User talk:Entropy/Archive 25

First Lord Belar 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Second?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * third Cress Arvein 02:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * fourth. --Hellbringer loves emo slut druggies (T/C) 02:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * fifth. ECs ftl --Shadowcrest 02:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for helping fight the vandal(s). GuildWiki couldn't function without you. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dang, I missed all the fun!--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can watch RC for any new IPs posting to my or Hell's talk and ban them. I need a minute to check for missed damages. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (2xEC)It could, but it would end up looking like myspace. Lord Belar 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * you wish IP. and so true belar--Shadowcrest 02:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yikes, that's a scary thought, Belar.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping my talk page clean o.O - I could probably hazard a guess to who random IP is this time but I doubt it'd be very constructive. Jennalee 02:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another angry SodM member? >.> [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * SodM? Lord Belar 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nop, I don't think the majority of our members are inclined to behave immaturely, but someone else who was more recent around here. Viper should know *cough* Jennalee 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want more targets for banhammer, see User talk:Ravenjwolfe and then Special:Contributions/64.20.53.18. Jennalee 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Ban imminent Cress Arvein 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Heh, to quote this page's history notes - "soz to Gem, Entrea, Shadowcrest, and Hell. Mr. Vandal: I do not like you. I do not respect you. You are unworthy to even post on my talkpage".(and, er,  ;) - What about me? I even reverted your user page and almost got RSI thanks to Mr IP. Don't I get no admin-love? Hehe -- Snog  rat  13:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i got RSI. do i get admin-love?--Mr Ex Vandal 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you want it, lol. I quote:

"Banning is my way of showing affection, honey. I'll belive you're a changed person if you stop using proxy IPs. :) (T/C) 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"  --Shadowcrest  23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I <3 being banned, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. --Mr Ex Vandal 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Please stop banning me. I am a changed person. I am not vandalizing pages. And I love you very much.
 * Hey, look, a flying pig! Lord Belar 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * for some strange reason I find both those statements hard to believe... --Shadowcrest 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm Cress Arvein 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Banning is my way of showing affection, honey. I'll belive you're a changed person if you stop using proxy IPs. :) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Fucking EC)There could be a reason for that... Lord Belar 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Banning is how you show your affection? God damnit, and I thought you loved me --Blue.rellik 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Masochistic calling for the banstick are we? Jennalee 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * She must love IPs a lot rofl. I <3 Entropy banning. --Hellbringer loves emo slut druggies (T/C) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Hell. You ♥ Emo Slut-Druggies.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. Forgot about that. --Hellbringer loves emo slut druggies (T/C) 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, what a day. I can't believe how much work it is to be an admin sometimes. It just makes me appreciate people like Karlos and Skuld and Gares and Gem and...yeah, all the old admins. It makes me appreciate them more now that I know some of what they went through all the time. I really miss them. :( Thanks again everyone... /signoff (T/C) 03:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Crazy day, eh? Wish we had all of those big-hitters that you mentioned still with us, too. --[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 03:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Woot lets do that again lol. Pull out those banhammers like crazy. --Hellbringer loves emo slut druggies (T/C) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pick a random person tomorrow and ban them. I nominate you. :P Lord Belar 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But Gem is back. &mdash; Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 23:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * lol if you want there to be more admins i'll volunteer. I was just looking at the active admin list and realized just how short it is. ^_^ &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ME + MP will bash and win over you all! Mwahahahahahahhaha.... Umm... Hi? -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good thing...
...you don't care about GWW, because Raptor stole your name over there. Your alter-ego is now a vandal's sock-puppet. Entropy on GuildWiki = everyone's favorite admin. Entropy on Guild Wars Wiki = loathed. Just thought that was kind of funny. Entrea Sumatae   [Talk]  00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

