GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.


My Talk Page

Archive 1 25 October 2005 to 29 November 2006 Archive 2 30 November 2006 to 3rd June 2008


Even though you are not particularly active anymore, I would still like you to comment on User:Entropy/bureaucrat if you so wish. I was expecting a little bit more attention from the general public, so now I'd like at least all the sysops to chime in. After all, those are the people it most directly affects. If you're indifferent then I apologize for spam, and if you're busy I'm sorry for giving more work...nevertheless I desire your comments. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 05:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No dramas. I'm probably on more than you'd expect but when I look at the RC it seems to be a lot of random user talk which I'm not involved in. The user base has matured, there's not very many new users to help out these days and it seems like people make less editing mistakes. The content filter is back on but the GWiki has remained unblocked so I presume I'll be able to continue to access the site indefinitely at work, or until I change jobs. I did have a look at that when you first wrote it but I'll add it to my watchlist (what's one more when there's already 1000 in the list!) and hopefully I'll have some time to fully read over it and comment later in the day. --Xasxas256 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, eyes in the sky are always useful against vandals and such...and checking in without editing is better than not checking in at all. :) While there are still a lot of mistakes to fix when you look for them, I can understand how it must feel after a long absence. Even though I've never taken quite such long absence, I can attest for how much GuildWiki has changed since I first joined long time ago... Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't post anything, the discussion didn't ever seem to be going anywhere nasty and I could see that your decision was probably going to be predictable. I'm not sure that Auron's skills of "telling it like it is" is actually very useful here, I'd suggest diplomacy is preferable for the role, in a way a bureaucrat is the unofficial community relations manager of the wiki. Anyway there's probably more I could say but I think there's been enough said about the position already. I'm not speaking out against your choices, as I said earlier they were straight forward and I have no problems with either appointment, just a comment that it's important to be careful and not to let your judgement be clouded by friendships and in particular off wiki interactions I don't know if I agreed with all of your reasoning even if the decision itself was agreeable. --Xasxas256 02:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello. —JediRogue 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Had a big long weekend, for those of us in the Commonwealth and living it Victoria it was Queens Birthday holiday on Monday. Went up to Winton raceway for a track day, still buzzing now! You're probably not that interested in hearing about it (and probably nobody else here is either) so I won't harp on but yeah, good fun! :) Life's good although the bank account is a bit worse for wear (and about to get even worse still!) I virtually don't game these days but after last weekend I really don't miss it. --Xasxas256 02:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, Queen Lizzie is still useful for something. :) --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually had to Google that, I've never heard of the Queen referred to as 'Queen Lizzie' before! Still I'm perfectly happy with the current arrangement although I'm not opposed to the idea of Australia becoming a republic either but we should remain a part of the Commonwealth. Gives us a better chance of in the pool without those pesky American swimmers around! --Xasxas256 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I really feel like there should be a "Cheerio!" or a "Tally hoe!" or a "Chim chimney chim chim cheroo!" after this..."—JediRogue 04:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I cannot believe that Entropy is quitting, I hope it isn't permanent. I cannot help but think that this is a case of the bad guys winning. I remember a while ago looking at some Barnstars on Wikipedia and looking at some of the uploaders of interesting images that Wikipedia must be a terrible place to contribute. From the very small cross section I've looked at it would appear that an enormous proportion of the original, idealistic and most prolific members have quit in disgust and frustration at both the actions (or lack thereof) from administration and the behaviour that users are allowed to get away with. I wonder if that's what we've got to look forward to here. --Xasxas256 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"I've never heard of the Queen referred to as 'Queen Lizzie' before!", I say with great affection, monarchist or republican, you can't fault her work ethic! And yeah, it doesn't hurt to have a foot in both camps. I for one, nearly walked from GuildWiki (details here), if we not make a stand, then sadly yes, most likely. --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 04:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


