that sysops commonly give bans to people so that they can cool down? It's not just Auron, pretty much EVERY sysop does that, including your dearest Salome. You crossed the line, you got banned so that you can take a break and reflect, the very fact that you haven't fully cooled down only supports the fact that lifting the preventive ban was a wrong thing to do. Please continue to shoot yourself and the person you are trying to defend in the foot. Pika Fan 09:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

dude im doing just fine right now your preserving drama and rage that isn't there. and yes i know that. and no i didnt cross the line. go look at the edits and what i said was true. also i barley know salome he is just the person who responded. everyone makes mistakes, even wyn and im sure he wouldn't do it again. one mistake shouldn't be the nail in the last nail in the coffin. i am sure others have made worse mistakes. - Zesbeer 09:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

According to your posts here, you aren't doing fine. And let me ask you a question: The other people that you mentioned, were they admins and running for bureaucrat? Titani Ertan 09:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you were the one in the wrong, you weren't happy with the proper judgement issued to you in the form of the ban, you were banned for causing drama, and being an asshat about it and anyone in the right mind can see that. You are the only one who thinks that you didn't cross the line and that should be a painfully obvious indicator whether you did or not cross the line. Pika Fan 09:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

@titani ertan i asked all the other admins who were active and not wyn ( i dont like her and im sure she dosnt like me as a result) wrong answer i thought you were asking about something else. to answer that question people in my guild and people who dont frequent the wiki and people who dont even play. @pika fan dont care what you think. and i have asked other people out side of wiki and they agree with me. being an asshat = getting banned ill be sure to go edit the ban policy page. also drama is all presived this is the internet and it is text hence unless i tell you you cant tell how i am acting or feeling. and i am sure Salome hates me by now. - Zesbeer 09:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You asked them what? As I am sure that no matter under what circumstance, unbanning someone before discussing it with the other admins isn't acceptable and shows lack of communication with the admins. Don't even try to change it to "but I'm..." because what you did to deserve the ban isn't what this topic is on. Salome did a mistake, and it's a mistake that made me and at least 2 other people to reconsider their vote. Kapish? Titani Ertan 09:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Titani, Salome actually did attempt to discuss with other admins but did not contact the sysop who made the ban before interfering with it. Jennalee 09:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Did they reach a conclusion that they should make the unblock? Titani Ertan 10:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion was that it was a bad idea to interfere without first having contacted Auron. Jennalee 10:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Did they reach a conclusion that they should make the ban? no should the have to discuss a one day ban? no. yep that was the conclusion. and he appropriately made a note of his action on the sysop discretion log like he was suppose to and did. - Zesbeer 10:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Zesbeer, each sysop has the discretionary power to issue a ban for any reason they see fit. There is no part of etiquette that says it has to be discussed. Sometimes it is, but usually it isn't. Over turning another sysop's ban should never be done without discussion. Salome's entry in the log occurred after every other admin told him it was necessary AFTER he had chosen to reverse your block without talking to Auron. It does not excuse or make his actions appropriate. -- Wyn talk 10:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another person with an inadequate understanding of english. Now, Zesbeer, if you can't understand that 1) Sysops can and will exercise discretion when choosing to ban you for being an asshat or not and 2) Admins reversing a ban by another admin goes against all protocol, please, don't post on an english wiki. You are just annoying everyone by not understanding anything at all. English is such a difficult language to grasp oh dear....Pika Fan 12:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to what everyone above is discussing, I will explain myself. I was contacted by Zesbeer to have a look at his ban, which is every user's right to do so. I did this by looking through all of zes's contribs over the past week. Before making a decision I did try and contact Auron, (i did this via jumping on and off IRC but as we are in different time zones it makes it somewhat difficult to catch each other in a live manner.) I read Auron's reasoning in that he wanted Zes to calm down and take some time to remove himself from the situation and in doing so I felt 14 hours would have been much akin to 24 in this instance and it was highly probable the ban would have ran out before I was able to catch Auron, thus why I acted when I did. As I felt a goodwill gesture to a user who is generally a positive force on this wiki would not go amiss and the remaining 10 hours ban did not aid the stability of the wiki in anyway, but could instead serve to alienate this user from the wiki. I SHOULD have contacted Auron out of simple sysop etiquette and I should have emailed him, my failure to do so was rude on my behalf and I apologise to Auron for it, further to this I apologised in the sysop discretion log at the time. Under sysop policy we are not constrained from looking at another sysops block, infact a fresh set of eyes is often encouraged. We as individuals are fallible, as I seem to demonstrate time and time again, however as a team we compliment each other's weaknesses and thus i admit that it was wrong of me to step on another sysops toes in this manner.