UNFAIR
Quote from User_talk:Mr_Ex_Vandal: "It only took so long because, technically, the ban isnt protected under policy. But for that much BS, besically we just said "f*ck policy" and banned him. --Shadowcrest 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)" That sounds unfair. :( --194.54.189.173 02:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair has nothing to do with it. Admins can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and you can't do anything about it. --Macros 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares? It's another Raptors. And I don't trust you, considering you showed up right after I banned him, and your only edit is about him. Same goes for the IP who posted the exact same message on Gem's talk page.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * GW:YAV --85.25.141.60 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * GW:ADMIN --Macros 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * GW:YAV --195.141.76.131 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandals are not. --Shadowcrest 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that your opinion doesn't matter, I simply stated I don't trust many IPs right now.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And, IP, whoever you are, this is thte second vandalism filled night in a row, by mainly IPs. You picked a bad time to act mysteriously. --Shadowcrest 02:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WTF? ARE YOU RETARDED OR WHAT? ITS OBVIOUSLY ME -.- --195.141.76.131 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the last time: FUCK OFF. YOU ARE NO LONGER WELCOME HERE. Lord Belar 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah fuck off and stop infaming us anons!! 169.231.5.83 02:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing ips doesn't help. Lord Belar 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And it's defame, not infame. Lord Belar 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Infame - Learn english. --62.129.164.190 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Infame: To defame" Read your own links. Lord Belar 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * YEAH AND INFAME IS CORRECT TOO. SO STFU :] --85.25.141.60 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * srsly--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Shush and leave the wiki. for good, IP. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Shadowcrest 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, much of this is just trolling. Please tell me you're going to get rid of this whole section, Entropy?-- (Talk) (Contr.) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wanna hide that you banned an user for breaking NO policy, huh? Nice :) Well, I gotta sleep so good night. Se you tomorrow! --169.231.5.83 02:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not rlly. I just think that this whole section is pointless to keep, and doesn't really show a good community to any new users looking on this page.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see. Nite!
 * Honestly, IP, NO ONE is going to back you up on this one. In fact, show me 10 people on the wiki who will believe you who are not sock puppets, and I'll leave you alone. Which leads me to my next point; sockpuppetry can get you banned. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Shadowcrest 02:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, it can. Oh, wait, IT JUST DID. Lord Belar 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * God I'm getting sick of all this shit.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the vandal, we all are. Lord Belar 02:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Poor Entropy, all this crap always happens on her page. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Shadowcrest 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There should be a User talk:Entropy/Real talk, so all the shit can go here, and the conversations can continue undisturbed. Lord Belar 02:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not so bad of an idea. The only thing for me would be its harder to get to, but if I had all this vandal crap going on my talk, I'd probably do that. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Shadowcrest 02:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth ... this wiki isn't the GWW, and not bound by the same policy mistakes over there that handcuff their sysops over there into being little more than glorified janitors.
 * On this wiki, per policy: Administrators can ban users at will. This is usually done in cases of vandalism, and permanent bans are usually reserved for spambots. However, if an administrator feels it prudent, he may remove a user from the wiki for any reason, or no reason at all.. If someone is being a disruptive force on this wiki - they can and should be banned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I didn't see the account MR Ex Vandal disturbing. The IPs are a lot more disturbing. So I'm unbanning the account in hoipes of getting him back to it instead of multiple IPs. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 10:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on the bans themselves - I haven't reviewed the posts myself - I'm not an admin, so I'll leave that task to those who are ;-) I was just pointing out the policy line above, because there seemed to be debate on if the bans could be done. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. :) I wasn't commenting to anyone specifically either, it was just an announcement for anyone who thought that the unbanning was weird. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What the hell were you people thinking? -.- I stand by Gem's decision on this one... It's true, that I banned a lot of random IPs also a few nights ago. To argue my side, it was obvious that they were the same person. We don't have a GW:SOCK but I felt justified since it was clear the vandal was simply using alternate IPs to continue and harrass the Wiki.

Now, when Mr. Ex Vandal was created, I stated on his talkpage that I didn't particularly care for his style of editing, especially his not-quite-bannable disrespect for GW:RFA and other users, but at the same time if he was truly of a mind to reform I would welcome him with open arms as much as possible. People can change, sometimes drastically, and you have to take their word for it until evidence proves otherwise. If Mr. Ex Vandal had actually broken a policy, then yes, he would deserve a ban. But "baiting" other users or admins into making fools of themselves is not a bannable offense. You people chose to say what you did, not because Mr. Ex Vandal made you say it, but because that is how you actually felt.

I have tried over and over again to advocate respect and tolerance towards anons and fringe users of the Wiki (User talk:NanoWarrior, User talk:Mr Ex Vandal, User talk:Lost-Blue when he was still an anon), because you can judge a community not by how it treats those best off (err...not Gravewit in this case >.>), but by how it treats those most disadvantaged or unliked. It is true that I go all-out and pretty much break GW:NPA when dealing with vandals. "Fuck off" is certainly not a constructive summary for banning. However, those sorts of times, I have made absolutely certain that I really am banning a vandal, one who has showed contempt and disrespect for our policies and the Wiki in general. I am not necessarily saying that it is okay to sink to their level, but GW:YAV does not cover vandals who will return your insults word for word given half a chance...that would be overextention of a policy, using it for something it was not intended for.