If you're fully opposed to the decision, you could ask KyleH to demote Auron and R, or just R, or just Auron. You could even get a petition. —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 11:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think people want an explanation more than they want a demotion... Silver Sunlight SSunlight.jpg 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Auron has set a very dangerous precedent here, if he continues to act in the current fashion then I will ask for him to be stood down. If I was given some assurance that his behaviour in future will be different then I'd only be too happy for him to continue on as a bureaucrat. But I think the only thing he wanted to do differently was to not have an RFA at all! To me this is a giant step backwards for the GWiki. The people may have changed here but I still firmly believe that the old ideals are still valid. I'm sorry to speak like a relic but I don't see why a bureaucrat can promote whomever they like, without explanation and expect the community to accept it. Going purely on your own judgement and not listening to the opinions of others is poor leadership to me.
This no longer relates to the matter at hand and is more general but a bureaucrat is basically a judge right? A judge requires a certain amount of subtlety and delicacy when dealing with some matters. A judge may also need to be firm and uncompromising on other occasions, Auron's got too much of the latter and not enough of the former. Sometimes the decision itself isn't really that important, because it's a small matter or perhaps both sides have equally valid arguments, but what is important is that both parties feel that they got a fair hearing. If you deliver the decision in a brash manner then you look egotistical and the losing party will always be unhappy and you become a poorer judge for it. Even if a different judge reached the same decision, if they judge carefully listened to both parties then at least there's a chance that the losing party will feel satisfied that they got a fair hearing. I don't think Auron understands this, from what I've observed, he places to much emphasis on the decision itself and that the ends justifies the means. I like that Auron's beliefs are strong but in this case I cannot agree with him at all, someone will have to make a decision here.
Bureaucrats don't really do that much, their main job is to decide who should be promoted or demoted and arbcomm decisions, it's quite a specific role. So if I call for him to step down, it's really not as much of a slight as you'd first think. But the position is very important symbolically and that's one of the reasons I have high expectations of our bureaucrats.
In answer to your original question May, I'll see what JediRogue and PanSola say first, I'd like to think that this can be sorted out ourselves, with the people and policies we have. --Xasxas256 13:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, I watched No Country for Old Men yesterday; I loved the casting, loved the scenery and feel of the film and I got totally drawn right into it. But I didn't like overall it because I didn't enjoy the ending. --Xasxas256 13:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind you that it is not in a bureaurat's job to make the "losing party" feel good. Especially if they were wrong, and/or deserved to be told. Diplomacy is great, diplomacy is good, etc etc. but all that means nothing unless there are some results at the end. I don't think we can collectively afford to pull a Karlos (I say that endearingly) at this state of affairs; the wiki just isn't strong enough anymore. Though it's not personally the way I would go about things, the fact is that Auron is working to help the Wiki stay alive, and I think it is just being petty to hold him to those high moral and ethical standards we are used to if it impedes that progress. We shall regret it later, but at least having a later is better than giving up. Desperate times and desperate measures, blah blah blah. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pushing the 'Crats[]

Hi Xasxas, I've read your latest comment on PanSola's talk page. I have so far avoided on complimenting you for taking a stance in the Auron matter because, to be honest, I feel that some community members still feel I have a personal thing with Auron, and I wanted to avoid any appearance that we might be in collusion on that and damaging your position. That said, I was very happy (and still am) that you took a vocal stand on some of the issues I've raised; it helped clarify to me and perhaps to others that it's not all just in my mind. In part because of these considerations (i.e. my effectiveness in regard to my standing in the community) I was hesitant to push the matter further; you were in a better position to do that, and you did, so thank you!

I also feel your contributions are very well written; certainly better than mine. If that is your "greatest failing as a sysop" you excel at this job! PanSola manages to write a very distanced, impersonal style when the occasion arises, which is admirable, but I'm glad not every admin writes like that. I'm glad PanSola does, though. --◄mendel► 09:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it. I think I should mention somewhere that I never posted on R.Phalange's talk page because I figured their sysoption wouldn't last. If R.Phalange never intended to reveal their past identity then the RFA was a bit silly, they should have known that it'd never be successful. If they knew that Auron was going to give them a leg up behind everybody's back (including the other 2 bureaucrats) when they chose not to reveal themselves, then I consider it to be deceitful to share that information with Auron alone. Despite the fact that I largely agree with what PanSola has said why is the conclusion that there should be no consequences for the two parties involved? Does this mean we should give any GWW sysops sysop rights here as well without question? What other wikis do we also accept? PvX? Other Wikia wikis? Friends of Auron's on wikis with no ties whatsoever?
There's another thing I've been meaning to say so I'll write it now while I'm at it. I wouldn't want a robot to be a bureaucrat, even if I was told that it always makes the correct decisions. I wouldn't trust that, who says it's always right? How do I know? I want to see the cogs ticking in a bureaucrats head, some of the decisions they have to make are tough, I want think that they struggle with these things a little, tough decisions are meant to be tough. A bureaucrat that shouts down verdicts like they're commandments, set it stone and not to be questioned loses credibility to me. How can someone, without consultation or discussion decide that we're in dire need of more good sysops, go with some conversations they've had with a person and the edits they've made on another wiki, ignore the edits they've made to this actual wiki (let's face it, R.Phalange's edits are pretty ordinary and not sysop worthy) and just promote them and not feel the need to explain this?
I'm asking a lot of rhetorical questions which is not something I normally do but I'm a little shaken. I'm not sure what my next step is if no warnings or sanctions come out of this. To me it would mean that the principals this wiki was built on no longer stand. We always used discussion to decide things like a whether or not we're in dire need of sysops and a candidate's worth of sysoption. It wasn't left in the hands of one rogue bureaucrat. So many of the old sysops and bureaucrats left because there wasn't enough transparency from the administration, this secret sysop business would never have stood. If the overwhelming majority feels that they can blindly follow Auron or any other bureaucrat because "they are usually right", without demanding input in the way their wiki is run and without demanding accountability when a bureaucrat messes up then I either we haven't explained ourselves well enough or I don't think I can identify very well with the community any more. I can see the more meaningless aspects of RFAs, I can see that R.Phalange might be a good sysop here but I still think that some of the actions and ethos shown recently are fundamentally wrong. I'm probably being a bit melodramatic here as there have been a number of people who've spoken up and voiced their objections but at this stage it looks like nothing is going to come of this. I haven't heard JediRogue's take on the matter so I guess I'll have to wait until she has her say before I'm allowed to get melodramatic again. --Xasxas256 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been endeavoring to keep out of the Auron debates because I can't trust my temper, but I would like you to know that you are not alone. There are still many people who believe that honesty, equality, justice, and compassion are fundamental- not only to keep this community alive, but to truly succeed in anything. Thank you for all you've said and done to uphold those values. Felix Omni Signature.png 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm in this boat too. When you made your first post to Auron's talkpage, I was struggling to write a conter-response to Auron's reply to my post. You said everything I'd been trying to say, and then some. I'm behind you if you decide we need to continue pushing this issue - Auron shouldn't get off with just a warning. He's a bcrat on two other wikis already, so he should know better than to abuse his powers like this. Wanting to help the wiki is one thing, but alienating the community while doing so is self-destructive. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"If R.Phalange never intended to reveal their past identity then the RFA was a bit silly...",

