From December 5 to December 14.


First Lord Belar 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Second?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
third Cress Arvein 02:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
fourth. --Hellbringer loves emo slut druggies (T/C) 02:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
fifth. ECs ftl --Shadowcrest 02:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for helping fight the vandal(s). GuildWiki couldn't function without you. Entropy Sig (T/C) 02:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Dang, I missed all the fun!--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You can watch RC for any new IPs posting to my or Hell's talk and ban them. I need a minute to check for missed damages. Entropy Sig (T/C) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(2xEC)It could, but it would end up looking like myspace. Lord Belar 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
you wish IP. and so true belar--Shadowcrest 02:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yikes, that's a scary thought, Belar.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping my talk page clean o.O - I could probably hazard a guess to who random IP is this time but I doubt it'd be very constructive. Jennalee 02:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Another angry SodM member? >.> Entropy Sig (T/C) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
SodM? Lord Belar 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Nop, I don't think the majority of our members are inclined to behave immaturely, but someone else who was more recent around here. Viper should know *cough* Jennalee 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you want more targets for banhammer, see User talk:Ravenjwolfe and then Special:Contributions/ Jennalee 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Ban imminent Cress Arvein 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Heh, to quote this page's history notes - "soz to Gem, Entrea, Shadowcrest, and Hell. Mr. Vandal: I do not like you. I do not respect you. You are unworthy to even post on my talkpage".(and, er, <snip!> ;) - What about me? I even reverted your user page and almost got RSI thanks to Mr IP. Don't I get no admin-love? Hehe --SnogratUser Snograt signature 13:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

i got RSI. do i get admin-love?--Mr Ex Vandal 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you want it, lol. I quote:

"Banning is my way of showing affection, honey. I'll belive you're a changed person if you stop using proxy IPs. :) Entropy Sig (T/C) 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)" --Shadowcrest 23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I <3 being banned, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. --Mr Ex Vandal 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Please stop banning me. I am a changed person. I am not vandalizing pages. And I love you very much.

Hey, look, a flying pig! Lord Belar 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
for some strange reason I find both those statements hard to believe... --Shadowcrest 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm Cress Arvein 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Banning is my way of showing affection, honey. I'll belive you're a changed person if you stop using proxy IPs. :) Entropy Sig (T/C) 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(Fucking EC)There could be a reason for that... Lord Belar 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Banning is how you show your affection? God damnit, and I thought you loved me --Blue.rellik 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Masochistic calling for the banstick are we? Jennalee 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
She must love IPs a lot rofl. I <3 Entropy banning. --Hellbringer loves emo slut druggies (T/C) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Hell. You ♥ Emo Slut-Druggies.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Forgot about that. --Hellbringer loves emo slut druggies (T/C) 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, what a day. I can't believe how much work it is to be an admin sometimes. It just makes me appreciate people like Karlos and Skuld and Gares and Gem and...yeah, all the old admins. It makes me appreciate them more now that I know some of what they went through all the time. I really miss them. :( Thanks again everyone... /signoff Entropy Sig (T/C) 03:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Crazy day, eh? Wish we had all of those big-hitters that you mentioned still with us, too. --Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 03:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Woot lets do that again lol. Pull out those banhammers like crazy. --Hellbringer loves emo slut druggies (T/C) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, pick a random person tomorrow and ban them. I nominate you. :P Lord Belar 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
But Gem is back. — Nova Neo-NovaSmall(contribs) 23:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
lol if you want there to be more admins i'll volunteer. I was just looking at the active admin list and realized just how short it is. ^_^ —JediRogue 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
ME + MP will bash and win over you all! Mwahahahahahahhaha.... Umm... Hi? -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good thing... Edit don't care about GWW, because Raptor stole your name over there. Your alter-ego is now a vandal's sock-puppet. Entropy on GuildWiki = everyone's favorite admin. Entropy on Guild Wars Wiki = loathed. Just thought that was kind of funny. Entrea SumataeEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Quote from User_talk:Mr_Ex_Vandal: "It only took so long because, technically, the ban isnt protected under policy. But for that much BS, besically we just said "f*ck policy" and banned him. --Shadowcrest 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)"
That sounds unfair. :( -- 02:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair has nothing to do with it. Admins can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and you can't do anything about it. --Macros 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Who cares? It's another Raptors. And I don't trust you, considering you showed up right after I banned him, and your only edit is about him. Same goes for the IP who posted the exact same message on Gem's talk page.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
GW:YAV -- 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
GW:ADMIN --Macros 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
GW:YAV -- 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Vandals are not. --Shadowcrest 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said that your opinion doesn't matter, I simply stated I don't trust many IPs right now.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
And, IP, whoever you are, this is thte second vandalism filled night in a row, by mainly IPs. You picked a bad time to act mysteriously. --Shadowcrest 02:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
WTF? ARE YOU RETARDED OR WHAT? ITS OBVIOUSLY ME -.- -- 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
For the last time: FUCK OFF. YOU ARE NO LONGER WELCOME HERE. Lord Belar 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah fuck off and stop infaming us anons!! 02:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Changing ips doesn't help. Lord Belar 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
And it's defame, not infame. Lord Belar 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) - Learn english. -- 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"Infame: To defame" Read your own links. Lord Belar 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
YEAH AND INFAME IS CORRECT TOO. SO STFU :] -- 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
srsly--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Shush and leave the wiki. for good, IP. --Shadowcrest 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, much of this is just trolling. Please tell me you're going to get rid of this whole section, Entropy?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wanna hide that you banned an user for breaking NO policy, huh? Nice :)
Well, I gotta sleep so good night. Se you tomorrow! -- 02:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Not rlly. I just think that this whole section is pointless to keep, and doesn't really show a good community to any new users looking on this page.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
We'll see. Nite!
Honestly, IP, NO ONE is going to back you up on this one. In fact, show me 10 people on the wiki who will believe you who are not sock puppets, and I'll leave you alone. Which leads me to my next point; sockpuppetry can get you banned. --Shadowcrest 02:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it can. Oh, wait, IT JUST DID. Lord Belar 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
God I'm getting sick of all this shit.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
With the exception of the vandal, we all are. Lord Belar 02:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Poor Entropy, all this crap always happens on her page. --Shadowcrest 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There should be a User talk:Entropy/Real talk, so all the shit can go here, and the conversations can continue undisturbed. Lord Belar 02:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's not so bad of an idea. The only thing for me would be its harder to get to, but if I had all this vandal crap going on my talk, I'd probably do that. --Shadowcrest 02:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth ... this wiki isn't the GWW, and not bound by the same policy mistakes over there that handcuff their sysops over there into being little more than glorified janitors.
On this wiki, per policy: Administrators can ban users at will. This is usually done in cases of vandalism, and permanent bans are usually reserved for spambots. However, if an administrator feels it prudent, he may remove a user from the wiki for any reason, or no reason at all.. If someone is being a disruptive force on this wiki - they can and should be banned. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I didn't see the account MR Ex Vandal disturbing. The IPs are a lot more disturbing. So I'm unbanning the account in hoipes of getting him back to it instead of multiple IPs. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 10:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on the bans themselves - I haven't reviewed the posts myself - I'm not an admin, so I'll leave that task to those who are ;-) I was just pointing out the policy line above, because there seemed to be debate on if the bans could be done. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok. :) I wasn't commenting to anyone specifically either, it was just an announcement for anyone who thought that the unbanning was weird. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What the hell were you people thinking? -.- I stand by Gem's decision on this one... It's true, that I banned a lot of random IPs also a few nights ago. To argue my side, it was obvious that they were the same person. We don't have a GW:SOCK but I felt justified since it was clear the vandal was simply using alternate IPs to continue and harrass the Wiki.