But, even though we pretty much go by vigilante justice here, we do have standards. We have guidelines for what is a bannable offense and what is not. We do not abuse GW:ADMIN for our own selfish purposes, and say "Admins can do whatever they want" to justify an otherwise uncalled for ban. We look for evidence before banning someone - why do you think admins are reminded to check the contribs before banning? To put it plainly, we have a great priviledge called administrative discretion, and when that gets abused I start to seriously consider whether we ought to have it. Perhaps GWW is in the right, after all. It is very sad to say so, but maybe we do need to have policies defining everything. If people cannot use their own good judgment to make decisions any more (and I am not just talking about Marcopolo here), then we should be stripped of that power.


 * Innocent until proven guilty
 * Admins have the same amount of clout as normal users
 * Preemtive bans are unacceptable (User:Raptors is an extraordinary exception)

Is it really so hard to follow these simple rules?

I am disappointed in all of you, but especially myself for not being a good enough role model. (T/C) 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing to point out, Raptors had already continually harrassed Ryudo on the other wiki, and then came here when he got banned to continue to harass him. Is that not a bannable offense? As well as circumventing a ban, as Mr Ex Vandal did multiple times?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, Raptors is a...special case. I'm well aware of his actions towards Ryudo, and I suppose you could argue that that does constitute a bannable offense. However, as much as that is relevant, you can never judge a person's actions on one Wiki when considering their actions on another. By that standard, I would have put you up for de-sysoption a while back. (No, really.) I was willing to give Raptors a chance here, but I guess that was already decided.
 * If you are banned on one Wiki and you create an account on another Wiki, I don't think that can be called "circumventing a ban", although again Raptors seems to make an exception. My interpretation of "circumventing a ban" is when you get banned for vandalism and, say, use a proxy IP to continue with more vandalism. Or, you create a new account with another IP. For example, what User:Vorrax did was clearly unacceptable.
 * For Mr. Ex Vandal...I agree with Gem that the ban was unwarranted. To copy and paraphrase some of Tanaric's words from GWW, "we can't prevent users from circumventing bans, but if they must do so, it is better that they do so for a constructive, positive purpose rather than simply returning for more vandalism". Granted, he was speaking of Raptors on GWW, but I believe that logic is pertinent here as well. Mr Ex Vandal was banned without due cause, and to get recourse for this he circumvented the ban by creating another account. I disapprove of this method - it would have been easy enough to contact a sysop through their mail - but either way, it was a positive purpose that he was working towards. And there was no permanent damage done.
 * On the other hand, when he was using multiple IPs for vandalism and general disruption and openly acknowledging it, that is a different matter. That is bannable. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point here. I was not referring to Raptors when I was talking about circumventing a ban. Mr Ex Vandal had multiple IPs before creating an account, all of which were dutifully banned. By creating an account, you are circumventing a ban, even if it is because you have changed your ways. You should have to serve your sentence, and then you can think about coming back and reforming your way of contributing here. You can't arrest someone for murder (multiple times) and then let them go because they said that they'll change. They've done it already, and the past can't be changed.
 * As for Raptors, I did not ban him for what he did on the other wiki. He came here and continued to harass Ryudo, even after being asked to stop. That is the reason I banned him.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read my part about circumventing a ban? "You should have to serve your sentence...You can't arrest someone for murder" - The wiki doesn't work like ReaLife(TM), Marco, and comparing sockpuppetry to murder is simply inane. Bans are not absolute decrees of justice, and people don't "do their time" until we see fit otherwise. A ban is a warning. Except in very extreme cases where an infiniban is warranted - the blackest of vandals and the most destructive of users - everyone needs to be given the opportunity for redemption, even if you personally don't believe them. Words of advice from Auron: "Wikis aren't the place to be distrustful."
 * Moreover. What did Mr Ex Vandal do? What we can prove he did, is use many IPs for sockpuppetry and generally disrupting the Wiki. I can not conclusively prove that he is the same person who on that night was redirecting everything to Special:Random. Those accounts have been infinibanned. For using sock IPs, each one got a one-month ban. For the perpetrator of the socks, Mr Ex Vandal? Alright, so he pissed a bunch of us off by using random IPs. However, we don't have a GW:SOCK policy, he never technically broke any other policies, and the actions of you and the others could easily be said to be more foul and misguided than anything he had done. Sure, he circumvented a ban by creating an account after getting bored of proxy IPs. But if that is all he plans on doing from now on, I really don't give a damn about what he did in the past. A one-time socking vandal is not a threat to the Wiki if he truly keeps his word. Ex post facto is unconstitutional, anyways, if you want to talk about true justice.
 * Bans can be misused, also - I personally believe that your judgment is flawed for Mr. Ex Vandal out of personal bias, since he and you seem to have had especially bad blood. I don't think you're helping your case any by trying to argue it with me here. As much as I like you personally, Marco, and as much as I am willing to give you a second third chance to redeem yourself, it's becoming increasingly difficult to compromise with your ideas about what Wikijustice should be like.
