GuildWiki:Admin noticeboard/Resolved3

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

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

To create a new request, add a new subheading under Unresolved, providing 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 moved here.

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

Example:
 * GWW Profile

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


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


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


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


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

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

advance notice
Notice for admins and others who may be interested

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Vandal
User:65.92.232.122 -- Shadowphoenix  23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really a big deal unless they do major vandalism, they aren't worthy to be mentioned on this page.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]<font color="#4682b4">Entrea  <font color="#4682b4">[Talk]  00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Try Template:Ban next time <font color="Blue">RT </B>| <font color="Black">Talk</B>  11:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

floating boxes
Floating boxes like the ones here are extremely disruptive and irritating, and they remind me of the position:absolute vandalism. They also break pages here. Would it be reasonable to disallow these boxes? --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest 18:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Breaking it was intentional, I'll go fix that now. I agree, though. They are disruptive.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]<font color="#4682b4">Entrea  <font color="#4682b4">[T]  18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jesus, people are using those now? Yes, we should definitely not allow those, since for example the one linked to above hides the navigation links in the top right corner. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally don't like it, but I'm gonna officially be neutral regarding its use on the user namespace. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Annoying as all hell. If we're not going to allow advertisements like this I see no reason to let users use it - unless there's one hell of a good reason. Userspace is OK as long as it's not on a) userpage itself or b) user talk page. Since those serve special purposes, and disruption there is bad. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as navigation is not hindered to any destination/function, a user page can have anything it wants (respecting other general rules of course). The floating box in that link is covering the edit buttons and dismiss button, so it should not be allowed in its current form. -- Xeon 16:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These are highly annoying, they should definitely not cover up controls. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 16:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I started this trend. Sorry >.< Lann's is almost alright though, surely, because it doesn't follow you down the page. My old one did. My new one's just random :p Jamster 16:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lann's one did follow you around.. Till I.. dealt.. with it.. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png|Hello]] Warw/Wick 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * May pleads the Fifth :/ --Gimmethegepgun 16:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png|Hello]] Warw/Wick 16:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, May broke that code a few times and finally got it to stop stalking us. -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8  (T / C)  16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to completely disallow it, it can have some very useful benefits as well. But definitely, if one proves to be disruptive or hinders other uses of the page, it should be fixed. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way about this as I do about the changing of the title of your userpage. You can do whatever you want in the content section of the page. Anything that you do to your page taht extends out of the content is inappropriate. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 03:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe if you make the margins the correct size, you can keep the floating box out of the way of the headers and tabs. I don't think it can do harm there. But if you need to scroll up and down just to reach basic parts of the page (tabs, menus, etc), then I'd consider that disruptive. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  04:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just require all floating boxes to have a class, so one line of css can take care of them. <font color="#DD2200">Lord Belar 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Warwick
She claims she was banned, but I cannot seem to find anything in the block log that suggest she was :S. Can anyone justify that she was/was not blocked? -- Shadowphoenix  15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocklog for User:Warwick. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The block log for non-sysops -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gem and Brains..... So this basically proves she wasnt blocked, odd why would she lie about something like that? -- Shadowphoenix  15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, I failed with the link. No clue about why she would say something like that, especially since I don't know where she said it. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Felix_Omni -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8 (T / C)  15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * She couldn't have been blocked or autoblocked. According to the logs, no one was blocked since before her last logged in edit. She's either lying or insane. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * AGF? -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8 (T / C)  18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, may be a bug <font color="Orange">Random </B>|<font color="Black">Time</B> 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith when I checked the logs instead of assuming she was lying. I think the odds of a bug telling her she was blocked when we didn't block her right when we were talking about blocking her is really really weird. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well I'm unblocked now. I'm certain that it said that I was blocked.. :\.. What would be the point of lying about it? It'd be easy for somone to find out if I was or not.. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png|Hello]] Warw/Wick 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the thing. According to all available evidence, and especially because I've only issued two blocks in my career and I'm not delusional, you were lying. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NPA me and all, but is there anything Warw won't lie about if pushed? Jamster 19:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is pretty much a violation. Shame on you, don't do it again. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 19:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the first time, in fact, it's probably around the 30th time when someone is effectively blocked when no one actually blocked that somebody. Please don't jump to conclusions about ops "stealth-banning" people, or jump to conclusions about people lying about being banned. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you see, Warwick claims that the ban summary was written by me and directly applied to her. So this wouldn't be a case of an oops-block. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

