GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 17

Fansite Links
For improving our appearance of Guild Wars community involvement, can we make the link to the Fansite article more prominent (or, more specifically, the link to the list of fansites hosted on GuildWars.com, which can be reached via that article)? I think it just improves our image of community involvement to improve visibility to that link. I'm not sure the best place to put it; the name "Community portal" seems appropriate, but not in the way we currently utilize this article. Perhaps we can link it either from the Main Page or even create a "Fansite Links" entry for the toolbar on the left? --I am 161.88 13:33, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

and I thought GuildWiki had tons of database errors...
it's nothing compared to the Guru o_O""" - 18:49, 26 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Ironically, as I hit the edit button here, I receive a DB error. It took me over 30 minutes to reply to the Guru thread from all the DB errors. --Gares Redstorm 19:20, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki(MediaWiki) version
According to this Special:Version GuildWiki's version is 1.6.1 maybe upgrading to the latest 1.6.7 MediaWiki Important Release Notes Full Release Notes will solve some of the problems GuildWiki has been currently experiencing. --Phoenix 19:28, 26 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Give it a few months, it'll get updated eventually. LordKestrel 19:05, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
 * That will be nice. --Phoenix 01:40, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

stub?
So... what constitutes a skill stub / an item stub / quest stub / NPC stub / whatever? Is there a place I can find an authortative "these sections must be filled out" "missions need maps but quests/skillcaps dont" or something? Because I'm finding inconsistencies everywhere. For example Mursaat Token is a stub but I honestly can't think of other information to put in it, as is Claw Tallfeather (talk) (compare to other collectors, random example Gwynn) and Offering of Blood. This issue was my major roadblock when I tried to start clearing out stubs (emphasis tried) -- and might be an issue to other new contributors as well. There is no basis to simply compare, since some things that are equal have some stubbed and some not, such as Claw Tallfeather vs Gwynn (do neither deserve stubs? or do both?). It would be easy if all other collectors containing the same information, for a weak example, were unstubbed, but that's simply not the case. Seems half the issue might be that articles don't get stub cleared when they are filled out, but that might be because there isn't a source that defines this sort of thing. Another long, wordy, rambly, it's-hard-to-read-in-this-font paragraph from Tinny. Enjoy. :) --Tinarto 10:49, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Unfortunatly, no. Usually, for most new articles, if nothing is missing that an comparable older article (lets say for skills, items, creatures) has, it is not considered a stub anymore. But unstubbing has so far not been a priority here (which might be a bad thing). --Xeeron 12:40, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Skills: progression 1..16 and and aquisition filled in
 * Collectors: Collectors' info filled in, location
 * Bosses: SoC confirmed, image, location (map good but not a hold back)
 * My criteria, no official ones Skuld  13:52, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I think this task is too large allready and it's getting larger all the time. We would need someone with a lot of time to do a major cleanup. Or maby we could divide certain article types for different people? I could volunteer for something like quests and missions as there is a fairly limited amount of them. I will make a suggestion for some guidelines tomorrow if I remember. Note me on my talke pge if I forget. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 17:05, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Sad but true: Stub tags on GuildWiki are utterly meaningless. :( Do it like me: Ignore them. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:04, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * We should do a cleanup-drive of the stub types and categories some time. All it takes is some work defining what a stub is -- and what it isn't -- and then some gnoming to iron out the articles already stubbed. I don't have the energy right now, but if noone else does it, I might pick up that torch some time. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:04, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, I forgot, but it might not be that important. I think I'll start the work on missions and quests soonish. (in a few days) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 11:47, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

Dezombified debate on new admins
So we are yet again under attack by a determined vandal during a time period when no sysop is online. This gives me a chance to nominate some new people for sysops. This time around, I present, in no particular order: Discuss. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 13:00, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * User:Barek (standard nomination I repeat every time) (contrib)
 * User:Draygo Korvan (contrib)
 * User:Evil Greven (contrib)
 * User:I am 161.88 (contrib)
 * User:Gares Redstorm (contrib)

I nominate: --Bishop (rap|con) 06:08, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
 * User:Skuld (contrib)