Now, when Mr. Ex Vandal was created, I stated on his talkpage that I didn't particularly care for his style of editing, especially his not-quite-bannable disrespect for GW:RFA and other users, but at the same time if he was truly of a mind to reform I would welcome him with open arms as much as possible. People can change, sometimes drastically, and you have to take their word for it until evidence proves otherwise. If Mr. Ex Vandal had actually broken a policy, then yes, he would deserve a ban. But "baiting" other users or admins into making fools of themselves is not a bannable offense. You people chose to say what you did, not because Mr. Ex Vandal made you say it, but because that is how you actually felt.

I have tried over and over again to advocate respect and tolerance towards anons and fringe users of the Wiki (User talk:NanoWarrior, User talk:Mr Ex Vandal, User talk:Lost-Blue when he was still an anon), because you can judge a community not by how it treats those best off (err...not Gravewit in this case >.>), but by how it treats those most disadvantaged or unliked. It is true that I go all-out and pretty much break GW:NPA when dealing with vandals. "Fuck off" is certainly not a constructive summary for banning. However, those sorts of times, I have made absolutely certain that I really am banning a vandal, one who has showed contempt and disrespect for our policies and the Wiki in general. I am not necessarily saying that it is okay to sink to their level, but GW:YAV does not cover vandals who will return your insults word for word given half a chance...that would be overextention of a policy, using it for something it was not intended for.

But, even though we pretty much go by vigilante justice here, we do have standards. We have guidelines for what is a bannable offense and what is not. We do not abuse GW:ADMIN for our own selfish purposes, and say "Admins can do whatever they want" to justify an otherwise uncalled for ban. We look for evidence before banning someone - why do you think admins are reminded to check the contribs before banning? To put it plainly, we have a great priviledge called administrative discretion, and when that gets abused I start to seriously consider whether we ought to have it. Perhaps GWW is in the right, after all. It is very sad to say so, but maybe we do need to have policies defining everything. If people cannot use their own good judgment to make decisions any more (and I am not just talking about Marcopolo here), then we should be stripped of that power.

  • Innocent until proven guilty
  • Admins have the same amount of clout as normal users
  • Preemtive bans are unacceptable (User:Raptors is an extraordinary exception)

Is it really so hard to follow these simple rules?

