User talk:Skuld14148

Need something deleted
This one's odd, I can't add the delete tag and...well, see for youself. It's W\any Enraging dragon. That "\" breaks the URL and makes it inaccessible to edits. It is only accessible through Histories and such (found it in my Contribs for instance, I moved it originally). In any case, not sure how to deal with it...thanks in advance. Entropy 19:58, 29 January 2007 (CST)
 * I deleted it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 29 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks Barak. Btw, GG "expiry time". :) Entropy 20:29, 29 January 2007 (CST)

cyriak's animation mix
Wow... wtf? -Auron  04:13, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * That is some SERIOUSLY (yes it requires bold & caps) weird stuff right there, Auron won't get the british personality references, but it really just makes things a lot weirder than just some random guy's head being morphed and warped... I am not going to watch that again, but answer me this does the addition of sound make it anymore wtf'd? because I didn't play that clip with sound. --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 07:17, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * I liked the music, it suited but I don't know if it'd dramatically change your enjoyment of it. --Xasxas256 07:21, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Reminds me a lot of good ol' Monty Python's Flying Circus. :) --84-175 (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * Haha yeh, especially the bus eating ppl :p &mdash; Skuld 10:53, 30 January 2007 (CST)

"..." –Ichigo724 10:45, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * Ivor the engine as a robot is probably the coolest thing I have ever seen.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:55, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * I'd agree, but the guy has a "turn everything into some kinda of multi-legged robot" problem... diggers, cars, ivor the engine. --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 11:00, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * Problem? Or gift! ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:09, 30 January 2007 (CST)

The movie sucks. --` S i  g  m  A   13:47, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * Sucks? Or owns! ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:22, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * lol, its like a funny, random nightmare XD--Blade [[Image:smallscout.png]] (talk|contribs) 16:28, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Forgot to comment on this earlier, but Greatest.Thing.Ever.--Nog64 16:55, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Holy crap O_o.... FTW! --Lania Elderfire 23:27, 30 January 2007 (CST)

haha, nice vid^^ Iggers 13:37, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Victrix?
I could have sworn I heard our ventrilo channel say "Skuld has left the server" the other night. Did you have a run with the SoF Victrix crowd? If so, how'd it go? -- ~ Epinephrine 09:03, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * I believe he was talking about running with ya'll the other day. I seem to remember him getting r5 that night, too. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 09:42, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Went fine, we didn't win the hall (double spiritway opponents ftl) but I did nearly get that damn rank at last :p I saw you in the pve channel :) &mdash; Skuld 10:16, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, I haven't been doing enough PvP lately, seems like I miss all the good runs :( Glad you had fun though, maybe we'll hook up sometime.  --[[image:Epinephrine.jpg]] ~ Epinephrine 11:11, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Organized Userbox Spam
Well I know you were watching Skuld, so here's the final results. Feel free to distribute them to any who want to use them. And yes, I resized the images back to their original. I was having a brainfart when I had them at 40px before. Just go to my talk page and you can see them there. Anyone can use them on their user pages too.--  Vallen Frostweaver  14:16, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Nice :D &mdash; Skuld 14:20, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks again for the Icon poke. ;) --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  14:21, 30 January 2007 (CST

Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3JCESdFNyw <-- did u make it? --213.7.48.114 14:41, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Is my name cyriak? :P No, just found it while browsing &mdash; Skuld 14:52, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * yea Skuld.. cyriak is your youtube sockpuppet... don't lie ¬_¬ --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 15:13, 30 January 2007 (CST)

