User talk:Gravewit

Login Bug
Please see Software & Technical Issues/Bugs as this is preventing registered users from logging in. --Rainith 15:06, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * PanSola here, I haven't been able to log in due to the above bug. Please look into it when you have a chance, thanks! -67.172.181.206 20:28, 22 March 2006 (CST)


 * This bug is still preventing me from logging in, so I'm bumping it again. At least some sort of response like "I took a look at the problem, and it looks like we will never ever be able to fix it" would let me know you have at least looked into the issue.  Thanks. -24.7.179.183 03:38, 6 April 2006 (CDT) = PanSola


 * I really don't get this, not sure how to fix it. If I can't figure it out tonight, I'll have to call in the calvary. Gravewit 03:51, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I suspect one of your nonstandard skins, most likely "monobook-google", defines the class SkinMonoBook instead of, say, SkinMonoBookGoogle, which causes MonoBook.php to barf. Should be a simple enough fix: just rename the class in the -google skin. F G 04:14, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

Links to Amazon pre-order
Just curious, any particular reason why links are being inserted to Amazon.com's pre-order, and none of the other sites offering it? Just wondering if there's a sponsorship issue, or if that was just the only one you had on hand. FYI: I did pre-order from amazon.com. Annoyingly, they show on the order status "Delivery estimate: May 4, 2006 - May 6, 2006", which pretty much makes the benefit have having access 24-hours early pretty useless. --Barek 04:06, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I have removed that link from the article because it's un-wiki-like to advertise for anything in the articles themselves. If you wish to place an ad in the wiki side bar or even on the main page, that's your decision, but to change the articles so that they advertise for a specific vendor is not right. --Karlos 07:08, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I see that the only response we have gotten to our inquiries is a link to "Buy Factions" in our side bar that links to Amazon. Is it safe to assume that you are making money off of this and because you do not want to be held fiscally responsible to us you have just decided to ingore any questions on the matter?
 * I checked the Oblivion Wiki and you did the same thing there. I hope you understand that no one is going to ask you for a cut from whatever money you are making. Fiscal Responsibility means transparency. Also, true leadership means you discuss issues, not just ignore questions you do not like. The same position that gives you the power to post that link on our sidebar, lays upon you the responsibility to answer our questions. --Karlos 02:00, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

Fiscal Accountability
Please respond to GuildWiki talk:Site support when you get a chance. --Karlos 07:40, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Unused users
I went through the user list one day and realized that it contains many user names which are and always have been unused. There are also users which are used for nothing else but spamming or advertising: "I offer this service, please contact me in-game". If it is possible to remove users, we could do a major cleanup. I am volunteering to go through the thousands of users. Any users with no contributions and those with only advertisement/spam/vandalism contributions would be marked for removal. A template similiar to the ban template should be created so that those users could just be tagged with it and then removed by someone who is able to do it. (After checking that the tag is correctly placed, all necessary links in the template) 16:01, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Template:Unworthy :p &mdash; Skuld  16:44, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
 *  : P I'll make a template suggestion soon No, I am not bored. Really... Name will be Template:Removable user if no one comes up with a better name while I eat lunch. 16:56, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Template:Inactive user maybe, or Template:Never active &mdash; Skuld  17:03, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Strongly disagreed. Space on the GuildWiki is conceptually infinite, and there is no benefit in this. Further, it is entirely possible that "unused" usernames are people who log in and use the Preferences page to change skins, adjust timestamps, etc. &mdash;Tanaric 17:20, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Infinite? Maby. Free of costs? No. Doesn't removing even little things help? For a user who only uses the account to change skins it isn't a big thing to re-create the account after the wiki-wide purge. Almost everyone willing to create an account is also willing to contribute to the wiki and has done so by fixing smal typos etc. The biggest point in this is to clear the list of users which is a bloat with over 3500 users. I like to use it to look for nice user pages etc, but its a pain at the moment. Atleast the most obvious spam/vandal users should be removed. Also some user names are unused as the user made a typo in the name when creating it and created the correctly typed user name. 18:04, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Deleting users in MediaWiki is not a clean process. It requires brainjacking into the database and twiddling tables manually, if I recall correctly. We have a phrase for this in MIT: "too much overhead". Definitely not worth it for the quiet ones. F G 18:06, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
 * If this is done in massed amounts I suppose it wouldn't be more troublesome. Aren't all the users located in the same tables, so that you could somehow do the removal process for them all at the same time? I don't know about the mediawiki system, but I doubt that it has been made too hard. Ofcourse if no one who is able to do this is willing to do the removal process we have no choice but to forget the whole thing. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 18:14, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, I suppose some of that can be automated, but manually scraping the database is a pretty risky proposition. Remember, this is MySQL-- not the most reliable database engine. You'd have to lock down the wiki for the duration of this change just to be safe. (Yay FUD!) More importantly, the marginal benefit of a deleted user is one fewer entry in the "user" table and a possibly less cluttered Special:Listusers list. I am not convinced that the benefit is worth the cost. But, if it must be done, an explanation of the process. F G 18:40, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Also note this admonition from the MediaWiki FAQ:
 * Do not remove users from the user table in the mySQL database; this causes problems with other parts of the wiki due to the relational structure of the database.
 * Fun! F G 18:46, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Doesn't seem too complicated, but yes, it would mean wiki downtime and some more work, so its up to Grave I suppose. I'll wait for his reply before doing anything. Maby this could be made at the same time with an update to new version of mediawiki. 1.6 is out now and it includes a few handy anti-spam things.
 * And what happens if we don't remove the users from the mysql database? Will they still be removed from the user list? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 18:51, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * To be honest, I don't see why it's a problem to keep them in the list. Gravewit 04:32, 7 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, lets forget it then. I suppose I can live with the huge list. And nice work on the new version. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 07:40, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

MediaWiki Version
Please see Software & Technical Issues/Bugs &mdash; Skuld  23:45, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

Please also see Software & Technical Issues/Bugs and Software & Technical Issues/Bugs. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Contact
Yo, I tried e-mailing you when the servers were down and was told tat phil dot nelson at gmail dot com does not exist. Is this a temprary failure or should I switch to something else if I need to get in touch? Gracias. --Karlos 07:09, 9 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Should work fine. That is my address. I'm almost always aware when mySQL goes down, I just am not always in front of a computer. I have the server set to check every 30 mins, and S.M.S my cell phone if things go down. Gravewit 07:18, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

Blank pages if not logged in
People not logged in receive a blank page if trying to view normal articles or their discussion pages. Special pages and user pages work fine, so you can still log in and when logged in everything works fine. See User_talk:Rainith. --Gem 02:30, 6 May 2006 (CDT)

I logged out and tried it. I get a server cache error message when accessing the main page. Everything works fine when logged in. --Karlos 05:15, 6 May 2006 (CDT)


 * User pages don't work when logged out although I said they work. My user page redirects to User:Gem/User_Page and the redirect works normally. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 05:37, 6 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I had enabled using gzip, which for some reason caused this problem. It's disabled now, so should work for everyone again. Gravewit 09:28, 6 May 2006 (CDT)

Wikipedia Article
FYI: It appears that the article on Wikipedia about GameWikis that is currently linked from our Main Page is a candidate for deletion. They've attached a banner to it, and appear to be flagging it as not a notable website as yet, so they deem it not yet worthy of listing on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 10:27, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * It seems to be completely gone now. -- James Sumners 12:47, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

Unbotting request
Hi Gravewit, can you unbot "Stabbot" please? I've just completed the task for which I had initially requested bot status, and I don't forsee ever needing bot status again. Thanks. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 11:25, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Bumping this. User:Stabber has been engaging in destabilising activities (revert wars, sockpuppetry) on the wiki. This user is no longer trustworthy enough to have a botflagged account. Please remove this flag and/or block User:Stabbot before he/she creates a real headache. 70.17.169.122 09:08, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I completely disagree with the above characterization of Stabber's actions. Revert war was lack of maturity.  Sockpuppetry, if she actually did it (I do not know, nor care, if it is true), had no destablizing effect on the wiki nor is there any policy against it.  She didn't even throw a real tandrum this time, just silently step away, which is quite an improvement over previous conflicts.  If anything, I create more headaches than Stabber has on this wiki.  And if anything, I'm more dangerous with my Admin powers than Stabber is with the stabbot flag status.  Bot activities are completely visible on watchlist, so any sabatouge (which I trust Stabber enough to not perform in the first place) can only get through unwatched pages.  Um, I'm not saying Stabber should keep the bot, I'm just trying to say it's not a big deal either way. - 09:16, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Lots of database errors lately
I have been receiving database errors a lot today. Sometimes refreshing helps, sometimes even multiple refreshes don't. I am able to access any page by clicking on the edit link (although this might sometimes cause an error too), but it is a bit frustrating,

Database error A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "MediaWikiBagOStuff::_doquery". MySQL returned error "1030: Got error 127 from storage engine (localhost)".

I hope something can and will be done soon. -- 12:49, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I've been seeing these as well lately. Doing an "&action=purge" seems to fix this whenever it comes up. --161.88.255.140 13:07, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Still happening. Simply refreshing (more than once if needed) fixes it for me. --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 07:45, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

Amazon link
Unlike most people here it seems, I'm actually for the amazon link to buy Factions in the nav bar (just about the least freakin' intrusive sort of advertisement). In fact I think you ought to stick a link in there to buy the regular version of GW too. True most people visiting here probably already have it (most probably have Factions now too anyway), but I was talking to a guy in game today who just had Factions, so it might get a few hits and bring in a tiny bit of change. Just my $0.02. --Rainith 21:48, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

Not a bad idea. Gravewit 09:13, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

Adbrite
Yuck >_<". Way too intrusive. -PanSola, Table of The Lyssa Advocacy Front (sing) 09:40, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

Why do we need them?? People want to donate but can't.. you need to keep us better informed about whats going on =( Skuld  09:46, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * All I can say is: whiskey tango foxtrot??? --Tetris L [[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L block]] 10:29, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Have these already been turned off? I'm not seeing them ... --161.88.255.140 11:08, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Okay, now I'm seeing them. I must say, anything that breaks the fundamental concepts of hypertext links comes accross as underhanded and deceptive.  If I see something displaying as a hypertext link, it should behave as one.  Not be a means of sneaking an ad in my face.  Any site using these will likely suffer from a lowerred reputation. --161.88.255.140 11:47, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
 * On a slightly related note I'm glad guildwiki cares about my ringer tone and wants me to 'pimp' it. [[Image:Chuiu Me Icon.png]] (T/C) 11:57, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
 * IntelliTXT is the worst thing to hit the web since Flash. -- James Sumners 12:45, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
 * ARG! Even that website is annoying. It resized my browser and made me lose 20 minutes of work clicking on the wrong [X]. [[Image:Chuiu Me Icon.png]] (T/C) 13:02, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
 * It loaded a blank page for me. Not sure if Adblock, Spybot SD, Firefox, or a combination thereof saved me.  Oh yeah I ad-blocked adbrite.  Google ad on the side is something I can live with (though I missed the old days when they were just plain text instead of rich text).  Adbrite is just way too annoying.  Firefox actually kept complainging about a javascript taking too long to run and keep asking me if I want to stop it or continue before I ad-blocked adbrite.  -PanSola, Table of The Lyssa Advocacy Front (sing) 13:14, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Gotta join in and voice my disgust with this change. Too intrusive. The content of the articles never should be mucked up by advertisements. --Draygo Korvan 14:03, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