I am disappointed in all of you, but especially myself for not being a good enough role model. Entropy Sig (T/C) 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing to point out, Raptors had already continually harrassed Ryudo on the other wiki, and then came here when he got banned to continue to harass him. Is that not a bannable offense? As well as circumventing a ban, as Mr Ex Vandal did multiple times?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, Raptors is a...special case. I'm well aware of his actions towards Ryudo, and I suppose you could argue that that does constitute a bannable offense. However, as much as that is relevant, you can never judge a person's actions on one Wiki when considering their actions on another. By that standard, I would have put you up for de-sysoption a while back. (No, really.) I was willing to give Raptors a chance here, but I guess that was already decided.
If you are banned on one Wiki and you create an account on another Wiki, I don't think that can be called "circumventing a ban", although again Raptors seems to make an exception. My interpretation of "circumventing a ban" is when you get banned for vandalism and, say, use a proxy IP to continue with more vandalism. Or, you create a new account with another IP. For example, what User:Vorrax did was clearly unacceptable.
For Mr. Ex Vandal...I agree with Gem that the ban was unwarranted. To copy and paraphrase some of Tanaric's words from GWW, "we can't prevent users from circumventing bans, but if they must do so, it is better that they do so for a constructive, positive purpose rather than simply returning for more vandalism". Granted, he was speaking of Raptors on GWW, but I believe that logic is pertinent here as well. Mr Ex Vandal was banned without due cause, and to get recourse for this he circumvented the ban by creating another account. I disapprove of this method - it would have been easy enough to contact a sysop through their mail - but either way, it was a positive purpose that he was working towards. And there was no permanent damage done.
On the other hand, when he was using multiple IPs for vandalism and general disruption and openly acknowledging it, that is a different matter. That is bannable. Entropy Sig (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point here. I was not referring to Raptors when I was talking about circumventing a ban. Mr Ex Vandal had multiple IPs before creating an account, all of which were dutifully banned. By creating an account, you are circumventing a ban, even if it is because you have changed your ways. You should have to serve your sentence, and then you can think about coming back and reforming your way of contributing here. You can't arrest someone for murder (multiple times) and then let them go because they said that they'll change. They've done it already, and the past can't be changed.
As for Raptors, I did not ban him for what he did on the other wiki. He came here and continued to harass Ryudo, even after being asked to stop. That is the reason I banned him.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you read my part about circumventing a ban? "You should have to serve your sentence...You can't arrest someone for murder" - The wiki doesn't work like ReaLife(TM), Marco, and comparing sockpuppetry to murder is simply inane. Bans are not absolute decrees of justice, and people don't "do their time" until we see fit otherwise. A ban is a warning. Except in very extreme cases where an infiniban is warranted - the blackest of vandals and the most destructive of users - everyone needs to be given the opportunity for redemption, even if you personally don't believe them. Words of advice from Auron: "Wikis aren't the place to be distrustful."
Moreover. What did Mr Ex Vandal do? What we can prove he did, is use many IPs for sockpuppetry and generally disrupting the Wiki. I can not conclusively prove that he is the same person who on that night was redirecting everything to Special:Random. Those accounts have been infinibanned. For using sock IPs, each one got a one-month ban. For the perpetrator of the socks, Mr Ex Vandal? Alright, so he pissed a bunch of us off by using random IPs. However, we don't have a GW:SOCK policy, he never technically broke any other policies, and the actions of you and the others could easily be said to be more foul and misguided than anything he had done. Sure, he circumvented a ban by creating an account after getting bored of proxy IPs. But if that is all he plans on doing from now on, I really don't give a damn about what he did in the past. A one-time socking vandal is not a threat to the Wiki if he truly keeps his word. Ex post facto is unconstitutional, anyways, if you want to talk about true justice.
Bans can be misused, also - I personally believe that your judgment is flawed for Mr. Ex Vandal out of personal bias, since he and you seem to have had especially bad blood. I don't think you're helping your case any by trying to argue it with me here. As much as I like you personally, Marco, and as much as I am willing to give you a second third chance to redeem yourself, it's becoming increasingly difficult to compromise with your ideas about what Wikijustice should be like.
Raptors made one post, and no one gave warning until after the fact, so I fail to follow your logic for him, though he probably should have been banned anyways. The use of "continued" also implies a past precedent, which is in this case his actions on the other wiki. So you're not making much sense there. Entropy Sig (T/C) 00:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
TBH, it sounds like you're actually saying that circumventing a ban is acceptable. A warning before banning should be the warning, and after continuing to ignore it, a ban should be the consequence. I believed I've already addressed the Mr Ex Vandal issue on my userpage. As for Raptors, I probably shouldn't of banned him so quickly, but I saw no intent from him to help further this wiki's goal of complete coverage of all of Guild Wars, only harassment. As for sockpuppetry, why isn't there a GW:SOCK? Sockpuppets are wrong, and it should be a bannable offense. My example of RealLifeTM murder may have been a bit dramatic, but that was only used to get the point across, and it was not referring to the sockpuppetry, but to the vandalism. I probably am making things worse for me right now by arguing with you (which I HATE doing), but I want my opinion to be heard.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not part of this discussion, but I don't know if anyone else who is knows about this so... here: Project talk:Sock puppetry. —JediRogue 00:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
These are not only my personal opinions, Marco. "A ban is a warning in itself" - PanSola's sentiments, and many other former admins' as well. "If it is impossible to prevent someone from circumventing a block, then they should at least do it in a positive and constructive manner" - Tanaric's thoughts, about Raptors. You should also know that precisely because we have the discresionary powers to even debate things like this - the nature of banning and what we do or don't do - people have different opinions about what to do with vandals, and no one of us is 100% right even in majority. Your personal interpretation of warnings, bans, and consequences is in conflict with mine. I believe that only the strongest actions, such as an infiniban or range-IP-block, can be truly considered punitive actions. Everything else is a warning. Remember that as administrators, even though we have the same standing as other users, we should ideally aim to be the role models of the community. Assume good faith and You are valuable are ones that have already been brought up repeatedly. Ignoring a warning warrants a stronger warning, namely the suspension of one's editing privileges for awhile. Most vandals, whether they be IPs or registered accounts, cease vandalism after being banned once or twice. The "punishment" for ignoring all warnings, repeatedly, again and again - after much provocation and an obvious malicious intent is shown - that is the infiniblock, the ultimate and the only punishment. Everything else is a warning. Wikis are built on community and trust, and that involves the belief that (almost) everyone can reform and change their actions if they show a desire to do so.
I'm not saying that "circumventing a ban is acceptable". I'm saying that it is currenly impossible for us to prevent smart folks like Mr Ex Vandal from circumventing any ban they please. We know that and he knows that. It would be futile and pointless to ban each and every account and IP he uses as a "punishment" for his past, one-time actions. It would only incite him to further transgressions of the rules and more bannings. I say, live and let live - he had his fun and at least for the moment I consider him a benign presence. There just isn't a point in pursuing "justice" because he "got away" or whatever you want to say.
As for GW:SOCK, I can tell you from personal experience, Marco, because I was here before you...such a policy has indeed been tentatively proposed before, but rejected. Why? Because it is infeasible. We simply do not have the manpower and firepower to hunt sockpuppets - we don't have the technology or the time. It is very difficult to prove, with hard evidence, that someone is in fact a sockpuppet, if they know at all what they are doing. If you want a good historical lesson on this, consult User:Stabber, an infamous case of sockpuppet accusations. Also check the link given by Jedi (thanks). To put it briefly, sockpuppets have rarely been a serious problem for GuildWiki, and even though there is almost no reason to ever use them, it was decided that as long as a sock doesn't do anything harmful (such as throwing an election through votes), then it is pointless to spend time and energy tracking them down and banning them. Entropy Sig (T/C) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Very well then, from here on out, I will give small bans as warnings to those IPs that would vandalise out wiki with malicious intent. However, how do you suppose we deal with the sockpuppets that can potentially be created and recreated for vandalism, since you are against banning each and every one of them? Just continue to let them have their fun at the cost of our time and vandalise? Shouldn't we at least give something such as an hour ban to briefly stop it? Sockpuppets have not usually been a big problem, with the exception of Stabber (yes, I was here for that, but did not have an account, nor did I know how to edit), however, why should we let them go unpunished, or "warned," or whatever you want to call it? Why should they be able to go about without a ban if they're clearly deserving of one?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And btw, Jedi, thanks for that link, I wasn't aware of that before.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 00:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting what I said. I am not against banning sockpuppets that actually harm the Wiki - I am against preemtive bannings, bannings without evidence, banning socks that haven't done anything which would get a normal user banned, etc. Alternatively, if a user uses a sock to circumvent an unjust ban, then that needs to be taken into consideration too, beyond "Oh it's a sock, just ban em all". If you read the link, I agree with Karlos and Gem etc in principle, but PanSola and LordBiro's concerns are spot on. It's alright to be an ideologue, but you have to be realistic too. I'll try to make this simple...
  • I don't give a damn about benign sockpuppets with like 1 edit - ban 'em for a while if you want, don't care about the puppetmaster since really they haven't done anything
  • Sockpuppets which are used all together for a purpose such as deceiving a vote should be permabanned, and if it can be proved reasonably, the puppetmaster should be banned for a long time
  • If a sock is used to break a policy like NPA or 1RV or for vandalism, then it should be permabanned, and if it can be proved reasonably, the puppetmaster should receive a magnified ban (comparable for the offense)
  • Sockpuppetry in and of itself is morally wrong but still not inherently bannable, and as you can see there is no official policy for it
  • Retroactive punishments are not good
To answer all your questions in one shot: Sockpuppets are subject to the same policies and standards as normal users and should be treated as such, until proven otherwise (which is usually very difficult). I don't care if you are a registered user, a vandal, an IP, an anon, a sock, or whatever - if you break the stated policies or otherwise disrupt or deceive the Wiki, you get banned. If you don't, I don't care who you are. Am I being clear? Entropy Sig (T/C) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh I almost feel like banning every single person who broke GW:YAV in this discussion, considering what came out of it... -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that Pan, and if you feel it is prudent then you would do so without my support but also without my dissent...I think it makes sense to punish for breaking policies, yeah, but would it end up making any real difference? I think Auron leaving was enough of a lesson, so probably not... Entropy Sig (T/C) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gigathrash Edit