 * Took the liberty of adding contrib links to your nominations. Pondering them now. --Bishop (rap|con) 13:07, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * All of the mentioned are good suggestions. However, I'm going to second the nomation for Evil Greven for consistent behavior and edits. --Bishop (rap|con) 13:27, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Seconded for User:I am 161.88 and User:Gares Redstorm - Jack  13:04, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm all for this. I like all the users nominated.  I'll try to check the block candidates and clean them up in the next few minutes.  --Rainith 13:34, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Two additional candidates are User:Stabber and User:Tetris L. I seem to recall them both declining nominations in the past; but I still think they would make good admins. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:59, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * EDIT: I struck out Stabber solely because her user page makes it clear she has short term plans regarding being on GuildWiki. Although, I still think she would make a good admin. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 16:12, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would second both of those, was it not because I respect a decision to remain a non-admin. I'm sure we would know if either had a change of heart. --Bishop (rap|con) 14:02, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Tetris is already an admin &mdash; Skuld  04:02, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I thought that too, but not according to http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Special%3AListusers&group=sysop&username= --Bishop (rap|con) 05:56, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Speaking of which, I just noticed you're not on that list. I thought you were already an admin too. I shall attempt to remedy my oversight (see above). --Bishop (rap|con) 06:08, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh! I knew there was a third name I had wanted to add to the list, it was Skuld! Sorry Skuld! --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 08:35, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd like to apologise for not being around the last few days... Although I think you all kind of expect it from me anyway :P I don't really know many of the people in the list, Stabber, so I'll have to remain silent I think.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:50, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I believe all three of us, Skuld, Tetris and myself, have said before that we don't want to be sysops. I, at least, don't desire the position, and given that I have been nominated for bans before, I don't believe I am sysop material anyhow. For the rest, I think it is about time we formalized an RfA process. I'll get the ball rolling now. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:07, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The ball, she rolls! Requests for adminship. Much of it is adapted from WP:RfA. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:54, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Looks good, Stabber. Nice work. --Bishop (rap|con) 16:19, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, I actually don't see a need for a new admin, though I don't mind if all these people became admins. The true question is, is any of them going to be on-line during that time of the day (usually 6 AM to 2 PM PST) when most other admins aren't. If the reason for the promotion is to fill in that void, should we not make sure they CAN fill that void? If they can't, they are still all worthy of being admins, but I want to stay on the ball here. --Karlos 19:40, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It seems Stabber would be the ideal choice for an admin, it's obvious from the way she makes the necessary edits. However, you can't force a position on someone. Shame. - Jack  15:14, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would actually be opposed to Stabber being an admin. I don't think an admin who threatens to leave the wiki every month is a good thing. On top of that, she's a highly opinionated contributor who contributes a lot. We're still trying to survive the last highly opinionated contributor who contributes a lot (me). :) And yes, I don't think I make that good of an admin, I get involved in too many things too deeply to be able to step back and exercise my role as admin. --Karlos 16:06, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree Karlos, you're a crap admin :P Hehe, only kidding. I think anyone who is active and passionate about the GuildWiki makes a good admin. Of course, they also have to be reasonable and realise that, even if they're certain they're right, decisions on the GuildWiki are made as a collective and not as an individual.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:54, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Bwahaha, that's why I love this wiki. Half a dozen people get nominated for adminship, and half of them turn it down on the spot! Evan The Cursed (Talk) 23:15, 4 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Personally, I would accept if officially asked; but, as Karlos pointed out above, this request for an additional admin is because there's a gap in coverage during the weekday. I think that my availability during that time is limited, so I doubt that I'm the best fit for this round of admin nominations.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to support the community further by being an admin; I just think that if only one additional admin is to be added, then the community would be better served by someone with more availability from 6am - 2pm PST. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 00:34, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The vandal was only an excuse to take this admin debate out of cryogenic freeze. I think the wiki just needs more admins period. Currently we have Rainith doing the majority of the gruntwork with Karlos and LordBiro (and sometimes 84.175) chiming in occasionally to keep up appearances. PanSola seems to mostly tend to his own projects, of which there are several underway. Given that we have a pretty large userbase at this point, I don't think the 3.5 admins or so is sufficient (Special:Statistics says the admin to user ratio is 0.16%, but it overcounts the registered users and undercounts IPs, so that's not reliable). This is even more relevant if the GuildWiki becomes official and our userbase grows even larger. My recommendation would be to add a bunch of admins (3-5) at once instead of just one. There are several very well qualified candidates who have already received a lot of supporting votes. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 00:55, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I have to agree with Stabber. Its not that there may be a down time between the usual hours of an admin, its that there is not enough admins around. I am on in that time period Karlos suggested (actually, always lurking around) and I have had times where I placed a ban on a vandal and had to play shadow reverting his vandalism because there was no admin around to ban him, so he/she just kept on rolling. It's not a time clock that you punch, where one admin punches out and another punches in. Admins have real life responsibilities as well and sometimes they will not be on for a period of time, thus lower the already low numbers of admins on GuildWiki. --Gares Redstorm 13:18, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I see your point. Maybe I'll modify my decline comment on the nomination list.  To me, the primary goal seemed to be to find an admin who had a higher likelihood of weekday availability.  If the goal is to improve over-all admin coverage at all hours, then I'm willing to become one if asked. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:29, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Policy and sigs. The Subst Crusade!
First is there any Policy difference between wikipedia and Guildwiki concerning sigs?  If that policy is followed sigs should I am aware of We are not Wikipedia, and if we are applying the sig rules we should probably port that article and start linking to it internally. Wikipidia itself makes several good arguements for following those rules:
 * Not use Images
 * custom sigs be only included once with subst: e.g.  
 * not use any templates themselves
 * 1) Many concerns have been raised over the use of images in signatures, and they are considered to serve no use to the encyclopedia project. Images in signatures should not be used for several reasons:
 * 2) They use unnecessary server resources, and could cause server slowdown.
 * 3) A new image can be uploaded in place of the one you chose, making your signature a target for possible vandalism and Denial-of-service attacks.
 * 4) They reduce searchability, making pages more difficult to read.
 * 5) They make it more difficult to copy text from a page,
 * 6) They are potentially distracting from the actual message.
 * 7) In most browsers images do not scale with the text, making lines with images higher than those without.
 * 8) They clutter up the file links list of the image every time you sign on a different talk page.
 * 9) Your signature should not blink, or otherwise be designed to annoy other editors. Avoid markup such as &lt;big&gt; tags (which produce big text), or line breaks, and be sparing with superscript or subscript
 * 10) Long signatures with lots of HTML/wiki markup can make page editing more difficult
 * 11) Avoid using page transclusion, templates, or parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as, for example). These are avoidable drains on server resources. Transcluded signatures require extra processing. Whenever you do change your signature source, all talk pages you've posted on must be re-cached. 
 * 12) *If you really must use a userpage as a source of boilerplate for your signature, at least substitute it so it is only transcluded once, for example  .

Now that I have opened this can of worms, discuss. --Draygo Korvan 12:07, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Is there much use of templates (page transclusions) as sigs in GuildWiki? I hadn't noticed many, but you may have noticed some during your updates this morning.  The use of templates is the only issue that, to me, we should specifically create a policy against.  The use of images doesn't seem to have been abused by the GuildWiki community (see Category:Templates/User signatures), so I see no problem allowing them.  Although we may want to set a policy of sig images can't be larger than some given size.  Not a problem thus far, but reasonable to prevent future issues.
 * If they are causing any significant contribution to server performance problems, then I could see adopting the full wikipedia policy; but I honestly don't see them as being major contributors to performance issues at this time. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:24, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * MediaWiki 1.6 doesn't allow you to make signature transclusions (unless you defeat it with a double transclusion, but no one does that... right?). The issue is mostly to do with legacy signatures. The server drain you are afraid of is not so huge because talk pages are naturally colder than article pages. The biggest problem is with the recaching penalty whenever a signature changes, but again, most pages using a signature will not be in the object cache anyhow so a recache penalty is moot. Furthermore, user signatures tend to be fairly static. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 14:05, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Personally I don't think it's much of an issue.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:28, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok lets say we have our own policy on it, and you want to allow images. Then we definatly need to create our own policy page on sigs that outlines the rules that we want to follow. And when I was going through the pages this morning cleaning up the unsigned template and giving it a proper subst, i often ran across the format for sigs instead of it being included with subst. Secondly, we have seen performance problems on the wiki, and I definatly dont think it would hurt anything if we put some guidelines in place.