joke build, need delete
pl0x &mdash;Blastedt&mdash; 16:12, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * red? &mdash; Skuld 16:12, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Curse my phailing memory. &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 16:13, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * KK, fixed link. &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 16:17, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * What basis do you have that it's a joke build? Do not delete it please. — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 16:26, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * That fact that it is Echo Shadow Refuge...? &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 16:33, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Sorry, but any build in which the creator feels is viable deserves testing. As a side note I belie he ment Echo and not Arcane Echo. I did how ever learn this the hard way with you Blastedt on not testing before you vote and then not supporting your vote. grrrr....--Sneakysmith12 07:48, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Even if you could Arcane Echo DB, it's pointless, by the time you get off another chain DB is recharged. &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Blastedt 15:08, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Let me point out what I said. I said: any build in which the creator feels is viable deserves testing  Now let me explain that the world does not care about your standards for a build. The wiki does not care. You can, yes vote. You can even vote if you have yet to test, unethical, but u nevertheless can. The wiki requires the support of it's members. If the build was made it should be tested REGUARDLESS of what you think it will do. Now wether or not this build doesnt need any form of echo is not the point. The point is you must abide by the rules of this wiki to be a member of the wiki. Even in the Voting guidelines says that it needs 3 more unfavored then favored votes to get unfavored and then will start the deletion process.--Sneakysmith12 18:14, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * let me point out it does nothing, it was supposed to do something, but cannot do that since arcane echo cannot copy it. It's not my "standards", I don't even play sins, but the build is telling you to do something you cannot so you can be a god and kill everyone. &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Blastedt 18:55, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * That could easily be a typo for lack of better words. If you noticed their is no elite. So it could easily be confused with Echo. Now the fact you admitted you don't play sins does eliminate you from voting, because you cannot vote without testing.--68.102.128.17 19:05, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * You lie. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 19:06, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yes you can, "please" is ASKING people to test. –Ichigo724 19:06, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Anyone can vote wherever they please. You just hold a grudge, sneaky, since I unfavored one of your builds. QQ, and grow up. &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Blastedt 19:07, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Nah, I got over that. I just don't want you doing it to other people. And for where it says "please" can be interpitive to do it or better have a good reason why not. I am sure Skuld will agree on me with this one.--Sneakysmith12 22:07, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I have a new siggy
Like it? &mdash;Blastedt 16:59, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * No, change your name to pathetic underling &mdash; Skuld 17:00, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Done. &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Pathetic Underling 17:03, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Now you're in violation of GW:SIGN where it states "Signature must show their user name or by other means make clear the user name.". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Oh, I have your userpage on my watchlist *stares* &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Pathetic Underling 17:07, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Well, I have pathetic underling linked to me, and people know my style by now :P &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Pathetic Underling 17:08, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Unless you plan to abandon your current username and change to "Pathetic Underling", it should be changed to actually show the name or use an image that clearly conveys the name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:09, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Perhaps make it "Blastedt, the Pathetic Underling"? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ill just use blastedt &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Pathetic Underling 17:12, 30 January 2007 (CST)

A/N Reapers Degeneration
Can you please take care of the stupidity that is A/N Reapers Degeneration? The creator removed your deletion tag and archived the talk page after I tried to explain to him how the build isn't even possible. :/ Capcom 03:13, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Water Spike ftw!
I just have to say, I use a very similar build on my ele. Only, instead of Deep Freeze I use Blurred Vision, and instead of Freezing Gust I use Aura of Restoration. But that's because I only use my ele in PvE. --Curse You 16:01, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Nice ^^ usually take blurred vision instead of glyph, becomes a little less sustainable then &mdash; Skuld 16:02, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Skuld, what's caused this sudden change of heart from being primarily a monk and dervish to an "Elementalist by nature?" Did you recently discover a previously unknown love for the Ele or something? Just curious. Hyperion`  [[image:Angelic_Bond.jpg|19px]] (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Profession hopping :p My first was an ele, but he was butt-ugly so I gave up on him mid-way through factions and worked on my monk. I get bored of monking all the time, so I made a derv but.. the new classes are limited and I did all dervish had to offer. Prefer casters, and core classes.. so back to ele. And the side matter that my latest pvp ele had 8 skill points. Ahem :P &mdash; Skuld 17:41, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Hehe, yeah playing the same profession for a long time does eventually get boring I guess. See what you mean about the new classes being limited, not enough skills! That's why we have so many unfavoured Paragon builds and only 5 favoured. I should play Dervish to find out more about it, but I still don't see what new things it has to offer that make it more effective than other classes in a certain role. And it annoys me that there are so many...Once you've exhausted the dervish the only reason to keep it is the 130hp boss farming :p. Hyperion`  [[image:Angelic_Bond.jpg|19px]] (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Build talk:Mo/any Cookie Cutter Protection Hero
This is what... the third vote on that pointless build? We should make a rule about archiving the vote section (we already have one about not removing/striking out votes, but apparently none of the troublemakers read the rules of build-vetting). Anyway, that build has no purpose whatsoever, and the build author just seems to be trying to make a name for himself. -Auron  17:12, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Needs deleting imo. Hyperion`  [[image:Angelic_Bond.jpg|19px]] (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Not protesting or anything but heroes will use Sig of Devotion liberally, at least kine do :) Entropy 18:16, 31 January 2007 (CST)