Marcopolo broke something (someone?) and doesn't know how to fix it.--Carmine 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem fixed, I'm not banned anymore =D (long story)--Gigathrash sig GigathrashTalk^Cont 01:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Eivittu perkele saatana Edit

Gods, I leave the wiki for one night, and all this has to happen again? I have a real life, too :( I'm sorry that I can't deal with things right now, but hopefully there will be time over the weekend. I apologize for my spotty attendance record of late, and would like to thank Marcopolo for taking up the slack where I leave off. Entropy Sig (T/C) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Heehee, that's probably more than can be said for some of us ;p - maybe you should consider removing that userbox, you know which one Jennalee 14:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Why finnish?? Falafel 18:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It's the only language that can truly express my frustration at the moment. Entropy Sig (T/C) 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


See my userpage plz.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Marco, just because you let one guy get to you and make you break like 15 policies isnt a cause to go and delete your userpage! Anyway, GW:RFA ftw. EDIT: my new sig ftw as well.. --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) (My RFA! (vote support) 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Fuck. And no, Warwick, I don't think you're qualified. You are just not experienced enough. Though I do appreciate the gesture - it shows you care about the Wiki and want to help out. Entropy Sig (T/C) 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Z0mg entropy, was that a Personal Attack against MP47? =O --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) (My RFA! (vote support) 08:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Not in a joking mood at the moment. Fuck is a general way of expressing exasperation and discontent. Entropy Sig (T/C) 08:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, it was intended as a joke.. Whats wrong? Anything i can help with? I'm bored enough to do almost anything.. --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) (My RFA! (vote support) 08:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, other than the fact that I'm posting at midnight and have bad sickness in RL - you could start with reading what I posted above, and perhaps Marcopolo's talkpage as well, and surmise from that that I am not very happy at the moment. Entropy Sig (T/C) 08:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, okay.. Geez, dont get stroppy.. I was only trying to help.. --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) (My RFA! (vote support) 08:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
...Stroppy? Entropy Sig (T/C) 08:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
well.. yeah.. --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) (My RFA! (vote support) 08:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What does that mean? I have never heard the term before. Entropy Sig (T/C) 08:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Annoyed/Irritated for no particularly good reason. --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) (My RFA! (vote support) 08:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiki collapsing isn't a particularly good reason to be annoyed/irritated?...I'm not annoyed with you. Entropy Sig (T/C) 08:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Then your being perfectly reasonable ^_^ --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) (My RFA! (vote support) 08:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Will spam cheer you up?Edit