 * Raptors made one post, and no one gave warning until after the fact, so I fail to follow your logic for him, though he probably should have been banned anyways. The use of "continued" also implies a past precedent, which is in this case his actions on the other wiki. So you're not making much sense there. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * TBH, it sounds like you're actually saying that circumventing a ban is acceptable. A warning before banning should be the warning, and after continuing to ignore it, a ban should be the consequence. I believed I've already addressed the Mr Ex Vandal issue on my userpage. As for Raptors, I probably shouldn't of banned him so quickly, but I saw no intent from him to help further this wiki's goal of complete coverage of all of Guild Wars, only harassment. As for sockpuppetry, why isn't there a GW:SOCK? Sockpuppets are wrong, and it should be a bannable offense. My example of RealLifeTM murder may have been a bit dramatic, but that was only used to get the point across, and it was not referring to the sockpuppetry, but to the vandalism. I probably am making things worse for me right now by arguing with you (which I HATE doing), but I want my opinion to be heard.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not part of this discussion, but I don't know if anyone else who is knows about this so... here: GuildWiki talk:Sock puppetry. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 00:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not only my personal opinions, Marco. "A ban is a warning in itself" - PanSola's sentiments, and many other former admins' as well. "If it is impossible to prevent someone from circumventing a block, then they should at least do it in a positive and constructive manner" - Tanaric's thoughts, about Raptors. You should also know that precisely because we have the discresionary powers to even debate things like this - the nature of banning and what we do or don't do - people have different opinions about what to do with vandals, and no one of us is 100% right even in majority. Your personal interpretation of warnings, bans, and consequences is in conflict with mine. I believe that only the strongest actions, such as an infiniban or range-IP-block, can be truly considered punitive actions. Everything else is a warning. Remember that as administrators, even though we have the same standing as other users, we should ideally aim to be the role models of the community. Assume good faith and You are valuable are ones that have already been brought up repeatedly. Ignoring a warning warrants a stronger warning, namely the suspension of one's editing privileges for awhile. Most vandals, whether they be IPs or registered accounts, cease vandalism after being banned once or twice. The "punishment" for ignoring all warnings, repeatedly, again and again - after much provocation and an obvious malicious intent is shown - that is the infiniblock, the ultimate and the only punishment. Everything else is a warning. Wikis are built on community and trust, and that involves the belief that (almost) everyone can reform and change their actions if they show a desire to do so.
 * I'm not saying that "circumventing a ban is acceptable". I'm saying that it is currenly impossible for us to prevent smart folks like Mr Ex Vandal from circumventing any ban they please. We know that and he knows that. It would be futile and pointless to ban each and every account and IP he uses as a "punishment" for his past, one-time actions. It would only incite him to further transgressions of the rules and more bannings. I say, live and let live - he had his fun and at least for the moment I consider him a benign presence. There just isn't a point in pursuing "justice" because he "got away" or whatever you want to say.
 * As for GW:SOCK, I can tell you from personal experience, Marco, because I was here before you...such a policy has indeed been tentatively proposed before, but rejected. Why? Because it is infeasible. We simply do not have the manpower and firepower to hunt sockpuppets - we don't have the technology or the time. It is very difficult to prove, with hard evidence, that someone is in fact a sockpuppet, if they know at all what they are doing. If you want a good historical lesson on this, consult User:Stabber, an infamous case of sockpuppet accusations. Also check the link given by Jedi (thanks). To put it briefly, sockpuppets have rarely been a serious problem for GuildWiki, and even though there is almost no reason to ever use them, it was decided that as long as a sock doesn't do anything harmful (such as throwing an election through votes), then it is pointless to spend time and energy tracking them down and banning them. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well then, from here on out, I will give small bans as warnings to those IPs that would vandalise out wiki with malicious intent. However, how do you suppose we deal with the sockpuppets that can potentially be created and recreated for vandalism, since you are against banning each and every one of them? Just continue to let them have their fun at the cost of our time and vandalise? Shouldn't we at least give something such as an hour ban to briefly stop it? Sockpuppets have not usually been a big problem, with the exception of Stabber (yes, I was here for that, but did not have an account, nor did I know how to edit), however, why should we let them go unpunished, or "warned," or whatever you want to call it? Why should they be able to go about without a ban if they're clearly deserving of one?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And btw, Jedi, thanks for that link, I wasn't aware of that before.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 00:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting what I said. I am not against banning sockpuppets that actually harm the Wiki - I am against preemtive bannings, bannings without evidence, banning socks that haven't done anything which would get a normal user banned, etc. Alternatively, if a user uses a sock to circumvent an unjust ban, then that needs to be taken into consideration too, beyond "Oh it's a sock, just ban em all". If you read the link, I agree with Karlos and Gem etc in principle, but PanSola and LordBiro's concerns are spot on. It's alright to be an ideologue, but you have to be realistic too. I'll try to make this simple...


