GuildWiki:Admin noticeboard/Resolved3

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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

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

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

Resolved issues are archived here and here.

GFDL content on Guildwiki
There is some insecurity about allowing GFDL content on GuildWiki. The article Archiving Help, initially copied from GWW, was copyvio-tagged and speedily deleted (luckily I already had the page open for editing, the present version is 100% rewritten).

Now publishing GFDL content on GuildWiki is not a copyright violation per se; if it was, we couldn't publish GFDL-licensed images, either. All that was needed to cure the page was to place a notice on it that said, in effect: "This page is not under BY-NC-SA, but under GFDL".

I suggest that we also add that "all user contributions to the page are considered dual-licensed under both licenses until the GFDL content has been eliminated, then the page (and all contributions) reverts to BY-NC-SA". This allows for step-by-step rewriting of longer articles.

Another way to do it is to say on the page that "all content in blue boxes is GFDL-licensed, please add your edits outside of these boxes". We can then step by step cut these down by rewriting the content outside the boxes and cutting the box contents until none are left. Thoughts? --◄mendel► 23:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New image license
I propose a new image license. The proposal is at Template:Licensed image. It would find use for images such as Shadowphoenix2.gif, Banjthulu IPU.png (the licensing info on that image is inaccurate) and Valid-xhtml10-blue.png. If the admins so please, I would ask that it be added to the image upload dialog dropdown. --◄mendel► 22:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about what the advantage is compared to the pre-existing license choices we have, which to my knowledge cover everything - is there some other licensing which does not easily fall into one of our categories? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 09:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what existing license should have been used for those 3 examples? They're not fair use, really. --◄mendel► 10:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm...other than the IPU, those other images don't have their licenses set up in such a way as to be easily classified, yet they probably have the proper documentation somewhere. (probably in RL) I can see how this does present a problem for us...I guess that fair-use is the closest applicable policy. The problem with simply linking to or pasting a copyright from somewhere else is that it may not have the same legal standing as our current licenses do (when properly done)...I don't know. We need someone here who has real legal expertise. (actually, such a person could have been useful many times over for I can't think how many major wikidramas...>.>) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 10:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The IPU is not easily classified. Have you looked at wikipedia:Image:Uri.svg? It provides both a link and a copy of the license. We need to be able to do licenses somewhat like that, in my opinion. For the XHTML button, I can provide a weblink to the license on w3c.org, or copy the text from there. As I said, it's not really fair use unless you use it to illustrate an article about it or some such.
 * Do we have a section on the wiki that states who to send DMCA takedown notices to? I'd suggest pointing to the admin noticeboard or the admin info page. --◄mendel► 10:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I had looked at that but now I see it's just a generic infobox and not a license template. Now I am inclined to agree. However, unless there are more than just those three images (?) it does seem a bit silly to create a tag just for them...oh well. If others agree I'll go ahead and add it (unless someone beats me to it!) to the menu.
 * I don't think such a page exists as we have never had to take such an action before. The copyvio template isn't mvuch help either. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The wiki should decide which licenses are acceptable and, for most cases, not allow images under other licenses. This should probably mean only CC, GFDL, and whatever license/terms ANet allows fan sites to use their material under (and of course anything in the public domain).  I gave the three examples only the briefest of investigations, but:
 * Image:Shadowphoenix2.gif: I did not see where the stated author has allowed copies of her work under any license. Unless the wiki has an article about her work as an artist, I can't see how it could be fair use.  Kill it.
 * Image:Banjthulu IPU.png and [[:Image:Valid-xhtml10-blue.png: The licensing terms are clearly stated but are currently not being met for at least the W3C icon. The W3C icon requires the image to always be used as a link to revalidate the page but the image's page itself does not do that.  It won't do that unless you resort to JS tricks to rewrite the page.  I didn't check whether the IPU logo's requirements were being met everywhere it was being used.  Regardless, I would recommend it not be allowed even if made compliant because it's not CC/GDFL/ANet.  Probably want to kill these.
 * The problem with allowing random licenses is that, well, they can be weird and can break the general wiki paradigm of editing whatever you want to make things better. I can't inline the IPU image saying "hey, I like this image."  I can't edit the W3C to change the color.  Although I know this, random users won't.  Verifying random licensing terms for more than a handful of strangely-licensed images will, at best, just lead to copyright violations even if no one ever notices or cares.
 * While we're on the topic: fair use. Since this is a Guild Wars wiki, and probably all of ANet's stuff is available under their fan site terms, off the top of my head I can't really think of a case where fair use could be reasonably claimed.  I took a look through the (small) fair use category for images, and it wasn't pretty.  "Fair use" seems to have been picked because the uploader knew it wasn't under any license but wanted to upload the image anyway.  "I want it on my user page" is not a good reason, even when it is GW related but not under any license.  (For example, there's some GW concept art.  If it's not available under the usual fan site terms, then it's not fair use unless maybe we've got an article discussing the art of GW.  But, as far as I know, all we have are game guide-type articles, so I would not say it would hold up as fair use when used anywhere here.)
 * Finally, DMCA takedown notices would go to Wikia (as registered with the US Copyright Office.) --65.13.59.67 11:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * wikihelp:Displaying_images. Sigh. --◄mendel► 02:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Don't use CC nc licenses because we don't want to get sued for putting up ads they go against our open content mission." Upwards of 99% of the content here is probably CC by-nc-sa 2.0 already. --65.13.59.67 04:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is because the wiki had that license when it moved here. Still, the page strongly suggests that we should shelve the "special licenses"idea - apart from the open source philosophy you clubbed us with ;-) - and rightly so. --◄mendel► 05:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine - again - you can make up a usage right to almost anything if there is a licence to fit (did that make sense?) Random Time  15:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

