GuildWiki:Admin noticeboard/Resolved3

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

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

To create a new request, add a new subheading under Unresolved, providing a neutral, concise, and signed summary of the issue. It is suggested that any other users involved in an issue should be informed of its discussion here. New sections go on the bottom.

Resolved issues are moved here.

Formatting issue

For some reason, part of my profile page's formatting just stopped working (fairly recently). I use <span class="plainlinks"></span> for a few external links, and that still works fine. But I used to have the links colored as well, and for some reason now, they disappear instead of changing color. Here's the coding I'm using:

<span class="plainlinks">[http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Jioruji_Derako <font color="black"><big>'''GWW Profile'''</big></font>]</span>

Example:

GWW Profile

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

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

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

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

Let's see... I only half understood that, so I'll post examples instead. They're almost all different in some way, but a few of them just seem like they would both be the same...

• - GuildWarsWiki
• - PvXWiki
• - VynaioccWiki
• - deviantART

I would assume PvX gets through because it's a fairly normal address, but I would have thought deviantART wouldn't then, by that logic...

...on this subject, there wouldn't happen to be a list of inter-wiki prefixes, would there? (talking about pvx:User:Jioruji Derako, wikipedia:User:Jioruji Derako, etc.) -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 07:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The only prefixes I know about are pvx: for pvx, wikipedia: for wikipedia articles and w: for wikia central articles RT 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now THAT is weird. Let me check if it is actually the javascript I wrote that did that... -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Test a:

• - GuildWarsWiki
• - PvXWiki
• - VynaioccWiki
• - deviantART

Test b:

• - GuildWarsWiki
• - PvXWiki
• - VynaioccWiki
• - deviantART

Test c:

• - deviantART
• - VynaioccWiki
• - PvXWiki
• - GuildWarsWiki

Ok, that's definitely a bug in my javscript )-: It's not specifically discriminating any address though, as Test c shows, it's just alternatingly skipping. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 16:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Lord Mexico

Has added a statement that he is an admin on his userpage, when this is not the case, do we remove it? (comments?) RT 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He just C/P'd Karlos' page over to his. --- -- (s)talkpage 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Did he? Odd RT 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Compare them if you must. --- -- (s)talkpage 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's actually really funny. 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah guys sry i thought karlos userpage was nice and that if i copied and changed the names and titles of my chars and deleted some otehr stuff i might get a nice userpage but no...Lord Mexico 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Its fine. If he contributed here still I'd tell you to ask if you can use it, but AFAIK he doesn't contribute to any wiki anymore. --Shadowcrest 14:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by IP

Well, I seem to be blocked. It says my IP was used by shesonly12 in the recent vandalisings. I assume it was an IP range block so I won't bother saying I didn't do anything as I'm probably just blocked by coincidence, what I'm wondering is how long it'll be for. Ezekiel [Talk] 12:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Is your IP unblocked now? If it ain't, I /fail --- -- (s)talkpage 12:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's doing something wierd. At first I couldn't edit anything (except my userpage and this one) then I tried to undo the mantid monitor edit and it didn't stop me, I tried editing random pages and it didn't say I was blocked (this is all before you unblocked it). The only page it now says I'm blocked on is when I try to edit my own talk page. Ezekiel [Talk] 12:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What browser do you use? For IE and Firefox: Ctrl+f5 might fix your probs. Chaching issues :P --- -- (s)talkpage 12:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Firefox, already tried clearing the cache and it didn't change anything. Ezekiel [Talk] 13:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. No idea why it's doing that, then. --- -- (s)talkpage 13:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't matter, I moved my talk and it's letting me edit the new page. So long as no-one messes with the redirect it should be fine. Ezekiel [Talk] 13:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That happened to me agian...I e-mailed a Admin Timir222 13:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Crap, I got it too... Thoughtful 13:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can edit sections but I can't edit the whole page at once... Thoughtful 14:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

one last post: Seems to only block me from editing my whole userpage, and doesn't block me from sections of my userpage. If this helps at all my IP is 216.151.156.20 Thoughtful 14:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also getting this. Not sure why.