 * The problem with images are more than just server performance, storage, search interference but also vandalism concerns. Lets say someone (this is only an example, not to pick on Gem) but someone changes the Gem to a picture of goatse. All the sudden almost every single talk page will be spammed with that picture. I think that is my main concern with the widespread use of an image. Most of the content images on the site are pretty much one or two pages only, so if some form of vandalism was done to those images, it would probably be picked up in Recent Changes much faster than any guest of the site actually viewing it.


 * The same applies to sigs not using subst. A vandal can edit that page to create all sorts of messes, and if were not watching recentchanges the user can mess up hundreds (in some user's cases, 500 pages or so actually) of pages. And the casual guildwiki user might not know where to actually go to fix it. (lets say someone takes PanSola's sig and makes it 5mb long filled with X's. Doing so would probably DESTROY the guildwiki server, considering that the server will go to the 250 or so pages pansola's sig is referenced in and make the caching changes. In addition to the 5mb will have to be sent any time a user visits one of the 250 or so talk pages Pan used the sig in.).


 * The vandalism and Denial-of-Service risk is way too high to allow that sort of linking. A smart vandal can probably bring the guildwiki server to its knees in a matter of seconds. While we can not prevent some forms of vandalism, we should take every reasonable action to make vandalism minimal. The server drain on valid and reasonable signatures now, is not high. But it easily can be and I think policy should be set forth to prevent that before we find ourselves in a real mess. --Draygo Korvan 14:38, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The transcluded sigs you encountered are all legacy signatures from when we used MediaWiki 1.5. Recaching on signatures is not active, like you fear, but lazy ("on demand"). The only active thing that happens when a transcluded page is changes is that all referring pages are invalidated in the object cache. They are not immediately re-rendered and injected into the cache. So, with PanSola's signature example, unless the signature terrorist immediately follows the signature hijack with a simultaneous load of all 250 pages that refer to it, there will be no performance penalty. As far as DOS goes, I don't think signatures are the most likely vector of attack. It is far more efficient to hijack a common template such as Template:Stub or Template:TOCright. Note also that most users watch their own signatures. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 14:47, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Even if its lazy, we do have several users browsing the site, it can at minimum cause the server pain. Templates you mention like TOCRight need to be protected anyway (because there is no reason to change them at all). Such vunerabilities do need to get plugged. I would recommend protecting any template page referenced at least 25 times. Any proposed changes would have to be done on an editcopy. --Draygo Korvan 14:57, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Given how few admins we have and how glacial the process of getting the attention of an admin tends to be (at least when Rainith is not around), I don't think protecting templates is a good idea. It is premature at any rate. The clueful vandal who knows how best to place his explosive charges is a rara avis. Most vandals we get limit their nuisance to blanking pages or spraying graffiti on them. While I certainly don't oppose your subst crusade (though there are more efficient ways of doing it than by hand; ask if you want to know), I think we can afford to have open policies until a more restrictive policy is forced upon us. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:09, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I support changing the leagacy signatures and replacing them with a subst version. I'll do that on my own signatures now. However removing images doesn't seem to serve a purpose. We could protect the signature images if you think it is necessary. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 15:17, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I implore you -- don't do it by hand. Special:Recentchanges doesn't need any more pollution. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:19, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Feel free to use a bot for it. I thought your bot was removed, but if it wasn't then go ahead. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 15:22, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It probably was. However, this is not such a pressing issue that it must be done right this instant. We can afford to be civilized about it. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:31, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I wasnt going to attempt to do the user sigs, changing them to subst by hand, there are well over 2,000 pages that would need changes definatly need to use a bot for that. There is a reason why I fixed up the unused template this morning instead of now.I see your reasoning why certain templates shouldnt be locked, but I do think we should lock the templates that will never or very rarely change that are used across many pages. For instance like the image and the template, I dont see this ever changing in the future, so it could be easily protected. Templates like TOCright probably shouldnt be locked till we decide how they should be (I'd advocate the use of the div instead of table). However, on the same issue, if we ever move to arenanet's servers you can bet your life that some really bad forms of vandalism might show up. But on the flip side we would have more admins floating around. And if skuld gets admin that would aleviate some of our administrative woes.


 * Bottom line is, the only reason I am bringing this up, is because we do not really have a policy on GuildWiki over sigs. I think we should. At first we can make it very liberal and just list the most obvious things (how to make and properly use custom signatures, use of the unsigned template, image size restrictions etc). This would be much better than having the unsigned template point to wikipedia which, obviously, does not share the same 'rules' as here.


 * And I agree, this is not a pressing issue, but a recent issue that is bothering me a little bit. --Draygo Korvan 15:38, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * There are only 2 reasons I use transclusion for my sig.


 * 1) The raw signature code is long and fancy and not important to other ppl, so they would've been simply making the talk page harder to follow in edit mode.
 * 2) My signature contain links that aren't directly to my user page or talk page.  If I ever change those links, old signatures without subst will become broken links (or at least broken Anchors), which means a crusade needs to be done over tons of pages for something as trivial as a change in my sig.
 * I'm not discussing whether I support Draygo Korvan's ideas or not. I am just explaining my original motivation for doing what I did. - 12:48, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm fine with that really. Even though I would prefer it not be done (I honestly think when you sign something, in real life or on wikipidea the signature should be unchangeable, a permanent mark). (You can use redirects to solve #2). However, because Guildwiki policy (obviously) isnt the same as wikipidea in respect to signatures, I think we need to create our own policy page on this issue. And to #1, I dont think your signature is too long in edit mode. In addition, if we were following wikipedia's policy, only links to your user page and talk pages would be allowed. --Draygo Korvan 13:01, 6 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not a big fan of transclusions for sigs. I would rather see a semi-permanent sig used that left an edit trail in the article/discussion page if it were ever changed.
 * As for other concerns about transclusions; the server load is relatively minor, although I could see where it could be a potential issue if it ever came into wide-scale usage. But even then, it's just on discussion pages which don't get nearly the traffic of articles, so it's not stressing me at all. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:21, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

noinclude?
Can someone tell me what the noinclude tag is for on each skill page? If we are moving all the skills into Template:Skill, why not just call that instead? Sincerely, Confused. - Jack  20:38, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It's legacy code. If a skill article is already calling its same-named template, then you can get rid of the noinclude tag. - 22:17, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