Let me just chime in here: I don't currently see the AdWords (or IntelliTXT or whateever it is called), and it is obvious that either you or Nunix is currently messing with the advertisements on the site (as the side bar has just changed, again). But let me make this perfectly clear: I don't like the ads on the left. I hate the ads at the bottom of the page (I did not speak out against them, however, because I had to weigh the negatives against the positives). But I completely, utterly detest AdWords and similar advertisement-pushing tactics. If you need bandwidth, if you need mirrors, if you need donations: Say so. But please rethink this strategy, and scale back rather than add on more adverts. If AdWords become a part of GuildWiki, I am gone. And I am sure I'm not the only contributor who feels this way. Please don't force my hand on this. --Bishop (rap|con) 15:22, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

Another point to note: I am pretty sure nc-sa disallows this form of commercial usage. Not being the author of most of these articles, I am fairly certain you cannot yourself go around the nc-sa. 70.17.174.74 15:36, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The text of by-nc-sa reads:

You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
 * A lawyer for CC said (from here):

The relevant factor to consider is whether the entity making use of the work has profit as its primary motive.
 * The goal of the wiki isn't to make Gravewit money. That being said, he's the one that gets to show us the donation tally/site costs, which haven't been updated in forever.  I'm not implying he's cheating us, but I think the numbers need to be known.  --68.142.14.151 16:10, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * (someone posted before me on this, but I'm insisting on getting past the posting conflicts and getting this in) Looking at the full text of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, I don't see anything specifically barring this as there is no requirement to view the ads, and they do not prevent the viewing of the content and the content is still freely available. From what I can see, the license would view these no differently than site banner ads.
 * That said, I pretty much agree with Bishop. The side ads I can live with, I understand the need.  The ads at the bottom I could tollerate, although their placement within the article block was misleading and did need to be moved.  But the use of Adbrite which shows artificial hyperlinks is absolutely intollerable. I will not say yet that I will leave the Wiki, but I will seriously consider it if the adbrite ads remain if there is no user option to disable them. --161.88.255.140 16:19, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I was talking specifically about the ads that change the text of articles, not the ones to the side and bottom, which I don't have serious objections to. The claim that I can "choose not to view" the ads that change the text is disingenuous, as it requires me to write user CSS or use Adblock to prevent them from being shown to me. Yes, I consider the greenified double underlink to be part of the advertisement. 70.17.174.74 16:44, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Technically, the text is not modified, although the font color is changed and a double underline is added. The content is still the same.  As for viewing it, the ads only show if your mouse points at one of these faked links; so it's not a requirement of viewing the page.  I do agree that on some pages these links are so frequent that it's extremely difficult to do anything on the page without triggering one, but they are technically still optionally viewable.
 * Don't get me wrong, I still hate the little intrusive things; but I don't see the licence as being an issue in this. --161.88.255.140 16:53, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Further clarification of my point: I consider changing the text of the article from what the author(s) reasonably intended (and I consider wiki to HTML translation part of the authors' intention) to one where certain parts are now linked to advertisements to be a violation of the "nc" part of by-nc-sa. For ads to the side and bottom, a reasonable claim can be made that they are not part of the article itself but merely part of the presentation. This is not the case with these text-mogrifying advertisements. Another point: the by-nc-sa notes that modifications to the work should themselves be licensed under an identical license. Are the advertisements themselves covered by by-nc-sa? 70.17.174.74 17:03, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I disagree, the text remains. Regardless of if it's a link or not does not change the intended meaning of the authors work.  Regardless, the link above to the lawyer's opinion is relevant:
 * Just to clarify a topic that has been the subject of some discussion on this list over recent days - the intended meaning of non-commercial as drafted in the CC-NC licenses is any use in a for-profit environment. The drafting of the license was intended to avoid any distinctions based on whether money changed hands or a profit was actually made. The relevant factor to consider is whether the entity making use of the work has profit as its primary motive.
 * I do not see profit as a primary motive. For both that reason and my comment on the authors meaning not being changed, I do not see these ads as a licence issue.
 * On a side note, it pains me to defend these ads, as I trully hate them; I just see the licence question as not being relevant here. --161.88.255.140 17:18, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * What about my new point that the advertisements may not be licensed under an identical license? On reflection, that is a much stronger license-related objection than the nc aspect, on which you might be correct. 70.17.174.74 17:22, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * That goes back to my comment that the authors original meaning is not changed by the insertion of a link. If the ad links changed that meaning, or in any way prevented or was a requirement of viewing the author's work, then I would agree.  As it stands, I don't see the licence applying to these ads anymore than they apply to banner ads on the site. --161.88.255.140 17:25, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I suppose this is an irreconcilable difference on opinion then. In my view, if an author intends for there to be a link, then he uses one of the several available linking facilities in the Wiki code. There is an implicit understanding that there will be no links except where they have been explicitly inserted. In any case, authors' intention does not enter into the fact of modifications of the article having to be distributable under an identical license. 70.17.174.74 17:33, 17 May 2006 (CDT)

on [userpage]/monobook.css (User:Skuld/monobook.css) if this becomes used.. Skuld  15:41, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Or simply do a google search for "NoAd hosts" and install that host file. I see none of these so called advertisements. --Rainith 15:59, 17 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I refuse to install any workarounds, even if there are any available. That would solve the problem for me, but not for GuildWiki. I want these green links (and even more so the mouse-over pop-up windows) GONE from this wiki! I see that ads are required to pay for the server hosting, and I wouldn't even mind if Gravewit makes a few dollars with this site (which I doubt), but ... please ... not this way. I wouldn't mind a few more ads or banners in the side bar or in the header/footer. But ads in the middle of the text are plain disgusting. >:[ --Tetris L [[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L block]] 02:20, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

I can't see them anywhere. Where are they? -- 02:30, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Gaaah! Now there is an advertisement in my advertisement on my user page! I need to reword it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 04:08, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

It seems that opera protected me from this utter crap, but when I change to IE, the adds look utterly disgusting. Wikis life of the concept of linking to meaningful relevant content, not commercial adds. The fact that donations are disabled while this sort of intrusive adds are put onto the wiki makes me ask: Where is this wiki going to? I love to help the community out, but I will definitly not be volunteer part of some moneymaking project. --Xeeron 04:28, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Aha, thats it. I have opera on my own computer, but Firefox at work. That's why I saw them now the first time. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 04:41, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, I was searching for green links in articles all last night. I'm still not seeing them this morning, and I'm using IE.  Must be one of my security programs protecting me (not sure which one - not using AdBlock, not using 'NoAD Hosts', I'll need to experiment and see which one does block it).  I can say that if I saw what is being described, I would be utterlly discusted by it.  Enough so that I would be tempted to offer an ultimatum of leaving the wiki.  I am bothered that other Wiki users are seeing them, as this type of advertising will drive contributors and site visitors away.  Please, for the good of the wiki, remove the adbrite ads entirely. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 07:56, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * They look like this in FireFox (Opera does indeed block them, intentionally or not):

The fact that they're on top of Gems own advertising leads to much hilarity, but is beside the point. --Bishop (rap|con) 08:12, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah, I found it - my firewall had an entry to block all activity to/from http://*.adbrite.com/*. Once I removed that block, I could see the ads, and I couldn't put the block back in place fast enough!  Oddly, the block was a manual one, so I must've had reason to block them in the past.  I don't recall seeing these types of ads before, so it may have just been a pre-emptive block I added at some point.
 * Now that I see them, I can say that I agree with everyone here in saying that this type of advertising is completely without merit, and needs to be eliminiated from the site as soon as possible. This sort of thing will drive away site traffic, only a fool would belive otherwise. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 08:45, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

Time to Walk the Walk
I am extremely pessimistic on this issue, as I believe that a fundamental "shift" in policy took place (several months ago, and without our knowledge), in how this site is being run and what it aims to do. That said, I do not beat around the bush.

Sir Gravewit, you did a great deed by starting this project. You have done an admirable job leading this effort for the first 6-8 months. Since then however, you have gradually refused to be questioned, and acted incredibly childishly when you have been put in uncomfortable situations (not responding, cussing, telling people to leave if they don't like it).

I ask you now to please reconsider the current course of action in which this wiki is headed. You are slowly turning this into some money making franchise for yourself (or your gamewikis establishment). More importantly, during that debate over your powers, you have shown great immaturity and lack of wisdom in handling the demands of being the leader of this wiki. At this juncture, it is not enough (for me) that you (all of a sudden) decide to respond to these messages and make people feel good. Most of them are probably less pessimistic than me about this. I believe it is time you addressed the bigger issues of how accountable are you to us and how much is this a wiki and how much is it Phil's money making thing.

I personally question your ability to lead this endeavor, and would much rather see you step down and give leadership to Tanaric. He is wiser, much wiser, than you and he would work well with you, maintaining your authority over all things technical but also providing leadership for us when we need it (not pressng the mute button) and providing/enforcing guidelines on how much this is a money making enterprise.

At this juncture, I am fairly certain that, even if you do grace the others with a response, you will not respond to this and once again hope that it "blows over." But I am nearly fed up with all of this. I can see where this is going, and have for the past 4 months. I have warned people many times and only now people are starting to realize what is going on. The scenario I see is that this will keep going down hill, at some point, Tanaric will leave, then it will REALLY start going down hill, because he provides leadership for these contributors in place of the vacuum that is your leadership. Your idea of leadership is: I'm the boss, I get the final say, other than that, you guys keep doing what you're doing. Tanaric understands the importance of looking after the community, not just the pages. After this, it's really anyone's guess. Flame wars, Gem and PanSola go open a rival wiki and copy content there, :) then you sue them, then both sites lose most of their readership due to quarrels.