http://www.furious-kitten.de/files/gw079.jpg
Lole Izzy got mad because someone doesn't like him. ;) --Nocturne  22:45, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Removal from adminship
Skuld,

As you may have noticed, I have removed your sysop privileges. This is not due to any abuse of power, and is not intended to be punitive. However, with the respect and expectations sysops are being subjected to, and especially considering the way our role has shifted meaning since I joined the GuildWiki, I do not believe you adequately fill the position.

Everybody, when first appointed as a sysop, goes through a period of feeling out the position. Most sysops I've seen have figured out what they're comfortable with and have performed their roles admirably almost from the very beginning. You, however, never seemed to quite come to grips with what the community wants from editors in general, and sysops specifically. I've reversed more of your actions than those of all other sysops in our history combined. You still regularly block users with no meaningful justification, so that a "vandal," in the cases when they are in fact vandals, see the text "bla bla bla" when they try to edit. You still regularly vote on builds with no justification, or worse, with justification that belittles not only the build in question, but the author of the build itself.

In short, I think you fall short of the high standards the other sysops maintain for themselves, and I've seen no improvement since you've been appointed.

Because there is no policy for desysoption, as it has never occured before, I can't tell you what recourse you have if you disagree with my decision. Of course, you are always able to petition the other three bureaucrats on the wiki, and they are of course able to revert this decision. By the principles of administration I myself wrote, I would be obliged to accept this revert. You can also attempt to persuade me to change my mind, but I warn you that I've been considering doing this since November -- I decided then that I would wait until February to give a fair and balanced perspective on your activities.

As always, I'll keep an eye here and on my talk page, and I'll do my best to respond to everybody who comments.

&mdash;Tanaric 00:41, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Well thats a bummer, heh. Could I not have been forewarned? &mdash; Skuld 02:30, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Wow, im sorry Skuld....I was sorta begning to think you were ok. I mean you are a little on the cynical side, but I always thought that you were the neccessary bad cop that Guild Wiki hired. But, if I were a mod I'd think all the hate mail would be a sign of things to come.--&mdash; Hyprodimus Prime   05:08, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * The entire Wiki is getting more and more politically correct, as it were. I wonder if this has something to do with this? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 05:34, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Holy cow, that was harsh, Tanaric. I, too, did disagree with some of Skuld's reverts and blocks over the last few weeks and months (and I'm sure I would have disagreed even more often if I had paid more attention to the build section), but I think removal of his sysop status without any prior warning or discussion (at least among the admin team) is not justified.