Guru featured template
Would a template and category listing pages featured on guru be useful? &mdash; Skuld  09:38, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

running guides?
Can we make some running guides for all runs and mission runs?.. I know we have the W/any Sanctum Cay Runner and W/Mo Bold Forge Runner but i think we need some more.--WichmanN 03:31, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think we should add running guides for every possible area and outpost. We have the most important ones allready, Drok's and Sanctum. As a runner I can say: Guides don't help you much, it's experience that you need. You can find all maps from the wiki and the basic running builds. Now you just need to go out and try it out for yourself. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 03:57, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think Gem's being just a tiiinie bit protective of his income source. I can't see any problem with having more running guides. If you like, you could start adding some more guides and possibly an index page with red links. That will get the ball rolling for sure, but you'll likely need to be prepared to put some effort into it yourself. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 05:35, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * There are also running guides for all desert places in the Category:Guides. If you want some more, go ahead and create them =) --Xeeron 06:50, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Not overly protective. Cheap runners just aren't a threat to me as I have a well established and too rich customer base. I just don't think its wort it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 07:08, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'll gladly correct information on any running guides created, but I will not put my time to creating them. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 07:10, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well then I will give it a try.--WichmanN 08:02, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

ZBoard
Hey folks, the zboard people dropped me a line wanting to send out a keyboard for review. The keyboard IS Guild Wars-specific, so I figure this is not out of the scope of the site. What do you think?

I personally don't want the thing, so I figured if one of you did, you can have it. Mods have first dibs. Gravewit 10:52, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm interested, but if anyone has a viable contest idea I would support using it as contest prize. On the other hand, maybe PvP ppl should be given preference, since they might be able to review it better. - 10:58, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It would be so cool to have one, but I think there are people who need it more. A contest sounds good. How about something that rewards helping the wiki in some way? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 11:04, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Btw: Can they send it outside North America? I don't think so. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 11:05, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Got a picture of it?--Draygo Korvan 11:06, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * A contest sounds good. --Xeeron 11:42, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * A link from guildwars.com: http://www.zboard.com/experience/guildwars/ --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 13:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * What a nice keyboard.. :D --WichmanN 15:04, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The Zboard is overrated bullpoop. And no version exists for left-handed users. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 15:08, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * What do you mean with "left-handed users"?... --WichmanN 15:21, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, and if you use anyhting else than a US qwerty, this is useless. The (in Finland) very often used ä and ö (and the useless å) are not to be found in the US keyboards. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 15:24, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Well then maybe its not so good if you, like me, comes from Denmark where we use: æ, ø and å... :'( --WichmanN 15:29, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, I would think we need to look at this more objectively. Who gets the keyboard is not as relevant as "what will they be looking for?" If we agree on that, it doesn't really matter who gets the keyboard.
 * Also, whoever gets the keyboard should have the time and the capacity to test it in different environments. Mainly, RA and TA then HoH then GvG and then Challenge Missions, Competitive missions and finally, PvE.
 * I would recommend Xeeron, he is an admin and a person able to look at things fairly objectively. The only catch is that he is in Germany I believe. Can you ship that far, Gravewit? --Karlos 17:12, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Last time I checked I was no admin =)
 * More important, German keyboards use special keys as well (öäü), so I guess it would not work for me as well. Sounds like this will be for US/english users only. --Xeeron 17:37, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Maybe I need one, stupid edit conflict, current non detachable keyboard holding me back! Xeeron should be an admin, the RFA vote is at 8/0/0 but Phil hasn't done it yet. I was going to say Xeeron would be good "because I think he's pretty fair and even handed, probably useful traits to have if you're a reviewer" so maybe we'll have to go for plan B, you know some kinda crazy deathmatch, 2 people enter, one walks out, and have a draw like the world cup. Geez Xeeron you could have just said yes instead of forcing the GuildWiki community to fight to the death over it, which is the only fair competition I can think of :P --Xasxas256 17:43, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Just a quick side note on becoming admin: Skuld had the most positiv votes and he became admin, which is exactly the way it should work in my opinion. If we need further admins, we can go to the next person in line. --Xeeron 03:14, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmm, you're not an admin? When did you get demoted? :)
 * Anyways, we need to know Gravewit's shipping abilities. I am in the US and I can do it. I can pretty much easily test it in any playing style. Those interested should indicate which playing styles they can or cannot cover. If you're an ardent PvE guy then you are not very useful in testing this. You should also be competent in PvP. --Karlos 18:21, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

I think it's a bad idea for the GuildWiki to host Guild Wars-related product reviews. By their very nature these will not be neutral articles. Note that we don't have guild pages, fanfiction, fancomics, "journals" (except in user pages) and so on because the reason has always been that it is impossible to be objective about such content. We don't even have an official review of Guild Wars! There is also the issue of whether we should have such overtly commercial content in the wiki (reviews, unless they are pans, are glorified advertisements). I think the gamewikis blog is a much better place for such product review articles. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:31, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Upon further review, I agree with Stabber. It's not really what we do. This is product placement. The entry for ZBoard should be the same as that for Ventrilo or TeamSpeak. Just a basic description of what that is. Not a review/thumbs up/thumbs down. We're not gonna put a user manual in the wiki for how to use it either. --Karlos 19:13, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh, the review is supposed to go in the wiki? That doesn't sound too good to me. But it's not too bad either because it is a directly GW related product. As long as the review is neutral and formal I'm ok with it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 02:10, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think it should be halfway between Team Speak and Prima Guide. The art work had to be licensed from Anet, and the GuildWars.com homepage has a square-ish banner for the zBoard.  - 03:18, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

They must be desperate to get rid of them if they're trying to offload one onto you Phil ;) I don't think it's necessarily outside the scope of the site, but I agree with Stabber. Imagine if we were to create the article Zboard or something. What would it actually contain? It's always been understood that articles on the GuildWiki should only contain factual information, so we'd just have to say "Here are some pictures, it's used to control Guild Wars".

If we decided to change our policy and review it then we'd be opening the doors to all kinds of articles. By the time you've read this message Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer will be up for Peer Review.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:40, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Site performance issues due to June 15 update
According to Gravewit, the server load is doing fine. The problem is bandwidth bottleneck. In case anyone is wondering. - 11:05, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Blocking Vandals
We had a vandal attacking the page today using multiple IPs. I'm not sure if there is a procedure for dealing with this, I blocked individual IPs to begin with, but then I blocked an IP range.

From a technical point of view, after looking at the block list, it appears User:Eightyfour-onesevenfive tried to block him earlier using a 0 to represent the range of IP addresses. For clarification, the correct way to block an ip such as 64.12.116.x is to block 64.12.116.0/24. This is because an IP address is a 32-bit number and it tells MediaWiki to use only the first 24 bits as a mask.