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

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "ShesOnly12". The reason given for ShesOnly12's block is: "multi-vandal" Your IP address is 216.151.156.20. Please include this address in any queries you make. --ParadoxicalAmbiance 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How is our IP the same?? Thoughtful 14:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea, but I know for sure that's not my IP. Something screwy happened.--ParadoxicalAmbiance 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember some time ago multiple people got the 'new message' message on ip adres 110.10.100 or something like that. Maybe this is a similar case? -- -- talkpage 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure the same for me. AND GREAT I CAN'T EDIT MY USERPAGE OR MAKE A TEMPLATE FOR IT T_T Thoughtful 14:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is Thoughtful, I'm seeing what IP comes up when I sign. 68.101.76.36 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, considering Special:Mytalk goes to the 216 number Thoughtful 14:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does... very odd. o.O--ParadoxicalAmbiance 14:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be alerting Wikia rather than the admins... Thoughtful 14:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's "ShesOnly12"? Oh and it says my IP is the same, though its not. Could it be they have been taken over from us? Zulu Inuoe 14:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) ShesOnly12 was a vandal from a few hours back. Ezekiel [Talk] 14:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As a temporary solution, try moving the page that you aren't allowed to edit, you should then be able to edit it, and if you really want you can try moving it back to where it was. Ezekiel [Talk] 14:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say notifying Wikia is your best bet. --Shadowcrest 14:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I got the ban message trying to edit Warwick's talk. I then just clicked on the talk tab, tried to re-edit again, and I could. --Shadowcrest 14:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else notice it looks like a redirect? Zulu Inuoe 14:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRARGGH!!! CAN'T...EDIT...TALK PAGE!!!! Thoughtful 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-editing doesn't work for me. Ban-notice keeps popping up when I try =/--ParadoxicalAmbiance 15:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Same thing hsppenin with my IP 216.151.156.20--Murderer Bomb 16:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Its simple enough, just unblock 216.151.156.20? —♥May♥ (♥Talk♥) (♥Contr.♥) 17:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Try looking that IP up in the Block log. It's not blocked... >.> Also, Warw, your sig is too long. --- -- (s)talkpage 17:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is me and this is the vandal, so its likely a bug or the range of the ip block is beyound reason to me (i got the maps from http://www.ipligence.com/ ) 201.92.98.223 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

o.O Googled the IP and it came up in a Wikia e-mail log Email Log here.. (IP in log is highlighted. Following the link the IP is in goes to Wikia.)--ParadoxicalAmbiance 19:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Same thing happening to me. My IP is _NOT_ 216.151.156.20, but it says the same thing other users have noted above. I can edit most pages, but not my talk page. --Franzwald 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the same problem...Fix plx--The Gates Assassin 19:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. It should be resolved. If anyone is having problems as of this moment, I'm all out of ideas. --- -- (s)talkpage 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Woot, it's fixed for me.--ParadoxicalAmbiance 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

yay me too.--The Gates Assassin 23:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, whatever you did, good work. Ezekiel [Talk] 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of code to change name of pages on userpages

Is annoying, it dosn't allow links to be clicked if near (for example redirected from x has to be clicked in a very precise way) and it is misleading, I suggest that it should not be allowed, any commments RT | Talk 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all of the cases are misleading, actually. -- 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can be. I cannot click the redirected from User:Maywick on User:Warwick's page, when it redirects RT | Talk 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that's annoying. But are there any other cases of it? -- 21:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can click the redirect from it.. No problems on my side? Yet another case (Similar to the Position:Absolute vandalism) where AOL owns FF. —♥May♥Wick♥ 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading, imo, wich is bad. Hard to bypass? Meh. Click a random link below it, esc, shift-tab. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I am maywick/may. —♥May♥Wick♥ 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're Warwick, you just call yourself Maywick. -- 21:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider it similar to the trick new message boxes. Its annoying. Lord of all tyria 21:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is, but should we really bother about these few cases? -- 21:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There were also only 3 or 4 new message boxes... --- -- (s)talkpage 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlike this, that was real vandalism. -- 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it vandalism when someone puts a fake new messages box on their page? It is near exactly the same case, except now the name of the page is changed. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the name edit pretty much still shows the username. -- 21:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"User:Warwick"=/="User:May♥Wick" If I wasn't aware of that screwy business this would be confusing. -- 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of everyone's userpage headers saying "Marcopolo is awesome", "Vipermagi is teh shizzle", "Warwick May" or whatever. That is not the actual pagename, it isn't the real username, and if you're not a wikicode know-how then you will be confused. Argument for: well it is just the userspace, and it's my userpage, can't I do whatever I want with it? Okay, but that is only true to some extent. For the same reason we no longer allow fake message boxes (that was precedent even before the Pos=Abs stuff), stuff that is confusing, misleading, fake, etc. about your identity can't go on your userpage. For example, we also disallowed redirecting your userpage to a random page, or even to a mainspace article in general. Having no userpage (redlink) is better than one that confuses new users. The point of a userpage is to have a small piece of the Wiki to yourself where you can tool around with code, show off your characters, etc. But it is also for educating people about you, and is the first point where one goes if they would like to contact you. (Some people click User and then the "discussion" tab because they don't know to go straight to User talk:X).