So I encourage people to evaluate my abilities as an admin based on my actions and make an informed choice, this is what we should all be doing with all the standing BC's and each of us have our strengths and weaknesses. In too many cases, elections turn into a popularity contest. I have many faults, In my case sometimes my natural desire to reach a common ground with the interests of all effected parties gets me into trouble, like it did in this case (a desire to balance the goodwill of one of our users against that of what Auron was trying to achieve), I also do make mistakes. Also just to clarify as people seem to be bandying "policy" and "protocol" about, which auron doesn't mention, I did not break any wiki policy, instead I failed at showing common courtesy, which again I apologise for.

I would however like to say this as well, sysops are entrusted with extra responsibilities due to the community having faith in them, ultimately however it is the community we serve and the COMMUNITY we answer to (not simply the other sysops) and thus in the interests of balance, I would also ask people to consider is it more preferable to have a BC who decides punitive action should be the first recourse without informing the individual (in minor issues such as zesbeer's) that their actions are unacceptable on this wiki and at least attempting to resolve an issue via discourse. We are not hear to punish users, that is not our role, we are here to ensure that the wiki keeps trundling on, bans are put in place to protect the stability of the wiki from users who would cause undue drama or damage if let continue, and truly they should be used as a last recourse after other avenues have been exhausted, not because a sysop feels that they can simply block the person and sort it that way. So it comes down to you as a community to make your voices heard and make your feelings felt, we are here to reflect your needs and your concerns, not override them and disregard them. Indeed you should look at my actions yesterday and let them affect your vote, (as I would in this instance too and if I have damaged the faith you have placed in me, then I am truly and sincerely sorry) but at the same time one should look at Auron's actions and ask yourself are you comfortable with a BC who does not naturally mediate as a first recourse and when he does, is woefully unprepared to compromise or even see that his own actions could be wrong. I accept that what I did was rude and wrong, but if the tables we're reversed my first question would not have been "how could you not consult me in modifying my ban?", instead it would have been "Was I wrong in placing the ban?" and my first message would have been "On what reasoning did you modify my ban?", Rather than simple "Don't do it again", As my first priority is always a consideration of if I am being fair, above that of if someone else has second guessed my actions.

If you vote for me you will get a BC who works tirelessly for this community as a whole, who believes that the powers granted to him by the community are just that, a temporary trust from the community which one should hold dear and use sparingly, and you will get a man who will make mistakes from time to time, but who is also man enough to publicly admit he was wrong and stand before you as a community and instead of avoid the issue or glibly dismiss it due to misplaced self belief in the infallibility of his own opinion, Will stand here instead and say "I fucked up and I'm sorry".