I agree on this and am still somewhat mystified by it, but I trust Auron's judgment and Brains12/R.Phalange's GWW track record well enough. It was sheer idiocy that no one mentioned the GWW identity on the RfA page, that Brains12 explained himself after the fact, etc, etc. It is my fault also for closing the RfA too soon. But I think if everyone had been given an equal chance to say something, and idiocy had not prevailed, this would have turned into a rather normal RfA with extenuating circumstances.

"If they knew that Auron was going to give them a leg up behind everybody's back ... then I consider it to be deceitful to share that information with Auron alone."

I have done the exact same thing in the past, when I promoted Dr Ishmael. His RfA could not be called a resounding success (though certainly less sorry-looking than R.Phalange's, even allowing for ignorance etc.). I was ready to close it as failed. However, Dr Ishmael contacted me privately and personally explained what drove him towards sysoption. I went with my gut feelings and decided to give him a chance. Auron said, "Let's give R.Phalange a chance and see how it pans out", and that somehow bothers many people - but that is what I did. I gave Dr Ishmael a shot at being a sysop, and lo and behold! Look where he finds himself today...respected and welcomed as a knowledgeable, sensible member of the community, and not at all a bad sysop either. He panned out pretty damn well if I may say so myself. All this from me giving him "a leg up" behind everybody's (the non-supporters) back. Granted, I was the only active bureaucrat at the time, but that is hardly relevant - bureaucrats don't have to come to a consensus before an RfA can be acted upon.

Do you consider it deceitful that Dr Ishmael chose to contact me privately with such information? He never posted the contents of it to the Wiki. I didn't either. In my promotion reason, I said that "I have contacted this user privately", and everyone was totally cool with that. Obviously it was quite vital to his promotion, since it definitely changed my mind about him, at least enough to let him pan out. Do you think that Dr Ishmael ought to have made such information public, in order that RfA voters would be better informed?

I do not believe that Brains12/R.Phalange knew that Auron would "give them a leg up", and I do not believe that they conspired to "share [their identity] with Auron alone". In fact, I think the simple fact of the matter is (as Auron said) that no one asked until later...The whole matter is shrouded in stupid decisions which coalesced into one huge mess. If Brains12 had thought it prudent to mention who they were. If Auron hadn't been stupid while busy in RL duties. If Jedi had said something. If I had talked to Auron or Jedi before closing the RfA as a joke. I don't know. It is a universal failing of good integrity, I think. Not some shady conspiracy of promoting friends. In any case, since the matter has been explained to me, I find it best to just let the matter go. It mostly makes sense now and my suspicions are laid to rest.

"why is the conclusion that there should be no consequences for the two parties involved?"

Because it's really not that big a deal. You (that is a collective "you") are making it one. Some of your arguments, like about transparancy and past precedent of GuildWiki, make sense. However, I think if things continue in this way and the community chooses to reject its last hope for a saviour (now that I quit) in Auron, this place really is already dead. There is a time and a place for arguments like this has been, and I don't think this is one of them. Progress at any cost? Maybe. But I think the times have changed and (same as I say somewhere far above this) maybe we cannot afford the luxuries of absolute political correctness anymore.

"Does this mean we should give any GWW sysops sysop rights here as well without question? What other wikis do we also accept? PvX? Other Wikia wikis? Friends of Auron's on wikis with no ties whatsoever?"

Oh come on Xas, don't get petty. That is really blowing things out of proportion. If you at all value Auron's judgment you would not ask such outrageous, fear-mongering rhetorical questions. You yourself must realize how stupid they sound (especially to Auron himself). There are very good reasons for picking Brains12 as a sysop. He has a good track record on GWW. He has prior experience with the job. He stands out from other GWW sysops as being especially suitable for the kind of sysop we need here, right now. He has no outstanding bad edits on this wiki that cannot be accounted for. (Everyone is human, we make mistakes. My own editing past is fraught with horrors.) There are, quite honestly speaking, no great candidates on GuildWiki. (If there were any left I would have promoted them before I quit...) Just because Brains12's experience comes from GuildWiki, doesn't mean he is automatically disqualified here. It may be somewhat unprecedented, but as long as we get a good sysop, who cares? There is nothing anywhere which says an RfA candidate must come from GuildWiki. (The strong patriotism, maybe even nativism, of Guildwikians has always been something I appreciated, but especially in cases like this I think it blinds them.) Nothing about any specific requirements to the job...nothing that can't be bent or waived. In the end, it's all up to the bureaucrat. They can promote whoever they want, whenever they want, for any reason they want. If I thought that someone from PvX, or WowWiki, or Wikipedia, or...anything...would make a great sysop here, that's all that I need. If the community doesn't like it, that is unfortunate...but that is hardly abuse of powers. Bureaucrats promote each other without discission. In fact, I broke precedent by initiating such a thing. You still remember what a fiasco that turned out to be. The fact is that being promoted to bureaucrat represents something. It is symbolic, as you say. It represents that the community has vested its trust in you. The community has asked you to act on its behalf, to look out for its best interest, to make decisions which may not be popular but are ultimately right. A Wiki is not a democracy - it is a republic. If I have made a mistake in appointing Auron, it is that the community at large is unwilling to trust him, despite all my accolades - I failed to appreciate how important they held personal trust to be.

