User talk:Tanaric

For general GuildWiki concerns, please request assistance. I'm notified of any edits to this page via email, so I will be with you as soon as possible if you need assistance. If your concern is private, you may email me at &lt;cory@tanatopia.net&gt; – other methods of contacting me are on my user page. Also, if you choose to email me, you need to include your GuildWiki username or your IP address. I can't unban you if I don't know who you are!

Old conversations and dead threads can be found on /Archives. If you want to dredge something up, bring the whole thread back here.

Recent archiving
I archived most of this page today. The half that was relavent to me went to /Archives. The half that wasn't went to Request assistance/Archive. &mdash;Tanaric 12:08, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Rewrite
"GameWikis Community Relations Manager" - hehe, I love you Tanaric! Although I would have thought "votes" would have been somewhere in the list of things you hate ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:31, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Fixed&mdash;thanks for pointing that out. :) &mdash;Tanaric 17:43, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Just read the re-write, don't know that I ever read the original/previous version, so this may be old but, I love the fact that you have a .plan. :)  Now if I could just figure out how to work the finger command on the wiki.  :P  --Rainith 21:27, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm not saying the bad word again...
...but could you do a little IP checkup on User:Zeni, User:PinkTaco, User:BoneDragon, User:42 Ele Esme and User:NMX112? They've been acting strange over at Talk:W/any Utility Warrior if you know what I mean... ~ Nilles (chat) 20:58, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * If one of us had shell access, we could install and use CheckUser. We'd have to decide on a privacy policy regarding IP addresses first, probably.  --Fyren 21:31, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, I was made aware of this in-game. Most are "one-hit wonders", save one. The 2 hour timeframe in which all these contribs were made also leans in the direction of curiousity. Adding to what Fyren stated, only server admins have access to registered user's IPs. There are some ethicical issues involved in registered users cases (Big brother is watching you). I know we do all it when it comes to anons, but I see it as they forfeit any rights to privacy since they are not registered, and the majority are not subject to question, so it usually doesn't matter. This case, however, does seem a bit unorthodox. &mdash; Gares 22:46, 8 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I usually wouldn't say or imply anything like I just did. It's just that in our current situation we've got quite a number of votes for the first edits. I just want to make sure that these votes came from seperate persons, his guildies for example. ~ Nilles (chat) 03:15, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think it's relevant if they're all different people or not. Having a bunch of one-shot guildmembers come in to approve your build isn't any better or worse than making a bunch of accounts yourself. I'd consider all five as a single vote. &mdash;Tanaric 06:17, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I should be more precise. I'm not stating that you should consider them as a single vote, but only that I would. I'm not getting involved in another builds voting argument, as it always tends to make me look like an antiwiki dictator. I neither command nor suggest any course of action. As Fyren said, I am unable to look up the IPs, per your request. &mdash;Tanaric 06:32, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * But what should we do then? Should I revoke the votes by claiming socketpuppetry? I really don't want to start a dispute about the rightfulness of the votes in question, that wouldn't benefit the voting process of the build. ~ Nilles (chat) 08:54, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * On a related note, this sort of manipulation seems to be getting more and more prevalent in the builds section. I think we need a formalised policy for checking IPs and destroying malicious puppets while at the same time preserving the privacy of the wiki's users. I'm no admin but I feel this would be a good step forward, and since the build-voting discussion is on I think we should sort this out now as free-for-all puppet voting renders any sort of voting discussion moot. Kessel 09:56, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * IP scanning is not gonna solve anything. Google for "anonymous surfing" or "public proxy" and you've got plenty of proxy IPs at your disposal. ~ Nilles (chat) 10:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Well, for a start, do we block the IPs listed under Wikipedia's proxy list? Kessel 10:39, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Currently, we don't. (Nilles) 66.98.168.78 10:52, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * it replaced all the apostrophes :/ word does that to html i think &mdash; Skuld 10:59, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Replacing the apostrophes is a mistake of the software of the proxy page. It's meant to prevent the text from screwing up the page's code, a kind of hacking countermeasure if you want. ~ Nilles (chat) 11:05, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

I think an admin is needed here: Talk:Mo/any Bond-Powerhealer. He asked his guildies to "test" his build, and they were more than happy to help. --Vazze 12:05, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

-

After a second look to both pages, I rescind my advice to discount the one-shot account votes. Because the negative votes in Talk:Mo/any Bond-Powerhealer are generally unsubstantiated, and because the positive votegivers repeatedly give acceptable examples as to why the build is good, with no response from the negative people, I'd imagine this build actually does belong in testing.

I fought against GuildWiki builds, and was shot down. I fought against voting being the only requisite for build favoring, and was again shot down. It was obvious to me what a vote-heavy policy would eventually lead to, and judging from these two pages, I was right. I won't argue that the process isn't working for the rest of the builds&mdash;I'm not good enough at Guild Wars to judge for myself.

Other editors/admins are welcome to step in, but I, for one, will not. I'm tired of the constant irrational arguments from a selection of those supporting builds on the wiki in its current form. You made the mess, you clean it up. If no solution bubbles up via discussion, I'll eventually step in and enforce my own policy, regardless of the support of the community. Half of the builds people will ragequit, and work on a GuildWiki fork / reconstitution (like Stabber's doing on Wikia).

