GuildWiki:Admin noticeboard/Resolved3

The Admin noticeboard is intended as a way to alert administrators of issues which need their attention.

This page is intended to assist in policy enforcement, and to provide a centralized location for protection, unprotection and undeletion requests.

To create a new request, add a new subheading and provide a neutral, concise, and signed summary of the issue. It is suggested that any other users involved in an issue should be informed of its discussion here. New sections go on the bottom.

Resolved issues are archived here.

Formatting issue
For some reason, part of my profile page's formatting just stopped working (fairly recently). I use  for a few external links, and that still works fine. But I used to have the links colored as well, and for some reason now, they disappear instead of changing color. Here's the coding I'm using:
 * GWW Profile

Example:
 * GWW Profile

If you're seeing a small bit of white space under "Example", then it's not working on your end either. Now this did work like, a month ago; it still works perfectly on GuildWarsWiki and PvXWiki to boot. But for some strange reason, it doesn't work here, for me. I think it might still work in other browsers (I use Firefox), and possibly still works for other users. Is there anything different in Wikia's setup that could be possibly causing this to "malfunction" like this? -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> .cнаt^  09:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Formatting inside teh text of external links are being stripped as part of the javascript protection. The false-positives were caused by the need for a much belated response for the evolving attack methods being seen on GuildWiki, and I have not spent the time to see how I can make the net more specific without opening a hole for attacks to renew. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I see. One thing that's confusing me is, the formatting inside external links does still work, for other websites... wiki.guldwars.com doesn't work, www.pvxwiki.com does work, my personal site doesn't work, deviantART does work... is the coding particularly picky about what it does or doesn't shut down? I would think, if you're stripping formatting for external links, shouldn't that go for all external links? --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> .cнаt^  01:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The script checks if there are any sub-elements inside the external link, then check if those elements have any attributes. If so, the entire link gets removed (and if the sub-elements don't have attributes, they are considered harmless).  Does that sound about right?  If not, please paste all the links with their formatting in a bullet list so I can easily compare across them. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 06:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see... I only half understood that, so I'll post examples instead. They're almost all different in some way, but a few of them just seem like they would both be the same...
 * - GuildWarsWiki
 * - PvXWiki
 * - VynaioccWiki
 * - deviantART
 * I would assume PvX gets through because it's a fairly normal address, but I would have thought deviantART wouldn't then, by that logic...
 * ...on this subject, there wouldn't happen to be a list of inter-wiki prefixes, would there? (talking about pvx:User:Jioruji Derako, wikipedia:User:Jioruji Derako, etc.) --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> .cнаt^  07:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only prefixes I know about are pvx: for pvx, wikipedia: for wikipedia articles and w: for wikia central articles RT 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, now THAT is weird. Let me check if it is actually the javascript I wrote that did that... -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Test a:
 * - GuildWarsWiki
 * - PvXWiki
 * - VynaioccWiki
 * - deviantART
 * Test b:
 * - GuildWarsWiki
 * - PvXWiki
 * - VynaioccWiki
 * - deviantART
 * Test c:
 * - deviantART
 * - VynaioccWiki
 * - PvXWiki
 * - GuildWarsWiki
 * Ok, that's definitely a bug in my javscript )-: It's not specifically discriminating any address though, as Test c shows, it's just alternatingly skipping. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 16:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

possible copyvios
See here, here, here, here, and here. Long story short: I suspect all but the first two on Lost-Blue's page are copyvios. But since I don't know really what I'm doing, I thought I'd mention it here. --Shadowcrest 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

advance notice
Notice for admins and others who may be interested

In a week or so I am going to do some desysoptions of long-gone people such as User:Adam.skinner, User:William Blackstaff, etc. There is just no reason to keep them either on GW:ADMIN or the system-generated list; it is outdated/obsolete information and is slightly misleading as to the number of actual sysops we have here. Besides, if for whatever strange reason someone came back, it is simple process to give back their adminship. I don't think this is a very controversial subject, unless I am much mistaken.