You have an ultimatum, sir, either we begin (collectively as a group, you don't have to answer my specific questions) discussions on what is going on, get more transparency and start to define your role in this organization, soon, or I will just leave. The deadline for starting this discussion is the end of next week. May 28th, if you are stil linvoking the Shroud of Silence, I will leave, for good. I will not stick around and pour another minute into the "Gravewit retirement fund." Not when you will not even acknowledge my existence. :)

So, in the spirit of the NBA playoffs going on right now, the deadline is May 28th, ball is in your hands, 10 days on the shot clock... Your move. --Karlos 07:01, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * *speechless* Omg. what to say? I would miss you a lot. Thanks anyway for trusting me :P (or something), but I don't think that I would be opening any 'rival' wiki. I hope this wiki will make it through all the rough times, but if not, I need to find a new hobby. :( --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 07:13, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Hey Karlos, so if Gem and I do end up starting each of our own rival wikis (or did you mean we working together on one single rival wiki?), will you drop by? d-: -PanSola, LAFTable (sing) 07:19, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * A fork of the GuildWiki is not such a terrible idea, in my opinion. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. 149.9.0.25 07:23, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't have to post anonymously to say that. In fact, I feel that defeats the purpose. The wiki content, every single user-posted-contribution, is avilable under the by-nc-sa provisions of the Creative Commons license. This means that if Gamewikis is no longer able to competently handle the destribution of said content, it is possible for the community to start up a mirror project. All that's needed are willing participants with enough (non-commercial) resources and technical skill to make it happen. --Bishop (rap|con) 08:01, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Hey hey hey, don't get a good wiki with lots of work behind it get destroyed. Please, I enjoy my time here and don't want to get all my work here destroyed. I am sure we can work this out, just wait for Gravewit to answer. (Btw, wiki causes my browser lag spikes now : --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 08:14, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I thought you knew me better than to suggest I was trying to destroy anything. Anyway, that's the last thing on my mind. By far, my preference would be for Gravewit to come to his senses, remove the AdBrite, and start talking to the contributors again. I am merely saying that even if the actions (or inactions) of the sysops end up cratering GuildWiki, the work -- and the community! -- could still carry on, somewhere else. --Bishop (rap|con) 08:38, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * It is meaningless to even talk about forking unless you have access to the MySQL database (at least the cur tables) that serve the pages of the Wiki. Lacking that, it is a purely academic question as to whether there should be a fork or not. How are you going to do it? Wget? That is not feasible for the 23,000 pages in the database, or even the 8000 or so pages with actual content. If the Wiki is really making Gravewit lots of money, then he has no reason to make the forking easier by publishing an SQL dump; if he isn't, then the problem in this instance is that the ads are intrusive, and he might be persuaded to remove them. The real issue is that Gravewit and Nunix are, by any reasonable standard, inactive in the Wiki. A leadership vacuum is not good for the health of the GuildWiki user community. 217.172.49.89 09:14, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * You're obviously a tech, not a politician. And while I applaud your attention to technical detail, it is entirely inconsequential for the time being. We're still talking about the hows, whos and whys. Let me make this clear: I am not at this point recommending even looking into the option of forking Guildwiki. We're not yet at a stage where that should be nessecary, at all. I'll tell you this, though: It can be done. Of course it can. Pretty much anything is technically possible, given enough incentive and resources. Why should this be any different? Hell, 8,000 articles can be moved by hand by a few volounteers with a few weeks on their hands, if they are so inclined. But there is bound to be more efficient solutions as well, including wget and a small shell script. --Bishop (rap|con) 09:30, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Karlos has a way of putting things into inpolite words, when maybe more polite words would have done better, but his point is straight on. For all the good things done a year ago when the wiki was started, right now, there is a huge problem of leadership. This begins with the fact that the 2 people up at the top (Gravewit & Nunix) are not included in the everyday wiki life anymore. Check out their contributions Special:Contributions/Gravewit, Special:Contributions/Nunix. Nunix has 3(!) contributions since the begin of april, Gravewit on average less than 1 per day (and almost 100% of these on either main page or Software&Technical Issues/Bugs). It is justified to say that the "leadership" has become detached from the rest of the contributers. Just look at all the negative comments above, obviously the main sentiment about adds on the wiki is very opposed to the actions taken.
 * To aggravate the issue, there is a very serious lack of communication. There is 0 discussion about issues beforehand and close to 0 information after they are implemented. That is not the way wikis work. Why? Because everyone here is not a paid employee who can be told what to do, but a volunteer, who will only contribute if taken seriously. So whoever takes decisions at the top of a group of volunteers, needs to listen to these guys or (ultimatively) they will walk away. It was quite clear to everyone reading the talk pages that a lot of people were unhappy about the introduction of the bottom-page google adds, yet we got 0 response about this concern. Instead another, much more intrusive, add gets introduced. That should detachment (or worse, disrespect) for the users. Gravewit, you should either be willing to spend more time around here, talking with people and explaning stuff, or you should indeed consider Karlos suggestion of appointing someone else who is. --Xeeron 08:18, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
 * He did reply to the issue of ads at the bottom of the page almost as soon as he was questioned on them. See GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive_3.  Not justifying it, but saying we got zero reply is disingenuous. --24.19.168.170 08:54, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Know what happened the last time we took a "hands on" approach to leadership? Karlos got pissed and stirred up a lot of hate. Know what's happened since we backed way off? Karlos got pissed and is joining in the hate. I've had some sporadic connection issues, and we've both got lives, but generally if you say something on one of our Talk: pages we see it. There is TOO MUCH GOING ON for ANYONE to keep track of it all and still have, you know, any free time at all. Maybe that's okay for some folk, but not so much me. There was a problem with the ads; it got fixed (I assume -- I've never seen any of this stuff?). When there are other problems, or things needing attention.. use our Talk: pages. If for some reason it goes unanswered, bug Tanaric, cos he has our email addresses and such. We're not out of touch, but the last time we got involved with anything directly there was all kinds of crying and gnashing of teeth. Hell, I don't even want to post -this- because I have difficulty believing it'll make a difference; too many years spent online, and I know how fun and easy it is to avoid real discussion and go with vitriolic raving (there, doing it myself now). Make up your minds, people, and understand the consequences of your desires. --Nunix 11:13, 20 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Sir Nunix, two points to address here:
 * a) Gravewit has been "dodging" questions. Anyone who thinks otherwise need only scroll to the top of this very talk page, see the sections about the Amazon link and the Fiscal Accountability section. Find me Gravewit's response. Those two requests have been languishing there for a couple of months now. Prove me wrong, answer them.
 * b) So, you either ignore us completely or you go ahead and change things without telling anyone or consulting with anyone? There is no in-between? Let me help you:
 * Things to do as a wiki leader between "Completely Ignoring Everyone" and "Changing Things As You Like With No Consultation":
 * Contribute. (Duh)
 * Hold monthly meetings with regular contributors (perhaps using a private forum or even in-game) to update them on the status of the wiki as well as future plans.
 * Post monthly updates (if meetings are a bother) on a GuildWiki domain page.
 * Answer the Fiscal Accountability questions.
 * Work on special status with ANet so that we can get funding/special information from them. Wouldn't it be cool if we got to play the next version of GW a week before everyone else so we can fill in the critical info on locations and missions so that when the game comes out people are not totally lost?
 * Work on translation projects for this wiki.
 * ... Add more here ...
 * --Karlos 17:35, 20 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Seems in this discussion that everyone that said they do not see the advertisements suddenly see them. So I will not say I see them or not, so I don't get jinxed. :P I agree this Adbrite is abrasive and side bar and bottom banners should bring in more than enough capital to fund this site. I am shocked to see no ledger like there used to be with the donations page. Expenditures, donations, etc. I am one of the most paranoid people you will ever meet and although I do not think anything sneaky is going on, I think the hardworking contributors of this site should not be kept in the dark about these sort of things, nor have to deal with obviously aggravating ads. People, including myself, are willing to donate should money be tight enough to resort to low-life ads. One question, has Gravewit or Nunix even responded to this discussion yet or is everyone's opinions just falling on deaf ears? --Gares Redstorm 09:05, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not sure what's up with the inline ads, there shouldn't be any of those. I will have to ask adbrite what the hell is going on, as I don't see them. It could be adbrite's code is bad. There's a lot to respond to here, and I simply don't have time at this very moment. The content on all gamewikis sites is and will always be free for all to access. We're trying to parlay the success here into something bigger, more sites, a bigger resource. It's not easy. It's not cheap. It's not quick. Gravewit


 * Another point: Querying the adbrite site freezes Firefox and takes a while, and applying the ads to the text also takes siginificant time. This actually makes using and editing the site labourious. What the hell? Shandy 09:32, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I believe the adbrite inline ads show up every other page load or so. I'm ad-blocking it though, so I don't see it at all anymore.  But I also deeply worry about the negative impact the inline ads have on the professionality of presentation of GuildWiki.  -PanSola, LAFTable (sing) 09:35, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Yup, my browser sometimes froze for short periods while in work. The ads however do not show always, more often they don't than they do. I hope everyone is fine now that Gravewit answered and hopefully he will have more time for us soon. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 09:36, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Gravewit, for now you should remove adbrite from being able to advertise on this site. The worst thing about this is is that it is even INVADING EDIT BOXES. UGH! Especially get rid of that adbrite advertise with us link. --Draygo Korvan 11:42, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

Gravewit, you like this?
Oh look, adbrite is invading the edit boxes: --Draygo Korvan 11:47, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Completely aside from the above issues, I was completely not aware of the inline ads. I don't see them, so I am wondering if it maybe something with our caching server. I am contacting adbrite right now. I agree that this is intolerable, and I'd never use these inline things on purpose. Gravewit
 * Perhaps you have http://*.adbrite.com on your personal firewall/hostfile etc blocklist? That would explain why you do not see the links when we do. Oh a quick note, can you block www.virgoods.com (Guild wars gold seller) from the google ads, apperently they just started advertising through google. --Draygo Korvan 11:54, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
 * By the way the green links only show up when the sponsers bar (on the left) gets its ads from adbrite. When it is a google ad, green links will not show up. --Draygo Korvan 11:57, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, AdBrite is testing a new inline ads thing, apparently I had to opt-out. I was not aware of this. www.virgoods.com is now on the block list. Gravewit 14:47, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Hrm just saw another virgoods ad, most likely it just takes a bit for google to filter it out because you just blocked it. Anyway, thanks for fixing that issue, it was annoying. Now back to our regularly scheduled editing. --Draygo Korvan 14:52, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

Thanks ( / Aftermath)
Thanks for looking into that and resolving it so quickly. Those AdBrite links were atrocious. I hope this little tirade on your talk page wasn't too discouraging... --Spot 16:53, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, thanks for fixing it. Reminder to others: such comments as the first two words here are always needed, leaders catch lots of unnecessary flak. Like the first rule of game development: people will always assume the worst as to any update or change. Anyway, a couple minor notes: can you leave the timestamps on your signature? And I (not assuming "we") look forward to yours and Nunix's replies to Karlos's post on moderate leadership... the bulleted list, since it might be crowded to find otherwise. :) Edit: Oh, and the Community Portal or a subpage might work for informaton for others or ya'lls updates. Also, I split this bit into a subsection :P --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 08:10, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

thru
This is not a word. Please, for the sake of my sanity, change this to "through" in the spam prevention message. -- James Sumners 13:59, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
 * PLEASE!!! SPARE US THE PAIN!!! [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