remove maybot bot flag
Of the latest 18 edits of User:MayBot, 2 had to be edited, and one should have been rewritten. May only does this when prompted. Since the edits still need scrutiny, they shouldn't be bot-flagged. --◄mendel► 22:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, those edits were entirely unnecessary in the first place (pages should have been merged instead of renamed). &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is, should I just remove MayBot's bot status, or ban the bot entirely? In other words, do you...(1) feel that May can have a bot, but atm she needs to use it better; or (2) May shouldn't have a bot anyways. If (2) that is easier to do since it does not involve asking Wikia to change usergroup stuff. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 03:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we just need to remove the bot flag, no need to ban the account. Losing the flag will require her to manually save each page in AWB (hopefully this means she'll catch any errors as they happen and we won't have another episode like Cleanup after Maybot) and the edits won't be hidden in RC.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 04:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What the doctor says. I haven't been asking for a ban because that would mean a) taking a big step when a small step will do; b) May's not been malicious or catastrophic with the bot. Bold, yes. --◄mendel► 05:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...well, I would at least like to give May a chance to defend herself before doing anything. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 06:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't relaly matter, tbh, so whatever. point of that was that I'd moved them, and it was only 18 pages so I'd thought no-one would mind. Tbh, imo you're making a fuss over nothing. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

UserRights
Hi all, a quick note for Bureaucrats on a change made today. Instead of the specific special pages for making admins, giving rollback etc. please use Special:UserRights. This now allows you to set the following rights:


 * Add bureaucrat
 * Add and remove admin
 * Add and remove rollback
 * Add and remove bot