"I wouldn't trust that, who says it's always right? How do I know? ... How can someone, without consultation or discussion decide that we're in dire need of more good sysops..."

Auron is always right. Well, 99% of the time. And I am always right. 99% of the time. How do you know? Because I said so. And as much as I despise throwing around rank, my status and Auron's as bureaucrat shows that. If you really want someone to complain to, go rag on LordBiro for ever promoting me in the first place.

If I say that we are in dire need of sysops, then we are in dire need of sysops. If I say that we have enough sysops, then we have enough sysops. I control promotions. Therefore, it is my decision to make. Simple as that. I can consult with the other bureaucrats about it, certainly. But ultimately, that is the one power that a bureaucrat has, which normal users and sysops don't. If they decide that they want a new sysop, they can wait around for someone to request one through RfA, or they can go and proactively find one. They can even promote without discussion! And it's business as usual. They really are only doing their jobs.

"We always used discussion to decide things like a whether or not we're in dire need of sysops and a candidate's worth of sysoption ... this secret sysop business would never have stood."

1) Tradition does not make something right, and the argument "We always do it this way" is no good reason to continue to do so in the face of change. 2) Well, we are discussing R.Phalange's worth of sysoption now, aren't we? It's after the promotion and a bit unorthodox, but does that really hurt anyone... 3) At least you got an RfA. Sorry, but I'm really not buying into how this one strange promotion has suddenly made Auron into a goon who runs a "secret sysop business". And I'm not even "in the loop either". Times have changed, you're right about that. And I miss the old days as much as you. But I'm just not feeling the outrage here.

"If the overwhelming majority feels that they can blindly follow Auron or any other bureaucrat because "they are usually right", without demanding input in the way their wiki is run and without demanding accountability when a bureaucrat messes up then I either we haven't explained ourselves well enough or I don't think I can identify very well with the community any more."

Too late. I was that bureaucrat. Felix was the only person who ever had the courage to stand up to me.

Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good read. You strongly support R.Phalange's promotion. I have a few issues, though.
"Tradition does not make something right". Well, actually, it often does, especially when there is no written law, many legal systems uphold "traditional law". It is the "primal" law, if you will.
You go on harping about how the userbase shouldn't have trusted you. You try to use that in an argument about how that trust should come (or not have come) with the office. However, I strongly assume that you earned the community trust; if it seemed for you to come with the office, then that shows how well Lord Biro chose. For myself, I trust you because of the way I saw you reasoning and acting, and because that confirmed the trust others put in you. Auron is used to be trusted like that on other wikis, but he hasn't earned that trust here, and acting here as if he had just grates. I don't know him from before, and the way I've seen him act has not confirmed the trust that you and others put in him, on the contrary.
"the kind of sysop we need here" - despite my questioning, no-one has been able to explain what kind of sysop we need. I feel what we have demonstrably lacked is the kind of sysop that steps in and moderates difficult conflicts. If there had been someone to moderate between you and Felix, the escalation need not have occurred, and Felix's criticisms would have had more impact. I suspect that R.Phalange is not that kind of sysop. I do not know what the "wikidragon style" of editing is that Auron says we need, but I suspect that Auron wants sysops that administrate the editors of this wiki to behave like the editors on GWW or Pvxwiki. He doesn't tell, even when asked, so I don't really know - all he has said about his plans is something about contests, and abolishing RfAs. I think it is foolish to try and and form the community to be like on those other wikis - the editors who like that surely have already moved there. I feel we need admins that administrate the community as it is now, with the needs it has now, not administrate to some ideal that fits elsewhere. --◄mendel► 12:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If it looks like I'm being petty or cute there's not much I can say to that, I'm at my wits end here so you'll have to excuse me if my patience is running thin and I don't think there's much more I can say without repeating myself. I don't know what past indiscretion people should have stood up to you on and more importantly I don't understand why it's too late now. Why is it too late? If we are in dire need of more sysops then why wouldn't you ask for input? Bureaucrats are not the only people with a vested interest in this wiki, why should a bureaucrat have the attitude that if they see a problem it's their duty to go it alone, do whatever they can in their powers to solve the issue and if people disagree with their methodology, too damn bad, to "save" the wiki we need action as soon as possible whatever the cost? Perhaps promoting more sysops isn't the only solution, if talk page spam is a problem why not bring it up with the relevant users or if there's too many old images to delete, discuss ways to more clearly tag images, etc. Why do only bureaucrats have good ideas? What does this paragraph "If I say that we are in dire need of sysops, then we are in dire need of sysops..." even mean? If this is the prevailing view amongst our bureaucrats then I think I have good reason to be worried. "They can even promote without discussion! And it's business as usual. They really are only doing their jobs." It isn't business as usual, this kind of action should have a backlash.
From what you've explained of Dr Ishmael's appointment I don't have any problem with that. Bureaucrats don't have to follow the majority, I've said that all along. It sounds like the community had ample opportunity to have their say and to ask Dr Ishmael whatever they wanted. The whole process was transparent you explained your reasoning. You say win, I say win. I don't like all the comparisons between yourself and Auron either, I've found your actions far better than his. On Auron's talk page you said, "Now, if I had known what Auron had known, I would have done the same thing" But I don't believe you would have, you would have handled the situation much better than Auron did because you're a better bureaucrat than him. In addition, you both have the ability to make mistakes but only one of you has the ability to admit them and this is why you're more trusted than he is.
Look if you think he's done the right thing then you should stand up for him. If you think he's done the wrong thing but will perform better in future, then again you should stand up for him. In fact if either case is true then we all should, but from what I've read neither one is true. Auron's response makes it difficult for the latter to be true, he fully believes he did no wrong. As for the former, on Auron's talk page you've said that he really did get make a mess of this but here, you've tried to justify what he did by comparing yourself to him. Why? Standing up for someone because you feel guilty for appointing him or because he's a friend or because you don't want the headaches of demoting someone are all bad reasons.
1) Tradition does not make something right, and the argument "We always do it this way" is no good reason to continue to do so in the face of change.
It's not for the sake of following old meaningless traditions, I don't know how many more ways I can say that discussion is a useful thing. Knowledge is an empowering thing when making choices, the knowledge amongst the community is an excellent resource when trying to decide something/solve a problem, it shouldn't be viewed as a burden holding you back. If you do act in this way you will quickly divide the community and lose the faith they've placed in you.
2) Well, we are discussing R.Phalange's worth of sysoption now, aren't we? It's after the promotion and a bit unorthodox, but does that really hurt anyone...
I think the way the matter was handled had a highly negative impact, it divided the community and eroded trust.
3) At least you got an RfA.
Yes but the RFA did nothing more than show every non bureaucrat on this wiki that your opinion is worthless and will be ignored. I'm not being glib here, if you object to the way I've worded that, go back and read Auron's comments on RFAs. It was totally meaningless, if I'd known that it was going to be successful I sure as all hell would have had my say, even if it wasn't going to be taken into consideration. What kind of RFA is at 13 to zero and is successful?
How can we all agree that the way Auron handled this was a giant cock up and yet nothing comes of it and no talk of trying to prevent this in future. I've heard it said that this is a one off, why is it a one off? Auron hasn't issued an apology as far as I know and has not admitted to any wrongdoing. If the other bureaucrats said that shouldn't have happened and if it does happen again Auron will be demoted then I'd feel that it's a one off.
You asked me why I'm blowing this out of proportion. I am still beating a drum because although there's been numerous objections on Auron's talk page as well as here, there has been no talk amongst the bureaucrats about holding Auron responsible for his actions. Previously I (largely) considered myself equal with our various bureaucrats, basically I regarded them as users like myself but with an additional role. But given the elitism shown recently, particularly in regards to being able to hire and fire, whatever; without explanation, transparency or consultation I no longer feel this. Perhaps it is too much to ask for bureaucrats to judge themselves. I wonder now if I should bring up this issue with KyleH, I don't believe there's any previous history of a bureaucrat being demoted or receiving a formal warning or some other penalty due to their job performance. I'm not sure we have adequate policies to deal with the situation. --Xasxas256 12:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Xasxas, you asked the bureaucrats for their opinion on the matter. They responded. I can't help but think that because they said the opposite of what you were hoping for, that you feel the need to go above their heads to Wikia (who should have absolutely no jurisdiction over bureaucrat eligibility when all four bureaucrats are in somewhat of an agreement). Perhaps you feel that Auron has done something worth demotion, but nevertheless, you should also listen to the bureaucrats and those who aren't in opposition to Auron's actions as well -- at the moment, the only arguments for Auron's demotion are coming from you and Mendel (arguments compiled of slippery slopes and strawmen, might I add). There is a divide between the community, you said it yourself. In this case, it seems to be based around the demotion of Auron. Considering that all four bureaucrats are in the position of not demoting Auron (whether they are in opposition or apathetic), Wikia should not be involved. You said you respect and trust Entropy and PanSola -- why not respect and trust their judgements now? --R RPhalange star.png Phalange 13:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Brains, I think you're a great sysop on GWW and I think Auron made an excellent decision promoting you. I agree with you about the problems like talk-page spam that beset this wiki. But you're going about this the wrong way. You're coming off as hostile and "I know better than you". Even if you do know better, you have to realise that people won't just take your word for it. You need to earn respect here. Show a bit of humility. And admit the crass mishandling of your sysopification. Work with the community, rather than just shouting at it. Or all your good intentions will come to nothing.Lurkerabove 13:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because I don't think it meets community expectations. Just because they're bureaucrats doesn't mean they're right, I think that's the whole point of this isn't it? I haven't posted anything on your talk page but I actually don't disagree with your sysoption and now that it's happened, I don't think you should be demoted at all. I agree with virtually all of PanSola's dot points and although there's a number of things that puzzle me with Entropy's response, I think she thinks I disagree with her more than I actually do. I actually like Auron too, he's one of the few people on the GuildWiki who's voice I've heard! He guested for us quite a few times in GvG and when I was playing more regularly, he was someone I used to chat to a bit. Never about wiki matters, just personal stuff, how are you going sort of things. I like Auron a lot as a person I just don't like him as a bureaucrat, or at least, not at the moment anyway. If I thought he wasn't going to act in this manner again I'd only be too happy for him to continue on in the role. I said to Entropy above that you shouldn't stand by someone just because they're a friend because if you strongly believe in something then you should speak up and I do believe that. If Auron and myself can remain on good terms after this I'd be incredibly impressed, because this has been some campaign I suppose. Anyway I'm starting to wander, I've struck out the KyleH bit, that's fair enough, I didn't really have any intentions of doing that, it goes against what I believe in, put it down to the massive blood loss I suffered about an hour before I posted. But I think you don't give Mendel and myself enough credit, I do believe we have the majority on our side, even if not everybody has been as vocal as I have. Basically the 6000 odd characters in my last post and everything I else I wrote boils down to this:
If we agree that Auron made a myriad of mistakes in his handling of R.Phalange's RFA then should we also agree that it's important to take steps to try to preventing it from happening again in future? The rest of the disagreements I'm happy enough to accept that other people have differing opinions and if that question above can be answered then I'd be content.
P.S. Where did JediRogue say she agreed? I had a quick look through her contributions but I can't find it.
P.P.S. Although it's a little late, congratulations on your sysoption! Obviously I wish that the circumstances leading to here were a bit different but now that we're at this point, I wish you the best of luck. I think you're the only sysop who's spent more time on the GWW than the GWiki so I'm interested to hear your thoughts. --Xasxas256 14:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, this was the only comment Jedi made on the wiki regarding the entire matter. Felix Omni Signature.png 15:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I may remembered incorrectly about a comment here and assumed it was about the entire issue, not just for Auron's revival.--R RPhalange star.png Phalange 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the R.Phalange RfA terribly similar to Dr ishmael's? No, not really. Ishmael's ended 1-3, but if you count the nomination as implicit support, and discount entropy's opposition (who evetually promoted him), that makes it 2-2. Ishmael was vastly more active than R.Phalange and Brains12 added together, let alone R.Phalange alone. Ishmael's RfA went such that no one would have thought anything was fishy if you had refused to promote him, but there was hardly a clear consensus of the community.
There is a simple reason why GuildWiki sysops ought to come from the GuildWiki community: those are the people who are here. Make a random person who doesn't know this wiki exists into a sysop here and if he never visits, it will be a harmless change, but not do a bit of good. R.Phalange is marginally active, but little enough that making him a sysop is probably pretty inert.
You think Felix is the only one to stand up to you? I guess you don't recall how loudly I insisted that you were wrong over some Dzagonur Bastion edits? Of course, at the time, I had no clue what a bureaucrat was, but that wouldn't have changed my response even if I had.
The question, as I see it, isn't whether R.Phalange should be a sysop. The question, rather, is whether Auron should be a bureaucrat. And if his style is to gratuitously insult most of the community for no good reason, then the answer to that is, no, he most certainly should not. At the time he was made a bureaucrat, my response was, "who's he?" Having this disaster as the first time I've noticed him do anything obviously doesn't help things.
People talk about the wiki dying, as though that is a problem. Well yes, this wiki will eventually mostly die, as it should. And that is because Guild Wars will mostly die, too. Once the wiki has a comprehensive guide to the game and further updates aren't being made, letting it sit here without further edits is not something to be feared. Quizzical 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats and consensus[]