GW gold ads
Could you please block the GW and D2 gold ads from the google ads. Atleast the following come up: www.guildwarsplatinum.com, www.GainGame.com, www.virgoods.com, www.3dsvs.com, www.Jonasd2.com, www.vritems.com. My and PanSolas user pages get these ads every time, probably many other pages too. Thanks in advance. -- 06:35, 23 May 2006 (CDT)
 * What's the problem about these ads? --Tetris L [[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L block]] 06:46, 23 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Obstruction on our way to elite status Skuld  07:17, 23 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Just having those ads on this site could cost us our current "Listed" fansite status (the lowest of their three fansite levels). All fansites, regardless of Elite, Official, or Listed status are to abide by standard expectations; in this case, the key one is "to disallow and remove links or promotion of adult (pornographic) sites, sites that provide or support software hacking or piracy, sites that support, advertise or offer in-game items for real currency, and sites that encourage game cheating." --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 09:29, 23 May 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure if they were ever gone, but in any case they are back. Let's get rid of them! -- 06:11, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I see a few as well:
 * d2legit/com (D2)
 * ebay.com (gen)
 * eliteMMORPG.com (WoW)
 * faster-results.com (D2)
 * FavGames.com (DAoC)
 * freegamegold.net (gen g)
 * Gamer-88.com (D2)
 * mmosell.com (WoW)
 * PGMx (gen pl)
 * realvegasonline.biz (online casino = illegal i think)
 * themmorpgexchange.com (WoW)
 * toseeka.com (WoW)
 * vritems.com (D2)
 * winningbaccaratsystem.com (online casino = illegal i think)
 * wowith.com (WoW)
 * shopping.yahoo.com (gen)
 * ST47 06:28, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * how about adding a small box below the G-ads stating that the contents of the ads are not endorsed by GuildWiki and linking to Google Ads Disclaimer where this is explaned in detail and users can report those kind of sites on the GuildWiki talk:Google Ads Disclaimer page.
 * to prevent those sites being advertised trough there i suggest the url's of those sites get deleted after they have been added to the google ban-list
 * on a side note: here are two more ;)
 * www.vritems.com
 * www.lewt.com
 * 16:14, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
 * www.virgame.com
 * www.guildwars.cc
 * Irukanji 12:04, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

COHWiki
Hi, can you discuss this before you add a link to the sidebar? it has nothing to do with GuildWiki and i'm sure many others, like me, don't want it there &mdash; Skuld  14:10, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * a[href="http://coh.gamewikis.org"]{display:none} 85.10.240.250 14:28, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Yes, can you please elaborate on this move which comes at a very peculiar time (given Mike O'Brien's comment about OblivioWiki). Can you update us on the talks with ANet? You said you would and that the community would be part of the decision making, but it has been a week and no response from you. Moreover, don't you think that making that specific move at this specific time is something that affects the ANet talks which were supposed to "involve us"? Please elaborate. --Karlos 19:08, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Promoting another gamewikis project. Don't have to go if you don't want to. Simple. I didn't talk to arenanet until yesterday, and there's a lot to think about. That's all I'm going to say for now. Gravewit 15:24, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No, sir. It's not as simple as "If you don't like it, don't click on the link." You are hosting another link on the main page of this wiki. The purpose? To promote that other new project. Does GuildWiki benefit from that link? Nope. On the flip side, placing the link there affects that talks with ANet, placing the link there at this specific time sends obvious messages to ANet. Now, ANet hosting (or not hosting GuildWiki) IS an issue that affects GuildWiki.
 * So, you are doing something TO the wiki that affects the wiki to benefit some other project of yours. This IS something that involves us. Please remove the link at this time. This is the same as the FireFox thing. --Karlos 18:06, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think Gravewit is well within his rights to promote other gamewikis projects on the main page. GuildWiki is currently under the umbrella of GameWikis, not under Arena Net's management. In fact, I am happy to see another gamewikis project mentioned here, because it signals that the project is branching out instead of collapsing due to administrative costs. Anyway, I am sure you won't agree with me, Karlos, but I just wanted to voice my (rare) support for Gravewit's actions. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:12, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I disagree. The navigation box is for navigating the wiki. It is not for navigating the parent network. My opinion is that all references to other gamewikis.org wikis should be removed because they don't have any bearing on the content of the Guild Wars wiki. If I want to view other gamewikis.org wikis then I will go directly to http://www.gamewikis.org/ and expect to be presented with a choice of wikis. I would not go to the Guild Wars wiki and expect to find links to other games' wikis. -- James Sumners 19:32, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * My eyes might be failing me in my old age, but where is the COHWiki link in the navbox? &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 19:39, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The only place I can see it is on the site notice on the Main Page. --Xasxas256 19:57, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hasn't been there for some time &mdash; Skuld  20:15, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Initially, it was in the navigation box. It was removed some time after this discussion was started. -- James Sumners 20:18, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * When you said "I disagree", then, what were you disagreeing with? My comment (which was about the Main Page), or something else? &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:21, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I missed the "on the main page" part; read right over it I guess. But I still agree with the initial position that there should not be links in the navigation box to other wikis (really, any outside content). -- James Sumners 20:45, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * For the record Stabber, maybe you do, but I hold no allegiance to gamewikis.org. In fact, when our database is locked so that Obliviowiki can get more traffic, when our common servers choke because of our combined traffic and when links to them negatively affect our talks with ANet (before we have even gotten a chance to talk), then I consider gamewikis.org to be an adversary of the wiki. When I donated money to this project and when I put in hours of work, it was not so that Gravewit's holding company can grow and prosper. My dream is for this wiki to grow into a shining example for all on-line gaming communities. That people will find everything they want to know here and that this concept would propagate to other gaming communities, killing all the eliteness and self-worship that goes with the crappy on-line forum commnity.
 * Now, in terms of gamewikis.org, I think that Gravewit is not doing a good job running that to begin with. A wiki for a static adventure game (Oblivion) is a pretty bad idea. IT will grow and prosper and then fade in a few months as the game gets forgotten. Any Adventure/RPG game that is not online and on-going will only end up with a small collection of loyal fans. The CoH/CoV concept would have been a good idea had that been done when CoV came out; but, as someone pointed out on CoH's main page talk, there is already a pretty well established wiki for CoH/Cov. So, I have no allegiance to the project, and I think the project is poorly managed. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karlos (talk &bull; contribs) 03:47, 4 June 2006 (CDT).


 * I have no idea what "allegiance" has to do with anything. The GuildWiki is a gamewikis site. As long as it remains so, it is both reasonable and expected that other gamewikis sites would be promoted on the GuildWiki. If you disagree with gamewikis' goals, you are free to fork the GuildWiki and run it as you see fit. 128.2.206.194 04:57, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, IIRC, GuildWiki predated gamewikis. --Rainith 05:02, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd say that's not a valid argument, it's a bit like an airline that has a poor safety record that continues with lax safety measures and staff make a complaint and the airline's argument is "if you don't like it, create your own airline." The contributors are what make this site what it is and they deserve to have a say on how it's run, go make your own site (or create a fork) is not an reasonable argument, aside from that Rainith has said above. The site relies on the contributors and vice versa, they must work together. --Xasxas256 05:09, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * OblivioWiki had/has very little if not nothing to do with GuildWiki databases being locked at any time, ever. If the server ever needed locking, it was because of GuildWiki's traffic. There's never been enough traffic on OblivioWiki to even make a dent in our server. Perhaps it was a mistake to put the COHWiki link in the nav bar, and it stayed there for maybe a day before I realized it wasn't really a good idea to keep it there. I play COH again, I want to use a wiki to keep track of things. I may as well open it up to other people, since that's how GuildWiki got started. Gravewit 11:11, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Just to keep the record straight, you are on record in one of the talk pages as saying (during the first few days of Oblivion coming out) that you may need to lock the database to keep traffic going there. I can go look for that quote if you are refuting that.
 * If you're saying that is no longer a problem, I am glad. It's unfortunate for the Oblivion wiki, but not unforeseen as I mentioned above.
 * Finally, you can have a wiki for CoH or even King's Quest if you like. The question was never why did you start a CoH wiki, that's entirely up to you. The question is about the link on the main page. If it's such a personal decision, why is it gracing our front page? --Karlos 19:27, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

More Gold buying links showing
Is the Gamewikis blog entry on gold ads still being monitored, or are the advertisers sneaking past the blocks done as a result of those entries, or do the blocks expire and need renewed periodically? Several GW Gold Buying sites have been showing that have been reported in the blog, but still appear here. Two examples that I've seen today are www.guildwarsplatinum.com and www.virgoods.com/ --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:32, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
 * In addition to those above, I'm now also seeing: www.come4trade.com - www.mmobay.com - www.irnewb.com - www.GainGame.com --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 15:05, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Still being monitored. I've just been doing it once a week. Gravewit 15:16, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Database dump
I sent this to your GMail account on the 3rd but got no response so I'm reposting my mail here: Gravewit,

I'd like a dump of the wiki database. I know others have requested it at various points but I don't know what came of those requests. I'm familiar with the CC license used on the wiki and so I'm aware of what I can't/have to do if I use the content. (I'm Fyren from the wiki, though I haven't been active in a long time and never really had contact with you).

I'll pay for any media/shipping costs ahead of time, assuming physical media.

-Fyren --Fyren 20:50, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ping. --Fyren 06:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I am interested in this too. Specifically, I am interested in the pages-meta-current.xml file produced by the Meta:Data_dumps script. If you need help getting it running, please feel free to ask. I too will pay for media, shipping, and a modest price for your time, or (preferably) a download link for which I will pay the bandwidth costs. TIA Hank 01:15, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ping. --Fyren 16:14, 29 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Current databases are about 1.2gb in mysql, about the same in an .sql dump. Gzipped I'd imagine that would go down significantly. Yeah, I'd pretty much have to send it via snail mail. Gravewit 22:01, 29 June 2006 (CDT)


 * How big would a "text-only" dump be? If such-thing is at all possible? - 22:48, 29 June 2006 (CDT)


 * As I said, I'm willing to pay for media and postage. What Hank mentioned is using the dumpBackup.php script (in the maintenance subdirectory of the MW install, I think) to dump out just the current version of all the pages.  This cuts out the page histories which should significantly reduce size.  I don't know how long running the script takes or how load intensive it is, though.  Please mail me at my username at nimh dot net with how much you want for postage (to the US) and how to get the money to you, if this is acceptable.  --Fyren 23:20, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ping. --Fyren 20:26, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd send me your address and I'll check out shipping rates. Gravewit 23:24, 11 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Sent to your GMail account. --Fyren 00:53, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

Seeking your input..
I am not sure how familiar you are with the Stabber soap opera that took place over the weekend. Much of the details can be gathered from the long threads here, here and here.

We need you as sysadmin and the one who is ultimately in charge to look into this issue and provide us with options in terms of what can be done technically and also what direction you think we should go into (care/not care/punish/ignore sockpuppetry). There have been tools suggested and the like. I personally feel somewhat worried about this whole drama and who is playing the community for a fool. Stabber/Deldda showed exceptional ease in switching into a troll and this FG guy stalking people for months is just as scary.