Basically. I don't care if you make your header in some cool new font, or bolded, or colored, or whatever. But the same as with the signature policy, it must reflect your actual username, easily enough that a newcomer could tell it is you. Does that sound reasonable? (T/C) 20:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed mine accordingly.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 20:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if people listen to me because of what I say or because I'm bcrat. :( (T/C) 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I just think you make good points.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What entropy said. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I listen to entropy, coz it is wise (and she is wise) RT | Talk 18:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad RT beat me to posting this, I wholeheartedly agree. --Shadowcrest 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have replied to this sooner but... I disagree entirely. You shouldn't be allowed to change the title text on your userpage in any way. We switched the title text to a serif to make it easier to distinguish between a true user who is mimicking them with a similar user name. The difference couldn't be seen in the address bar so it could only be seen there. If people canc hange that text all willy nilly it defeats the whole purpose. Additionally, if you arrive at the page via a redirect (from a user's signature image for example) the correct page name will not appear in the address bar. Instead the address of the page you were redirected from appears. If the user's proper name is not displayed in the title text then it makes it that much harder to determine who they are. So signatures don't have to reflect an actual user name and now neither do their user pages? How in the world do we know who is who if all these things don't actually say the correct user name? People get to chose a username when they sign up. If you don't like it, get a new username and contribute from there. Don't go changing everything around to obscure your identity. Its needlessly confusing. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 20:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Jedi, I think that that would be agreeing with what is posted here, not disagreeing... unless I'm misunderstanding something...-- (Talk) (Contr.) 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. What you guys seem to be talking about is applying our signature policy to the user pages. Personally, I don't even like when people's sigs don't match their usernames because it makes it harder for me to identify people that are new (old users I'm familiar with). Because we already accepted them, it would be inappropriate to change the policy now in that light. The difference is that I'm saying that you shouldn't be able to change your header at all versus you can change the font or change it so that its not your exact username so long as it reflect your username. The difference is that based on what Entropy said, you changing your header to MP47 would still be okay because its short for Marcopolo47 and what I'm saying is that you have to keep it Marcopolo47 and no messing with the fonts or colors or whatever. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a sort of compromise? Eg if you have the user you are "Pretending" to be registered, then its okay to have it? (I mean you own the account). Or, you can add things onto it. EG for me User:Warwick aka May & Maywick? —Warw/Wick 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you are changing something that is technically outside the content of the page. It's changing the skin around the content. When I look at that part of the page, I want to see the actual page name. If you want to make a separate announcement that you can't pick a username, then put it below that "Hi, I'm User:Warwick but everyone calls me May" or whatever. But thats where teh title of the page shows up and you shouldn't be playing with it. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thats an idea I think.. Give me a second.. —Warw/Wick 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jedi Rogue raises a good point. Wikipedia has a new skin, called "Modern", and messing stuff with how page titles display in Monobook wouldn't work with Modern (not that we have the Modern skin here, but it's the general idea of separation of content vs interface that is important). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jedi on this issue; you shouldn't be using css hax to change page titles at all. It's messy, unnecessary, and confusing. 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot completely about the serif addition thing. Thanks for reminding me, Jedi...although I think merely color change would do no harm, still. Since you can't encode that into a username. (Or can you?) (T/C) 05:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It also screws up the title when editing, and with site notices, it also looks bad. --Shadowcrest 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm a few days late to this discussion, but in the event that you do indeed decide to allow it to some extent, mediawiki does have a function that allows you to change headers without them interfering with sitenotices or the redirect links or anything. It's disabled by default (or it's an extension or something, I'm not sure), but it's possible to put {{DISPLAYNAME:New header}} at the top of the page. However, things like that are pretty confusing to new users. And ripe for abuse. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Displayname only works on "equivalent" names. Meaning if you copy-paste it into double-brackets, it'll produce a blue link going to the actual page. For example, iPod, IPod, :IPod, IPod (extra space in the front) will all link to the same location, so you can use DISPLAYNAME to change between any of them. But you can't change it to something that would produce a different link result. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Hadn't realized it only worked like that :( ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Making moves autoconfirmed only