 * I don't give a damn about benign sockpuppets with like 1 edit - ban 'em for a while if you want, don't care about the puppetmaster since really they haven't done anything
 * Sockpuppets which are used all together for a purpose such as deceiving a vote should be permabanned, and if it can be proved reasonably, the puppetmaster should be banned for a long time
 * If a sock is used to break a policy like NPA or 1RV or for vandalism, then it should be permabanned, and if it can be proved reasonably, the puppetmaster should receive a magnified ban (comparable for the offense)
 * Sockpuppetry in and of itself is morally wrong but still not inherently bannable, and as you can see there is no official policy for it
 * Retroactive punishments are not good
 * To answer all your questions in one shot: Sockpuppets are subject to the same policies and standards as normal users and should be treated as such, until proven otherwise (which is usually very difficult). I don't care if you are a registered user, a vandal, an IP, an anon, a sock, or whatever - if you break the stated policies or otherwise disrupt or deceive the Wiki, you get banned. If you don't, I don't care who you are. Am I being clear? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gigathrash
Marcopolo broke something (someone?) and doesn't know how to fix it.--Carmine 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem fixed, I'm not banned anymore =D (long story)--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]<font color="Black">igathrash Talk^Cont 01:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Eivittu perkele saatana
Gods, I leave the wiki for one night, and all this has to happen again? I have a real life, too :( I'm sorry that I can't deal with things right now, but hopefully there will be time over the weekend. I apologize for my spotty attendance record of late, and would like to thank Marcopolo for taking up the slack where I leave off. (T/C) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heehee, that's probably more than can be said for some of us ;p - maybe you should consider removing that userbox, you know which one Jennalee 14:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why finnish?? Falafel 18:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the only language that can truly express my frustration at the moment. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

...
See my userpage plz.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Marco, just because you let one guy get to you and make you break like 15 policies isnt a cause to go and delete your userpage! Anyway, GW:RFA ftw. EDIT: my new sig ftw as well.. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Talk ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Contr. ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">My RFA! (vote support)  07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fuck. And no, Warwick, I don't think you're qualified. You are just not experienced enough. Though I do appreciate the gesture - it shows you care about the Wiki and want to help out. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Z0mg entropy, was that a Personal Attack against MP47? =O --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Talk ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Contr. ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">My RFA! (vote support)  08:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in a joking mood at the moment. Fuck is a general way of expressing exasperation and discontent. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, it was intended as a joke.. Whats wrong? Anything i can help with? I'm bored enough to do almost anything.. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Talk ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Contr. ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">My RFA! (vote support)  08:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, other than the fact that I'm posting at midnight and have bad sickness in RL - you could start with reading what I posted above, and perhaps Marcopolo's talkpage as well, and surmise from that that I am not very happy at the moment. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay.. Geez, dont get stroppy.. I was only trying to help.. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Talk ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Contr. ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">My RFA! (vote support)  08:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Stroppy? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * well.. yeah.. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Talk ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Contr. ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">My RFA! (vote support)  08:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? I have never heard the term before. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Annoyed/Irritated for no particularly good reason. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Talk ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Contr. ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">My RFA! (vote support)  08:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki collapsing isn't a particularly good reason to be annoyed/irritated?...I'm not annoyed with you. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Then your being perfectly reasonable ^_^ --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Talk ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Contr. ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">My RFA! (vote support)  08:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Will spam cheer you up?
It used to...--<font color="Black">igathrash Talk^Cont 08:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually dislike spam if it clogs up RC, but otherwise I don't mind it. Moar archives is always a good thing, innit? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do a pyramid, in one edit:O. Yay for templates.