So, give us a holler. At the end of the community talk page you will find people's thought under the "Where do we go from there" section. Feel free to chime there or here. Thanks. --Karlos 00:56, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I have followed it as much as time permits. I'm not sure what to make of things, really. I'll read some more and respond over there. Gravewit 10:59, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Please install the CheckUser extension and post the IPs of the users User:Stabber, User:Deldda Kcarc, User:Esan, User:Koyashi, User:Seventy.twenty.x.x, User:F G and possibly User:Hank. Please also post all usernames that have used the IPs 128.2.206.194, 128.2.196.71 and 128.2.141.33. This will settle the primary lingering question about which accounts are sockpuppets and which aren't. We can sort out the remedies after this discovery, but until we are certain that there was any sockpuppetry at all, the discussion is simply unable to proceed. For example, if it is found that User:Stabber and User:F G are the same person, as several peope including me suspect, then that would give a strong impetus to finding all covert sockpuppets to be in violation and worthy of bans. Thanks in advance. Arrowsmith 11:30, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Dammit, I didn't want to get involved in this soap opera. But I have to break my own policy for just a few seconds to set you straight on a tech-issue: Accessing the logs and comparing login-IP's cannot disprove (and often not prove) whether an account is shared/sock or not. It can give some pointers, but it is technically quite feasible to have sock puppets that cannot be correlated through IP addresses at all. So while what you're requesting may or may not be interesting to some, it will likely not solve what you predict it will. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 11:38, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree partially. If it is found that User:Stabber and User:F G, who are completely antagonistic personas, have used the same IPs to access the wiki, then it is a clear indication of sockpuppetry. It's not proof that will fly in a courtroom, but we don't require such exacting standards. This discussion can be had elsewhere. Arrowsmith 11:45, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And I must make sure my cousin never ever uses my computer to log in to GuildWiki, don't wanna get him banned for sockpuppetry afterall. Today I don't feel like apologizing for sarcasm, sorry. - 16:48, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Request of bot user rights
I would be pleased if you could be so nice as to give User:Galil.bot bot user rights. It's a bot that will mostly be used for mass-replacement spanning over several pages (like the recent switch from to  on pages that were subject to that change). It has yet to get in there, but I thought it would be best to ask for bot user rights before clogging up the recent changes page. Thanks. &mdash; Galil  06:54, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Still clogging up the recent changes, though I set a time limit in between edits. Still, I'd greatly appreciate botflag of User:Galil.bot, and many others with me cause they do not want to see it on recent changes. :) &mdash; Galil  20:35, 14 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Alright. Sorry. Gravewit 15:06, 15 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Was that sorry as in "sorry if I took a while before answering", or sorry as in "sorry but you'll have to do without"? Cause Special:Listusers still lists no bots, and User:Galil.bot still shows up on recent changes. Sorry for nagging but it's for the maintainability of the wiki. For one admins will be able to keep a better track of recent changes. Also, it's easier to move articles between categories, batch replace, or any other batch jobs. If it was intended as the latter, I beg you to please reconsider. &mdash; Galil  16:38, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Guildwiki.de
Hi, please look at GuildWiki talk:Community Portal if yo uhave not already. I was thinking of adding a link to them in German either on the main page or in the side bar (which only you can do). There are two sides to this: a) Are you ok with us linking to them even though they are not a part of "us" per se (i.e. not under our policies, not under your control) and b) if you are ok with linking to them, do you prefer the main page or the side bar?

Thanks. --Karlos 04:45, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

Talks with ANet..
Gaile Grey (on that thread in Guru) said that they are asking for talks with you and the active moderators of the wiki. You responded with the standard "we are talking" and "ideas are being tossed around." May I ask why is it that you declined to have moderators present? (I am assuming you declined, as I have seen no requests on the wiki for any moderators to join the talks, feel free to correct me.)

A little transparency can go a LONG way. --Karlos 01:40, 26 June 2006 (CDT)


 * There isn't a whole lot to tell. Anet is looking into the logistics of things, right now. When there is more concrete stuff to go on, then I can say more. Things seem to be going well, we want to work closely with Anet while maintaining out independence. I will be trying to put together a google chat chat with the active moderators soon to clear the air. Gravewit 15:46, 29 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks for the clarification. --Karlos 00:16, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

Admins
I noticed you asked for someone to cleanout some of our unused images, it'd be good if you added a few more admins to help to with that kind of stuff in my opinion. Barek, Gares Redstorm and Xeeron all have 10 or more support votes and no votes in opposition on their RFAs, why not make them sysops? --Xasxas256 18:26, 2 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I deleted 190 in a row but it scared everyone off :p &mdash; Skuld  02:12, 3 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Well you are pretty scary Skuld, what with you having the world's largest font on your talk page :P Maybe I should have phrased my initial request a little nicer, I think it may have been my first edit on Phil's page. I just figured that it looks bad if one of the candidates has to ask and of course you power hungry admins don't want anyone else in the inner circle! ;) So howzabout it Grave, will you let the unworthy in? ;) --Xasxas256 03:26, 3 July 2006 (CDT)

Special:Wantedpages polluted by user name space
Gravewit, can you modify the Special:Wantedpages to exclude anything from the User: or User_talk: name spaces? Currently, I think that I counted only 8 or 9 out of the top 50 pages listed are actual article requirements. The others are User: pages (flagged due to signatures on talk pages). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I actually quite like seeing everything in Recent Changes, particularly user talk. Often times the real nitty gritty stuff is discussed on user talk pages as you'd probably know. User namespace edits are generally less interesting but you can always choose Namespace: User on Recent Changes and tick the invert selction box, this way you'll see everything except user namespace edits. --Xasxas256 20:16, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Ummm ... not asking about the Recent Changes list - those are fine as-is. I'm talking about the Wanted Pages list (see links above).  It's a tally of broken links where a link to the page(s) exist, but no page exists as yet in the Wiki.  Currently, because user signatures link to their user pages, the most wanted pages showing are primarilly in the User name space. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:43, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Well it would have been nice if you had been asking about Recent Changes because I wouldn't look like a tool then! Today's been the busiest day of the year for me at work but I still found a moment to get onto the GuildWiki, I should have read your post more carefully but I was in a rush and thought I could help you out, sorry :P --Xasxas256 00:54, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Thank you! Not sure if you had fixed this earlier, or as part of the upgrade, but I just noticed that the wanted pages list no longer shows user pages - makes the page much more useable! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:05, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

FYI: GuildWiki:Software and technical issues/Bugs issues following v1.7.1 upgrade
I'm sure you're monitoring Software and technical issues/Bugs regularly; but just in case you haven't this week yet, there are multiple issues that have come up following the upgrade to MediaWiki v1.7.1. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:35, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

Copyright notice
The current copyright warning under the edit box has always seemed kludgy to me - not as cleanly formatted as other areas. I drafted a couple proposed revisions here: MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning. While I technically now have the ability to edit the copyright message myself, I also realise that it's one of the more sensitive statements to users where mangling it could cause legal issues for the site later. I've bumped it a couple times this week, with few comments added. So as a final step I wanted to get your review and approval before making any changes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:03, 21 July 2006 (CDT)

New Fansite Status!
Congrats! Anet has upped the fansite status of GuildWiki to -> Guild Wars Encyclopedia [Specialty Fansite], according to the release you should be getting a new seal. Cant wait to see what it looks like. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 14:24, 21 July 2006 (CDT)
 * On that subject, didn't we once have an ArenaNet logo with text about their legal ownership of Guild Wars in the box below the articles? Was that lost in the upgrade, or intentionally removed prior to the upgrade? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:42, 21 July 2006 (CDT)

Gamewikis forums having a bad day?
It looks like the new forums are down today. Hopefully you were working on it, and it's not a hack ... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:35, 21 July 2006 (CDT)
 * they look happy to me [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] [[Image:Romu-icon.png|User:ST47/Romu_of_SFI]] [[Image:Romu-unlock.png|User:ST47/Account#Unlocked_Elites|8px]] (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Welcome to the world of timestamps &mdash; Skuld  08:50, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Ha ha yeah, and change your sig while you're at it!! Aren't we ganging up on him today! --Xasxas256 08:53, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Hehe yeh. I would feel mean if I had a heart :) &mdash; Skuld  08:58, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

Coding error
Ident -> indent? It's the new speciality image I think &mdash; Skuld 13:04, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The spelling of the id can be "fjsldksl"; the only requirement is that it be unique. The error is that the class attribute has no closing quotation. -- James Sumners 13:40, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh duh, me dumb. Just pressed ctrl+u and firefox had ident highlighted in red, should have checked further lol &mdash; Skuld 13:43, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

Blocked :(
I was trying to fix an article and I got a message that said "blocked by ranith, die spammer die!!!" I was directed to this page, if you could unblock me that would be nice.
 * 'tis a known buggie - just keep trying [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
 * The fact that you could post your comment here demonstrates that you're not really blocked. As ST47 mentioned, it's a known bug.  It seems to primarilly impact users who post from an IP address instead of a logged-in ID.  If you wait a few seconds to a minute and try again, it should post correctly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:49, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Gravewit has asked to be contacted by someone who has had this happen, which is why my page directs people here. --Rainith 13:18, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

Blocked
Im blocked with Die Spammer Die Message, Rainith says it wasnt him and i should leave a message here, so i do
 * You could post here so you are not really blocked. It should work fine after a while. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

Various image-fixes
As discussed at User talk:Skuld, images can be linked to without showing up under "Links" on the image's page (the "What links here" page for image-pages doesn't show any links and isn't supposed to). Looking at the source code, this seems to be a bug and it can lead to images being deleted that aren't supposed to. So I edited the parser a little (added one line of code to /includes/Parser.php) to always list pages that links to images, even if they are text links, like one would expect it to be. It would be greatly appreciated if you could put this Parser.php file into use to prevent accidental deleting of images from happening again.

Also, GuildWiki currently has issues with resizing png-images. The quality ends up being awful. This happens cause /includes/Image.php is using imagecreate instead of imagecreatetruecolor, thus only allowing the very same colors that was in the original, which isn't suitable for a resize since it needs to blend pixels together. I edited this file as well to allow smooth image resizing even with png-images and this I know for sure would be greatly appreciated by all if it could be put into place.

The rar-file with both /include/Parser.php and /include/Image.php can be found here. Just extract it to the wiki-root to use them. I have tested them both locally but feel free to backup the old Parser.php and Image.php in case you don't trust them to work. Both are based on MediaWiki 1.7.1 since that is what GuildWiki is running.

Minor note though: The parser-fix will only work with pages that are edited/created after the new file has been put into place, but it's still better than nothing. The image-fix should work as soon as the cache on the current thumbnails expires and will work instantly with any new resized png images.