Suggestion: As above, to stop the recent move vandalism RT | Talk 09:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. IP addresses and non-confirmed users probably don't need to be moving pages anyways; the past two days of move vandals seem to be on guy as well, forcing him to set an email should limit the number of accounts he can use. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It'd just slow him down between accounts. The limit on the number of one-use email accounts you can create is pretty high. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 10:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Infinite, but adds another tedious step to his/her internet inferiority schemes.-- 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

On one hand, multi-account abuse does not seem that significant for this measure to be effective IMO; on the other hand, I imagine alot of GuildWiki users don't ahve email address confirmed (at least I don't). Thus I currently believe this restriction would do more harm than good. Feel free to attempt to persuade me otehrwise. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can IPs move pages?--ìğá†ħŕášħTalk 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They cannot. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I also think that autoconfirm is not needed, it was one person using many accounts, and he eventually got tired and went away, and since someone is always on, there is always someone on to revert it.--ìğá†ħŕášħTalk 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the recent incident is just one person using one accout? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

One guy, two accounts, it would seem. The last incident was the second one; either the same guy on a new account, or someone who's a big fan of his work and copying. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

#3 today. Revisit?-- 20:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I can easily make 50 auto-confirmed accounts a day. So I personally don't even see this measure as being able to slow the rate of current vandalism. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd have to wonder if the official wiki suffers from the same problems though. -- 20:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They have manpower, though. —Warw/Wick 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of it maybe grudges against Wikia that end up affecting us. There were some attacks targets specifically at Angela previously. Glacier Wolf is another user from Wikia, though I can't really say if the recent attack really was picking on him or just a random user found in the RC. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, they may have more people, but we are more devoted. I think it pretty much evens out. -- 20:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The vandal made references to other wikia wikis; it has to be spillover. 20:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More man power then us? I like to think the majority of players haven't been attracted by the shiny surface over there.

It would still slow and dissuade vandals tho. ECs....-- 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please hop on IRC

All admins: please hop on to IRC today when you have a chance, and give me a shout when you are there (I may not be constantly paying attention so a shout helps catch my attention). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my technical ineptitude, but what is "IRC" and how would I get there? (T/C) 04:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Some kind of chat room using channels. Kind of stupid IMO.-- 04:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're gonna need to get the Chatzilla Firefox extension. 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... please explain why you want us to go onto IRC? --Gimmethegepgun 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling it was related to the April Fool's Day trick, since I got kicked out of the room when I snuck in. 04:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty, Felix! --Gimmethegepgun 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was curious, so shoot me. 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay! *Felix's body was later found in an alleyway punctured repeatedly by pencaps until death* --Gimmethegepgun 04:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you've got something too sensitive for normal users, Pan, then I suppose I ought to take some time and see what's up. But returning to my question: how exactly would I get onto this "IRC", especially since I don't have Firefox? (T/C) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends what browser you use. Opera has IRC built in, but it's kind of hard to use. Anything else, you might want to download a separate client program. 04:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have GMUD client that I use for MUDding. Is that sufficient? (T/C) 04:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, hahaha. http://www.mirc.com/ 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's a...yeah. Okay. Can someone point me to the specific channel we are using? (T/C) 04:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) irc://freenode/GuildWiki 04:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The connection is timing out. I'm not sure this is going to work. Any troubleshooting tips? All Internet security is temp disabled, internet itself is running fine... (T/C) 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blah, sorry, that was a call to try to get consensus and get ppl to help out. It's no longer needed. BTW, I wasn't sure if we were actually gonna do this until about 12 hours ago. I proposed it to the WoWWiki folks a while ago but didn't get confirmation that we are definitely doing it (the humor value decreases drastically if only one of the two wikis end up doing it). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 05:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It works for me, but that doesn't really matter.--ìğá†ħŕášħTalk 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Nevermind then...By the way, it's still March 31 for most of us Pan, which is at least part of where my initial cofusion came from. (T/C) 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going start it at midnight UTC, but the WoW guys weren't ready yet so it was delayed a bit (I want to sync it with them). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 05:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