The one problem is I can't make it sign every line with the person using it :/.--<font color="Black">igathrash Talk^Cont 10:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's a template? Interesting concept...I wonder if I could get it to work. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 10:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's much better. It was certainly getting on my craw when the spam crew were living up to their name --Blue.rellik 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF
taken from Raptors' usertalk on GWW

Hey
I like you. I think you know that. I don't know who your socks are and I don't really care. If you're still vandalizing/whatever, you're failing to make whatever point you're trying to make. If you're not still doing that, sweet. In either case, you'll do a ton better if you just make a new account, never mention you're Raptors, and start fresh. I for one quite appreciate your insight into the nature of the wiki, but the only way you'll ever make a point is to discuss it.

Even if nobody agrees with you, you'll make more of an impact with some discussion than you will with vandalism/policy violations. Look at User:Karlos for verification of that.

&mdash;Tanaric 09:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As a sysop, is it prudent to encourage the most infamously banned user in this wiki's history to circumvent his block? - elviondale  (tahlk) 10:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, if he does no harm, then I don't think going past a block matters :P &mdash;  ク  Eloc  <font color="Black">貢  10:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What the hell, Tanaric? I once respected you. FFS, this is yet another reason for me to never go to GWW. (T/C) 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't presume that Tanaric's opinion reflects anyone else's on GWW. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow --Blue.rellik 11:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not, Biro...but this is extremely troubling to me. Admins/sysops are supposed to serve as role models for the community, and even though Tanaric's or Eloc's personal opinions may not reflect anyone else's on GWW, it is sad nonetheless. "What sorts of evil must lurk in their hearts to spur them on?" (Confessor Dorian) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey- I'm Elviondale from GWW. The convo seems to have moved to his user page. If you don't mind, I have changed my links for my copied comments as well. SuperStretch 14:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't Raptors steal your name on GWW Entropy? lol --Macros 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he did.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Darkroots daggers
I have a spare pair that I'm not using.. Want them?--Satanic llamas 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Price? If not too high, then yes plx. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..
Reading through the UNFAIR section of your page, astoundingly there was a lot of trolling going on- i think that almost all of the people who posted there deserve a (temporary) ban.. =/ -- <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Talk ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Contr. ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">My RFA! (vote support)  12:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, including me...--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 14:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Shut up Marco. You already apologized via user page. Plus I tend to troll a little :D. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="green">Hellbringer loves emo slut druggies (T/C) 15:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too. I regret my actions because even after all this time I still don't know when to shut up. --Macros 16:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Warwick, but the past is the past, and it wouldn't serve any good to anyone to hand out bans now for that incident. Everyone is under my stricter scrutiny now and I've officially reprimanded you folks, but a ban at this point would just be futile and ultimately symbolic at best. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just some questions
What is Rollback? What is Patrolled? What RawDump? And, what are the red exclamation marks on RC mean?-- (Talk) (Contr.) 15:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Patrolled means edits that were made by admins, RawDump I believe is where people dump raw information and have someone else put it in (don't hold that to me though) --Gimmethegepgun 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * About patrolled: Why, on new pages, does it say "Mark as patrolled" with a clickable link? What does that mean?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 15:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Methinks something like "This page has been tested and approved by an adminz" (that reminds me of Duyvis commercials.) --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (s)talkpage 15:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Patrolled edits can be excluded from RC(like minor edits) --Gimmethegepgun 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, then what's Rollback, what's the red exclamation marks on RC, and I still don't understand what RawDump is?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, is there any way to view a deleted picture without restoring it?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rollback allows you to undo all of the edits made by the last user, up until the last edit by someone else. So if I make 7 edits to a page and you click rollback then all those 7 edits will disappear. Very handy for dealing with vandals.
 * The red exclamation marks show that an edit has not been marked as patrolled yet. We've never really used the feature here! <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 19:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the Undelete feature here is like the one on PvX, you can click on the page name in Special:Undelete, then click the revision you want and hit show preview. --Wizardboy777 19:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * RawDump = pure data that has not been properly formatted for wiki consumption. Sometimes RawDumps might actually be slightly formatted to help with eventual integration into the wiki.  "Patrolled" means an admin has approved the edit like Vipermagi said, and can be excluded from the RC to decrease the number of entries you need to look at when hunting for vandalism (only have to check unpatrolled edits marked by red exclamation mark).  However the patrolling system only really works when lots of admins actually use the feature (checking individual edits and marking them as patrolled so other admins won't have to check those edits), and on GuildWiki that usually is not the case. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a link to the RawDump somewhere?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, a raw dump can, for example, be a huge chunk of text that a user has written in OpenOffice that is then copied to a wiki page without inserting any formatting etc. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 21:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tanaric hosted a RawDump in the midst of the Wikia debacle, and I believe that Wikia themselves will give you one if you ask nicely. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm winning
You've been an admin for a month longer, but I've deleted more stuff than you have :P --Wizardboy777 19:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That may be so, but you've got to factor in the type of stuff you're deleting, too. I'd say you have a much easier job as an admin over there, and definitely more fodder for deletion too :P [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Trash is still trash. PvX just generates it faster :P --Wizardboy777 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol :P [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious
me=suspicious.. 2 new accounts voting for me.. they're my guildies! O_o -- <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (T)/(C) (RFA! ) 19:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Warwick(2) --Mr Ex Vandal 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As per User talk:LordBiro, votes don't specifically mean anything in terms of quantity, but rather in the specific issues or non-issues they address about a candidate's character or experience. So I doubt it'll be a big deal. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

