GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 17

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)

So... no one has any contest ideas right? - 07:39, 19 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
 * I'm a known icon-fan(atic). Second choice is plain text. No colored text please. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 09:58, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * (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.)
 * --Xasxas256 07:44, 19 June 2006 (CDT) no icon, no green text, just good old wikification.
 * --Lord Ehzed 07:54, 19 June 2006 (CDT) (but would also be happy with the icon)
 * --Draygo Korvan 10:50, 19 June 2006 (CDT) (Plain text is fine and dandy. Perhaps under a subheading (like: Unique Items) under items dropped)
 * --Gares Redstorm 11:53, 19 June 2006 (CDT) (Anything, but the icon. No offense to Biro, but I'm not much for icons.)
 * 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)
 * --Lord Ehzed 07:54, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 09:58, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Karlos 16:16, 19 June 2006 (CDT): Making things pretty in a simple way is something we should always do.


 * 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.


 * Holy sh*t. I leave for an extended weekend just to find this wiki community turned into one big clusterf*ck when I return. :eek:
 * I have only a few things to say about this whole drama, because of real life I have little time for the wiki this week:
 * Changing names, hiding behind fake / imposter names ("sockpuppet" / "smurf") or hiding behind an anonymous IP is poor. Repeatedly "leaving" an online community (or threatening to do so) and returning shortly after (under the same or a different user name) is poor. To believe that by changing your nickname you can clear your record, avoid having to stand by your words, avoid being accounted for what you did, avoid having to take responsibility, is piss poor. If you're doing it, do yourself a favor and stop it. Grow a backbone. Grow some guts. Grow some balls (if you're a man, that is ;)). At the end of the day you'll feel much better. Having said that, I'll admit I'm guilty of fakenickin' myself. Pssst .... don't tell anybody. I promise, I won't do it again. ;) Two times during the 10 years of my "online life", I have used an alternative nick to keep contributing to an online community while I was officially "on leave". One of that is Fisherman's Friend. Note the image mouse-over, and note who added it. Also, feel free to check FF's user contributions. He didn't strirr any trouble and didn't participate in any disputes at all. No harm done, I hope.
 * For the record: I'm not saying anybody did or did not fakenick. Frankly, I don't know what to believe, and I'm not willing to waste time and energy with an in-depth investigation. I have more important things to do right now, both in real life and in this wiki. I don't give a rat's ass if Stabber, Deldda, Seventy.twenty, Karlos, F_G, Aerosmith, Tetris L, Fisherman's Friend, whoever, ... are the same person. I'll treat them all as individuals for now and judge each of them by his individually deeds. And I have to say that as far as I remember none of them did any major harm to the editorial content of this wiki. Quite the opposite. I remember most of them as technically skilled, valuable contributors, making mostly reasonable and well-founded edits. Their behaviour an talk pages is a different matter, but that is secondary to me. They may share a strange tendency to get into fights on talk pages with a bit of a holier than thou attitude, and to leave the wiki as a martyr in drama, but that may be coincedence. And even if these are all fakenicks of the same person: Fakenickin' may be poor, and a sign of weakness, but IMO is no banable offense as such. Only if the multiple nicks are abused to rig votes or discussions
 * As for Karlos' role on the matter, this may surprise some around here after my own clashes with him, but I'll gladly vouch for him. Yes, he isn't impeccable, but who is? I still consider him as one of the most upright people around here. I believe that what he does is in good faith and for the greater good of the wiki. There are very few people on this wiki that I trust more when it comes to certain things. I believe that he strives hard to meet his own high standards of neutrality and objectivity. If there is anything that you might accuse him of it's that he is sometimes overzealous watching over these rules and that sometimes he fails to see that we're not living in an ideal world, and that all humans (including himself) make errors. Karlos, this wasn't meant to be patronizing or to belittle you. Please don't take it as such!
 * In any case banning nicknames or IPs won't solve the problem. Most of the people involved here are technically skilled enough to know how to bypass an IP bans anyway. We'll have to work this out in discussion.
 * Note: I didn't have time to hone this post word by word. It was written in a rush, so please don't take offense of single sentences or words. I hope you see my overall intentions behind it. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 10:23, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

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)
 * This wont prove anything, if stabber is working at a university - backreferincing those IP's wont get you jack. It is highly likely that several of stabbers fellow workers might have gotten into guild wiki under stabbers influence. --Draygo Korvan 10:11, 19 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)


 * Seems all the good points have been said. I will second the complete and total block of TOR and any other anonymous internet communication systems. No current user or potential user should feel the need to "hide" while contributing. --Gares Redstorm 12:57, 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)


 * I could just ask Gaile to pass some of these on, if you'd like. Gravewit
 * I think we should get a few more questions first. Maybe a couple about chapter 3 and NCsofts registration of certain domain names =P. Maybe we can also ask what the total HP of Rotscale is now? --Draygo Korvan 11:06, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Make Guildwiki multi-lingual?
I suggest making several subsites of guildwiki (like gw-en.gamewikis.org gw- [language-code] .gamewikis.org) to support multiple languages. I think in a game that covers several nationalities, having wikis in each native language would be helpful for the greater guild wars community. Anyway this is just a proposal.--Draygo Korvan 11:11, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * After all the drama just a few headlines up from here, I dont feel ready for the next "guildwiki in different languages" debate yet. --Xeeron 12:00, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't actually feel confident enough making up roughly 5% of German the contributers here. Maybe if we had like at least 40 contributers for a language, such effords would have some perspective. It's not just the translation stuff, it's debating, copying news, patrolling, administrating, lending newbies a hand etc... --Nilles 13:43, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Are you guys aware that there is already a German GuildWiki at http://www.guildwiki.de, which is essentally a copy of gw.gamewikis.org?! (They don't even try to hide the fact that they use the English GuildWiki as their paradigm.) I don't know if that's approved by Gravewit or anyone else, or if they even need an approval, considering the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. I'm German myself, so if you need somebody to contact and talk to the makers of GuildWiki.de, let me know. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 13:58, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * No I am not aware, and thats part of the problem, I think we should interlink to guildwiki's in other languages. Nilles, the problem with that arguement is that you cant quantify all the germans that have no ability to contribute in english. I also think this is a step back from all the drama, I dont forsee anyone flashing their e-ego's over this issue. --Draygo Korvan 14:16, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Specific issue with GuildWiki.de
While contents under GuildWiki is under CC by-nc-sa, what about the name "GuildWiki" itself? I'm a bit disturbed that the logo of GuildWiki and the name "GuildWiki" is getting used by another site without our knowledge/permission. But if it doesn't violate anything, then of course there's nothing to be done. - 16:43, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * guildwiki.de is of course, different than guildwiki.org or guildwiki.com. So they are well within their rights with the domain name, as far as using the logo I think the logo, as everything within this site falls under the license, and because they gave the source of that logo to this site they are protected by that license. I'm no legal expert though =p. --Draygo Korvan 20:11, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

A request to native english speakers
The first part of this edit Seems to me as bluntly wrong. I will not revert it myself, but someone who can confirm this, please do. Foo 13:41, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * That doesn't actually point to a specific edit, but rather to a list of contributions. Unless you expect us to read minds and/or read through them all, you may want to be more specific. :) -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 14:10, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Err Emm. fixed that. check again. Foo 15:07, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Tweaked it. Tenses were fine, but some of the prepositions and such were rather wierd (wars are between entities, for example, not among them). &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 15:20, 19 June 2006 (CDT) )