possible copyvios

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

Inappropriate Discussion

[1] Needs taking care of in my opinion as an editor here; lot's of irrelevant trash. Makes the community look bad.

Imo, irrelevance is all over the place. Bad community image? Gaile gave literal flamefests in Int 1 Kamadan, so a bad image is all over the place. And it's not like she'd look on this 'Wiki. --- -- (s)talkpage 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh i'd love to have seen these "flamefests" gaile is repeatedly implicated in. Do we keep any transcripts of them here? Yes i am aware of the irony of posting an irrelevant comment on an admin notice board section about the problems of irrelevant discussion. Our community now looks that little bit worse ;)--Cobalt | Talk 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of what's there is borderline NPA. "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."

Except much isn't directed, though I'd argue that the bit about running a blade on the arm immediately following Alari's comment is pretty much directed at him.

And what someone else does doesn't excuse shitty behavior for anybody.

If you find someone crossed the NPA-border, talk about that. You first stated you'd like to see it all removed. Side note: Lost Blue repeadetly makes such remarks, and he knows how others think about it and what comments he can expect. I'm not approving of the comments that he gets, fyi. The slitting Blue talks about is not directed at anyone, but rather how he lives life (His real life is a livin' heck) --- -- (s)talkpage 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"And what someone else does doesn't excuse 'shitty' behavior for anybody." I think that constitues indirect NPA--Cobalt | Talk 16:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

advance notice

Notice for admins and others who may be interested

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

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

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

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

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

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

She brought that up in her comment... --- -- (s)talkpage 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I agree with that RT | Talk 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm fine with the idea that Sysop status is earned for life, but that doesn't mean thay have to be Sysops for life. Perhaps keep inactive Sysops on the admin list (they're already listed as inactive there), but remove them from the user group. If a inactive Sysop comes back and feels the need for Sysop tools, it's simple enough to make a few clicks and pop them back up to their original glory.

If someone's totally inactive, there's no need for Sysop powers. And someone going through the system-generated list in hopes of finding an Admin will just get confused at which one's actually active. Consider the Sysop powers being "turned off"; they're still there, they're just not "on" yet. And like mentioned before, it's really easy for someone to say "hey, I'm still using that" and have their powers back. So long as it's completely clear that a previous Sysop can always get their status back, then it doesn't matter what we do with them now. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with prying sysop status from the cold dead hands of those long-forgotten users, none of whom I've ever talked to or care about. I also see no problem with removing bureaucrat status from Gravewit or Nunix, although I feel LordBiro's should be retained, since he can actually be contacted in case of a dire emergency. 09:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no issues arising with this, especially if the users are notified they can retain their sysops powers if they send entropy a message. LordBiro can retain his bureaucrat status, though I believe Wikia can appoint a bureaucrat if Entropy suddenly dies :P --Shadowcrest 20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with everything else, but let Biro stay as bureaucrat. -- (gem / talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Warwick

Having just had an IM conversation with Warwick, wanting to be unblocked. Her reasons were: "His[auron's] reasoning was "Harassment/Threatening Behaviour". I didn't threaten him once. He threatened me for no particular reason, and his idea of "Harassment" is somthing that I call "Continuing a discussion". [Auron is a] Stupid tempermental, Self-centered, idiotic, immature childish brat."

The entire chat log will be posted at this location, please note that Warwick uses some foul language... I have not edited the logs User:Randomtime/Admin/Warwick RT | Talk 11:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a few things to say, so I'll use bullets.