So you decide, what do you want from a BC? -- Salome 12:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In addendum, I would like to add to Zes, I know in some way you feel responsible for this, please dont. I made the choice on my own, you didn't force my arm. I reviewed your case and I made a choice and in doing so I neglected to hear Auron's side of the story. I am culpable in this and I accept that, thus please you do not have to defend me, on the whole the comments above from many of the users have been valid and deserved. -- Salome 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice taking of the moral high ground by using your screw up as a platform to discredit Auron. Misery 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I like it how you carefully skip around the problem by raising red herrings about the way Auron issued the ban. Auron may or may not have not exercised AGF and mediated before banning as you say, but it in still within his right to ban someone breaking policy. You can bring this up on his talkpage and question his reasoning, but please don't use "Oh Auron did something wrong too, that gives me the right to slap on his face". That is childish behaviour and most people will agree with that. The way you handled this situation just tells me you aren't ready to handle decision making on a higher level as a bcrat. Game Over. Try again next time. Pika Fan 12:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have already said, I admit I was wrong and that I screwed up. I have neither avoided that issue or tried to subvert people from it. I accept it whole heartedly. You can be cynical and see this as an attempt to put down another candidate but every debate and every issue has two sides, this is mine and is directly pertinent to the issue raised. I have not tried to invalidate Auron's view, as who knows maybe he's right and maybe I'm not ready to be a BC, only time and opportunity will tell. If a full acceptance of culpability and an apology for that action to Auron and the community at large is not enough, then I'm not really sure what more you want from me. -- Salome 12:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) While I (for one) appreciate your honesty about this subject, it's not this case only that swayed my choice. After what Auron said I decided to take closer looks, and decided that your way doesn't appeal to me as much. If there was a neutral vote here, I would have gladly put my vote there, and explaining why. But as it stands, I'm leaning a little more toward oppose.

If the criteria of choosing a B-crat would be how much guts, wits and sinceriy he or she has, elections would look a lot different (or so I believe). There are other things that a B-crat needs, and I think that you qualify as an Admin right now. And throwing it on Auron, even partially, isn't going to help you.

So, good luck on this elections, and if you do get chosen, good luck as bureaucrat. Titani Ertan 12:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your sob story really brough a tear to my eye. ...but at the same time one should look at Auron's actions and ask yourself are you comfortable with a BC who does not naturally mediate as a first recourse and when he does, is woefully unprepared to compromise or even see that his own actions could be wrong... Great way to go about accepting full culpability. Pika Fan 12:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no need to throw a parting shot at Auron, especially considering Defiant Elements currently has a sizable lead. I think you know though that this hasn't changed my position on whether or not I would support/oppose you. I just thought it was low class. Misery 14:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To pika,I have not broken ANY policy (please go check). Also Zes infringed upon AGF, which as I'm sure you know is a "Guideline" and as such is not binding upon a wiki editor to follow. If you wish to take this to a policy debate, I'm fully prepared to do so.

Misery I never expected to change anyone's mind, certainly not yours. However it was not a "parting shot", for the first time in a long time a runner wanted to make this election about what really defines a BC, instead of just letting it be who's the more popular and I respect Auron immensely for that. He said I should not be a BC with lapses in good etiquette such as the one displayed yesterday, and hell I think he could have a point as a BC, even if on the surface evidence, believes something is unfair he should wait to get both sides of the story and I didn't do that, I made a judgement without taking into account Auron's view, which as I've said so many times before, was wrong of me. At this moment in time maybe I wouldn't make a good BC and that was a fair comment for Auron to make as it addressed my actions and admin style, rather than if i was just in the "in crowd". Indeed to all those who changed there votes on my page, I have only the deepest respect, as they judged me on my actions and not pointless side considerations. In my response I engaged Auron in kind, not trying to mitigate my own action but to put them into perspective and relation to the issues that Auron himself wanted to discuss, which is an admin's fundamental style and actions and if they are appropriate to being a BC. I never have felt he fit the role well due to the reasons I cited above and I have voiced those concerns before and I stand by those concerns.

Please do not misunderstand me, and again I know this will probably result in me being strung up, I am truly sorry for not consulting Auron first as it was rude of me and bad wiki practice, I am also sorry for not gaining a consensus before making my decision on this, however that is all I am sorry for.