It used to...--Gigathrash sig GigathrashTalk^Cont 08:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually dislike spam if it clogs up RC, but otherwise I don't mind it. Moar archives is always a good thing, innit? Entropy Sig (T/C) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll do a pyramid, in one edit:O. Yay for templates.

User:Gigathrash/templates/Talkpyramid The one problem is I can't make it sign every line with the person using it :/.--Gigathrash sig GigathrashTalk^Cont 10:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's a template? Interesting concept...I wonder if I could get it to work. Entropy Sig (T/C) 10:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That's much better. It was certainly getting on my craw when the spam crew were living up to their name --Blue.rellik 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF Edit

taken from Raptors' usertalk on GWW

Hey Edit

I like you. I think you know that. I don't know who your socks are and I don't really care. If you're still vandalizing/whatever, you're failing to make whatever point you're trying to make. If you're not still doing that, sweet. In either case, you'll do a ton better if you just make a new account, never mention you're Raptors, and start fresh. I for one quite appreciate your insight into the nature of the wiki, but the only way you'll ever make a point is to discuss it.

Even if nobody agrees with you, you'll make more of an impact with some discussion than you will with vandalism/policy violations. Look at User:Karlos for verification of that.

Tanaric 09:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As a sysop, is it prudent to encourage the most infamously banned user in this wiki's history to circumvent his block? -elviondale (tahlk) 10:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Meh, if he does no harm, then I don't think going past a block matters :P — Eloc 10:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What the hell, Tanaric? I once respected you. FFS, this is yet another reason for me to never go to GWW. Entropy Sig (T/C) 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't presume that Tanaric's opinion reflects anyone else's on GWW. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 11:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow --Blue.rellik 11:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not, Biro...but this is extremely troubling to me. Admins/sysops are supposed to serve as role models for the community, and even though Tanaric's or Eloc's personal opinions may not reflect anyone else's on GWW, it is sad nonetheless. "What sorts of evil must lurk in their hearts to spur them on?" (Confessor Dorian) Entropy Sig (T/C) 11:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey- I'm Elviondale from GWW. The convo seems to have moved to his user page. If you don't mind, I have changed my links for my copied comments as well. SuperStretch 14:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Didn't Raptors steal your name on GWW Entropy? lol --Macros 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, he did.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, I think that's what all this is about. Tanaric FTL.Ereanorsignreanor 03:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Darkroots daggers Edit

I have a spare pair that I'm not using.. Want them?--Satanic llamas 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Price? If not too high, then yes plx. Entropy Sig (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ehh 3k?. Personally I have no idea.. But cant be worth much.--Satanic llamas 11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. It's for a rare skin, so I appreciate it. I'll contact you when I can. Entropy Sig (T/C) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright then. Glad I can help.--Satanic llamas 04:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Reading through the UNFAIR section of your page, astoundingly there was a lot of trolling going on- i think that almost all of the people who posted there deserve a (temporary) ban.. =/ --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) (My RFA! (vote support) 12:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, including me...--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 14:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Shut up Marco. You already apologized via user page. Plus I tend to troll a little :D. --Hellbringer loves emo slut druggies (T/C) 15:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I regret my actions because even after all this time I still don't know when to shut up. --Macros 16:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Warwick, but the past is the past, and it wouldn't serve any good to anyone to hand out bans now for that incident. Everyone is under my stricter scrutiny now and I've officially reprimanded you folks, but a ban at this point would just be futile and ultimately symbolic at best. Entropy Sig (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just some questionsEdit

What is Rollback? What is Patrolled? What RawDump? And, what are the red exclamation marks on RC mean?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 15:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Patrolled means edits that were made by admins, RawDump I believe is where people dump raw information and have someone else put it in (don't hold that to me though) --Gimmethegepgun 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
About patrolled: Why, on new pages, does it say "Mark as patrolled" with a clickable link? What does that mean?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 15:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Methinks something like "This page has been tested and approved by an adminz" (that reminds me of Duyvis commercials.) --- VipermagiSig -- (s)talkpage 15:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Patrolled edits can be excluded from RC(like minor edits) --Gimmethegepgun 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then what's Rollback, what's the red exclamation marks on RC, and I still don't understand what RawDump is?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, is there any way to view a deleted picture without restoring it?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Rollback allows you to undo all of the edits made by the last user, up until the last edit by someone else. So if I make 7 edits to a page and you click rollback then all those 7 edits will disappear. Very handy for dealing with vandals.
The red exclamation marks show that an edit has not been marked as patrolled yet. We've never really used the feature here! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 19:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
If the Undelete feature here is like the one on PvX, you can click on the page name in Special:Undelete, then click the revision you want and hit show preview. --Wizardboy777 19:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
RawDump = pure data that has not been properly formatted for wiki consumption. Sometimes RawDumps might actually be slightly formatted to help with eventual integration into the wiki. "Patrolled" means an admin has approved the edit like Vipermagi said, and can be excluded from the RC to decrease the number of entries you need to look at when hunting for vandalism (only have to check unpatrolled edits marked by red exclamation mark). However the patrolling system only really works when lots of admins actually use the feature (checking individual edits and marking them as patrolled so other admins won't have to check those edits), and on GuildWiki that usually is not the case. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a link to the RawDump somewhere?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh, a raw dump can, for example, be a huge chunk of text that a user has written in OpenOffice that is then copied to a wiki page without inserting any formatting etc. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 21:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Tanaric hosted a RawDump in the midst of the Wikia debacle, and I believe that Wikia themselves will give you one if you ask nicely. Entropy Sig (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm winning Edit