On the other hand, I want to know what the public opinion is on keeping people such as User:Karlos, User:Skuld, User:Fyren, etc. on the list as well. Although these folks are also pretty much gone for good, the length of time is not nearly as much as the very old ones listed above. I also want to know if it would bother people if I removed bureaucrat status from User:Gravewit, User:LordBiro, and User:Nunix.

Don't worry - this isn't me prodding the current "inactive" or "semiactive" sysops to log more hours. :) I just want to do a little housecleaning and give a more real picture. Anyone who has contributed even remotely recently, for example User:Gem, is perfectly safe. The provision in GW:ADMIN that "administrators are appointed for life" explicitly states that under no circumstances, even inactivity, will sysoption be removed. However, when you really look at the realities, the times have changed. The idea behind that provision was to ensure more legitimacy and less worrying about "reelections". But I think we almost all can agree by this point that we have a pretty good idea of what a sysop can and can't do, we seem to agree on RfA's about the various good and bad things that need to be taken into account, and we never take away an adminship except for resignations (1) or incredible circumstances (1).

In short: this is not about forcing you to log on more! This amendment only concerns those users who we can 99.9% say are never returning. (T/C) 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. Just put some Historical Monument of Dinosaur Guild Wiki Admins somewhere, respect for the dead and such. May be a burial ceremony too. lol but you get the point, right?[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]reanor 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Administrators are appointed for life. No amount of inactivity can result in an administrator losing his position." RT  | Talk</B>  16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * She brought that up in her comment... --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I agree with that <font color="Blue">RT </B>| <font color="Black">Talk</B>  16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that the ones still active in the Guild Wars community should have their sysop/bcrat flags be kept, even if we feel there's little chance of them returning. I am fine with amending away the "sysops are appointed for life", but I feel if any old sysops have their flags taken away from them, we should proactively leave them a talkpage message letting them know they can have it back anytime they want, just let us know (so that effectively, the old ones can still have sysop status for life if they choose to). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the idea that Sysop status is earned for life, but that doesn't mean thay have to be Sysops for life. Perhaps keep inactive Sysops on the admin list (they're already listed as inactive there), but remove them from the user group. If a inactive Sysop comes back and feels the need for Sysop tools, it's simple enough to make a few clicks and pop them back up to their original glory.
 * If someone's totally inactive, there's no need for Sysop powers. And someone going through the system-generated list in hopes of finding an Admin will just get confused at which one's actually active. Consider the Sysop powers being "turned off"; they're still there, they're just not "on" yet. And like mentioned before, it's really easy for someone to say "hey, I'm still using that" and have their powers back. So long as it's completely clear that a previous Sysop can always get their status back, then it doesn't matter what we do with them now. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with prying sysop status from the cold dead hands of those long-forgotten users, none of whom I've ever talked to or care about. I also see no problem with removing bureaucrat status from Gravewit or Nunix, although I feel LordBiro's should be retained, since he can actually be contacted in case of a dire emergency. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 09:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no issues arising with this, especially if the users are notified they can retain their sysops powers if they send entropy a message. LordBiro can retain his bureaucrat status, though I believe Wikia can appoint a bureaucrat if Entropy suddenly dies :P  --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with everything else, but let Biro stay as bureaucrat. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually asked Gravewit to pass on my request to be desysopped everywhere after the Wikia move was done, but it never actually happened. Another request was to change the editing lock message on NeverWiki, not that it turns out to have mattered at all. Also, debot Fyrenbot. --Fyren 09:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Due to a timely discovery, I can not perform these actions for who knows how long. I need to talk to Wikia to get back some of my bureaucrat powers. >.> Aside from that, I appreciate everyone's imput and think it's all agreeable. And thank you Fyren for posting from the grave. :) (T/C) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am astonished that you would consider breaking policy (GW:ADMIN) outright without first changing policy. The policy states very good reasons why admins should not be demoted, and I don't see any of those addressed here. If the list is too cluttered (I believe the inactive admins section is good enough, though), present policy allows you to contact the admins in question and to ask them to step down. Don't fix it if it ain't broken, and "a little housecleaning" doesn't count as broken in my view. mendel 09:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the implementation details allows the process to actually adhere to a particular interpretation of the policy. We aren't asking them to step down, we don't even want them to step down, and we will not hesitate to give them back the actual powers if they show up.  