Mis, I know you and I have never seen eye to eye on things, but I hope if anything my wiki history proves that I do not do things because they are popular or will get me friends, I do them because I truly believe it is the fair and just thing to do for this community as a whole. For example in spite of my differences with Auron during the discussion on his recon, I was one of the MAIN people arguing his corner and that earned me no friends either and it would have been so much easier to stick the boot in, but it was WRONG what was happening to him. Lets all just be blunt for a minute, Auron, Defiant, Wyn, Pling, Poke, Myself and all the others here aren't bad people. We do this job because we care and want to make a difference and at the end of the day it is this common purpose which unites us, we all take different approaches and we all think different things are apt but none of us are attempting a coup or to subvert the powers of other sysops . My actions in regards to Zes were not out of malice to Auron but out of the simple fact that one of our community asked me for help and I felt that necessitated my time and effort to look into it, which is something I would do for any user of this wiki, however ultimately the short period of time remaining meant I went about it in a half arsed way and as we all know hindsight is 20/20. Regards -- Salome 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my thing. If someone's banned, don't unban, just because you don't see a 'problem'. There's always reasons and I saw a few of them, the Npa for one (Claiming they weren't real), the Agf for another (Insults, etc). There were at least three policies or so that the person had ... for other words, done against I'd say. Also know this person likes to cause drama and press people's buttons. At the same time though, just because they 'beg' to be unbanned, doesn't for one show that they've learned their lesson and dealt with their punishment, though Auron should have told why on the ban in the first place. Apologizing right after the ban? Shows nothing but hollowness and still lack of respect. I know you thought you tried to do the right thing. I've been there via other places, etc. Though I learned and also have done what Auron did, but I explained my bans (irc Oper, websites I owned, etc.). I think though that this has hurt you for bureaucrat, but hopefully is one of the many learning experiences. -- riyen ♥ 16:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Only thing I want to clarify is that I don't just mean the discussion on this talk page hasn't swayed me, the entire event hasn't swayed me or changed my opinion of anyone involved. Not the ban, not the ban reversal or the following drama. Misery 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Um... "bans are put in place to protect the stability of the wiki from users who would cause undue drama or damage if let continue", "they should be used as a last recourse after other avenues have been exhausted". I wonder why those don't fit this. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition to being a sock, it was created as a reference to a user who was perma'd for trolling. Do you seriously not understand why he and other sysops reacted the way they did? :/ – Emmett 19:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Read above. They made no sense in their function as being sysops. They did not try to discuss, they did not try other ways of solving it. The only drama they saw in that account (and again; an account that is used as an replacement is not a sock). was caused by themselves. No, I do not understand what the pulled of there — it was purely unacceptable behaviour. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 19:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The "other avenues" were used. They consisted of warning you to stop using the account. What else did you want? -- FreedomBound 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Warning to stop" is in no way different from threatening to ban. In fact, they didn't give a reasoning and had no right to apply a ban. A warning to stop is just the step before something else - it doesn't try, it mere warns. if that's considered a different avenue it might as well be deleted to demand undertaking other options first. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see you make a Wikipedia account named Jimbo Goes Pedophile and see if they don't ask you to stop using the account, else you be banned. ··· Danny Pew Pew 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that there's a difference between crimes that make a criminal stop being a criminal after being punished and those which do not? Murder is one of the latter, being a troll or an idiot is one of the former. 91.0.244.245 19:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

...um. "users who cause undue drama." What else could a sockpuppet referencing SI be?.... :/ – Emmett 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Read above; they caused the drama they assumed themselves. And it wasn't a sock puppet by definition. 91.0.244.245 19:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. It may not have been igor's sock, but it was a sock nonetheless. --RIDDLE 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Igor wasnt banned for trolling, he was banned for being an idiot--adrin 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1 – Emmett 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

first of i didn't beg i just asked if he would remove the ban like i asked all the other admins except wyn and Auron, Also i know English, i am dyslexic and it was late. also asking if someone is real isnt against the npa. i did not mean for it to be insulting. - Zesbeer 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Questioning one's existence is insulting. And it was not only that. 91.0.244.245 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just my 2cp, but i think Auron is just making a storm out of a glass of water here. If Salome didn't "understand all what originated the sanction" was his own fault for not pointing out the reasons for doing so in the Block summary, instead of just saying "blocked for asshattery, come back later", which from my point of view points to a "cooldown" block more than a "sanction" block.

Admins have changed sanctions from other admins, lots of times. An attempt to contact the admin in question was made for what i read, but it's still a discretionary action that i don't consider questionable given that the purpose of the first ban was apparently meet.