You've been an admin for a month longer, but I've deleted more stuff than you have :P --Wizardboy777 19:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but you've got to factor in the type of stuff you're deleting, too. I'd say you have a much easier job as an admin over there, and definitely more fodder for deletion too :P Entropy Sig (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Trash is still trash. PvX just generates it faster :P --Wizardboy777 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Lol :P Entropy Sig (T/C) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


me=suspicious.. 2 new accounts voting for me.. they're my guildies! O_o --Warwick sig Warwick (T)/(C) (RFA!) 19:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See Project talk:Requests for adminship/Warwick(2) --Mr Ex Vandal 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
As per User talk:LordBiro, votes don't specifically mean anything in terms of quantity, but rather in the specific issues or non-issues they address about a candidate's character or experience. So I doubt it'll be a big deal. Entropy Sig (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


People were asking for it on the talk page for LAME, and I made it. If it matters to you, you are welcome to move it to your userspace and claim credit for it, since its basically yours anyway. You'll have to change links if you do, though. Cheers --Shadowcrest 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an ancient request, and I thought about it but finally decided that it would be too much work. Thanks for finishing yet another one of my unfinished projects. I hate to steal stuff from other users, though, so I will still attribute it to you. :) Entropy Sig (T/C) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Arghh Edit

I'm getting confused with this. GW:ADMIN says I should ban people at my discretion, which I've been trying to do to the best of my ability. However, whenever I ban someone due to them breaking a policy, etc., I getted yelled at for "abusing my powers." What am I supposed to do? Continue to let them troll and flame and vandalise and bring this wiki down, and get get reprimanded for it, or actually use my administrative properties that this community once thought that I should have, and ban them? Please, I'm asking begging for some kind help to solve this dilemma.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from your actual userpage:
  1. I've been acting immature to multiple on the wiki
  2. I've decided that I seriously need to reflect on my actions, and to change my ways.
  3. my foolish actions
What made you change your mind? Am I right by saying that all the apologies and stuff were only preventive measures to avoid losing your adminship? --Mr Ex Vandal 01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The things I am mentioning here have absolutely nothing to do with the ones on my userpage. Here I am not talking about trolling you and pre-emptive banning.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you are. You have been accused of abusing your powers when you banned me (note: didn't break any policy, so "due to them breaking a policy" is incorrect). --Mr Ex Vandal 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I am not talking about you here. --Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you weren't accused of abusing your powers when you banned vandals. --Mr Ex Vandal 01:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Vandals such as what you were? Yes, I was. And I'm asking you kindly to please leave my question to Entropy, whom I was asking in the first place.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have all the rights to express my opinions, and I will do so. You were accused of abusing your power when you started banning every anon, including those that didn't vandalize one single page (and didn't intend to). Now, that is abuse of power. --Mr Ex Vandal 01:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, and that is discussed on my user page. I never said that you couldn't express your opinions, either.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 01:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah...I thought you'd bring that up sooner or later. I will do the best I can to explain my interpretation of the policy. Note that, obviously, if you want a clearer and more historically accurate picture, you should check out the talkpage of it. Also note that my comments are not directed at you personally, but just as an interpretation in general.

Administrative Policy

  • GuildWiki admins are recommended by the community.

Means that we are a creature of the people (the community) and have a right to serve in their best interests. If you know what the "social contract" theory of government is, then that applies here somewhat.

  • Once promoted, an administrator is fully autonomous: he may do as his powers allow, as he sees fit.

Means you can do anything that is within your administrative powers, as you see fit, as long as you are not breaking policy, making up standards and guidelines on the spot ("I'm right because I said so"), circumventing the letter and spirit of the policies with your discretion ("Admins can do whatever they want"), or otherwise abusing the obvious intent of this privilege. The point of having fully autonomous admins and discretionary power is to allow for efficacy and a quick resolution of "grey cases". As with the general editing theme, we encourage our admins to "Be Bold" and make use of their powers. " allows incredibly quick resolution of the vast majority of issues."

  • Further, because the administrator's character is well-known before his promotion, abuses of administrator power simply do not happen.

RfA's have been spotty of late and a LOT of the people whose opinions have been important in the past - basically, all the long-time contributors who left, and the admins - have been unable or unwilling to make themselves heard. While this provision of the policy used to hold true, it is simply not too viable anymore because of the smaller userbase. It is harder to use it as a gague nowadays. LordBiro is only one man, and as much as he tries to give a fair trial for appointing sysop rights, even he makes mistakes. That is why community feedback (not just quantity of votes) is very important.

There has been one exception, the infamous Skuld, but I'd rather not discuss that, since it is a whole other issue.

  • Administrators are appointed for life...Again, this is because only extremely trusted users are granted adminstrator status.

This is yet another clear indication of how grave and important a responsibility you carry on your shoulders. The community has placed itself in your hands. It is your duty to oblige their trust and do what is in their best interest.

  • Administrators in the midst of conflict have, in the past, offered to resign if the community voted it was prudent.