They are still considered inactive Administrators of this wiki, with their actual powers temporarily disabled until they show up again. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 09:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposal is to strip the admins of their powers and remove them from the admin lists. How this can be seen as them not "losing their position" is beyond me. The policy is crystal clear on this, there is no clause that says "it's ok if you only do it temporarily". I can see that Guildwiki consensus might be that it should be done that way now, but then the proper way is to change the policy first, then do the (temporary) demotions - although it could be done in one step. If I was cynically inclined, I'd insert a scathing comment about 'mericans having been conditioned to doubletalk like this by their current administration. mendel 10:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposal is to remove their sysop flag and remove them from the list of sysops, while keeping them on the inactive administrator list. The difference is between "being an administrator" and "having the sysop flag".  Too many people equate the term "administrator" and "sysop" on the wiki, and I am equally guilty of mixing up the terminologies.  Those people would still be administrators of the wiki even when they lack the "sysop" flag.  In fact, without the "Administrators are appointed for life" clause, there would be no reason really to give them back the sysop flag if they ever return, and currently I am inclined to defend giving them that flag back if they do return.  Basically, you are defining "Administrator" as "user accounts with sysop flag", and I would like to point out that while being a common usage, is not a strict/technical definition.  And while I probably have comparable distaste as yours for the current American administration, delving into such technicalities has been a disease widespread among people interested in policies even before the professions of lawyers and politicians officially came about. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact that GW:ADMIN and GW:SYSOP point to the same page certainly helps the confusion. ;-) That page states that "Administrators can ban users at will" and "Administrators can protect or delete pages at will". Is that still possible without the sysop flag? mendel 10:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's say we go through with the above consensus, and remove sysop flag from User:Adam.skinner (and proactively leave a note for him). Now lets say Adam comes back, and wants to ban somebody.  The process he'd have to go through is:
 * Leave a note on the admin noticeboard (and with a Bcrat) saying "Hey I'm back, give me back my sysop flag"
 * A Bcrat notices the message, and gives Adam the flag back.
 * Adam goes to the user's page he wants to block
 * Adam clicks on the "Block this user" link
 * Adam enters block details, and hit the block button.
 * If we don't remove the sysop flag from him, he gets to skip steps 1 and 2. So this boils down to a definition of "at will".  The main difference is the amount of delay between wanting to do an action, and when it gets done.  The current provisions in the above consensus is that Adam WILL get his sysop flag back as long as he shows up and gives the Bcrat a note.  If Wikia or the Internet decides to be really slow, that affects the delay in steps 3~5.  When the Bcrat(s) are on the wiki affects the delay in step 2.  I personally feel we can still say Adam gets to ban ppl "at will". -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On a completely separate note: Entropy has NOT taken action to remove the sysop flag from those people. If we go by your interpretation, then the above old discussion serves as a discussion on whether to amend the policy.  As it stands, Entropy can't demote anyways, so the whole issue is currently moot until Wikia gives her the powers.  "Considering doing things different from the current policy, and discussing it with the community before doing so", is IMHO a very good definition of "discussing to change the policy".  Therefore the opening sentence in your first post of this thread is kind of weird...  Your sentence essentially makes any discussion to change the policy an astonishing act, and seem to advocate "change the policy first without discussion" (I believe you don't actually advocate it, but that is how your sentence portrays itself). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My opening sentence makes any discussion to act against policy without considering to change the policy an astonishing act - and none of the contributors (whom I collectively addressed as "you") has suggested that the policy should be changed. To me, that speaks volumes about what the community thinks of its policies. mendel 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Why am I not getting edit conflict notices any more? mendel 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * *shrugs* "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." If an act against the current policy reaches wide acceptance, then somebody just needs to edit the article documenting the policy.  I believe the vast majority of the policy articles are in fact not protected.  Any discussion to act against policy isn't really different from a discussion to change the policy, unless you explicitly stated that "I think we should do this while keeping the policy that".  If anyone says "I think we should use Title Case for article names", that is most definitely a discussion to change the GW:ULC policy, as opposed to trying to break it. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 11:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To summarize, there are two different issues at stake here:
 * 1) Whether admins with 99.9% probability of never returning should have their sysop flag removed - current consensus is yes, but if they ever do return they should get their sysop flag back.
 * 2) Whether the current policy needs to be amended if the consensus is yes - this discussion has not been happening because it's currently moot.  I am of the opinion that removal of sysop flag does not necessarily conflict with the "Administrators are appointed for life" clause.  If you feel really strongly about it, the policy can easily be amended into something that probably has more awkward wording (if we want to still give those ppl back their sysop flags if they ever return, a right I currently am inclined to defend). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: "No amount of inactivity can result in an administrator losing his position" changes to "An administrator loses sysop powers after a year of inactivity; the Bureaucrat will restore those powers if the administrator wants them back." Not too awkward, I hope. mendel 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose keeping a clock on admin activity and remove them after "1 year" has ticked". )-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 11:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Pan. We shouldn't have a specific clock for them. If they're entirely inactive (from Guild Wars, forums, IRC, wikis, etc) they can be removed after awhile. It's really up to the bcrat to decide what "inactive" is, but I think Entropy's got a pretty good idea so far. And of course, any administrator that returns need just request his powers and they'll be given. - Auron 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And just to make sure, even though Entropy had said "[I] think it's all agreeable", I just want to reiterate/reemphasizes that ppl who are still active in the Guild Wars circles (just not on GuildWiki specifically) should still have their sysop flags kept. In particular, anyone who left GuildWiki but is active on GWW shouldn't lose their sysop flag.  I advocate for only removing the sysop flag from ppl who has completely vanished from the Guild Wars player circles. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I still agree with changing the wording, Mendel, I just don't agree with an exact timetable. - Auron 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My idea is that the policy gives a rough guide as to roughly how long the period is; from Entropy's suggestion above, half a year is not enough, and one and a half years is (I looked up the contribution lists of the admins concerned). Would you be ok with "at least a year"? That way there is still plenty of discretion for the Bcrat, but it'd be clear that you won't lose sysop because you're not playing GW in the summer months. mendel 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No timetable. The bureaucrat would use discretion, so being inactive for 3 months while you're on a vacation isn't going to get you demoted. If she's hesitant on removing even semi-recent sysops like Karlos, then a 3-monther will have no fear of losing the position.
 * Not that it matters entirely much, because they can just ask for it when they return from vacation, if they somehow get demoted for only 3 months of inactivity. - Auron 12:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PanSola has been arguing above that policies don't actually "govern" Guildwiki, but that they're rather an expression of community consensus (if I read him right). They describe (rather than proscribe) how the community works. That the Bcrat demotes sysops after a period of no less than one year of inactivity is current practice, just read it above. Hence, the information is accurate, on topic in the policy, and useful (to some extent). Why should it be left out?  It's clear from this very discussion that the Bcrat isn't going to be "governed" by policy anyhow. I'm going to reword the Policies article one of these days... mendel 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mendel, you might find this and this relevant. The policies aren't so much laws as they are documentation of how things work, and they're not always perfect or up-to-date. Also, Entropy does have a good bit of leeway when it comes to policy, but if she makes a change that everyone else really doesn't like, it would still be reverted. But I do agree that something should be added to the admin policy about this. Possibly something like "Inactive administrators may, at the discretion of the bureacrats, have their sysop flags removed to clear up the list of administrators. If these administrators return, they may at any time leave a request for the bureacrats requesting that the flag be restored."  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 03:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why action cannot be taken first, and then policy changed afterwards accordingly. How is that "astonishing"? And it hardly says anything about what the community thinks of its policies. We take them seriously and uphold them...but we do not follow due process and the letter of the law as religiously as GWW does. There really is no reason to do so if it impedes process or is not important.