 * Now this incident makes me feel even more uncomfortable with my own "coincidential" promotion to admin. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:41, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Xasxas feels the same way. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 05:44, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Auron, I don't think you're helping. You're wrapped up very tightly in why this happened, after all. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 05:53, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * o.O I've tried to distance myself from it as much as I can, and only look at facts. Nobody but Tanaric has agreed with Tanaric's recent decisions (on skuld's de-opship, or gem's RfA); look around and see for yourself. If I was still tightly wrapped up, I'd be like "ZOMFG U MEANIES STOP PICKING ON SKULD." But that helps nothing. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 05:57, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * "Nobody but Tanaric has agreed with Tanaric's recent decisions." As a mostly outside observor to this, I agree with what he's done.  I feel that Skuld has been too quick to act and too harsh in his reverts, etc.  And I believe those actions made the wiki community more insular and made newcomers feel unwelcome.--Lodurr 06:05, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * I was thinking about you as the exception as I wrote "nobody," having read your talk page not minutes before. I guess... one person agrees with him. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 06:07, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * It is possible to agree with one of Tanaric's actions while disagreeing with another. It sounds like this was badly handled, and Skuld deserved much better treatment (even if he didn't always treat others well), but Tanaric can point to a pretty clear history to back up his action in this case. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 06:23, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Skuld represents the wiki somewhat, in the builds section, around the wiki, on the guru, etc. While he may not be overly neutral, as an admin might want to be, I can't think of a better way to show his position than this. While I see merit in your reasoning, I, as another member/contributor personally disagree more than agree with this. --Silk Weaker 06:14, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * The question is does Skuld need adminship to contiune that? Ofcourse he will not be able to delete and ban anymore, but otherwise he is still free to continue contributing and 'representing the wiki' as he has done before. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Removal from adminship is such a slap in the face that, if I was Skuld, I'd seriously consider to quit contributing alltogether. :( --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 09:33, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * I wouldn't worry too much. Skuld knows what the reasons behind this are and he has been making great improvement lately. I think that he still has a chance to prove that he can act as needed and be made an admin again. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * It's easy enough to notify the admins if someone needs to be banned. But as for deleting, I think the builds section is better off without someone constantly tidying it up. It will become so messy that everyone will want to get rid of it. And then my evil plan will be complete! :D Just joking. :P I'm sorry that this has happened, because it wouldn't be fun for Skuld, but **** happens, you know? You can only move forward. :) - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 08:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Self-destruction of the builds section has been my hope and my secret plan for quite a while. So far, it didn't work. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 09:33, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Skuld deserved it, he was acting like he was the King of the World. -- S i  g  m  A   08:25, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Please refraing from such comments in the future. (I believe I've said something similiar to you before)--[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2007 (CST)

We're all doomed. No, really, we are. >.> &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 09:53, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I understand that new users have trouble with Skuld and that Tanaric choose to end the problem rather harshly but if you read the admin page on Gwiki you will see this:


 * "GuildWiki admins are recommended by the community. Promotion to administrator is done solely at the discretion of the server admins listed below. Once promoted, an administrator is fully autonomous: he may do as his powers allow, as he sees fit. This seems dangerous, and indeed some users have disagreed with this policy in general. However, this policy has worked very well throughout the history of the GuildWiki: it allows incredibly quick resolution of the vast majority of issues. Further, because the administrator's character is well-known before his promotion, abuses of administrator power simply do not happen.


 * Administrators are appointed for life. No amount of inactivity can result in an administrator losing his position. Again, this is because only extremely trusted users are granted adminstrator status. Administrators may step down at will, or may control their continued appointment in other ways. Administrators in the midst of conflict have, in the past, offered to resign if the community voted it was prudent. The system administrators listed below may remove any administrator for any reason, though this has never occurred in our history."


 * I think that even if Tanaric have the power to do what he did and even if he had reason to do it or not, Skuld still have the right to an official warning.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  09:59, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I'm sorta hesitant to post here, since my opinion will likely be considered biased; I've argued with Skuld about my disagreements with his actions more than a few times. But, I don't really want to leave that arrogant "I guess... one person agrees with him" statement by Auron stand uncorrected. For whatever little it's worth, I happen to agree with Tanaric's decision as well. The reasons he gives seem accurate to me, and a quick look through the archived talk pages and the different system logs will show that. I don't think there's much room to ask "Was there a reason to demote?" What can be argued is whether there should have been more leniency shown in this particular case. True, despite my disagreements with the way he carries out his actions as an admin, I also have to admit that in the end Skuld's only been trying to help the wiki, and has done so with more dedication and work than most editors (very certainly way more dedication than me personally) could hope to show. And that's got to count for something. Just not sure that the "something" would be being a sysop. After all, Ollj used to be incredibly dedicated as well, the only problem is that what he thought was the best way to do something oftentimes happened to conflict with what is in the wiki's actual best interest. Now, I'm in now way comparing Skuld's contributions to Ollj (the guy used to turn the wiki upside down and inside out before it was even lunch time), just saying that, like Tanaric, I believe that "You, however, never seemed to quite come to grips with what the community wants from editors in general, and sysops specifically.".