• You shouldn't have repealed the ban, Warwick deserved a longer one imo.
• Although Auron's ban summary wasn't particularly enlightening, I followed the entire debate from start to finish and I agree with his reasoning.
• Several times Warwick has told me that her brother still has access to the account, and then later told me she was only joking. It's become impossible to trust her at all.
• The idea of Warwick's having 13 accounts fills me with rage and disgust. Sockpuppets in and of themselves are harmless, but she used one to get around a legitimate ban, which is also a bannable offense. Is there any way to run an IP check? 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets? Nah, only shoepuppets. Most of them are redirects to my page. I've also got 2 accounts I previously contributed to but decided to stop. And No, I don't really have 13. At most 4. May, Maywick, Warwick =D and... nope, thats all of them. —Warw/Wick 21:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Warwick's/James'/May's flat out self-contradictions confuse and slightly disturb me, first of all.
• IP check- I don't know if we can or not. I think Auron once told me that it was possible, but I don't know now.
• Imo, James/May/whoever they are need to create separate accounts, stop using User:Warwick, contribute only from their own accounts, and get on with their lives. As for losing contributions- I personally don't see why it's important since you don't know who contributed when/to what. If you can't lay claims to specific ones (and you'll never be able to prove it was you anyway), it doesn't really matter. --Shadowcrest 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I kicked my brother off of the GuildWiki account in March. —Warw/Wick 21:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're missing the point. We don't know who's edits were whom's before March. Thoughtful 17:30, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I'm not, I just wanted to clarify that all edits after the third of March were mine. —Warw/Wick 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, ok. Thoughtful 21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing that, and we clearly have no reason to believe you. 21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is BS. Thank you for posting the log, RT; it only helps to assure me that Auron and I are justified in what we say. (T/C) 18:36, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

If it helps at all, here's what Warwick signed off with after harassing me on MSN for about half an hour:

May said:

Anyway, I'd love to stay and chat, but I've got some sleeping to do.

Felix Omni said:

You have some thinking to do as well.

May said:

Goodnight. And I think that it may have been your Sysoping that's made your ego increase a lot. I discussed it with Zulu. Its pretty funny just how good a thinker he actually is. I have no thinking I need to do, as I can flash a response up in seconds. Goodnight.

So apparently Zulu is a large part of this problem as well. As shown from his talk page, he likes causing trouble and conflict. At this point, I'd like to call for an additional ban for Warwick, for a) circumventing a ban, b) flaming Auron as an anon while banned, c) harassing admins on the wiki, in-game, and through whatever courses she can find, and d) "general asshattery." 22:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would not help the situation at all. It would make May and Zulu angry, and it would not solve the larger problem. Circumventing a ban is bad. But so was Auron's justification (what he chose to explain anyways). Harassing Auron and you is bad. But you both can't be held blameless, since if I was in May's position (regardless of who is ultimately responsible) I would be in an angry and trolling mood too.

In fact, I would prefer if everyone who has been involved - you, Auron, and yes, me - recuse themselves and refrain from taking administrative action. None of us is sufficiently impartial to the issue to make an informed decision and I think we owe Warwick at least a fair chance to defend herself without getting blocked. If one of the other admins feels a ban is warranted, so be it. (T/C) 22:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably should have a few of us think about it, rather than just one. I volunteer for it, but I'd prefer if I wasn't the only one --Gimmethegepgun 19:02, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

While I do not agree with May's actions. I am appalled at RT atm for posting a private converstaion on this wiki. I know there is no rules against it; but it just makes me appalled when a private converstation is exploited; whether or not it was ment to help get her unblocked or not, I find it wrong. (forgive me being utterly off topic but I felt as if I had to say something). --Shadowphoenix 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for editing your post, but to me it looked like you said "applaud" instead of "appalled," which are two very different things. --Macros 23:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Right at the end, RT says that he will post the log on the wiki, and May doesn't object --Gimmethegepgun 23:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If required, I can go through the case and punish anyone who I think deserves it. ;) After a quick glance I'd say that Wawicks/Mays/whoevers ban was warranted and even though Aurons ban note wasn't the best, who cares? Most ban notes are crappy, and it's not surprising, there are better things to do than form elaborate ban notes. -- (gem / talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I think the problem, though, is that Warwick is not interested in defending herself because she believes she has done nothing wrong. I will admit that I'm not exactly impartial- I'm particularly angry with Warwick because I gave her chance after chance to redeem herself and she disappointed me every time. That's why I opened my proposal to the floor, so to speak, instead of exercising Captain's Prerogative and banning her outright. Plus it would be my first ban.