Thus far, nothing has changed anyways since I am not in a position yet to wield such powers (should be fixed soonish?). So I am not sure what the problem is. As Pan explained, discussion like that which has taken place here effectively changes policies, even if the page itself is not properly updated at the same time. Policies are only snapshots in time; the current interpretations of them is almost invariably slightly different. This is due to two things: 1) The fact that very few users have the guts to edit Policy pages; and 2) it really is not seen as a big deal, to have totally up-to-date policies. It becomes a problem if the current interpretation is sufficiently different as to cause discord; but that is not the case here. Personally I never thought about it, but PanSola explains it very well, that technically this is not a policy violation anyways. Besides, GW:ADMIN is more of an explanatory page about how things work. It is not a "policy" per se, in that it cannot be "enforced" or "broken" - it really does not contain any specific guidelines or rules which can be cited for infraction. At least, to date, I have yet to see anyone use it like that. In any case you are free to edit it and any other policy pages as you see fit. I was always planning to change GW:ADMIN after I had finished up the task here, anyways.

As to including a concrete timetable - "That the Bcrat demotes sysops after a period of no less than one year of inactivity is current practice, just read it above." - um...where did you interpret this? I can not find such a comment. When you suggested 1 year, every user disagreed. I see no point why a specific time ought to exist, and I believe you are reading too much into some comments. I picked the sysops based more or less on "probability of returning to Wiki", not by last contribution or time absent. This is because it had to be done with discretion - unless you actually knew all of the sysops (except the very oldest, who were already inactive when I joined long ago) personally as I did, then you have no way to determine who may actually come back. I like Wizardboy's wording and feel that would appropriately address the issue.

Were there any other concerns? (T/C) 06:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understood the role of policies better now. Policy should probably be extended with a short paragraph about this and some of the links that Wizardboy suggested here and User:Defiant Elements has in his Reference section on his user page. It is astonishing that policies work that way on the wiki because governance by law has been working the other way around for more than 2000 years; and it is astonishing that you should choose to ignore a policy (no matter what technicalities can be cited) until I realized that you putting the matter up here means precisely that you're not ignoring it. I still think the policy should be changed ASAP.
 * I really want to make GW:ADMIN as specific as possible, and I looked at the inactivity times of the sysops you mentioned (I wrote above that I'd done that) and that suggested the year for me (i.e. in effect you're doing it that way, whether you consciously chose to do it that way or not). The reason to include this on GW:ADMIN is that it conveys a sense of the timescale involved. Right now you have "forever", and that's pretty clear, but if you strike that, it becomes unclear that an Admin is a very permanent position - well, not to everyone participating in this discussion, but policies bring new editors up to speed, so it may help avoid arguments in the future. As does updating policies ASAP.
 * Wizardboy's wording is an acceptable compromise, though I'd still like to have the year in it somewhere. Oh well. No, no other concerns. Thank you. mendel 09:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikis run extremely contrary to ordinary real-life systems of governance; it is a recurring topic of controversy. GuildWiki is pretty lenient and flexible. If I had tried to pull something like this on one of the more strict-interpretation wikis like GWW, people would be all over it and it is very likely that many more users would share your (initial) concerns. But, hey, we've been running like this for ever and it works pretty well. 2000 years of real-life law have brought us no closer to equality, because it is a perverted and corrupt system full of bureaucratic shit, etc. - on paper it is much more clear and definite, to the point of obfuscation, but in practice...? Meh.
 * I understand your concern about the policy implying that admins are not quite so permanent. I think PanSola's differentiation between "Administrator" and "Sysop" is the best way to explain it...once someone has passed muster with an RfA, they are always entitled to the sysop powers. But whether they will necessarily have them depends on when they need them. An active, semiactive, or even somewhat inactive admin does. An admin who is 99.9% never returning does not. So the policy should specify that "Administrators are appointed for life", but "Sysop powers are granted when they can be used" or such.
 * By the way, you are actually quite in the minority of new editors who orient themself by reading up on policy. Even a lot of the verteran users have never looked at all the policy pages. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In terms of timescale, according to what i am advocating, as long as somebody is still active on GWW, GWO, Guru, or any other GuildWars communities, they can be inactive from GuildWiki for 5 years for all I care, they'd still keep the sysop flag. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I agree wholeheartedly, PanSola. :) Although I'd need the knowledge of editors on those communities to tell me that kind of information, naturally. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
Wikia are aware of the image redirection problem, I've been on IRC and a global bug report has been filed. <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So when will this be fixed? Cause my shiny new userpage wont work if images don't redirect.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