Thanks in advance, &mdash; Galil  18:19, 31 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Just noticed perhaps I should clarify. The Parser.php and Image.php files should be located in the wiki include-folder. For guildwiki that seems to be . If you extract this file's contents to the wiki root (guessing it's the parent folder of includes unless you moved the folders around, so  ) it should put these files in the includes-folder, overwriting the files that are already there. If it for some reason doesn't extract to the right folder, you will have to copy them there manually, and replace the old ones. Though I guess I might be underestimating your knowledge, considering you're a server admin. ;) &mdash; Galil   15:45, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Additional admins
The previous batch of admin nominations have been inactive for a while, but a very clear picture of consensus has formed around User:Gares Redstorm and User:Xeeron. Please see Requests_for_adminship. I believe both should be promoted to sysops at the earliest opportunity. -- Bishop [ rap|con ] 07:17, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I raised this point above a while ago and got no reply but I still absolutely believe that both should be Sysop-ed. What's the point in us even having RFAs otherwise? --Xasxas256 07:27, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I asked a similar question when that page was first created. The way that I understand it is that just because someone is nominated and even receive an outpouring of support does not mean that they automatically become a sysop/admin.  It's just an available pool of potential future admins, non-binding and in no-way required to be promoted.  So, should Gravewit and/or Nunix feel that an additional admin is required, then they can go to that page at that point and select one from the available pool of candidates, or I believe they are even free to choose one from outside of the listing.
 * If you want one of the candidates to be promoted to adminship, the first step is to convince Gravewit and/or Nunix that an additional admin is required. As the page says, it "maintains a dynamic list of current nominations. Please note that a well-supported nomination is not a guarantee for an administrator position—the decision of whether the GuildWiki needs more admins and whether a particular user is well-suited for the role rests with the current administrative team."  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:53, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Upon whom does that burden fall? I could easily argue for both I think... --Xasxas256 09:20, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree with Barek if the admins feel more help is needed, then the decision should be made. However, I am not inactive per se. I keep an eye on the recent changes, user's activites, and on the weekends add new content when I have enough time. I am always watching and occasionally I will add a comment or two to show that I am watching. And, yes, while I have the most votes according to the RFA process, I will not necessarily become the next sysop. -Gares 09:22, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I can't think of a single reason not to sysop you Gares. It would just make your job easier, the admin tools would be of use to an RC patroller like yourself. As for getting on with the existing admins, I don't see that as a problem, many of your votes are from the active admins. I don't think we should wait till some sort of major crisis before adding more admins. There are a lot of admin tasks and frequently when an admin comes on there's this huge glut of pages being deleted, users being blocked, pages protected etc. Adding Gares as a sysop would only help the GuildWiki run more smoothly, why wouldn't you accept his RFA? --Xasxas256 09:35, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Gares will very likely become the next sysop on the GuildWiki, once its decided that more admins are needed. Our current team is more than capable of handling the current load, so there's no need to admit Gares into our ranks, regardless of his qualifications. &mdash;Tanaric 09:54, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Even though you've been far more active now Tanaric than you have been in the past, I don't know the you're the best judge of how well the administrative tasks are being performed looking over this. Look it's been good having you back Tanaric, I like your idealism and the way that you fight for the little guy but here I feel a very unfortunate us and them. Sure 95%+ of the time our current admins can probably cope with the workload but the GuildWiki isn't a job and people have a life outside of here. What about when by chance a couple of people have a day/night off, what if a couple of people are sick? Is it like work, do you have to post here that you're going to be out for a couple of days and Gares fills in for you then? What if we have a major vandalism attack? To me this reeks of elitism, not until our sacred guardians of the GuildWiki cannot cope with the pressure will we let another initiate into our fellowship. I still haven't seen a reason why Gares shouldn't be promoted, good work should be rewarded, he is deserving of the position and would reduce the workload of our current sysops. Can you give me another reason against promoting him other than the fact that our existing sysops are not being overwhelmed by the current workload? Can you tell me a negative thing that would happen if he was sysoped? The GuildWiki is a very large project these days, I don't think for a second we have too many admins. --Xasxas256 19:11, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I personally think that more backup is always good. There is no harm in making good contributors admins, they can only be of help. This is one of the largest wikis out there and we still have only a few admins; far less than the other large wikis. And some of those few admins seem to be inactive pretty often. It is a miracle that we have survived so long with only minor vandalism and other problems. New admins like Skuld have really been very very useful in maintaining and clening up the wiki, and adding more would probably just improve the situaion. There is no reason to wait for a massive vandalism wave before making new admins, let's make them before we need them. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I've posted something similar to what I'm about to post before, so fair warning that you may have read this before.
 * I see no problem with having more Admins than we "need." In my opinion if a persistant vandal comes along and there isn't an Admin on to take care of (block/revert) him/her, that is a failure on our (the Admins') side.  Yes, regular users have the ability to revert the edits, but they shouldn't have to do that.  Being an Admin (IMO) isn't just a perk, it is a responsibility.  That is one of the reasons that I'm glad we have 84-175 and Skuld in "the ranks" on the European side, and I wouldn't mind it if we got one or two good users who are in Asia or Austrailia (*cough*Xasxas256*cough*) to help get us better global timezone coverage.  Although Gares isn't on the other side of the world (from most of the admins), I think he would make an excellent Admin, and believe that he should be made one ASAP (although that will probably happen right as NWN2 and FFXII come out and we'll never see him again).  So anyway, can anyone make a good arguement as to why we should not have a few more Admins around as "We have enough" just doesn't fly with me.  --Rainith 20:23, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * And as you write that wonderful edit about my obsessive gaming practices, I am actually on NeverWiki trying to get that looking good and ready for release. :D -Gares 21:04, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * More developments...Gem's just nominated me for adminship and I've humbly accepted, looks like you're a bit of a prophet today Rainith...you don't see anything in regards to lotto numbers in the near future either do you? :P --Xasxas256 21:14, 8 August 2006 (CDT)


 * As I mentioned earlier - the first step in getting another admin promoted is to convince Gravewit and Nunix that one is needed. Make a case for it, and sell Gravewit on it.  The debate that I've seen so far centers on the argument of (paraphrasing) "hey, why not, what's the harm?".  To me, that's not an argument to add more.
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there isn't room for more admins - in fact, I believe that an admin that can cover timezones not currently covered by the available admins would make an ideal candidate **cough - Xasxas**. But, a solid case needs to be written to do it.  I'm indifferent enough to be willing to focus my energies elsewhere.  Those who feel more strongly about this need to take a step back, and write a better case for adding more than what has been presented thus far. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:23, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

Breaking out of indents, as the thread is getting too narrow for me to read, and this is going to be a long reply.

First, simply because I don't do a lot of bannings or deletions doesn't mean I don't look at what bannings or deletions are occuring. It's not necessary for me to patrol recent changes or the candidates for deletion category. In fact, even on days when I do patrol recent changes/anon edits for vandalism, I find that other admins manage to block before I do! This was often the case back in the time when I was a day-to-day admin-on-patrol, too. I feel as if I have a grasp on what is needed to be done, and I feel that the current administrative team does a much better job at that sort of thing than I ever did.

Secondly, much of my activities involve stuff you don't see. Working on local writeups for potential GameWikis expansion in the future, participating in conference calls with Gaile Grey and Mike O'Brian about the GuildWiki, and keeping track of the site's progress with Gravewit and Nunix via private conversation. In terms of words contributed to the default namespace, I'm able to admit I'm no longer one of the more prolific editors (though I definitely used to be!), but that doesn't mean I've spent significantly less time or energy on this place, except for a few random breaks in service I had no control over.

Thirdly, quite frankly I'm more interested in policy, direction, and management than I am in gruntwork of adminship. Every admin here has the right to do what's interesting to him. If Skuld stops patrolling recent changes tomorrow, nobody should fault him for it. That said, I highly doubt that will happen, since Skuld was patrolling recent changes for vandalism even before he was an admin. :)

That said, let me address the issue at hand, instead of blabbering on about me. :)

Xasxas put it well: in this issue, it is unfortunately an issue of "us" vs. "them." GuildWiki administrators, for better or for worse, have a great deal of power when it comes to the wiki. This is in stark contrast to, say, Wikipedia, where adminship is really only a matter of trust. Wikipedia admins are trusted to properly protect and delete pages&mdash;GuildWiki admins are trusted to guide and shape the wiki.

Regardless of what we say, and regardless of the mentality I (among others) have desperately tried to foster here, there is a dichotomy between the administrative team and the editors at large. With few exceptions, the administrative team are the only members who actively participate in policy discussions and otherwise fight to shape the wiki. Those others who have participated over the last year have mostly either became administrators, declined to become administrators, or are currently candidates to become administrators.

It's not that administrators intrinsically have more power to shape this place than non-admins&mdash;it's that those who exert power to shape this place end up part of or close to the administrators.

From a purely theoretical perspective, that means there's no harm in admitting others to our ranks. However, I personally fear to do so. If all the consensus-bearing administrative candidates were to become administrators, the outward appearance is that the administrative team is in complete creative and political control of the wiki. This is a Bad Thing. It discourages non-administrators to contribute on the talk pages, and, if the admin team falls into disfavor, it could actually result in the total collapse of the wiki.

Instead, I'm in favor of a more conservative approach. My goal is to make sure editors realize they have just as much control over this place as we do. At this point, that belief is in place, I think. Users aren't taking too much advantage of it, but that's because current wiki policy is open enough that they have no need to. On the other hand, if perceptions come into play that they have no control, people revolt and, in the worst case, abandon the wiki totally. We had an issue like this during the IE Splash Page fiasco&mdash;I spent a good week and a half arguing with Nunix privately to get a sufficiently good apology out of him so we could move on. :)

I'm willing to admit that I might be a little too conservative when it comes to this. That said, I think the risk vs. reward makes overcaution okay. We currently have a well-functioning amazing day-to-day administrative team. The benefits of adding a few more are somewhat slim&mdash;since all the important stuff gets done within an hour (or less) most of the time, adding a couple more might reduce our average response time to, say, 40 minutes or so. Notice that the current admins spend most of their wikitime, as far as I can tell, doing non-admin activities.

That said, the negatives if I'm right could be rather extreme. Fostering a culture of "us" vs. "them" is something I absolutely want to avoid, and having a small admin team seems the easiest way to do this.

Naturally, if the day-to-day administrators of the wiki feel I'm wrong&mdash;that is, if they have too much adminwork to do, or our response times aren't in line with what I'm perceiving&mdash;I will immediately switch my recommendation, and ask Gravewit to add Gares to the team.

Consider one other thing. Currently, as Rainith pointed out, adminship entails some sort of implied responsibility, especially to those new admins who don't know well enough to disregard it yet. ;) Gares and Xeeron are both very prolific editors. If they were made administrators, they would spend some amount of time less on editing and more on blocking/deleting/whatever. If the admin task load is already being completed, well, I'd rather not waste two editors' time on something that's already being taken care of.

I warned you this was going to be long, but I think I've addressed most of my thoughts on this issue. As always, I'm more than happy to discuss it, and potentially change my mind&mdash;I fully agree with Barek's statement that no compelling case for adding an administrator at this time has been made, and I'd love to see a good argument to that effect.

Finally, it should be noted that making Gares an administrator is not my decision, and thus my first statement above was intended to explain why he'd not yet been inducted; it was not intended to mandate that he not be inducted.

&mdash;Tanaric 22:35, 8 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I wouldn't bet money on that, i'm leaving for spain in an hour ]=) &mdash; Skuld 05:18, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm on my way out of the door, so I do not have time for a long argument. Luckily, I do not need it. Here is the compelling argument for adding Gares and Xeeron as admins: The community whishes it. I rest my case, and leave for work. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 23:56, 8 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Okay, now I'm at work, but I have some time to spare, so I can elaborate a bit on the above (even though I really don't think it should be nessecary).


 * First, please consider how we have come to do things around here, and please consider the implications. We operate through a consensus-model, with decisions made and mandated not by Gravewit, Nunix or anyone else, but by the community as a whole, through discussion and possibly voting in disputed or important matters. We do this because we believe that all (accountable) users and opinions are basically equal and should be treated as such. Administrators are not required or expected to be super-beings and they are not mandated to make content-decisions above and beyond the regular user, as per Administrate users, not content.


 * As such, it stands to reason that policy decisions are equally matters that we decide upon as a community, not something that is reserved for the administrators of the wiki. This implies that the decisions regarding whom and when to promote new sysops, which is very much a policy issue, is no more or less a matter for the already-appointed sysops to decide than it is for every other contributor.