I am taking a hint from Entropy writing "Felix is the only person who ever stood up to me". You know, I too stood up to you when I suggested that Admin policy should be changed when admins get demotable for not-coming-back-ness. I learned a lesson about consensus then - that policy doesn't matter a bit when the community is in consensus, but that it matters for policy writing what the consensus is.

Do you know why you found it so hard to find opposition, Entropy? Because you have the ability to discern community consensus and the knack to shape it. That is what made you an excellent Bureaucrat. Auron of Neon has proven that in the case at hand he was unable to do either.

Suddenly people propose the argument that Bureaucrats are independent of community consensus in their actions. As final arbiters, they have always been. As good Bureaucrats, they never were. The policies imply that, but now the interpretation of what they might mean is changing. Is this the turnaround in community values that Xasxas256 is perceiving?

People are proposing that "all that makes an admin different is an extra set of tools" - they ignore that getting admins confers reputation and power to decide conflicts, the power to act as an example to the community.

The bureaucrats are suddenly not working with the community any more, they are working with the "wiki". What is the "wiki" if not the community? Without a community, the wiki is dead, so it makes no sense to work for "the wiki" and not for its community.

If Auron is uncomfortable with working with a consensus - if he can't respect a consensus even if he discerns it, and if he doesn't see why he should expend any effort to shape it - then it makes a lot of sense for him to demand to be relieved of that burden.

What sense does it make for the community to relieve him of it?

If you like Auron, please ask yourself if the reason that you want to believe that Bureaucrats can work outside of community consensus is that you want to have Auron keep on working as Bureaucrat. Ask yourself if you want it to be that way so that people who hold opposing wiki-political views that you don't agree with don't make your life harder - so that they get disenfranchised in the process.