There are 20 pages worth of Talk page archives here, where the Community has given its feedback to you, and this feedback is far from being unanimously supportive of your actions. There are too many "why was my build deleted" and "why was this user banned" questions in there (from either normal editors and other admins), and each of those perplexed inquiries should have been that "forewarning" that you are asking for. Tanaric mentions "I've reversed more of your actions than those of all other sysops in our history combined"; if this is true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), that should have also been enough warning for you to take a closer look at your actions before going through with them. So, aye, I also agree that Tanaric's decision was right.

ps. Very much agreed with Gem here, ""''Skuld knows what the reasons behind this are and he has been making great improvement lately. I think that he still has a chance to prove that he can act as needed and be made an admin again''". I honestly believe you're one of the most valuable contributors of this wiki, and that this place would be much worse without you around. I just really hope that it makes sense to you why this kind of decision from Tanaric was needed, at least for the time being. =\ Cheers. --Dirigible 10:04, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Skuld lost admin? k, let's watch the build section explode. –Ichigo724 10:28, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Once promoted, an administrator is fully autonomous: he may do as his powers allow, as he sees fit. - so then why demote him? Treat him like a user (as admins are too) and give him a temporary ban with a request for improvement if he's been that bad.  Don't demote permamnently.  Plus, I don't see any difference from before admin to after admin so why punish him for what got him his position to start with?  He's been a great help and his "rough around the edges" attitude has taken care of a lot of crud on the wiki many others were afraid to touch.  We all deserve second chances and I'm a forgiving person.  Do unto others as you'd have done unto you. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  10:47, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * You missed the other line Aratak bolded. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 10:58, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * No I didn't. I just thought that combining the two makes the whole article hypocritical and open to any interpretation one desires.  Going with the other bolded one, Skuld could've removed Tanaric before this for the reason of "pancake" or something.  It's just not consistent so I think a little lee way should be observed in this matter and a temp ban/demotion with direction should be observed.  Not a perm demotion.  Not that I'm secifically defending Skuld in this matter but I would've said the same for any admin in the same position, including Tanaric, if they were demoted in this fashion.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  11:04, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Skuld or any other regular admin can't demote other admins. Only Gravewit, Nunix, Tanaric and LordBiro can do it. The admin policy is clear enough for me, but we could rewrite the first sentence to make clear that in certain rare situations the admin stats can be removed. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * That is why I bolded both. They basicly say that admins can do whatever they want and bureaucrats can do what ever they want too.  Basicly the wiki never come up with any policies on this since they never had too.  So Sculd did his job and Tanaric did his job too, we can't be against any of those actions, we can only be againts how it was handle.  If we choose that it's ok for a bureaucrat to demode an admin it should be clear what an admin have the right to do, only then, if a admin doesn't follow those guidelines he could be demoded.  That is my opinion. (edit conflict with Gem and don't have time to rewrite, work is calling)&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  11:17, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * That's what I've been trying to say. For speaking English I sure have a tough time putting my thoughts into words.  I agree with what Aratak just said here.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  11:23, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * As someone who moderates sites of my own, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, I've seen innumerable offensive, demeaning and elitist comments from Skuld.  On the other, I know that someone who does work as admin or moderator winds up doing a lot behind the scenes, and gets underappreciated for that.  Skuld has been making overtures at improvement, but overall, his attitude has been enough in the not-too-distant-past that I'd support the decision, personally.  Not just being offensive, but also just not setting the right standard for other members of the Wiki.  Craw   11:29, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * See, at Wikipedia the folks called "bureaucrats" are NOT able to make unilateral decisions. They must follow consensus and discussion. And they can't demote admins AFAIK, only promote. GuildWiki doesn't have the same structure, apparently, but uses the same names. Which is part of my confusion. The role of bureaucrats (as opposed to admins) here at GuildWiki isn't well-defined that I can find, but here they apparently ultimately control the wiki. How they work out control among themselves I do not know -- that's the other part of my confusion about Tanaric's vs LordBiro's comments/actions. But apparently they can make many high-level decisions pretty much unilaterally. I guess there's a long history behind who has what powers, but I'm not privy to it, being too new. I suppose I'd need to look through lots of old talk archives to figure it all out. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 11:31, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Gravewit and Nunix are the ultimate power here as the wiki is on their server and they are the ones with access to the server physically. Then there are Tanaric and LordBiro who were promoted to bureaucrates. Then come the rest of the users. (I myself don't really see admins as a greater power than normal users but instead as trusted users with access to tools which are too harmfull in the hands of regular users) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * The fact that Skuld acts surprised and would like a warning should give enough clues to most people of why he was demoted. A sysop's job is (among other things) to make sure that conduct and behaviour in general are within proper limits, not to stretch those limits and act surprised when this is reacted upon.--Siemens 11:35, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * "Most sysops I've seen have figured out what they're comfortable with and have performed their roles admirably almost from the very beginning. You, however, never seemed to quite come to grips with what the community wants from editors in general, and sysops specifically"