What i do consider questionable is Auron using the wiki to discredit another admin for contradicting him, instead of discussing the matter through private means like it has happened in the past already when stuff like this happened.--Fighterdoken 22:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

dude, it was a 24 hour ban. Vili 点 22:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"(disruption: asshattery; take a break, come back tomorrow with less insults)"<-Auron.--Fighterdoken 22:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A cool off point. The ban wasn't met, just redone by Salome(aka removed 10 hours of it). As pointed above, the person admits to insults, etc. which to me does offend other members and I don't think we'd want to be offended by things like 'Are you a real person', etc. Demeaning things that really... doesn't belong on a wiki. Also, Auron didn't make a storm out of a glass of water. As this person has insulted others, etc., even downing a sysop, which I don't think is right. Just because you don't like what they do, doesn't mean you can be 'mean' or 'insult', etc. -- riyen ♥ 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

*rolls eyes* first off a sysop is not a higher user they just have tools to help the community. secondly i am right here you don't have to be rude and refer to me in the third person. and i have said that i don't feel i was being insulting, yes i know that i can be a dick but its all in good fun and i know were the line is. and i have the right to not like someone including you. your clearly trying to stir shit up because your just repeating what you already said. i haven't broken the NPA.- Zesbeer 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Zesbeer, take a chill pill, please. I didn't say they were a higher user, it's just in how in using more tools. So, you don't like me, same, but I'm not gonna hold a personal grudge, nor treat you or even your friends with disrespect.-- riyen ♥ 23:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Everyone has had a chance to have their say. The incident is over; give it a rest. Auron (and a number of other people, including several administrators) have expressed their feelings about Salome's actions and Salome has acknowledged his error. At this point, all any of you are doing is bickering and repeating yourselves in an unproductive fashion--heck, the discussion isn't even about Salome anymore. If you've got something new to say, then by all means, say it, but don't be overzealous. Everybody needs to take a step back before this escalates any further. — Defiant Elements +talk 23:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Yet another person with an inadequate understanding of english. Now, Zesbeer, ... please, don't post on an english wiki."

Pika, you seem to be missing something.

1. There is no non-english wiki for Guild Wars. And by extension, therefore no non-English place to hold bureaucrat elections for the GWW.
2. Zesbeer (and anyone) is allowed to voice their opinion about the voting of a bureaucrat on the discussion page regarding that individual. It doesn't matter if English is that person's primary language or not.

It is attitudes like this that are the reason that so many people post hate-filled comments, even if they aren't always directed at someone specific.

I personally have no opinion either way if Salome is elected to the position, but bullshit attitudes like Pika's need to be nipped in the bud.

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 22:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't be 'understood' or understand English or actually read 'thoroughly' of things (I'm taking time out to read, etc.) or even understand what's on that page. Really, shouldn't post things that'd make you absolutely look bad.

Many want accuracy, I think, in when you do post on actual pages that effect/affect the things in game like Nicholas the Traveler, where Many go to read and get information, etc. on what they need. It has to be understood well, not really particularly to one's liking. You have to think more so of what people would need and would be helpful to the community, instead of wants. Wants is like beggars in a candy store. Give them too many, they might bite your hand. Whereas if you give them what they'll need. They'll be okay.

No one can really 'tune' or 'fix' attitude problems that we have here.

We just do what we can and wait for them to stick their own feet in the 'glue trap'. (Grr, got logged out) -- riyen ♥ 23:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, dipshit. I hope you know that Pika Fan, himself, is a native of Singapore, but he happens to have a better grasp of English than most American-born teenage jackasses I've ever met. Before you get all /careface about someone who doesn't speak English natively, do some research or at least think things through. ··· Danny Pew Pew 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Also i know English, i am dyslexic and it was late."

Hey wanker, I suffer from w:Tourette's Syndrome.

FUCK YOU.

On a more serious note and trollin' aside, the "he doesn't know english" argument made me laugh. Who cares, really? NuVII 18:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)