I blocked 64.12.116.0/24 and 64.12.117.0/24.

Because this was a range of IP addresses I only banned them for 1 week. Do you think this was the right thing to do?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:01, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * We could not let him stay without blocking so you did the right thing blocking him. One week seems ok to me, and if this happens again after the week, we can just ban him for another week. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 05:04, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh, only a week? &mdash; Skuld  05:06, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Blocking a whole IP range for more than a week isn't a good idea. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 05:08, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Meh, I should've thought of that "/24" thingie... *rolls eyes*. I agree on only a short term ban for now, but I have the serious feeling that this isn't the last time we heared about that one. --84-175 (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * 64.12.116.0/23! --68.142.13.99 05:40, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

yeah he only banned me for a week. too bad it didnt work. btw: poop


 * lol. I should be around most of the day, if there's any more vandalism that I miss you can spam my talk page.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:13, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

IP range bans can be bad, granted, but we're talking about AOL addresses here. I wonder if he was repeatedly connecting and disconnecting his dial-up modem or something (nothing against dial-up, it's just an idiotic way to change IPs). ;) &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 05:17, 17 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * Yeah, it looks like that is what he was doing. Coincidentally 152.163.100.9 is also an AOL IP.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:24, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Blocking IP Ranges: A suggestion
I've been thinking about blocking IP ranges, and I think we should come up with a guideline. When blocking an IP range there is a chance that we will inadvertently also block genuine contributors. This cannot really be helped. However, we can ensure that genuine contributors are not offended by the banning if we make sure the ban message is not insulting. i.e. I think we should avoid ban messages such as "Die Spammer, Die!" or even "let's play".

What do you think?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:34, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * IP range blocks should probably not stay in place for long unless absolutely necessary. I think it would be better to keep any non-insignificant range blocked for a week at most unless the vandal shows again.  A message about IP range blocks should be added to MediaWiki:Blockedtext and perhaps something like "IP range block: reason" should be the ban reason.  Non-insulting ban message should probably be used in any case.  --68.142.13.99 05:41, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the Blockedtext should have a general note about the error possibilities of IP based bans (dynamic IPs). --84-175 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree. Here's what the text currently looks like

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by $1. The reason given is this: $2

You may contact $1 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

(If this automated message says you have been blocked by Adam.skinner for vandalism, it is due to a known bug. Please wait a few minutes and try again.)

Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences.

Your IP address is $3. Please include this address in any queries you make.

Which parts should we change to reflect this information?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:10, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd suggest ripping off Wikipedia's and warping it to our needs. --68.142.13.99 06:42, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I would also suggest contacting the ISP of the user and file an internet abuse report with their support department, if such a user is using a dynamic IP to continually and repeativly deface the site. --Draygo Korvan 18:47, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Vote

 * Keep the green links
 * (your vote here)
 * Use the icon
 * (your vote here)
 * Use plain text
 * --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] Green links as second choice. No for icon.
 * --MRA (while I would rather like to see the icon than the technicolor-links)
 * --Nilles 16:47, 18 June 2006 (CDT) (second choice: icon)
 * --66.92.33.187 16:50, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 20:42, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Rapta 22:07, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd be okay with icons, too... overriding the text color is just a bad UI idea, however. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:23, 18 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * --Rainith 23:55, 18 June 2006 (CDT) Green links as second choice. No for icon. (I'm not copying your user page Gem, just your vote.) (Biro, while I like your icon, I dislike the addition of said icons to that area of the bestiary pages.)


 * Abstain

In case green links wins:


 * Bold
 * (your vote here)


 * Normal
 * --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]]
 * --Nilles 16:47, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 20:42, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Rapta 22:07, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Rainith 23:55, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Abstain

Discussion
I'm not sure if or where this has been discussed before, but I recently encountered several wikilinks leading to unique items in boldface typeset and green characters, see Rotscale or Gargash Thornbeard for instance.

From a design persepective, I am not very happy about this idea, since (beside the fact that boldface rarely is a good design decision) it weighs to heavy in the eye, distracts the reader from the text and makes the page too colorful by a color that does not belong to GuildWikis usual color palette. Moreover, since the color of wikilinks used to be connected to some functionality aspects of the site (like 'red' impliyng the article doesn't exist) I find this somewhat confusing. I really believe mere being an unique item doesn't qualify for an own link color. What comes next? Each boss getting a link in the color of their profession, like #FF0088 or #008800?

If there has already been a community decision/vote upon this matter please give me a hint where to find the discussion and please excuse for bringing up the matter again. --MRA 08:44, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree. I hate the green links.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:12, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I like them and have nothing against them. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 11:50, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Use your own CSS to override them. See User:Deldda Kcarc/monobook.css for how I do it, because I hate technicolor links also. Deldda Kcarc 12:17, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks for the hint, but my comment was less about how I can avoid these links and rather about how this wiki presents itself to the casual reader per se. --MRA 12:33, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, I'm fully aware I could remove them. That's besides the point really. I think it makes sense from a usability perspective to have links blue and underlined, and to have links to blank pages red, and no other colours.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:28, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * While I am not arguing in favor of the green links, I would like to point out that they do have blue underlines for created articles, and red underlines for missing articles. --Rainith 13:41, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No harm, some benefit, echoes ANet's growing obsession with green items. I am fine with them. If the template is straight forward, and the effect is desirable, then why not? --Karlos 15:55, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Like Rainith pointed out they do show red or blue underlines, and how many green item templates are to red links anyway? I'm sure users find it helpful to have uniques picked out different from regular items &mdash; Skuld  16:13, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I understood your point perfectly, MRA and LordBiro. My suggestion was a short circuit to the only workable solution because I expected the strong showing of support for the green links, as seen above. If this were to be put to a vote, our side would lose soundly. Deldda Kcarc 17:37, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't agree that it does no harm. Personally I believe that valid links should be blue, underlined, not bold. It's what people expect to see. If links don't look like this as standard then it's confusing. We could change all links to a different style, but having some links using one style and some links using another style is a bad design choice.


 * Because the green colour is unusual within the GuildWiki itself you have to move your mouse over the text to clarify if it's a link or not. That is really poor interface design.


 * I don't think this is a case of "no harm, some benefit". There are plenty of items ArenaNet colour purple or light blue, we don't change our links to reflect that. Equally Henchmen are coloured green and friendly NPCs are coloured yellow-green and we don't use those colours for links. Enemies are coloured red, and we don't use red for links. It just seems like a bad idea to me.