 * With that being the case, once the community has formed a clear, undisputed consensus that an editor is trusted and deserving of the sysop moniker (such as is currently the case for Gares and Xeeron, but not for myself nor any of the remaining candidates), there really is nothing left to discuss: the decision is already reached, and not promoting them means disregarding the consensus (not to mention their obvious expectation of being promoted). That alone should be enough to convince anyone that waiting is simply not right. As a corrollary, if anyone -- current sysop or not -- feels strongly that there should not be more sysop promotions, that should be brought up in the RFA discussion, not as an afterthought.


 * With that said, there are more points that have been raised and require comment. I would like you to consider how the resistance from current admins towards promoting more admins is likely to be percieved: as an elitist knee-jerk reaction, aimed at preserving the status increase of being a small, tight grouping. (Obviously, I am aware that this is hogwash; Both Barek and Tanaric are far above such pettiness, but that does not change how things may be percieved.) And the last thing we need, I am sure you will agree, is a perception that admins consider themselves more valuable to the community than everyone else.


 * As for the argument that the current admins are doing a good job of the administrative tasks: that is very true. It is also very inconsequential. Consider that all admins, even the most policy-oriented ones, are also contributors to the site. The less each has to do administratively, the more time (s)he has to participate in policy discussion or contributing content. Having more hands to do the same amount of administrative work can never be a bad thing; in fact, with more time, some of the admins that are also the most technically skilled users will have the opportunity to focus on cleanup tasks that are usually not undertaken, such as pruning the entire stubs-category or similar daunting tasks.


 * Also, consider that the presence of admins on the site is always going to ebb and flow with real-life issues that noone can escape. Some will, invariably, become inactive for periods of time, and some will return from inactivity (consider the case of LordBiro: I am certain we can all agree he is an excellent part of the sysop staff, even if he is sometimes gone for long periods of time). What this means is that while it can never hurt to have, say, 100 admins online at the same time, having a larger pool will mean there's always a greater chance of having someone around.


 * To round off, let me underscore the obvious: having more admins does not making being an admin more elitist. It makes it less. If you say "we should not have more admins because they shape policy" is in fact saying that those others who participate in that shaping are not. In stead, letting the community decide who is made a sysop lets the community feel that they are in charge, not the old boys club. Just as it should be.
 * -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 03:26, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

First off, I want to say I am sufficiently indifferent to the main issue here. Don't get me wrong, I think Gares will be a fine admin if he's made one, it's just that in general who is and who isn't an admin isn't something that bothers me. However, I find Tanaric brings up a good point - the "us" vs "them". And if possible, I would like to resign as an Admin for the exact concern Tanaric has brought up. In one of the recent policy-related discussions, there were people characterizing "all the edits on blah blah blah are either done by admins" or "all done by admins plus Stabber". I have stated my response back then that I would've done the edits I did regardless of my admin status, and I wish to stress it again. I agree with some of the people above that in terms of the number of admins, we are doing fine. The tasks that need the attention of admins are sufficiently sparse that, in fact, I do not think it will harm GuildWiki if I am demoted to become a regular use. And because of the issue of "us" vs "them" that Tanaric has pointed out above and I already started seeing, I think it would be more beneficial to the GuildWiki if I may participate in future policy discussion and template editing as a non-admin. In short, I would like to increase the pool of "valuable contributors who are not admins", because if we recruit all the valuable ppl to become admins, then GuildWiki would be perceived AS a hypricritical wiki where only admins are valuable despite an opposite policy, which will scare off new people. - 03:52, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * People should always be aware that being an admin isn't something that gives you lots of privileges or bragging rights. Quite the opposite, it is often a burden. It means work and responsibility. You should patrol the wiki and participate in all major discussions regarding policies, formatting and other standards. You have to be a lot more careful in discussions, behave as a role model representing the wiki, keeping all policies in mind. You're always prone to being accused of "nazi" behaviour, abusing your powers. Not being an admin means a lot more freedom! That's one of the reasons why I'm not very keen on volunteering myself. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:18, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I consider the direct responsibilities of admin in page protection/unprotection, page deletion, and user banning/unbanning ONLY. Being a role model and being preresentative of wiki are indirect responsibilities.  I do not see taking part in discussion of formatting/policies as part of the job description / responsibility of being an admin.  And any policy or formatting discussion I participated in the past, "I am an admin" was never any part of the reason why I participated in them.  Hence I greatly disagree with your characterization.  And despite what people should be aware of, it's not going to change what they are actually going to mis-perceive.  I'm not worried aobut ppl accusing me being nazi or being abusive.  I'm worried that GuildWiki becomes a place where all (or a superior majority of) senior/expert/valuable contributors are Admins, and the misperception it generates on people new to the wiki. - 04:38, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm afraight if a new wiki user is scared away that is caused more by excessive use of templates and fancy code, and all kinds of not very newbie-friendly formatting rules than by the fact that a large portion of the regular contributors are admins. I think the average new user isn't even aware of who is an admin and who isn't. There is no prominent link to the sysop list anywhere on the Main Page or near to it, and most admins don't even mention their status on their user page. Actually, it is quite hard to find out who's an admin and who isn't. Any user who is able to find out has reached a stage where he isn't a newbie any more and should have a better picture of the role of admins on GuildWiki. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:55, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * A very good point, Tetris. I absolutely believe you are right: new users are completely unaffected and disinterested in who is and admin and who is not. As long as there is no glaring need for intervention in a matter, new users and occational contributors are more than unlikely to ever care one way or the other. This assumes, of course, that admin's do not abuse their position. I take that as a given.


 * The argument that more admins scares away new users is flawed, as there is nothing but speculation to base it on -- and the large number of admins on Wikipedia, for instance, certainly isn't scaring anyone away from there. If anything, refusing to admit more people into the "inner circle" is what could potentially cause a feeling of us and them.


 * If a new user to the wiki learns that "If you contribute often and well, there is a good chance that in due time you will be offered to help the wiki with administrative tasks as well, should you so desire", that can only be an encouragement, a knowledge that the community appreciates good, consistent, level-headed editors. It is inconceivable that knowing the current administrators were appointed because they were well-respected among the community is going to deter anyone from contributing.


 * -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 05:57, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * PanSola: Finding a list of admins is not easy and a new user probably will not find out if another user is an admin or not. most likely they aren't even interested.
 * Bishop allready put in words most of what I have to say in response to Tanarics long post. Tanaric seems to be overly worried that making more admins will cause a "us" vs. "them" setting in the wiki, but I feel that the current "No! Don't promote new admins" is closer to that setting. If only the original good contributors are admins, it creates a feeling that you guys hold together and want to keep us n00bs from your leet club. I know it (most likely ;) ) isn't the case, but it might seem so to others. I have personally disagreed with Tanaric often in the past and disagree with him yet again. It's not personal, but we do have a very different view on these 0things. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2006 (CDT) Damn Bishop was faster and responded again with my thoughts :D
 * Hehe, sorry Gem, I was on a roll. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 06:08, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

On a separate track of thought, I believe there is room to separate "content policy" versus "administrative policy". The content policy process and the administrative policy process could be identical, but they could also be separate. Bishop above is arguing that because our content policy is done in a certain way, by that virtue all administrative policy should be done the same way. I disagree with his reasoning, while remaining neutral on whether the two policy process should be the same or different for GuildWiki. - 03:54, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * My opinions have already been stated above, so I won't go into them again other than to re-mention that I'm not opposed to new admins, but I don't feel strongly that more are needed yet either (other than, possibly, additional timezones to expand hours of coverage). But, a few points that were brought up that I would like to address:
 * First, it has been suggested that the RfA article is some sort of mandate from the people that Gravewit and Nunix are somehow required to honor. However, the GW:RFA article itself, which is currently flagged as a policy, states "Please note that a well-supported nomination is not a guarantee for an administrator position — the decision of whether the GuildWiki needs more admins and whether a particular user is well-suited for the role rests with the current administrative team".  Of course, it's questionable about if it should be tagged as a policy in the first place, as no discussion towards that end took place in its talk page (although it does seem to accurately describe the de-facto policies of past practices).  But regardless, it does clearly spell out that it's not intended as a mandate.  Even if it were to be a mandate, a form which is relatively hard to find (not linked to from the main page, nor from any page linked to from the main page, or even from a page that's linked to a page that's linked to from the main page) can be considered a true concensus of the community.  The RfA also reeks of vote culture. Also, the idea that an RfA automatically results in adminship reeks of vote culture.  Consensus is reached in discussion on this wiki, not by vote.  That was originally the case here, and current policy revisions elsewhere on the wiki are attempting to re-emphasize that fact.
 * Second, a comparison has been made to Wikipedia's number of admins. Yes, by raw count, they have more admins.  But, as a percentage of the registered user accounts, Wikipedia has .05%, while the percentage on GuildWiki is .14%.  Even if you subtract out the inactive admins (some of whom have been quite active recently), our percentage would still be .05% - on par with Wikipedia, so please don't use them as part of an argument for why more should be added.
 * Based on the above, it's clear that it's appropriate to discuss additional admins outside of the RfA in order to reach a consensus on if more are needed. I do wonder if this should be moved off of Gravewit's talk page and over to someplace like GuildWiki talk:Administrators with a link to it from the Community Portal article until a consensus can be reached. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:02, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Back in for lunch, I hate travel, and that is a lot to read. Everyone's opinions seem to well thought out and there is certainly a situation that will need to be resolved here. But I am suprised at Barek at his stance on voting since it was the "vote culture" that promoted him, although I do not know if there was a admin meeting behind the scenes. I could care less about that, because despite his stance, he is a good admin. If I get promoted, I'm honored, if I don't, life and my continued service to this wiki will not end. As to the "admin vs. user" feelings some have, I honestly have felt that way myself at times. It's usually a fleeting thought, but it has happened, so I can see where they are coming from. -Gares 10:44, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Gares, I'm certain that you will be promoted. It's not a question of if it will happen, only when it will happen.  As for my promotion, I was actually surprised by it.  I knew that I had been nominated, but I hadn't seen anyone arguing that an additional admin was needed after Skuld's promotion, so I'm not sure what prompted it - I had always assumed a discussion behind the scenes, but I never asked.  Earlier (pre-RfA) when my name had been suggested, it was pointed out that I live in the same timezone as Rainith and Karlos, so I'm not sure what changed.
 * Of course, I wasn't about to decline once it happenned. I've tried my best to use the admin abilities sparingly, and I would hope that everyone would take me to task if I either have in the past, or do in the future ever use the admin rights in a questionable manner. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:05, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Bishop/Gem, I understand what you mean about opening up induction as an administrator directly as a community process, and I wish I could support you in that endeavor. However, consider that we do occasionally have bring the hammer down, be it in inter-user disputes or whatnot. If all of our most active editors are administrators, it becomes exceedingly difficult to arbitrate such a conflict. Look at disputes Karlos has been involved in&mdash;things are dramatic enough when only one admin is involved directly in a dispute. Under your proposition, the majority of our prolific editors would inevitably become administrators, and disputes would inevitably boil down to inter-admin conflicts.

While philosophically I believe we should all be as equal as possible, and I fight for it whenever possible, in actuality there must be some degree of "us" vs. "them" mentality. We must be accountable for the proper functioning of this wiki. With too few administrators, users have nobody to help them when they need it, and things very quickly get out of hand. With too many administrators, the administrative team can no longer be relied upon. If squabbles among the admin team are made public even once, we lose a significant amount of trust and power. That bodes poorly for the wiki in general.