I don't want to take this outside of the wiki, but I do have some understanding of how Warwick thinks, unless she was lying about having Asperger's Syndrome. A normal person in her situation would act conciliatory to end the conflict as soon as possible, before heavier consequences were incurred. Warwick, however, believes that if she continues to make a fuss and stir things up with her righteous indignation, eventually a higher power will intervene and make things right by her book. Unfortunately, there is no higher power here, unless she were to appeal to Wikia, which of course would be futile because they don't care. 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I vote for banning Auron, Entropy, Warwick, and Gem for good measure. Then I vote we get a "Party" namespace for me, Maui and MP47. Ban parties!!! —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 23:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No Blue? Lost-Blue 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey now, Zulu is a large part of this problem as well. As shown from his talk page, he likes causing trouble and conflict. Zulu Inuoe 19:42, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

All of you forgot me :( I'ma go cry in the corner, /wristslit a bit, and then I'MA GONNA BANINATE EVERYONE! MWAHAHAHA! --Gimmethegepgun 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this WHOLE ENTIRE THING was gotten way out of hand. Warwick/May/James/whoever makes a pet project and everything goes up in flames. YES, I don't think it was a good idea to make a Gwiki2 even though most said not to. But everyone is blowing this out of proportion. May, Entropy, Auron, Zulu, and whoever else involved CALM DOWN! It's not that big of a deal. End the high levels of wiki-drama. NOW! Thoughtful 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

lol Zulu Inuoe 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughtful, I'm afraid this has little or nothing to do with that wiki. Maybe you should gain weight before you try to throw it around? 01:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've read through the archives and come to a conclusion.

• It was an unwise (stupid) move from Warwick to start a GuildWiki2 without consulting others and against the wishes of the GuildWiki community. This however does not have anything to do with the policies of this wiki and does not warrant a ban. People may dislike him for this, nothing more. In the discussions about the new wiki she has also shown that she does not properly understand licening and has stated that she is not good with policy related things, so keeping the bureaucrat position on GuildWiki2 instead of offering them to more suitable users shows a certain lack of understanding, or the need to feel important.
• In the original discussion Warwick remained calm and proper, just like a user should, even though the discussion wasn't very pleasant for her.
• When the discussion continued, Warwick started to surpress the discussion. Even though a user has almost total control over his/her talk page, it is bad etiquette to try to stop people from discussing. Your user talk page is the correct place to discuss things related to you, so you shouldn't try to stop that discussion.
• Warwick also started acting aggressively as the discussion progressed, and so did some other contributors.
• Warwicks ban by Auron was justified by the actions of Warwick in surpressing discussion and acting aggressively. (Note: I am not taking a stance on the behavior of other users. There might or might not be other users who would deserve a ban.)
• Randomtimes shortening of the ban was not good etiquette. When a sysop disagrees with a block, please discuss it, don't remove or shorten it. Since no discussion has been held and I also partially agree with the original block, I will place the ban on Warwick again until proper discussion is over or the time has been fully served.
• I'm not fond of Aurons way of presenting his opinnion. He says what he thinks, but more often than not his thoughts reflect the thoughts of many other contributors, who present their thoughts in a more diplomatic manner. This straight and direct attitude might be hard for some people to understand, but I think it works well for him. Most contributors seem to think like I do, and they also seem to realise that Auron really is very helpful for the wiki. There haven't been serious requests for removing his sysop priviliges or placing a ban, and I do not see a reason to do either.

If there's anything that you want to add to / comment on, please do so. -- (gem / talk) 02:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why ban Warwick again? What's done is done. Retroactive punishment is stupid. --Macros 22:44, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, if a reason is necessary, she DID circumvent her ban through a sock/shoe/WHATEVER puppet --Gimmethegepgun 02:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

True --Macros 02:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

All punishment blocks are always "retroactive" in the meaning that you use the word. You can never punish someone before he actually does something, and in some cases it takes the sysops time to decide wether a ban was warranted or not. The reinstated ban shoudl serve as a reminder to both Wariwck and the sysop team on proper etiquette.

edit conflict: yeah, I forgot ban circumveiton in the above list. -- (gem / talk) 02:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)