 * I wouldn't even mind if an icon was used next to links to unique items, at least then the link itself would still be blue!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:29, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * P.S. Sorry if it feels like I'm picking on you today Karlos, I love you really :P
 * I would say get rid of the boldface but go ahead and leave it green. --Draygo Korvan 18:49, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think removing the boldface might be a good idea, but I still want the green to stay. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 19:03, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I am fine with removing it, fine with removing the bold and fine even with switching the template to an icon of a green weapon next to a regular blue link. I just think distinguishing the drops is cool and does no harm. --Karlos 19:11, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The boldface is kinda blatant, but distinguishing green drops from normals is not a bad thing, don't you think? I think LordBiro has made a very good suggestion there. An icon to point them out would be less confusing than the formatting. --Nilles 19:42, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Oh god no! Not more icons, keep the green text, unbold it if you want. --Rainith 20:13, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hope you like it Rainith ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:31, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I see the green template as straight to the point what the items are. In Guild Wars their text is always green and I would think users associate that color to those items. As for icons, I am in agreement with Rainith on this one, for the love of Pete, no. You have skill icons, what more do you need? :P --Gares Redstorm 07:42, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Most of all, I don't understand why unique items should be so special to Guild Wars that they deserve a special representation on the technical layer of this wiki (the color of the hyperlinks). Of course, unique items are special compared to common items, but no more special than Boss mobs are special to common mobs, Elite Skills are special to common Skills or Elite Missions are special to usual storyline Missions, etc. Are we going to give all these special topics some special representation on the technical layer, or why are unique items so special special? (Ok, I'll stop using the word special now.)

BTW, LordBiro, the icon looks really nice, but I don't understand what is wrong with a simple listing like:


 * Items dropped
 * Thornbeard's Horned Bow (Unique)
 * Enslavement Stone
 * Dwarven Armor
 * Stone Summit Badge

as we have:


 * Skills used
 * Melandru's Arrows (Elite)
 * Precision Shot
 * Tiger's Fury
 * Troll Unguent

--MRA 15:02, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I have to say MRA you are right, I hadn't thought of it like that. I just tend to like icons :P but you make a valid point. If a lot of people would rather have icons then fair enough, at the moment I'm somewhere in between icons and plain text. But still 100% against bold and/or green links.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:10, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I also have to admit that I would prefer some lean icon like the one you proposed over the green text links. Taking server load into account, I just think some plain text comments like given in the example above would be wiser.
 * So what is going to happen about this issue? I also notice some strong support for the green links within the community. Is there going to be some vote or is it still too early for such a thing? --MRA 15:31, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Vote sounds like the way to go, since strong support was voiced for each option. I'll add one at the top. --Xeeron 15:41, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

as super pretty as that icon is, i think it's not required. --Honorable Sarah 20:44, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Request for demotion of User:Karlos
I know this will fall on deaf ears, and Karlos will surely revert this and ban me the second he sees it, but he does not deserve to be a sysop on this wiki any longer. He has wantonly violated several key policies of the wiki today, not the least of which violations is abusing his sysop powers to exert editorial control over another user's pages and impose week-long blocks on said user.

It is completely foolish of me to even suggest this demotion because the wiki has no oversight policies and no means of appeal for administrative action. However, I am making it so there is some record, however fleeting, of opposition to Karlos' actions.

Because I am confident nothing will come of this request, I have requested all the evidence---my user pages---to be erased. I am sure none of my requests for deletion will be honored. I am further sure that, far from demotion, the wiki will circle their wagons around Karlos and will do whatever is necessary to make Karlos' actions retroactively justified and me out to be the sole guilty party. I understand the nature of communities well enough to see the utter futility in my bringing this up here and now. Therefore, this request for demotion is a mere formality.

I will not read or comment on the wiki after this comment. I do not wish the wiki well. I wish it the worst.

-- DK 03:54, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Lol. No need to comment, but I still will. There is NO point in the recent disputes which have caused so many users to leave the wiki. I find the fighting here stupid (and funny if it wouldn't have such results), but I relly can't do anything about it. I'm not sure what you think that was wrong use of admin powers by Karlos, but I myself don't like it that you delete individual comments on your user page from other people. Removing negative feedback isn't a way to work in a wiki. You should answer and discuss, not just delete, delete and then finally place a delete tag so that your history of negative feedback will vanish. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 04:05, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Fall on your sword again Stabber/Deldda Kcarc, see if it works this time. --Rainith 04:13, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Wha? Deldda is Stabber? This is confusing, i'm going to stamp on some chipmonks -_- &mdash; Skuld  04:22, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Confused? I wasn't as soon as I saw Stabber upload Image:Black Moa Availability.jpg and then upload it again almost right afterwards.  I went to see if the first image needed deleting for some reason, but after I saw it, I decided not to wipe it out.  It actually made me laugh.  Then I started looking thru some of DK's old edits and noticed a lot of similarities, including the ones done today (FSK skill icon uploads, that were altered exactly the same way Stabber's were).  Add in the Superman/Clark Kent action and it makes sense.  --Rainith 05:05, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hah! Extremely amusing! He's referring to this. Hee hee. :) I actually went with him (I assume it's safe to say him now) to FoW and even in a group in Cantha in some mission (I think beating Shiro). So, FG was right about (some of) the sockpuppets theory. Wow. --Karlos 05:13, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think you should be rubbing your hands with too much glee. I don't feel as though you should be off the hook yet. Like PanSola (see below), I also disagree with your actions during the "DK incident". You seem to think that your edits have some "administrator power" behind them when they're basically just normal edits anyone else would do except the person who's doing them happens to be an admin. --Xasxas256 05:27, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No glee, sir. Sheer amusement. I find the whole saga captivating at this moment. And I responded below. --Karlos 05:33, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Not going to comment on this request itself, but I do disagree with Karlos' actions pretty much completely during the relavent dispute (including the bans and the reverts) - 04:23, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * See my thoughts on Karlos' actions at User_talk:Karlos. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 04:31, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I will take this request seriously, even if Crack Addled does not. Here is my reasoning:
 * I believe that significant discussions of a user's contributions should be maintained. If a user does not like the "bad rap" on his talk page, then the content should be moved elsewhere. But to wipe it from existence is to cheat the community. I know it's in the history books, but that means it's not "searchable" i.e. findable.
 * I was wrong to place the saved copy in his user space. I was thinking it would be an easy place to find it, but of course if he never wanted it in his talk page to begin with, he won't like it in his user space either. I took that part out of the equation pretty quickly and moved the talk to non-user space.
 * I did not ban Crack Addled because I was trying to force some page on his user space. In fact, I honored his right to place a delete tag on it. I banned him for a couple of hours because he was butting heads with an admin over administrative policies. Now, I could have just moved it out of his user space and let it rest, but, like I said to PanSola, the precedent of Rving an admin on an administrative edit and ignoring his instructions isa VERY bad precedent.
 * I agree with Gem that deleting criticism from one's talk page is lame. We should perhaps consider keeping track of this? The reason I wanted to archive Crack Addled's talk is because he has a history with the wiki and I wanted there to be a continuation of that history. I did not want that history to be subject to whether Karlos is till around, or whether Pansola still remembers which talk page that discussion was wiped from.
 * I believe Crack's further actions and words speak for themselves. Overall, he could have went to the talk page of that article and said: "Look, this might belong in the wiki, but it sure as heck does not belong in my user space, if I don't want it." And he would have won that argument by a landslide. He chose the path of "It's me or you" and "let's make it personal baby." I would expect any user in this wiki when told by an admin not to change a page (for administrative purposes, not squabble over content) to respect that request. Be that user someone I like, like Gem, or an anonymous guy.
 * --Karlos 04:52, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The next comment was moved from User talk:Karlos. The comment and its responses are moved back there.  They were not meant to relate to teh request on demotion, only on the sepecific issue of administrative edits that was originally raised in the User talk page.