Fundamentally changing the political process by which this wiki works may well deal it a blow of the size of the two previous upheavals.

Convince me that it is worth it. Please. --◄mendel► 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Afterthought: Perhaps the split in attitudes has always been here, but it hasn't been noticeable because we had an admin that was both independent of community consensus and mindful of it. In that case, Auron's adminship only brings it out and doesn't really cause it. (Not that it matters in any practical sense.) --◄mendel► 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If all of your friends jumped off a bridge because they, as a group, decided they should, does that make you automatically have to do the same? Here's a little tip: most people are stupid. B's have been elected because they show to others that they are, in fact, not stupid and generally their words and actions carry more weight as a result of it. Just try to think of the bcrats on this wiki as the ones who didn't jump. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Or in Auron's case, the one encouraging everyone to jump so he won't have to pretend to listen to them. Felix Omni Signature.png 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Not by a mile. While I don't agree with Auron's reasoning for Brains becoming a sysop, there's no denying he is (or, in this case, will be) a good sysop. And even more importantly, while I don't agree with Auron's demeanor, there's no denying he's generally a pretty smart cactus, no matter how prickly. His decisions, 4 out of 5 times at least, are the right ones. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but your analogy sucks. I'm perfectly certain that my friends will not decide to jump off a bridge. In fact, the times when a group has decided to commit collective suicide it was usually a leader with god-like powers whom everyone believed to be enlightened who made them do it. (cf. wikipedia:Cult suicide) --◄mendel► 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Above is the short defense. However, the point that Grinsh raises is what the role of the bureaucrat is in relation of the wiki. Does the bureaucrat have to be the uber-smart ruler? who steers the community back on the straight and narrow when it goes wrong?
Generally, community consensus works well. A community acting in consensus is very unlikely to do something outright dumb, as there are quite a few smart cookies among the bunch, and they'll raise discussion if they see disaster looming on the horizon.
Is the bureaucrat smarter than the community? Since a bureaucrat is a community member, he/she can contribute to the discussion. If your point gets no support even after repeated tries, it is sensible to entertain the notion that you may be wrong.
The bureaucrat's role is to step in when the community needs to make a decision and can't. Sometimes action needs to be taken in a timely manner and you can't wait for a consensus to be established, or it might be obvious that there won't be. If a discussion remains inconclusive, that usually means that there are several viable options, so the bureaucrat can't go far wrong in going with either choice. If there is a clear case that any decision is going to better than no decision, that is a no-brainer. The bureaucrat's decision may be influenced by factors as to what decision might be the best compromise or what option requires the least effort to implement.
A recent example are the split skills - the decision taken may not be optimal in hindsight (and the poll now shows a majority for the other option), but it needed to be taken then and there, so that community members had a reliable base to work from, and so the wiki wouldn't fall behind its competitors. It is interesting to note that it wasn't the bureaucrat, but rather a "mere" admin, who stepped in and forced this decision, i.e. consensus recognized that the decision needed to be made then and there.
In summary, the bureaucrat isn't there to outthink or second-guess the community. The bureaucrat is there when the consensus process is unable or not fast enough to deal with a pressing issue. In my opinion this implies that the bureaucrat must make a strong case for his stepping in - the bureaucrat needs to explain why a decision by bureaucrat was necessary under the circumstances. The case for the decision actually taken can be somewhat weaker as there should have been community members already arguing for it; I assume it helps for the community to support the bureaucrat's decision to get to know exactly why this one option was chosen over the other.
A well-placed bureaucratic decision makes the bureaucrat appear to be the "savior of the wiki"; however, the role of the bureaucrat is not to singlehandedly save the wiki from any evil that may befall it, but to serve it when the community is deadlocked over an important decision. It is up to every wiki user - rader, editor, admin, bureaucrat alike - to save and protect the wiki from threats they recognize. Since that is a community process, there usually aren't any glamorous Hollywood hero roles to be had. The bureaucrat's role is to save the wiki in one specific type of situation. Whoever understands the bureaucrat to be more than that misinterprets the role.
As Auron did, in my opinion. I am disappointed that the other bureaucrats supported Auron's decision, and I think it damages R.Phalange's position in the community to have been basically appointed without community support. If that had happened to me, I would have stepped down from office and restarted a new RfA process, at the end of which I would hopefully have gathered enough community support to be an admin for the community, not for the bureaucrat. If I was a bureaucrat, I would want to make sure - one way or another - that all my fellow bureaucrats were on the same page as I when our roles are concerned. Otherwise, the difference in opinion could bite us at a time where our energies would be desperately needed elsewhere.
I have always held that I have not yet called for Aurons demotion. Does the above paragraph mean that now I do? Well, maybe. It depends. --◄mendel► 22:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

random clarification[]

For the sake of clarity or whatever it's worth, what I posted on Auron's talk page should not be taken to imply I grudgingly supported the promotion. My mentality was "what's done is done", and I didn't see desysoping in this particular situation would fix or resolve anything, or be useful as a warning. "Don't unnecessarily revert" is more or less my attitude. Also, while no sanction was given to Auron, I do hope that what I posted on his talk is considered as a warning. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But would you consider that to be a formal warning if it needs to be referred back to in future? --Xasxas256 06:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Read.--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 01:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

mines better[]