 * I think he sould have got some kind of warning as he was promoted in the first place because he was trused and contributed well, but you say he never learned how to do the job. He was contributing the same way he was before adminship because he thought it was what he was promoted for and should stick to it, he didnt know what he was doing/did wrong imho.--Blade [[Image:smallscout.png]] (talk|contribs) 11:43, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * If he was 10 years old, or a socially retarded person, then yes. Promoting him was a big mistake. Now that mistake is corrected, end of story.--Siemens 11:53, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Funny. People insulting others and vandalizing pages are given warnings and sometimes not even banned. An admin who honestly tries to prevent the extinction of an entire section, having quality control, making major contributions, and blocking vandals like other admins do, are removed from status without warning. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 11:58, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Well, this is interesting and I'm not quite sure what to think. I've definitely felt at certain points in time that Skuld made a less than ideal admin. However I did notice an improvement in the new year and felt he deserved a chance to improve. The improvement has been good, but I think an admin should set a good example for other wiki users, create a welcoming environment for new users, and set a mature, rational tone for discussions, and I don't think Skuld has reached that point yet. On the other hand, it does seem a bit sudden, and maybe a warning of the threat of demotion would have been a more effective way to handle this. I've also come to realize how important Skuld is to the maintenance of the builds section. If he had been demoted a couple of months ago, I'm quite certain the builds section would be in a worse place than it is right now. On top of this, Tanaric is against Gem's RfA, which means that we would be left without any admin who is active in the builds section, and that is my biggest concern right now. This is especially frustrating since Tanaric seems to be barely involved in the day to day life of the wiki, but could potentially have a drastic effect on it. However considering that there seems to be some dissent among the admins, I suppose I'll wait to see what happens. BrianG 12:20, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * You forgot Barek, who also has done excellent work on the builds department in the past month. Also, not to discredit you, Tanaric, but you say you've stopped playing Guild Wars. That is directly conflicting with Skuld's participation in the Builds section (largely what this demotion is based on, no doubt), which effectively requires users to have great in-game experience. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 12:26, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * I don't understand why you are mentioning me and the builds section in the same sentece. I've only been active in certain really limited parts of the builds section, mostly the Underworld and ranger builds with some rare exceptions. It's also the only section of the wiki which I haven't really wanted to touch policy wise as it is such a mess at the moment. Making me an admin wouldn't help the situation of the builds section at all because I can do everything what I want there without admin tools. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Rapta, I didn't mean to discount the great work Barek has done, I was talking more about who is around the builds section on a daily basis to understand what going on there, and Barek has implied that he prefers keeping his distance. Gem, sorry if I misunderstood your perspective on the builds section, but your name is at least seen around that section on a more regular basis in comparison to any of the current admins, so I just meant to imply that having you as an admin would be better than not having any admin who is regularly active in that section (our current situation). It was also meant to imply support for your adminship although I haven't got around to signing the RfA yet. :) -- BrianG 12:41, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Brian's right - I monitor elements of the builds section and some of the related talks, and I will help out in small ways with templates/tools when I see something that I think could help, but for the most part I avoid the detailed build discussions and debates unless something or someone draws my attention to it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:06, 1 February 2007 (CST)