build articles
Would anyone mind horribly if I were to start manually going through the Special:Wantedpages list and modifying the links that link to those build articles to send them to the corresponding pvx articles? I'm bored and it could be entertaining for a little while. -- User:Isk8  (T / C)  16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you insist. Dr Ishmael wanted to let a bot do the work, but if someone else feels so damn bored like doing something so repetitive... Go ahead imo. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 16:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * LULZ! Coding a bot for that would seem extremely complicated, imo.  And I am in the mood for something boring and repetitive at this point.  Just ate breakfast and I am just ready to lounge about for the rest of the day.  -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8  (T / C)  16:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only problem is if the build doesn't exist anymore. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I could just be cruel and remove all those old links from peoples long forgotten user pages :P -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8 (T / C)  17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Point deceased builds to the Main Page, or Special:Search :P --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 17:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you want a heck of a lot of watchlists and recent changes to be spammed, leave it to a bot. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't a bot do the same thing. -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8  (T / C)  17:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bots with, BOT STATUS, I believe, can be/are automatically hidden from RC. Jamster 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My God... there are 1000+ items in Special:Wantedpages. That is just insane. Second though, I'm not gunna get mixed up with that crap. lol.  That would have me pulling my hair out I think. -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8  (T / C)  17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to bot it, one of the tasks.. waiting for approval <font color="Blue">Random </B>| <font color="Black">Time</B>  18:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bot tasks/Builds redlinks rewrite &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

User:½
That is going to be a pain in the ass to link to. (unless I'm missing something) --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest 16:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User: & 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That failed. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the code User: doesn't work... looks like copy+paste or alt+something will be the only option. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:½ It's alt+0189, not too tricky. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 16:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And you're going to remember this code should this user start to contribute on a regular basis? :P --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ALT-Codes. Favorites it! [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's not an easily accessable username, and people who haven't read this could spend ages trying to get there. I was going to suggest we request on that user's talkpage that he create a more accessable account. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest 16:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have him create a shoe puppet, User:One Half, which redirects to his page. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 16:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would work. Does anyone else disagree, before I mention it to the user? --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's wait until the user actually makes addtional edits besides his own userpage. If he never uses the account again, it might not be worth the effort to take up another account name. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 17:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Warwick?
Um...yeah. I just recently found out she was banned by Felix. Why the hell did he ban her? Was it possible abuse of powers? I just find it kind of weird that someone would actually do some shit like that because Warwick is a good contributor and helper around the wiki. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="purple">Hellbringer (T/C) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * She has also been warned numerous times and know that she should not troll. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright...any other reasons, Viper? --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="purple">Hellbringer (T/C) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)I wouldn't say banning warwick is a step too far in general, since said user often ignores people, incites drama, etc. That said, I feel felix is generally too personally involved in anything involving Warwick, and things between them escalate very quickly. I'd appreciate links to the contributions causing this ban, or at least a rundown if pages have been deleted. Lord of all tyria 18:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically Felix took the insults and drama too far leading to a lot of pages being deleted? --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="purple">Hellbringer (T/C) 18:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, I missed recent happenings on wiki, and I'm just saying what I know. Lord of all tyria 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. I missed them too. I have just been messing around with a few things on here. Like User:Hellbringer/Weapon Skin Comparison...which takes so much time so I do it in school and when I have nothing to do. Thanks for the info. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="purple">Hellbringer (T/C) 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah - links would be good <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  19:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I saw was a userspace page she made that said "/irritatefelix" x100 or so, which Felix deleted, but that doesn't justify a 1-week ban. If Felix banned her for stuff that happened outside the wiki, then that is definitely abuse of powers.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to may she sed that rt told her tht the reason felix banned her was:


 * Thts what May told me rt sent her as the reason <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="red">Hel <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="yellow">llb <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="green">rin <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="black">ger ([[User_talk:Hellb 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont get why she was banned cuz of that, sinc she wasnt involved at all.. <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="red">Hel <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="yellow">llb <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="green">rin <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="black">ger ([[User_talk:Hellb 20:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you post that again you will be banned as well. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * why? why'd u delete my stuff? May said rt said you said (lol) that was what u banned her for.. <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="red">Hel <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="yellow">llb <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="green">rin <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="black">ger ([[User_talk:Hellb 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to respond to that in great detail, and I would appreciate everyone not editing this page before then, because I do not want to deal with edit conflicts. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh but wat did may actually do? <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="red">Hel <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="yellow">llb <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="green">rin <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="black">ger 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * After a conversation with felix on MSN - I agree with his reasons for blocking May - however a block of hellbringer for asking reasons is unacceptable <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the huge block of comments hellbringer pasted here that brought up some stuff from about a week ago. JonTheMon 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  20:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OT but, you can block someone while already blocked yourself?-- 21:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem so. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest 21:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And then unban yourself to explain, then reban yourself. Interesting.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 21:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't post while banned. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  21:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a fundamental flaw that a sysop retains all powers even when they get banned?--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorta, but part of being a sysop is abiding by discipline like blocks. If a block keeps on getting undone or bypassed, then that's grounds for removal of sysop powers. JonTheMon 21:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen up
and the corresponding talk page were deleted by me because the conflict it detailed was a personal matter between myself, Maui, and blue.rellik- it was barely related to the wiki, and should never have been brought up here. I handled the situation spectacularly badly, by trolling rellik and losing my temper. Ideally I should never have made the list at all. I have suffered a good deal for that outburst- Maui has not spoken to me since then, and I wonder if she ever will, and I also returned from my miserable convention to find myself banned for a week. I maintain that the entire topic did not belong on wiki, and if anyone has any respect for me or my decisions, they will NOT attempt to revive it again.

Now, on to Warwick. Warwick has been harassing me in-game and on MSN for months, really- she spends more time on my block and ignore lists than she does off it. "But that's not on wiki!" you may protest. Take a look at User talk:Felix Omni if you haven't already- Things that you say and do off GuildWiki may be invisible to the rest of us here; but they still reflect on you. This morning Warwick begged me in-game to unblock her MSN account, so I eventually did. She proceeded to taunt me in regards to the ban, and then revealed that she had the entire text of the Noobs talk page. Now, the only way she could have gotten that is by asking a sysop to procure it for her, and I'm quite upset about that as well- regardless of what you feel about my powers of judgment or my temperament, I made an administrative decision to remove that page from this wiki, and I would expect others to either abide by it or address their concerns directly to ME. Anyway, Warwick told she was going to repost that entire conversation on the wiki under requests for arbitration or some nonsense. I expressly forbade her to do so, because of the reasons above, and also because it's none of her business. She said that she was going to do it anyway, I warned her (again) that if she did, I would ban her for at least a week, because in her escalating series of escapades she's gone from a day to three days, and the next step is a week. She continued to say that she was going to do it, even when I asked her to shut up, because I was monking in the Fissure of Woe at the moment and it was extremely distracting. A few minutes later she MSNed me again with something like ":) /waits for ban," and sure enough I saw a very large post in Warwick's userspace with the title "felixban." As I decided that the situation warranted it, I banned her just as I warned. I then asked Viper to delete the page, since doing it myself would require unbanning myself, something I'd rather not do because Entropy clearly trusted that I would respect her decision in banning me. And I do feel horrible that I've broken that trust right now, but I really need to say all this. Now people are saying that the page was actually just irritating nonsense, and if that was the case, I apologize for jumping to conclusions, but while banned one cannot view deleted pages even if one has sysop privileges.