LAME --> NERF
People were asking for it on the talk page for LAME, and I made it. If it matters to you, you are welcome to move it to your userspace and claim credit for it, since its basically yours anyway. You'll have to change links if you do, though. Cheers --<font face="vivaldi" size="3"> Shadow  crest   21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an ancient request, and I thought about it but finally decided that it would be too much work. Thanks for finishing yet another one of my unfinished projects. I hate to steal stuff from other users, though, so I will still attribute it to you. :) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Arghh
I'm getting confused with this. GW:ADMIN says I should ban people at my discretion, which I've been trying to do to the best of my ability. However, whenever I ban someone due to them breaking a policy, etc., I getted yelled at for "abusing my powers." What am I supposed to do? Continue to let them troll and flame and vandalise and bring this wiki down, and get get reprimanded for it, or actually use my administrative properties that this community once thought that I should have, and ban them? Please, I'm asking begging for some kind help to solve this dilemma.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quotes from your actual userpage:


 * 1) I've been acting immature to multiple on the wiki
 * 2) I've decided that I seriously need to reflect on my actions, and to change my ways.
 * 3) my foolish actions
 * What made you change your mind? Am I right by saying that all the apologies and stuff were only preventive measures to avoid losing your adminship? --Mr Ex Vandal 01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The things I am mentioning here have absolutely nothing to do with the ones on my userpage. Here I am not talking about trolling you and pre-emptive banning.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are. You have been accused of abusing your powers when you banned me (note: didn't break any policy, so "due to them breaking a policy" is incorrect). --Mr Ex Vandal 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I am not talking about you here. --[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you weren't accused of abusing your powers when you banned vandals. --Mr Ex Vandal 01:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandals such as what you were? Yes, I was. And I'm asking you kindly to please leave my question to Entropy, whom I was asking in the first place.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have all the rights to express my opinions, and I will do so. You were accused of abusing your power when you started banning every anon, including those that didn't vandalize one single page (and didn't intend to). Now, that is abuse of power. --Mr Ex Vandal 01:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, and that is discussed on my user page. I never said that you couldn't express your opinions, either.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 01:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah...I thought you'd bring that up sooner or later. I will do the best I can to explain my interpretation of the policy. Note that, obviously, if you want a clearer and more historically accurate picture, you should check out the talkpage of it. Also note that my comments are not directed at you personally, but just as an interpretation in general.

Administrative Policy


 * GuildWiki admins are recommended by the community.

Means that we are a creature of the people (the community) and have a right to serve in their best interests. If you know what the "social contract" theory of government is, then that applies here somewhat.


 * Once promoted, an administrator is fully autonomous: he may do as his powers allow, as he sees fit.