Request for backreferencing user IPs
Can someone who has access to the server logs please post all the usernames that have been used from the IP addresses 128.2.206.194, 128.2.196.71 and 128.2.141.33, as all three of them seem to be from the same organization that has been confirmed to be the location of User:Stabber, who has been confirmed as using sockpuppets and is suspected of tampering votes? This will settle the sockpuppet debate once and for all, and I am sure will be very illuminating for all concerned. Thanks. 216.9.82.85 18:43, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Where do we go from here?
Ok, in the aftermath of this soap opera. Where do we want to go with this? I have a few questions that I think we should answer. I have not thought about this since yesterday. So, I am going to ask these questions now, and then perhaps later, some of them will not seem as important. I would appreciate rational thought and logical discourse. Posts telling us Stabber is the devil and should be banned for life do not help the dicussion. So, let's try and think through this objectively. --Karlos 21:00, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) Do we CARE about sockpuppetry? i.e. Do we want to know if a user has sockpuppet accounts?
 * 2) What is our stand on sockpuppetry? i.e. is it a punishable offense or is it just something to mark down to fight fraud?
 * 3) How do we discover sockpuppetry? It's obviously discoverable given a long enough stalking and paying attention to details. Are we going to start stalking each other? Stalking people who support each other in arguments? Is there a "sane" way to do this?
 * 4) Do we want to do anything about Stabber?


 * In my opinion, yes. Using sockpuppets is not contributing in good faith. WP:SOCK should be adopted here.
 * It should be punishable if provable, and provably used to sway consensus in discussions and votes. Again, I think the remedies in WP:SOCK are worth examining.
 * Install the CheckUser extension (link to source code is towards the end). Gravewit can then effortlessly determine which users have used what IPs, and also all users a given IP has used. Note: I do not recommend giving CheckUser access to anyone but those who already have access to the server logs, viz. Gravewit and Nunix.
 * Only if he/she returns. I would recommend a permanent ban placed on his/her confirmed sockpuppets, but leave one identity alone.
 * These are just my opinions. If you don't like them, I have others... Arrowsmith 21:19, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * My thoughts:
 * The major issues of sockpupptry are causing drama and affecting votes. I think looking for sockpuppets, hunting them down, and squash them cause far more drama than its worth.  By completely scrapping the voting idea, we'll overall be better off with not caring about who is a sockpuppet of who.
 * I'm not overly concerned with DK's last words "I wish this wiki the worse". I consider it immature hotheaded remarks as a strong rebound reaction to a (conceived) overly heavyhanded action.  The only "vandalism" that follows from that was a bitter edit on Community expectations regarding admin powers.  While it doesn't hurt to be careful, being overly concerned over it will simply cause unnecessary paranoia/drama.
 * For anything that is deemed "administrative edits", mark it clearly (adn mark it in the actual page, not just in the edit summary). Do not assume because you have teh status of an admin, adn you issued an order, that other users will preceive it as an administrative edit.  It turned out I was actually wrong when I said something that implied none of my edits were "administrative edits".  The one "administrative edit" I made was with respect to either a delete or ban request that I removed but got slapped back.  In order to avoid a revert war on that, I "subst:" the delete/ban template, then manually edit the contents to say there was a request that was rejected by the admin PanSola for reasons blah blah blah.  That was the type of edit that only an admin can make, and should not be reverted.  - 22:00, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I've been trying to stay out of this because I'm disgusted with how most of this stuff has panned out, but I feel the need to comment here:
 * Since we have votes and a voting population of about 10-20, sock puppets are a big deal. Stabber, for example, seemed to use sockpuppets to do controversial things without getting flack for it, which is also a big deal. Sockpuppets do nothing to enhance anonymity and a lot to undermine Guildwiki's creative process.
 * As a result of the above, sock puppets should be purged mercilessly. Their puppeteers should, at the very least, receive a strong reprimand. Doing something bad with a sock puppet should be considered a greater offense than just doing something bad, as the puppetry indicates that you know you're doing something wrong and that you want to hide it.
 * Other people's suggested technical solutions could work. While I generally don't want Guildwiki to be Wikipedia or to copy most of its policies, definitely look at how they do it. If we opt to add some kind of IP logger, only the site owners and maybe one particularly trusted active admin should have access to it.
 * I think neither Stabber (clarification added later: or whoever the hell DK is... I don't know anymore, and I don't really want to) nor FG have the capacity to meaningfully contribute to the wiki anymore. Both have done much to damage the community. This isn't about exiling people we don't like, however. Thus, as stated above, all sock puppets should be burned with fire; FG definitely deserves a reprimand for how he carried out his crusade, but I don't think it quite approaches the level of a permanently bannable offense; I have no strong feelings about whether Stabber should or shouldn't be perma-banned.
 * &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:21, 18 June 2006 (CDT) ), ammended 00:38, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I feel that I should post here as it seems that I'm the person who "discovered" this issue (not the first person to raise it, just the first to post proof of it). I dislike people who use multiple accounts with the intent to deceive.  The very first online game I played had a very simple rule, multiple accounts were not allowed unless sanctioned by the "Wizards" (essentially the admins in charge of the coding/monitoring of the MUD).  This may be part of where my distaste for this comes from, the rest is probably just part of basic human nature in that we don't like to be fooled.
 * I think we should define specifically what we consider to be "Sockpuppetry" and what is to be done about it. I'd imagine something like the following:
 * If you create another account because of a technical problem with your current account (like the CSS stylesheet issue that affected PanSola and 161.88.x.x a while back) and are sufficently upfront about it (PanSola's new account was SolaPan and 161.88.x.x's was I am 161.88) then there is no problem. If/When the account problem is cleared up, one account should be chosen and the other abandoned.
 * If at some point you come clean about having used multiple accounts, before you are discovered, then temporary blocks should be done. The length of the block should depend on the severity of what was done with the accounts.  We should create clear  guidelines for block times in these situations and they should be followed. (note: if this is implemented retroactively, it may affect Tetris L/Fisherman's Friend)
 * If someone else discovers and submits proof that you have been using multiple accounts and rules 1 and 2 don't apply, you should be blocked for a long term/permanent basis. Again, I think we should create clear guidelines for this.
 * I also agree that TOR IPs should probably be blocked as there is a considerable possiblity for abuse. Those are my thoughts on the matter.  Some/many people may disagree with me.  --Rainith 00:16, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * There should be no issue with #1, any more than there is an issue with putting "IP X is my account" on you user page. I also think that any form of maintaining multiple accounts openly should be okay: Karlos talked about "hats", for example, and I wouldn't have a problem with an admin making separate "as user" and "as admin" accounts to separate his personal opinions from his administrivial edits, if that was what he wanted to do. As long as you link all your accounts together prominently on their respective user pages, really, there should be no problem with mulptiple accounts, regardless of why you made them. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 00:25, 19 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * 1. Yes, sockpuppetry implies you have a second account for nefarious purposes such as starting arguments with yourself for some good ol' drama, vote rigging, doing something 'naughty' but not have your 'main' account banned, et al. However, linking your accounts together specifically so you can be traced should be acceptable, there are a number of good reasons to have a second account, so long that it is traceable back to your 'main' account.