We are an instrument of the people, created and also destroyed by their will

  • Administrators can ban users at will. This is usually done in cases of vandalism, and permanent bans are usually reserved for spambots. However, if an administrator feels it prudent, he may remove a user from the wiki for any reason, or no reason at all.

The letter of the law would seem to read that you can ban anyone you want, but that is obviously not the spirit or intent of the law. It would be folly to assume that I could ban any one, any time, for any reason other than I felt like it. Although you are not technically required to give any reason whatsoever for banning someone, take note of the word prudent. That signifies that, except in extraordinary cases (Raptors again >.>), it is considered bad form to ban without justifiable cause. Yes, the policy as written technically exempts you from that, but no, people won't tolerate it being applied liberally. That was not the intent of the provision. It was a clarification of what "fully autonomous" and discretionary powers means.

Basically, put it this way: If you ban a user, and everyone else (including admins) on the Wiki thinks it was unreasonable, GW:ADMIN doesn't protect you. As with almost everything else on the Wiki, ultimately, it is the will of the people and majority rule/consensus that decides what is acceptable interpretation of the discretionary powers clause, and what is not. As it stands now, the general consensus is that people shouldn't be banned without just cause and at least some evidence in the form of contribs.

  • As a matter of courtesy, most administrators will not ban a user he is directly involved with; instead, he will ask another administrator to examine the situation from a neutral perspective.

Never let personal opinion and bias get in the way of your administrative judgment.

  • Administrators can counteract other administrators, if they feel it prudent. An erroneous ban can be lifted. An erroneous delete can be restored. Typically, only a message on the talk page explaining the reason why such a countermeasure is prudent is expected in such a case. The "reverted" administrator is expected to oblige the revert, and should not reinstitute their action without discussing it with the "reverting" administrator.

No extra comment needed.

  • An appointment to administrator is not something done lightly. The administrators are a cohesive team, and the mutual respect they share for another, even when disagreeing, is second to only the respect and care they have for the GuildWiki itself.

Respect. Cherish and honor your position.

...I could sift through all the other policies if you would like, but I hope that was sufficiently clear. Basically, admins aren't above the law, and a majority never constitutes a jury, though it can point out flaws in the system. Entropy Sig (T/C) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Please read my userpage, again.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's sad that you have chosen to leave, but I think you have guts to admit when you've made a mistake. As much as I think a lot of this was a result of badly timed Wikidrama ("mass temporary insanity") rather than policy and stuff, on some level, it was the right thing to do.
On the other hand, I'm pretty much all alone now, being essentially the sole active admin left. So personally I wish you wouldn't. I guess it is for the greater good, though, and your way of showing that you do care about the Wiki... :'( Entropy Sig (T/C) 02:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Who's in charge of selecting admins right now anyway? --Gimmethegepgun 02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
LordBiro. Best of luck with your RfA, Gimme.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You might not need help in a little while after all, entropy :) --Shadowcrest 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I already left MP love on his talk page. But I might as well come out with it. I've been thinking about putting in an RfA for myself for a while now but I don't want to do it myself because if no one else shares my opinion... you know. What do you think? —JediRogue 02:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Go for it :) Jennalee 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think yes. It would be great to have another very serious RfA from an extremely experienced contributor here. Go for it!--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me think about it. You don't spam my talkpage that much, so I don't know your character as well as I did for other RfA's :P (no rly) Entropy Sig (T/C) 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, you're clear by me. You have been here for more than a year as a constant contributor across all namespaces, and you seem to have a good general knowledge of the policies. I don't see you getting into any especially bad conflicts with other users either, so that speaks well towards your character. Go for it! Entropy Sig (T/C) 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

lawl Edit

Hey, check this out! --Gimmethegepgun 03:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So much scrolling, so little wikicoding.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 03:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Pleasure doing business with you! ;D --Gimmethegepgun 03:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OMG, I hope that doesn't break something. o_O Entropy Sig (T/C) 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can fix the lack of wikicoding problem if you want... --Gimmethegepgun 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've heard that excessive spam can crash the servers, like it did on PvX, so I would implore you not to try that. >.> Entropy Sig (T/C) 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that spam is measured in the amount of wikicode it takes up, not the amount of space.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, don't worry, it'd only add about 25,000 characters, that's not even your average archival --Gimmethegepgun 03:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
All I know is when people make 7m+ characters in one edit, things crash. Huge scalable skill bars and flashing pictures don't help. Armond 05:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
How did you people get it to work? Whenever I sign or just put foiur tildes it doesn't appear!--Gigathrash sig GigathrashTalk^Cont 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Were you trying to add the signing thing into the template itself, or were you trying to just do it on the spot like we did? --Gimmethegepgun 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
On the spot, from there I might be able to figure out how to add it to the template.--Gigathrash sig Gìğá†ħŕášħTalk^Cont 22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a minor edit Edit

Hey ppl, don't forget to check this box when posting here. It is still a talkpage you know. :) Entropy Sig (T/C) 03:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I probably should've used that preference thing that glued my Minor Edit button down a LONG time ago. It used to be jammed in the "off" position and was impossible to turn on :/ --Gimmethegepgun 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Talks aren't automatically minor-worthy IMO. If you want to you can do namespace-filtering from RC and watchlist. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, IMO, if it's for spam or personal matters like someone contacting me about a green I want to buy, that's automatically minor stuff. Naturally if it is a big important post about policy or an administrative warning, it is not. But I tend to leave Minor checked for everything, anyway, since so many people seem to watch my edits either way... >.> Entropy Sig (T/C) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath Edit