As for Hellbringer... I told May that if she or any of her friends wished to protest the ban, they could contact me on MSN or wait until Friday. Fairly promptly I was messaged by Hellbringer, who said several hundred times "OMG WTF why did u ban may" before I blocked him. I don't care what kind of a relationship you have with Warwick- don't repost that conversation, don't harass me.

Now, if anyone feels that the ban was unjustified after knowing what happened, please contact me via MSN, or even e-mail, because I will now be re-banning myself for the remaining time, regardless of what happens on this page or any other page. 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave may the pages after this had cropped up - and after Felix asked me whether I had given the pages. Idk why I did this, looking back <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  20:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Felix I have to say I'm sorry for being rude on MSN. I have no real idea why I did it. But thank you for explaining what all went down. May might have gone too far with that stuff she has done. I should talk to her after this. She will probably get mad at me. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="red">Hel <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="yellow">llb <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="green">rin <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="black">ger 20:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The pages aren't terribly hard to get, I have access to them to, in that my computer has an archival program that stores copies of every site (in every revision) for up to two months. Google Desktop (the program I use) is also relatively common, so don't feel too bad about it. &mdash; Powersurge360 Violencia  20:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining, Felix; I was very angry for a bit. I had given may the pages a while ago, for the same reason as Powersurge said; it wasn't exceptionally hard to get. Any user that had been on at the time could have copied it and given it to everyone they knew. Perhaps not the brightest decision I've made, and I'm sorry for it; but what's done is done. At any rate, I will not oppose the block. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think that stuff that happens outside the wiki needs to stay outside the wiki. Yes, anything a person does will reflect on that person, but that in itself shouldn't be grounds for banning anyone from the wiki.  If it is brought onto the wiki, though, then the overall issue should necessarily be considered when making administrative decisions against that user, but only if and when it is brought onto the wiki.  If I go and start spamming, say, Vipermagi with random insults in-game, of course that's going to make me look bad, but Viper isn't going to ban me from the wiki just because I insulted him in-game (at least I hope not :P ).  Now, if I were to reference said insultspam in any way here on the wiki, then it could be considered a wiki issue and I could be banned for it.
 * This case, of course, is more complicated because it sprouted from long-standing issues between a few people. It was brought onto the wiki through, and Entropy took action because of that.  What happened since then, however, has mostly happened off-wiki except for , which in itself was really just spam (and a touch of trolling).  Off-wiki threats a user makes to do something on the wiki should not be relevant to any administrative decisions against that user unless those threats are somehow made a part of the on-wiki issues against the user, which I believe did not happen here.  This was made obvious by everyone's confusion immediately after Felix blocked Warwick.
 * I'm actually going to stand in Warwick's defense in this issue and recommend that she be unblocked, or at the least have the block length shortened (since she did post that spam/troll page). I also feel that Felix allowed his personal feelings against Warwick to greatly influence his actions in this matter, and I would agree with a decision to demote him because of this.  He should have simply ignored Warwick both on MSN and in-game, instead of allowing her to continue harassing him.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 22:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Felix has since unblocked Warwick, on the basis that the spam/troll page Warwick made didn't contain the content of User:Felix Omni/Noobs, and thus grounds for banning weren't sufficient. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest 00:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ishmael makes good points. I believe that...
 * banning Hellbringer was/would have been wrong
 * May cannot be banned for actions off the Wiki if they do not affect the wiki; i.e. the whole conversation on the Noobs page in addition to the outside knowledge was, I think, justifiable cause. But there was no such similar comments between May and Felix on the wiki (at the time, to my knowledge) which justify banning her. Yes, she has numerous warnings and such and such...nevertheless, banning for general asshattery is hard and I don't think there is sufficient harm done right now - if it was an admin other than Felix making such decision, Warwick would probably not be banned, since Warwick did not harass them on MSN or such.
 * It was a mistake to give the contents of the Noob page to May, and I feel it led directly to these later actions and reactions.
 * Felix is walking on thin ice with two strikes. Further actions on the wiki during the remainder of this ban will result to desysoption (I am upset about that); any actions after the ban which are of this nature will also result in desysoption. The only reason I am not desysopping right now for this incident is because I beliveve the other sysops are to blame (see above bullet), as well as May pushing it in harassment. It is true that "[Felix] should have simply ignored Warwick both on MSN and in-game, instead of allowing her to continue harassing him." But considering the situation right now, I believe it was rather inevitable even if Felix had strongly wished not to act, and I feel others would have done the same. This is the same reason I did not block Blue.rellik or Maui in regards to the original Noobs page discussion, even though they repeatedly broke NPA very clearly...I didn't think it would help to resolve the issue. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * May I clarify- I didn't actually give that log to ANYONE other than Felix, until I was given it by RT apparently from Felix as the reason I was banned. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wawrick...again?
Erm, why did Wawrick get banned again with the reason given as "User Request" and an expiry time of infinite. An infinite ban based on "User Request" seems a bit harsh. User request by who, and based on what? Can we atleast have some explanation of that?-- - (<font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 18:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And she just asked me on msn to unban her. Im laughing hysterically, so I would like to know what is going on too. -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8  (T / C)  18:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Warw requested it <font color="Orange">Random Time 18:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * O Rly? About 5 seconds later I req'd unblock.. At which point you started ignoring me.. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 18:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh - I'm not here at all times of the day - I needed to go somewhere and my brother grabbed the computer before I could get back <font color="Orange">Random Time 19:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't always have to do what Warwick says, RT lol. And Warwick, if you really felt that you needed to have something banned, ask em to ban one of your other accounts to play. We are not here to pander to your every whim. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call <font color="Orange">Random Time 19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you are, you're all pawns to my magnificence and majesty. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