Please let me know if there are any problems or if you don't feel this is the right selection of rights for this wiki. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's about what we asked for and I think this should be sufficient for all future needs. (It's probably a good thing we can't demote fellow bcrats on a whim :> ) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 09:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And 'Crats got buffed back to their original standard! Good, we should give some more users rollback imo Random Time  09:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Request for rollback rights? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 09:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Felix Omni's Block
I believe the blocking of Felix Omni for his comment on R.Phalange's talk page was too harsh. I feel either a warning should have been issued or a lesser block. --JonTheMon 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, it seems that Auron is letting his personal dislike of Felix affect his judgment. While the comment was a bit harsh, it was no worse than some of the things Auron himself has said in the past.  I'm removing the block.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to request that you re-block the user. I've explained myself in greater detail - the choice to block and the specific length of the block. TLDR version of my talk page; no, it wasn't personal bias. I don't let that shit interfere with wiki business/sysop actions (although you should know that by now). Felix's attitude was poor and his comments were in bad faith - something he'd been blocked for in the past. Generally, when people commit the same crimes again, they get locked up for longer, not released immediately. - Auron  16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what? Fuck this.  I am never again going to get myself involved in an issue where you're already involved in any way.  I can't stand your elitist, arrogant, "I am perfect" attitude.  Yes, I'm feeling inferior because I can't stand up to your debate-club trained wall-of-text rationalizations - the only reason you're "almost always right" is because you throw a torrent of them at anyone who questions you until they give up.  So to avoid all of this, I'm just going to avoid you.  Re-block Felix if you want, I don't care what you do anymore.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's a question of personal bias, perhaps some other admins who don't feel biased could voice an opinion? --◄mendel► 17:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I doubt it. Almost everyone has strong feelings about Auron in one way or another. And, I hesitate to bring this up, but Phalange is not more important than, say, a certain IP who you effectively asked to leave.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]] Entrea   [Talk]  17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Red herrings aside, I asked him to not comment if he had no idea what he was talking about. He was perfectly entitled to stay and read. - Auron 07:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I sat down and looked at everything and its time for beercrat to render judgment. First off, its not Felix's place to change RP's activity status on GW:AI without speaking to RP. Contributions are not required to show activity. As I mentioned on that talk page, "activity" in terms of an admin is more is the admin available to be contacted for daily wiki matters? Only the admin can tell that. And RP certainly can go change it. Following this, I see Felix's comment on RP's talk page as extremely inflammatory and while I probably wuoldn't have banned him for it (I tend to go easy on bannings; this is more my thing and one reason its useful to have a more heavy-handed admin like auron around) I don't disagree with Auron's block. Felix's comment was rude, trollish, and probably contributed to a sense of being unwelcome that would only hinder RP further. The block length is contributed by Auron's own policies about increasing block length per offense. And when it comes to unblocking, unless it was clearly a mistaken block, you should in general discuss it with teh person who originally made the block before changing it. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 17:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like a question of whether Auron is biased or not, it's a question of whether the possible truth in Felix's statements and his intent excuse him from his- as Auron put it on his talk page- "rude and uncalled for" and "overly aggressive and assholish" manner in which he posted on R.Phalange's talk page. Which, regardless of intent, they were. And since Felix had been banned for similar behavior before, Auron set a higher block length than before (also explained on talk page). I am inclined to agree with Auron (even moreso after reading his explanations) that Felix's writing style was unnecessarily rude, and that a block was warranted. If Felix had been less of a prick when he was writing to R.Phalange... none of this would have occured. --Shadowcrest 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a single outburst doesn't warrant a ban of that length (after all, we're only human), and even after several warnings, his comment wasn't exactly the worst thing that's been said around here. That said, a ban was warranted (even Felix agreed) but it seems to me scaling offenses are more appropriate for deliberate acts against the wiki, not outbursts of anger that we're all subject to.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]] Entrea   [Talk]  18:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that respect, I think it's a question of whether Felix's action (fyi, I neither agree nor disagree with the ban) represented the most recent event in a pattern of behavior or whether this particular incident should have been viewed as a "we're all human" outburst. Obviously, Auron is of the opinion that the former is true, in which case, assuming the ban in of itself was justified, scaling it was justified as well.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Felix's previous outbursts and other such were aggressive outbursts typical of his behavior as much as he was a victim of circumstance. There seemed to be a lot of harassment being thrown his way in those times, and when it died down he has, quite obviously, cooled down. I think this can be chalked up to a human mistake when he let his feelings get the best of him. &mdash; Powersurge360  18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply for the sake of playing devil's advocate for a moment, I would say that the counter argument would be that the "evidence" indicating that this is something other than a simple outburst would be the target of his rudeness (for lack of a better term). Beyond the action itself, Felix's dislike (again, I can't seem to think of a better word... mistrust perhaps?) for RP is well-established, and that he chose to continue that trend in an inflammatory manner indicates a more deeply seated (and thus more likely to continue) problem than would be the case if this were merely a one time thing.  Hope that makes sense... [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It does, and I do think that, to an extent, that's right. I think the user being who he was is what pushed him from confused to offended. Regardless, when he stood back and saw what he had said and the reaction, he apologized. If nothing else this shows that he was acting on impulsive emotions at first, and collected thought in his later post further cementing the "mistaken outburst" argument. &mdash; Powersurge360  19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to gauge the extent to which Felix's attitude improves between such outbursts, but, that said, while the apology should be taken into consideration, the pattern of conduct, i.e. the likelihood that it will occur again, combined with the wikidrama that Felix's comments provoked before he apologized provide a justifiable negation of the "impulsive emotion" defense.  The mere act of apologizing, though it's certainly the right thing to do and I commend Felix for having done so, is not proof in of itself if the pattern of behavior sufficiently belies it.  It's a fine line, certainly, but I think you could fall on either side with ease.  In light of that, I don't think there's any cause for undue alarm about Auron being biased, etc.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'd like to apologize for inflaming the issue, and for my historic use of walloftext. I ought to let a non-biased, neutral admin handle any issues with these user(s). I've known that every time yet I somehow think I'll get my way so it'll be fine.