I posted my responses to the thing here because its long and I talked alot about different things. —JediRogue

Thanks for writing that up for us all, in simple terms I'm disappointed with Auron's actions towards you after hearing about the conversations and if you're upset then I think you have every right to be. --Xasxas256 06:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Auron's response makes it difficult for the latter to be true, he fully believes he did no wrong."[]

Except the part where I admitted fault? I'm quite convinced, at this point, that you just read what suits you and forget or ignore the rest, because you've missed the parts where I placed the blame on myself for opening the RfA without thinking it through. I am sorry for doing that - but once it had opened, what could I do with it? I couldn't delete it - your paladin crusade would then include stuff like "HE HID THE EVIDENCE, BURN THE HERETIC." I couldn't comment on it without basically revealing Phalange's "identity," as the comment would basically be "look at his gww logs." I couldn't let it stay closed, because then people would assume I had no additional interest in the candidate becoming a sysop, and a promotion after a "failed" rfa would sting much more than a promotion after a "fai- oops, re-opened" RfA.
I was well within my rights to promote Phalange. I was still within my rights to do so with 13 opposes. I was stupid to request that he open an RfA - knowing full well what arguments were going to be used, I should have predicted it would cause more drama than it would soothe. I will never open one again in similar circumstances, but I have no desire to repeat similar circumstances any time soon.
But please, Xas, read my posts in the future :< -Auron 08:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That something is within your rights doesn't necessarily make it right. Is it within your rights to delete every single page on this wiki? The main issue is that you think it was not only within your rights, but that it was "right" to promote brains12/R.Phalange (and if I read you right, you still defend that here). Whether the RfA was "failed" or "failed/reopened" does not matter much. --◄mendel► 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Mendel has said what I was going to. I don't really have any problem with R.Phalange aka Brains12 being a sysop here and I've always felt that bureaucrats don't have to follow the majority of votes on an RFA. Why didn't you just shelve the original RFA and reopen a new one with the relevant details included? You could have easily explained that you're recreating the RFA because the original one should have said that R.Phalange is Brains12 on the GWW, in addition you could also have written that we need more sysops urgently and that's why you're extending the net as such. Everybody makes mistakes, we all know that and we don't expect our bureaucrats to be any different. But people don't like constant mistakes and they don't like being ignored. Entropy closing the RFA (which was correct, the RFA as it was with no explanation shouldn't have passed), you getting a +ban on your user page, the 12 no votes on the RFA itself and most importantly of all JediRogue directly saying to you not to promote R.Phalange yet were such obvious signs that you need to just pull up for a moment and think about how you're going about this but you had your heart so set on sysoping R.Phalange that somehow you missed all this.
I don't think there's any question on Auron's commitment or desire to improve the GWiki, he's been here for a long time and done a lot. The Build namespace days were a long time ago but despite all the criticism it got he still spent an inordinate amount of time trying to improve the section. I think that you understand the rights that being a bureaucrat gives you, you don't always see the consequences and the intangibles. If anyone who has joined this site more recently went back and read some of that builds stuff you'd probably find it pretty hair raising, it was a tumultuous time for the wiki. If you think Auron is a bit confrontational and rough around the edges now, you should have seen him when he first started out! I think it's fair to say he's come a long way. But I still don't think you're right for the job; I don't think you listen well enough, I don't think you're diplomatic enough, I don't think you sufficiently understand your role or the expectations we have of you, making mistakes is ok but I don't think you handle them well and I think you look at the end result too much without looking at the path you're taking. But I'd love for you to prove me wrong, not just for the sake of the wiki but on a personal level from knowing you a long time. I've probably written more than a semester's worth of essays in the past week or so on this matter, while I don't think this will happen but if at the end of all this you were demoted, I don't think that'd be a very satisfying conclusion. If you took this feedback you've received from a host of people onboard and went forward from here so we never have these arguments again, I think that'd be a far more meaningful outcome from all this discussion we've had. There's a lot of wisdom here and my opinion is that if you want to continue as a bureaucrat you have to accept that you were not going about things the right way and start asking people for some help or feedback as you're doing things.

Please read carefully over PanSola's response, particularly points 3, 4 and 5. I've intentionally made no attempt to remain impersonal in this reply to you but PanSola's post is written as unemotionally as possible and just states the facts, if you can't work within those parameters then I doubt you'll remain as a bureaucrat for much longer. A final point, I originally wrote more on this but I'll keep it to one sentence. If what she's said JediRogue said here is true, then that's really disappointing, firstly because you have to work with your fellow bureaucrats but far more importantly because she deserves better than to just be ignored like that. --Xasxas256 06:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


The bow type flowchart is in error: if I switch to a shortbow and don't walk forward, I have been using one. Likewise, the first decision is wrong. Just delete it?

wikipedia:User_talk:Tom_mayfair#Signature has been deleted. --◄mendel► 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello! I want to thank you for everything you have done for the Guild Wiki. Allow me to introduce myself. I am Tesla, a wiki manager for Curse. The reason I am posting on your talk page is for some feedback. I was hoping you could tell me if there was something you would like to see on the wiki or if you think there is something we could do to help improve the quality of our service to the community. If you have any ideas at all, please feel free to stop by on my talk page and leave me your thoughts. Thank you! Tesla 03:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)