 * 2. Punishable by flogging. Sadly with no ability to do such actions, some passe bans will have to do, preferably on the 'main' account. Banning the sockpuppet is largely meaningless, as someone who is using them is simply going to make another.


 * 3. Ugh. Witchhunts are never fun and simply cause hysteria amongst the population. For the time being it seems like we have just one prolific sockpuppet user, lets deal with that issue before grabbing the pitchforks and setting forth to burn the heathen.


 * 4. Ahh Stabber, our little drama queen/king. His/her dubious gender aside, pretty much all the recent drama has come about through some sort of interaction with him/her, be it a revert war, the recent witchhunt, or simple rumourmongering. This is not entirely his/her fault, but he/she has been caught in a number of lies and has a history of childish 'well I'm taking my toys and going home' actions. I'm not sure punishment is the best approach to be honest, if he/she wants to continue to contribute it must be under the knowledge that sockpuppetry and suchlike will not be tollerated. Ok he/she has done a good lot of work for the wiki, but the ridiculous drama which seems to follow him/her like the plague is just getting too much.


 * As an aside, I'm concerned with the 'White Knight' effect that has caught a few people. By this I mean they see a 'girl' on the internet, and immediately feel honourbound to leap to her defense regardless of anything else, through some misplaced sense of duty. Sure I'll open doors for women, allow them to sit down before I do, and so forth, but on the internet where everyone is a balding fat man in his 40s until proven otherwise, simply stating 'btw, I'm a girl' can get you preferrential treatment regardless of any actual proof. I've seen this a number of times in the recent past, and on a number of messageboards, games and so on. Please, for the sake of actual productive interactions, don't try and jump in the pants of everyone who claims to be female or feel honourbound to defend them :( GregPalo 05:31, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Warning: Stabber appears to have responded in User talk:Stabber. In my opinion, his/her rebuttal is not convincing. Others may feel differently. I still propose permanent bans on his/her confirmed sockpuppets, viz. User:Deldda Kcarc and User:Koyashi. Arrowsmith 00:58, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes. Socketpuppetry (if done hidden) breaks good faith and conjures up a huge host of problems: Voting, community consensus, revert/delete rules, appropriate credit/blame for actions. Especially I do not believe that we can stop having votes. In the end each form of decision making is a vote, unless it is done autocratically by one leader (not workable here since Gravewit is not participating in day-to-day issues, and neither my preferece) or by unanimity (which leads to extremely long discussion and worse, might not be achievable). Lets say I and some other user argue that socketpuppets should be banned, while 10 people say they dont care. Even though this is not a vote, I would back down and we would have established a new policy. Now if those 10 people where actually 1 person, they would have influenced the wiki, even though there was no vote and regardless of how good their arguments were.
 * If someone OPENLY (by adding a note to each userpage) uses multiple accounts, nothing should be done, since there are legitimate reasons to have more then one account. Multiple accounts without such a note should be a bannable offense.
 * Note1: Ban on both accounts
 * Note2: The length of the ban should be handled by the admins
 * Note3: This punishment should not be used retroactively, since we had no clear policy on this before
 * Imho, there is not really a sane way, except by chance. But sooner or later the puppetmaster will trip up and someone will notice. I would not recommend actively searching for socketpuppets (but of course noone can stop users from doing so).
 * As I said in 3., no. Punishments should not be used retroactively. However I feel Stabber will have a hard time to be a normal contributer here after all the drama. --Xeeron 05:55, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Let's come up with Fansite Friday questions
No we haven't been asked to solicit Fansite Friday questions (to the best of my knowledge), but I'm just trying to get discussion going on what are some questions that we would really like to see cleared up from the Anet devs. If you are affiliated with any Fansites that are being asked Fansite Friday questions, feel free to use what is here.

My question: "How does interruption vs Kuunavang work?" Because Fansite Friday has in the past explained how the Guild Lord's health/protection work before, I believe we should be able to get an answer for this question. - 06:16, 19 June 2006 (CDT)