http://guildwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:The_Hero_Of_Darknes&action=history
Seems like a user that has been here for a while, but recently has started making a gwiki account for each one of his characters. See history list for some, and prolly checkuser him too. Someone deal with it. &mdash; Nova   &mdash;  (contribs) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * GuildWiki does not have an explicit anti-Sockpuppet policy. If any of the accounts is doing bad things, we'll deal with that particular account accordingly.  If anybody is using sockpuppets to pretend to be good on one hand, and do bad things on the other hand, my inclination is to just ban the bad hand and exploit the good hand for the improvement of the wiki.  As a user, you are encouraged to bring up your specific concerns of his using multiple accounts with him, or bring to attention here additional problems due to him having multiple accounts. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only problem I have with him is the RC spam actually. Doesn't really matter that he has several accounts, as long as he's not trolling there shouldn't be repercussions. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Monster pages
I was looking through some of the monsters I noticed that a lot of them have a '__NTOC__' thingie at the front, preventing a contents from being shown. Is there a reason for this because I've been removing them but since so many have them, I'm unsure if they're actually meant to be there or not. - <font color="darkBlue">b.r // <font color="Black">talk  10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The vast multitude of responses is overwhelming me, take your time people - <font color="darkBlue">b.r // <font color="Black">talk  14:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to not have the TOC unless its throwing off the page alignment. Sometimes it makes the page look weird, and sometimes it just takes up unnecessary space. Because its automatically put on a page that has a certain number of sections, its sometimes put on a page that doesn't really need. I suspect its on several monster pages because when people create new pages, they C&P the heading of old ones, some of which had it for some legitimate reason. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So I know what I'll be doing after I've fixed up the boss pages. Joy - <font color="darkBlue">b.r // <font color="Black">talk  10:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No "Unresolved" heading...
... on this page, like it says in the introduction up there. mendel 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point - I think nobody could be bothered, or perhaps resolved gets archived, I forget <font color="Orange">Random Time 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Resolved issues are archived, yes, so anything still on this page would be unresolved. I don't see a need for even mentioning that header.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I consider this issue resolved. --mendel 01:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting pages at user request

 * Scenario 1: A user requests to have his/her Userpage deleted. Admin deletes page, leaving very many broken links from that user's signature.
 * Scenario 2: User's account has been moved to GW-User, User requests admin to delete page, admin sees empty "whatlinkshere" and deletes page. Redirect from old user page breaks, and can't be deleted because that'll cause many broken links from the signatures.
 * Suggested Solution: do not honor user requests to delete pages from the wiki. Tell the user to blank the page instead, suggest writing "This page has been deleted by me." on the blank page, and if necessary use oversight (Bcrat? or can an admin do it?) to remove offending versions of the page.
 * What to do with User:Helena and User:GW-Helena (Deletion Log)? I removed the redirect and placed a message and a link to the deletion log. Whoever says that you shouldn't edit other poeple's user pages, please make a better suggestion. mendel 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Broken redirects from a user's signature aren't an issue anyway. If a user has never created a user page, their sig still leaves a red link. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 00:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer to honor the user's requests, since a redlink does not hurt anyone really - if the user wants to be deleted, then they aren't coming back, so you don't need to contact them. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue, since redlinks to the User: namespace don't show up on Special:Wantedpages. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's ok then. That's how you know I haven't gotten around to look at WantedPages yet. ;-) (I am still surprised that Template:Build archive has been deleted 4 times. That's (wiki) life, I guess. Is there a Special:Most_deleted_pages or some such? ;) mendel 07:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be Under discussion. --Macros 01:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've edited your link so it doesn't get on WantedPages. Astounding, but it looks like spam, unlike that template (I presume). --mendel 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)