On slightly unrelated note: Entrea, that is a totally irrelevant example which does not relate at all to the current situation. (T/C) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

block doctrine
Auron is blocking from the punishment doctrine again. Would the block be based on a prevention doctrine, there'd be no problem - and no block.

Prevention doctrine means in the case of GW:NPA when you see open hostilities you block for a few hours to give the parties a chance to cool off. Block ends, hostilities resume, you step up the time period until the person(s) is sufficiently cooled off to be civil again.

If you consider this now a single incident, there is no reason for a block. Seeing Felix's knee-jerk reaction to the revert, a short cooldown was justified (hours); as we can clearly see, R.Phalange hasn't taken the bait (very good!), Felix has cooled down, an apology has been extended and accepted, there is no cause for preventive measures.

If you consider this incident part of the incident Felix was banned for 2 months ago, then a preventive measure means extending the block for more than 2 months - say, 3 or 4 months. This means that we'd almost boot Felix off the wiki altogether - nobody can tell whether he'd return after that time. Even Auron hasn't asked for that (yet?).

Astute readers will have noticed that I've raised the question "Why do we block?" in the past. You can dismiss this as "mendel grinds his axe again", or you can recognize that we, the wiki, would benefit in the long term if we found an answer in consensus. See also Wikipedia:Blocking_policy. --◄mendel► 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Too many hypotheticals. Would Felix have "cooled down" if he had not been subject to a block (even if it was reversed)? If no one (looks at self) had said anything about the issue, would it have escalated? Would Felix have apologized of his own accord? I think we can agree, though, that a cooldown of some kind was warranted, and some sort of reprimand or warning. A ban was one way to do it...
 * As to a "block policy" - no. There is no clear consensus about blocking, and so it is left up to the individual discretion of whichever sysop handles the situation. For example, JediRogue has stated at least twice that she's generally more lenient about banning. That's OK. Auron is less shy about it. That's OK too. There ought not to be some policy about when, where, and how to block; that hinders sysops' ability to use the tool effectively. It would have to at most be a guideline...not a set of rules to follow. A general idea about bans is fine, but forcing sysops to adhere to it if that's not their style isn't okay. And in any case, each ban is unique. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 07:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me (Phalange would call it a straw amn argument, no?). There isn't a hypothetical about Felix cooling down - I wrote "a short cooldown was justified (hours)" and agree with you. It is not hypothetic that Felix has cooled down NOW, is it? and that matters for the reblock question.
 * I am not calling for consensus about "when, where, and how to block" - I am asking for consensus on why to block, and I've made that question clear in my very first sentence: do we block for punishment or for prevention? Affirming the latter reduces any block discussion to the question of "is there destructive behaviour NOW?", which is usually simple to answer. Whether to block or to warn, when, where, etc., remains open. --◄mendel► 07:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are difficult to understand sometimes. :\
 * Well, the short answer to your question is that we block for whatever reason we think is appropriate. The drop-down list has a number of options on it. It's not a black-and-white separation between prevention and punishment, because (at least in a case like this) it's subjective... If someone breaks a policy, or vandalizes, or repeatedly breals 1RV, etc. with malicious intent/bad faith, then they get blocked. Rather simple. NPA offenses, general asshattery, Wiki disruption, etc. is I think where you start to get more into the punishment/prevention sphere. So maybe we ought to focus more on those in particular. "Affirming the latter reduces any block discussion to the question of 'is there destructive behaviour NOW?'" - that's an oversimplification of what should or should not justify a given ban, and the discussion around it. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 07:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocks are a tool. It would be dumb to lock them into one specific use. You can mold them to fit the matter at hand; in a mass vandalism case, you can block immediately for the purpose of keeping the wiki safe (preventive). For a hypothetical troll, however, you generally won't be able to catch him that quickly - the average troll doesn't outright vandalize pages or do a mass move page spam. However, trolls are blocked too - a punitive display of the block function. Both are acceptable.
 * Blocks can be used when warnings no longer work. Look at NPA, for example - in general, even if you've been personally attacked, the world isn't going to end. It doesn't interfere with your ability to edit the wiki. However, because it's deemed inappropriate by the community, we block people who continue posting after we've tried warning them. In that case, it's a combination of preventive and punitive. - Auron 08:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * HOWEVER, Entropy got Felix to apologising, meaning a block wouldn't actually been necessary. He knows he was wrong, and that he shouldn't have.
 * That Felix didn't apologise by himself, does not make him a troll. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  09:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * @Entropy: I know that "we" block for whatever we feel is appropriate, and that this is subjective. I want to limit that (slightly - for the majority of blocks this isn't an issue, as you've realized yourself) because I think that doing so out of a punishment motive accomplishes nothing and has a high potential of wiki disruption in itself.
 * The intended simplicification ("NOW") stands for "has the behaviour stopped? has it stopped for a reason (e.g. response to a warning)? is it likely to occur again in the near future (i.e. during the period of the intended ban)?" If you think that still simplifies the issue too much, please elaborate.
 * Could you cite some cases where "wiki disription" or something like it lead to ban that couldn't have been justified by prevention alone? It was looking for those that lead to the creation of my "hit pages", as you like to call them, and it turned out I couldn't.
 * @Auron: "Knives are a tool. It would be dumb to lock them into one specific use." Apart from the fact that this is a straw man - as Entropy has explained, how, when and where varies quite a bit even when you limit yourself to prevention, so it's not "one specific use" -, most societies feel that it's beneficial to disallow knives being used for killing people except under very narrowly defined circumstances. So it is not per se dumb to limit the use of a tool, the benefit in this case being less wiki disruption over controversial blocks. If it is dumb to refuse punishment blocks, could you name some benefits of punishment blocks that could not otherwise be achieved?
 * "trolls are blocked" - when? where? not preventive? There's your June 12 block, are there more?
 * --◄mendel► 11:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)