Means you can do anything that is within your administrative powers, as you see fit, as long as you are not breaking policy, making up standards and guidelines on the spot ("I'm right because I said so"), circumventing the letter and spirit of the policies with your discretion ("Admins can do whatever they want"), or otherwise abusing the obvious intent of this privilege. The point of having fully autonomous admins and discretionary power is to allow for efficacy and a quick resolution of "grey cases". As with the general editing theme, we encourage our admins to "Be Bold" and make use of their powers. "...it allows incredibly quick resolution of the vast majority of issues."


 * Further, because the administrator's character is well-known before his promotion, abuses of administrator power simply do not happen.

RfA's have been spotty of late and a LOT of the people whose opinions have been important in the past - basically, all the long-time contributors who left, and the admins - have been unable or unwilling to make themselves heard. While this provision of the policy used to hold true, it is simply not too viable anymore because of the smaller userbase. It is harder to use it as a gague nowadays. LordBiro is only one man, and as much as he tries to give a fair trial for appointing sysop rights, even he makes mistakes. That is why community feedback (not just quantity of votes) is very important.

There has been one exception, the infamous Skuld, but I'd rather not discuss that, since it is a whole other issue.


 * Administrators are appointed for life...Again, this is because only extremely trusted users are granted adminstrator status.

This is yet another clear indication of how grave and important a responsibility you carry on your shoulders. The community has placed itself in your hands. It is your duty to oblige their trust and do what is in their best interest.


 * Administrators in the midst of conflict have, in the past, offered to resign if the community voted it was prudent.

We are an instrument of the people, created and also destroyed by their will


 * Administrators can ban users at will. This is usually done in cases of vandalism, and permanent bans are usually reserved for spambots. However, if an administrator feels it prudent, he may remove a user from the wiki for any reason, or no reason at all.

The letter of the law would seem to read that you can ban anyone you want, but that is obviously not the spirit or intent of the law. It would be folly to assume that I could ban any one, any time, for any reason other than I felt like it. Although you are not technically required to give any reason whatsoever for banning someone, take note of the word prudent. That signifies that, except in extraordinary cases (Raptors again >.>), it is considered bad form to ban without justifiable cause. Yes, the policy as written technically exempts you from that, but no, people won't tolerate it being applied liberally. That was not the intent of the provision. It was a clarification of what "fully autonomous" and discretionary powers means.

Basically, put it this way: If you ban a user, and everyone else (including admins) on the Wiki thinks it was unreasonable, GW:ADMIN doesn't protect you. As with almost everything else on the Wiki, ultimately, it is the will of the people and majority rule/consensus that decides what is acceptable interpretation of the discretionary powers clause, and what is not. As it stands now, the general consensus is that people shouldn't be banned without just cause and at least some evidence in the form of contribs.


 * As a matter of courtesy, most administrators will not ban a user he is directly involved with; instead, he will ask another administrator to examine the situation from a neutral perspective.

Never let personal opinion and bias get in the way of your administrative judgment.


 * Administrators can counteract other administrators, if they feel it prudent. An erroneous ban can be lifted.  An erroneous delete can be restored.  Typically, only a message on the talk page explaining the reason why such a countermeasure is prudent is expected in such a case.  The "reverted" administrator is expected to oblige the revert, and should not reinstitute their action without discussing it with the "reverting" administrator.

No extra comment needed.


 * An appointment to administrator is not something done lightly. The administrators are a cohesive team, and the mutual respect they share for another, even when disagreeing, is second to only the respect and care they have for the GuildWiki itself.

Respect. Cherish and honor your position.

...I could sift through all the other policies if you would like, but I hope that was sufficiently clear. Basically, admins aren't above the law, and a majority never constitutes a jury, though it can point out flaws in the system. (T/C) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resignation
Please read my userpage, again.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's sad that you have chosen to leave, but I think you have guts to admit when you've made a mistake. As much as I think a lot of this was a result of badly timed Wikidrama ("mass temporary insanity") rather than policy and stuff, on some level, it was the right thing to do.
 * On the other hand, I'm pretty much all alone now, being essentially the sole active admin left. So personally I wish you wouldn't. I guess it is for the greater good, though, and your way of showing that you do care about the Wiki... :'( [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's in charge of selecting admins right now anyway? --Gimmethegepgun 02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * LordBiro. Best of luck with your RfA, Gimme.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You might not need help in a little while after all, entropy :) --<font face="vivaldi" size="3"> Shadow  crest   02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)