Please don't let it get to that point. Some random build suggestions for the Builds community to consider:


 * Consider requiring all votes to be substantiated by in-game testing under the situation the build is meant to cover.
 * Because the above requirement is impossible to verify or enforce, consider electing a committee of trusted editors who are known to always test builds before giving their opinion.
 * Consider striking out all votes that are not substantiated/discussed when arguments come up on the talk page. In terms of Talk:Mo/any Bond-Powerhealer, this would result in an overwhelming majority for favored.
 * Consider a policy on sock/meatpuppets. You currently don't have one. I'm not writing one, as I don't see the enforcibility, and, to be blunt, in this case, meatpuppets might be the only thing that allow Mo/any Bond-Powerhealer to end up in the proper category.
 * Consider forking builds to a seperate website that's better suited for subjective material. I don't understand why guilds on the wiki is taboo but builds on the wiki is essential.
 * Consider an immediate deletion policy for crappy builds, to keep the cruft down.

I've made most of these suggestions before. I never want to discuss builds again.

&mdash;Tanaric 15:59, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Besides in rare cases, I'm still pretending all the build articles don't exist. --Fyren 17:14, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh, some other admins have dreamt of murdering me for introducing builds before (thought I am to tired to dig up the link right now). Pretending they don't exist is non-radical in comparison ;-) --Xeeron 17:47, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Regarding the suggestions: Apart from the sockpuppet one, they have all been discussed. In game testing is recommended, Template:Abandoned is in line with the last one, the other three did not really get much support.

Sockpuppetry should be dealt with on a wiki wide basis (not just builds), but I remember that there was a very pronounced lack of enthusiasm *especially* from all admins when the issue was brought up after/during the stabber incident (check GuildWiki talk:Sock puppetry). I dont see how any decision about sockpuppetry could be made without comments by almost the entire base of old users. support from most of the old userbase. --Xeeron 17:47, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I've stepped in from time to time to add comments on the builds discussion; but for the most part, I avoid the issue and just monitor builds for obvious issues. My primary comments from some time ago still stand - voting on a wiki is problematic at best.  There is no automated means available at this time to deal with all of the proxy / TOR connections (even Wikipedia appears to use a manual, or at best semi-automated process), and I don't see a practical way to manage them on a wiki this size without automation.  Even if proxies and TOR nodes are resolved, we mere mortals have no access to view the IPs behind the user accounts.  As long as these issues remain unresolved, there will be no means of having a reliable voting process open to all users.  As a result, I see no means to maintain builds in a wiki without imposing very un-wiki-like rules onto the process.
 * I've suggested in the past that the wiki should out-source all builds except the commonly used FOTM build articles into some secondary non-wiki based software; be it forum software, pre-packaged website design software, or a semi-custom package. I seriously doubt this will be done within the Gamewikis domain, but I feel that a partnership could be developed between here and whatever other site/software is used.  Given the difficulties in implementing a build/voting policy here, I'm more and more frequently thinking that solution would be the best unless those involved can find another solution soon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:48, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I guess hardly anyone can be more frustrated with the lack of a builds policy than I am, but still, I stand by what I said in my recent post on the community portal: The benefits of the builds section outweight the drawbacks. If you take a look at the number of wiki links used on a typical build page, any outsourcing would be hugely inefficient. --Xeeron 17:57, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I disagree. Any inefficiencies would exist in the other site, and could easilly be dealt with via a macro or other encoding to simply links to the wiki (much as links to wikipedia are simplified by using  target article name , so would the other package link into the wiki with a GW: prefix to simplify the links).  As for benefits - it's only a benefit to the wiki if a working process can be developed, and after seeing the many failed attempts I have serious doubts on that being possible within a wiki structure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:06, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I disagree with your disagreement ;-)
 * The benefit you are thinking about is the benefit to the editors of the wiki, but checking the page views, the wiki build's benefit to the users can not be doubted. And in the end, this wiki should be for the users. For the inefficiencies: There might be some way to practically make a one-way inclusion of the wiki, but I dont see the difference to the state now (plus having 2 sites instead of one), except that editors here would not have to "dirty their hands" with builds. --Xeeron 18:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I disagree with your disagreement to my disagreement (and I'm developing a headache).
 * I am solely talking about benefits to the user from outsourcing, although an admin benefit would certainly also exist. The builds section does get a lot of traffic, but the quality, variety, and originality of the builds in it are greatly restricted due to the lack of policy.  Far more new builds get submitted than what our existing practices can process - resulting in the user either needing to ignore the tested builds, or needing to wade through a lot of muck to get to the builds they want.  Due to the problems with voting in a wiki environment and the un-wiki-like solutions that will need to be implemented here to force a build solution to work, I honestly believe that a builds section can be more easilly maintained in a non-wiki based solution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:32, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I am in favor of outsourcing the builds section. I don't claim we could make builds of any higher quality, but with computer-aided voting utilities and proper mangement tools, we could manage far more builds than we do now. Especially in regard to what a build in question is meant to accomplish. Of course, it would have drawbacks of its own, but maybe we could start designing the build wiki and see how far we get. If we manage to find a design we can agree on, developing it isn't such a big step any more. ~ Nilles (chat) 18:19, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I'll say this again... Empower a few admins/users with the ability to single-handedly move builds. Otherwise this spaghetti will keep getting more and more tangled up.
 * I am very grateful to Xeeron for developing the Profession tag at the beginning of build articles... It allows me to skip them faster in recent changes. :)
 * Seriously though, I don't think the build section is evil, however, I think it needs more, not less, management and that management should not be management of the PEOPLE in the build process, but of the articles themselves. --Karlos 21:48, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I didn't intend to say that my suggestions had never been considered. I was just making my points clear before I could shut up about it. To clarify, though, when I said builds should be moved off the GuildWiki, I did not intend to imply that they should be moved to another wiki. &mdash;Tanaric 23:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)