GuildWiki:Bots
Seems to be fixed that Bots is a copyvio, even after a major rewite she will not stop marking it for deletion and ranting about it. I am aware that it was a copyvio beforehand but I rewrote it so that it would no longer be one, I have said apolgized about it being a copyvio and did a major rewrite. Apparently Warwick thinks it has the same meaning so it is a copyvio. Admin intervention is needed imo -- Shadowphoenix  17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Petty things dont belong on the admin noticeboard. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The current issue doesn't seem to be about Warwick as much as it seems to be about whether or not the policy is a copyvio of the GWW policy. Warwick thinks it is and you think it is not. Now, I'm going to review the two policies shortly but firstly, lets keep in mind that they are both policies about the exact same thing and they are naturally going to be similar. Remember that GWW borrows plenty of things from us and based lots of their policies off ours. Also, our early policies were based off Wikipedia policies. Ladies, please don't let this discussion degenerate into a simple cat-fight. Don't take it personally, either of you. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the policy. A few sections could be construed as a copyvio but they have now be rewritten. In the future, instead of slapping the tag on, you should show quotes to places where you think it may be a copyvio and calmly discuss why you think its a copyvio. Additionally, if someone thinks that your edits are copyvios, don't take it personally and point out sections that you rewrote. I HAVE SPOKEN!&mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Monster pages
I was looking through some of the monsters I noticed that a lot of them have a '__NTOC__' thingie at the front, preventing a contents from being shown. Is there a reason for this because I've been removing them but since so many have them, I'm unsure if they're actually meant to be there or not. - <font color="darkBlue">b.r // <font color="Black">talk  10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)