What a shame. Skuld was always helpful around the Wiki, and particularly the Builds section. To be honest, without another admin taking a similiar stance and actions as Skuld, our Tested section would be full of Mending W/Mos and hexers with 8 degen skills on their bar. He did delete a number of builds from the builds section, but he was quick to restore them if the build author pursued this. I don't sympathize with any user who may have stumbled across a blunt ban message. Even if they could not be bothered to read up on wiki policy, it should have been obvious that, for example, substituting an article about an Anet team member with that of a horse-man-woman sexual encounter would be against wiki policy. Like one user said above, Skuld was our 'bad cop.' His actions in the Build section are justified in that they benefitted the wiki as a whole. When it comes to vandals, if they are going to be annoying pricks and sabotage the work of other contributors, well, they will get to meet our very own in-house annoying prick. ;-) With so much support behind him, it seems clear that the GWiki community valued and appreciated Skuld's contributions, and if the bureaucrats want to do right by the communtiy, they should restore Skuld's adminship. - Krowman  13:29, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Well, thanks for all the comments. A small clarification, I did whatever I do to the builds section out of necessity, not because I want to. Prehaps if I had just left it alone, it would have been deleted by now, all the better for the wiki. &mdash; Skuld 12:25, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * I actually like the builds section, but it is quickly becoming such a focus of many user like me to cleanup, and make it better that it is taking time away from the other areas of the wiki. The builds section certainly is becoming too much of a hassle to explain over and over the same concept and certain people still don't understand it and assume that it is us, the testers, that don't get it when in fact it is the build creator.  Yeah the builds section probally will blow up, mainly because there are too many ineffectual builds being posted.  IMO it's like "american idol" there are many people that are so deluted into thinking that their build is awsome, when in fact it's total crap... just like when some people sing and it is horrid even though they think they are the next american idol.  I think Skuld was the "Simon cowell" of the builds section, and I think it needed that kind of harsh honesty to keep it from blowing up.  Finally, stripping him of his Admin powers is a mistake, because his page deletions, and user banning, it saved other contributers time and frustration to keep fixing valdalization or constant reverts.  This action by Skuld made the builds section managable as people who keep reverting were banned, and builds that were jokes, or duplicates of tested were deleted. --Lania Elderfire 14:01, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I'll attempt to respond to all the major points, but I'll probably miss something. Please reply and repeat the question if I do.

Regarding forewarning: I'm not sure if that would have been beneficial or not. I'm beginning to become fairly jaded on wiki personalities; that is, I'm not sure if people can actually change. Moreover, the sysop position isn't meant to be a goal – you shouldn't come to the wiki and work to become a sysop – it's meant to be an appointment for people who are basically built for the position to begin with. There's a reason I never refer to the appointment to sysop as a "promotion."

Regarding Skuld: there is no reason that this should be considered a permanent removal. Skuld is, as everyone else, welcome to relist themselves on RfA to indicate their willingness to serve as sysop. Though I won't consider appointing him for a few months, somebody else might. Also, I really hope that Skuld stays on as a contributor, as I think he's a great editor, and I like him well enough personally.

Regarding Tetris's promotion: I've wanted Tetris as a sysop since the beginning, which you can very easily verify via discussion histories. Additionally, I knew a hole would soon open, and I needed a sysop to fill that hole. The reason why that hole opened up really isn't relevant to Tetris's appointment, as if the hole had opened any other way, I'd still have wanted him.

Regarding "Nobody agrees with Tanaric": I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. As far as I can tell, I have more support than I have opposition, especially considering that only those people who are truly pissed off are bound to comment in the first place. I appreciate all of those who are defending me, though.

Regarding the build namespace: Skuld was merely cursorily involved. I still maintain that builds do not belong the GuildWiki, but I'm not fighting this battle now, and I don't intend to fight it in the future here.

Regarding LordBiro: I think it's well known that Biro and I are friends, and that we regularly speak outside of the GuildWiki. I knew he disagreed with some of my actions today. I'm very glad he did. For those who aren't aware, I myself appointed Biro as a bureaucrat, both so that he could wield the torch when I was unavailable and so that there was some semblance of checks and balances at our level. If he thought I was doing harm, I trust that he would remove my bureaucratic privileges himself.

&mdash;Tanaric 13:31, 1 February 2007 (CST)