I believe somebody (one of Stabber's personae?) recently told me that the GuildWiki is not an experiment in abstract democracy. This is true. We are, at our core, a fansite. Our audience here is significantly different than the audience of Wikipedia, or other wikis on the web. We have, for better or worse, come to rely on the fact that the administrative team, in very specific, limited circumstances, has the right has the need to "strike from above," as it were. Unless the administrative team maintains control of its makeup, the ability to do so effectively, and with the support of the community, is greatly lessened.

It's important to note that no current administrative candidates have consensus in the classical sense. Xeeron has, what, 16 votes of support? That's a far cry from the multiple thousands of users registered on the site, not to mention countless anonymous editors and viewers. Our current methods of induction to the administrative team take far more than the group of ubereditors into account. :) &mdash;Tanaric 13:07, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, he's got 11 votes, but also consider the amount of users who actually browse GW:RFA, and also consider how many of these take time to vote. I have been around here for quite a while now (since february, registered in may) and I can honestly say I had never seen that page before this discussion. I'm sure I'm not the only one. &mdash; Galil  13:19, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Tanaric: I do not think that it is relevant in a dispute if both sides are admins. I don't think that the admin status has anything to do with a dispute. It is true that an admin should come to solve the sitation, but it is irrelevant if any of the sides in a dispute are admins, we should just ignore that fact. This is not a reason not to promote new admins.
 * It seems that there are no good reasons for or against promoting new admins (even the timezone thing is pretty irrelevant atm), so it's up to Gravewit to do the decision. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Gem, I like you and mean no offense, but I think you're viewing this a little too narrowly. I completely agree that a conflict between two admins will make a bit of difference in the perceptions of the admin team by any of the users who read this message. That said, it could very likely shake the confidence in us by the 10000+ users who *won't* read this message. Again, it's a case of risk vs. reward, and I'm loathe to risk it. &mdash;Tanaric 21:07, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Tanaric: "disputes would inevitably boil down to inter-admin conflicts" <- That argument is flawed, IMO. With both sides in discussion being admins at least it's even field of play! None of both sides can end the conflict with a "hammer" (as you put it yourself). You're forced to resolve the issues in discussion, just like it should always be, by convincing the opponent, or, if that doesn't work, by democratic vote.
 * Tanaric: "Xeeron has, what, 16 votes of support? That's a far cry from the multiple thousands of users registered on the site" <- That argument is very flawed as well, and you know it. The vast majority of users registered on the site don't give a rats ass about GW:RFA. Infact, the vast majority of users registered on the site are totally inactive, and have either never contributed at all, or at least not for a very long time. If we had a minimum voter turnout on GWiki any vote would fail, even if the minimum voter turnout was only 1%. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 01:06, 10 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Tetris: I apologize for the confusion. I was specifically referring to conflicts that get ugly and require "administrative edits," as we seem to be calling them these days. No such intervention can reasonably exist when all users involved are administrators. :)


 * Tetris: That statement was intended only to illustrate the gap between "everyone wants this" and the truth, which is "20 people most interested in the site want this." I agree that it, on its own, does not even begin to look like a reasonable argument. &mdash;Tanaric 11:23, 10 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Tanaric; I'm going to keep this short despite my urge not to. Unfortunately, this whole discussion now positively reeks of the current admins fearing a loss of power and influence, thinly veiled behind arguments of "we don't want us and them as long as we can keep being us, not them". Arguing that disputes between the people in whom the community has placed its trust because they are level-headed and trustworthy is somehow going to deminish their ability to properly manage the site because it makes them look bad, is complete hogwash. As a result, and because the only opposition to adding new admins is currently coming from the existing admins, I can no longer in good faith see myself becoming a member of such a secluded old-boy's club. Therefore, I am A) renouncing my candidacy for adminship and B) completely stepping out of this discussion. It is simply not worth the increase in my blood pressure.


 * In closing, you really, really need to check yourself and see if your opinions are in fact formed by a desire to see this community grow and prosper, and not something completely different.


 * -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 01:15, 10 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry to post in the middle like this, but I just wanted to point out that I (an Admin), support the idea of brining more people in as Admins (as stated in my post far above in this conversation). I agree that it should be a community decision, and in fact would argue that the Admins should stay out of the decision altogether (personally I'll suggest and argue for people to be made Admins, but if you note, I have never voted yea or nay in an RFA, as I think that should rest on the non-admin's shoulders to make that decision).  --Rainith 11:14, 10 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I wonder if anyone else finds it ironic that Tanaric has ridden in with a slogan of avoiding "us and them" and yet he's now created an "us and them" argument the likes of we haven't seen for a long time...as someone who's still just a humble user (and after this discussion may end up being so forever) it seems kind of weird that you want users to be treated the same as administrators yet vehemently argue against the appointment of any more administrators. Shades of Animal Farm's "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" anyone? What may have started out as idealistic now just looks like a power grab to me.


 * I don't actually feel much "us and them" after reading the comments made thus far by admins although I am getting an "us vs Tanaric" vibe. I'm trying to be as honest as possible here and hopefully as an arbitrator you'll appreciate it Tanaric. I don't believe your thinking is in tune with the rest of the community (I make no distinction between users and administrators, the community is both) which is ok, your opinions are exactly that, your own, but they are creating a lot of grief. Myself, I’m not getting particularly emotional about it all, I guess after you’ve been around for a while nothing is truly surprising any more and I don't want to see you go on another leave of absence (you may not be considering it at all but given PanSola's obviously upset reaction to the whole thing I think it's necessary to point out that out) but I would ask you to reconsider your stance. --Xasxas256 03:45, 10 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Bishop: That is an entirely unfair characterization of the administrative team. I am the only one who has argued vehementely against adding new admins. To say that the entire administrative team is currently acting like an old-boy's club is bordering on cruel, as their reputations (with the possible exception of Karlos ;)) have all been near-flawless, as far as I know.


 * Xasxas: I find it ironic myself. While I argue for the equal standing in nearly all cases, the simple fact is that GuildWiki has always run on a sort of benevolent dictatorial system. Gravewit and Nunix still exercise absolute, inarguable power here. The administrative team is close to that. My goal has always been to limit the application of such dictatorial power. Keeping the admin team small, to people I know will never abuse that power or work to slip the GuildWiki's thinking so that more application of that power is okay, is very important to me. The easiest way to do this is to keep the administrative team as small as allowable. I believe the server admins agree with me on this.


 * I didn't realize that arguing from a perspective that's been the basis of the wiki since day one would brand me a traitor.


 * In case I didn't make this clear: I won't be upset at all if Gares is made an admin. I will be upset if any candidate garnering over X support votes is made an admin. My point was to illustrate why the latter scenario is a bad idea, and that's all. &mdash;Tanaric 11:23, 10 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm trying one last time to explain my view of the admin thing:
 * I do not think that there is ANY situation where an admin has any more rights/status than a normal user. The adminship is just a bunch of new tools which should be given to help the work of certain well known contributors. These tools shouldn't be handed out to all good contributors as it is not a sign of good contributorship to be an admin. These tools should be handed to those who can and will use them to benefit the wiki. People like Skuld really do a lot of good with the tools and some of the non admins, like me, regularily would need them, (after this discussion I probably don't even want to be an admin although it would help me a quite a bit) but instead have to contact an admin to get a job done.
 * I think we should make admins of those people whose work in the wiki would be greatly improved with those tools. Ie anti-vandalisers, deletionists, ... If the current admin team and Gravewit/Nunix disagree, fine. But I feel that it is just stupid not to let the contributors to be more efficient. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2006 (CDT)


 * In many ways I agree with you, Gem, I'm not keen on having a system where some people have less editing powers than others. But at the same time I don't think admins should be appointed based on their level of contribution. Ollj would, by this logic, have made an excellent candidate for sysop status ;)


 * I think those users who should be made admins are the ones who can remain reasonable when others disagree with them, who can help other users resolve conflicts and can act as positive role model for the GuildWiki.


 * Perhaps, in this scenario, there should be more than two user-levels here?


 * Those required to administrate users
 * Those who are super-contributors


 * I'm not sure that there should be 2 seperate user-levels for this, and I'm not sure what abilities a super-contributor would have, but I would prefer this route than to say that all regular positive contributors should be eligible to become admins, because that makes no sense to me.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 02:24, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * P.S. I should also point out that for the most part I agree with Tanaric; admins should be picked by the community, whether we actually need more admins should probably be decided by the admins themselves.


 * I don't think we should have an all-inclusive policy when it comes to adminship. I do not want to exclude anyone from becoming an admin, but I don't think being a regular contributor is enough. In order for me to consider someone to be an admin a user would have to show that (s)he is a level-headed people person with the ability to understand the argument at hand and try to resolve it accordingly. I'm not saying that those nominated to become admins do not meet this criteria, but it is a very different thing from "making contributors' lives easier" as you put it, Gem.


 * Of course, I am just one admin. If the majority of admins think that we do need more admins then I will trust their judgment. :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 02:36, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Leaving to Estonia in a few minutes, but still taking time to post this. :D (No, I'm not a wiki addict.... really...)
 * I didn't say that all regular contributors should be made admins. However, I think that some or most of the currently suggested new admins should be given adminship to help their work and make sure that vandalism never gets to be a problem. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

Gratuitous Sub-heading -or- Removing admins
I'm really just making this sub-heading because I'm sick of having to scroll up to click "[edit]".

Firstly, have a good trip Gem :) Secondly, I kind of agree Gem. I want to make it clear again that I don't think we should make anyone into an admin unless they can prove that they are rational and open-minded, and that they have good communication skills. But I think you, and most people, agree there, so I won't labour the point! :)

I've been thinking about this in the few minutes since my last post and I think the main reason that I'm not that keen on accepting more admins at present (unless we actually need them, of course) is because we have no real procedure in place for undoing a promotion. If someone decides that I'm not suitable to be an admin... well... what can they do about it? That's not a very defensible position to be in!

If an admin were to be promoted thanks to a community vote (in this case let's say about 5 people) then how would we decide if it was a mistake? Would the admins decide? That could be seen as a conflict of interest, i.e. "Let's get rid of Tanaric because he's obsessed with his case crusade!". And of course decisions made by admins in disputes could be considered unpopular, so would it be fair to let the community judge an admins actions? How many contributors would have to call for his resignation? 5?

I think, if we had procedures in place to demote admins, I would have no problems with making all those people who were nominated and met the criteria admins.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:32, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * While I don't know a single case of an admin having done anything that remotely warranted denoting (no, not even you know who ;)), if we should ever need it, the procedure could be simple: Majority vote, as usual. The only problem with this would be sockpuppets. But I think those would be pretty easy to identify in such case.
 * On a side note, I think we should prune the list of sysops and remove inactive admins. I think a long list of sysops may create the false impression of an overly large admin team when infact the number of sysops is somewhat smaller. Of course there is a chance that an admin who has been hibernating for a long time may become active again some day, but in such case they may always get their status back. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:32, 11 August 2006 (CDT)