Is there anything we can do to help reducing the possibility of things like this happening again that chases away good people like Auron? I'm not just talking about using more discretion when promoting admins, but a mechanism that proactively helps us notice the problems. You might be away for one night, but I was here the whole time and didn't catch what's going on until MP47 edited GW:ADMIN that caused me to investigate. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 05:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There's more to it than meets the eye. I don't think Auron left just because of what happened, there are more reasons, similar reasons may be, but other reasons. What we need is Requests for Comments. What you need is to patrol RC more.Ereanorsignreanor 08:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
We have like 2 active admins now =/ --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 11:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
My RfA is still there. It was actually created to solve that.Ereanorsignreanor 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well in this particular case (which is probably the last straw for Auron, among other reasons), patrolling RC would not have helped, because I typically don't auto-investigate why a fell admins are banning ppl. And Entropy's talk page was on my watchlist already, I just stopped reading it because of the sheer volume of random chatter made it impractical. So RC patrols still wouldn't catch that. )-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Auron was already considering leaving before that happened, I know that. He stuck it out here because he had no great love for the other Wikis either, but at the same time he wasn't blind like the rest of us...he knew it was a sinking ship and he'd leave eventually. That aside, this was most probably a "last straw".
My thoughts...As I stated somewhere above, I think the RfA process is a bit flawed at the moment. In the past, I would say from my nomination backwards, we still had a fair size userbase of experienced and trustworthy editors who really knew the candidates and could honestly assess their character and experience. Nowadays, despite the vote counts being similar, the process doesn't work as well because the people that are left (no offense to anyone) almost all have personal bias towards or against other users, and that includes me. We don't have the liberty of clear judgment anymore. It's kind of a "gang", if that is the right term...we spam each others' talkpages and stuff, defend each other in conflicts, and boost each others' egos. It is a natural thing for Wiki friends to do, but it distorts an objective assessment of one's true character, and as we can see from Marco (and in the past, perhaps Skuld), how one acts as a Wikifriend or ordinary user does not change overnight by assuming the mantle of responsibility that an admin has. LordBiro is just one man, after all, and he can't judge everything.
Also, though it's old news, a lot of the really "Good" people aren't here anymore to offer insight and catch mistakes for admins. In the past the admins and other influential, always-on users could police one another, offer advice and warn when another one went too far. It is hard to do that with less than 5 active admins left and not that many truly dedicated active contributors. It becomes more and more of an "Us against Them" situation, with admins seemingly "Privileged" because there are just a few. I think that is part of the problem, too.
"A mechanism that proactively helps us notice the problems" - Well, my talkpage is like Skuld's talkpage of days past, a forum where people go to ask questions and make requests, even if they're not to me specifically. So this page is actually a fairly good mechanism already to help notice problems. It just gets a bit difficult sometimes because of all the non-important stuff that also gets added (sorry peoples). RC patrol and watching the actions of other admins are my main ways of finding out what's going on, as well as the ever-useful Admin Command Center with all its tools.
Of course that is all normal ordinary stuff that you already know about - basically, a high level of vigilance and persistence. You're talking about something new. Ereanor suggested a "Requests for Comments". I'm guessing such a thing may perhaps be a solution...though it needs elaboration. We have the Community Portal and the respective talkpages of the admins...and it is easy enough to put all the active users on the Watchlist. We even have the Admin noticeboard (which continues to be unused) and the Wikia noticeboard. How would a Requests for Comments work, and what would it cover that those don't? I'm guessing that if you put up a new, highly visible request for people to come and talk about their grievances with GWiki, you'd mostly get a lot of random complains along the line of "this place is dead" or "this place is run by elitists" or other types of non-constructive criticism that's been popping up lately.
I think what can be done, via Biro, is to first of all appoint some new admins, since despite what Gem says ("I don't see a serious lack of admins now") the truth of the matter is that all told, we are just pitifully short on manpower...especially compared to what it used to be. Who is active now? By a lenient count...


  • LordBiro
  • Me
  • PanSola
  • Gem
...but in all honesty Barek can't be considered active, and Gem has just gotten back and is mostly here for having fun (or so he says), so I dunno. Auron left and Marco resigned. Biro is a bureaucrat and generally doesn't get involved with administrative duties. This is just not enough. It may seem to the casual observer that things are under control, but recent heavy vandalism and such have only been fixed because of extremely persistent and vigilant editors like Gimme, Blue, Shadowcrest, and others, who basically live on the Wiki 24/7. It was by luck that Marco and I happened to get on in time for bannings and deletions. Otherwise, it may have continued unchecked for many more hours. These sorts of things should not have to rely on chance to be resolved.
I don't want to sound overly pessimistic but all the doomsayers are ultimately right: we are losing, slowly, and the best we'll ever be able to do is clean up the wiki to something of its former glory. We're never going to flourish again like we did in the old days, too much has happened and GWW has too many people over there. I mean, I'll do everything I can and not leave until the last, but once again I see myself and the Wiki just at the edge of that cliff, teetering on the abyss...We are in pretty bad straits right now. More admins for the moment will help to keep some semblance of law and order, which we need at the very least as a base from which to work on - with basically 2 or 3 active admins, GuildWiki is lawless a lot of the time now, and it makes any progress difficult since most of our time is spend fixing, not creating. Entropy Sig (T/C) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
GAH! Essays! But they should lock more articles from editing, like ones that are done such as Elite skills list. --Lann-sf2 Lann 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI: just to clarify ... I was listed as "active" in the above essay; but I resigned my sysop status almost three months ago, so even if I were more active (which was pointed out above that I can't really be considered as such - sporadic posts here at best over the last three months), I still couldn't help with admin tasks. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Barek, I keep forgetting >.> Entropy Sig (T/C) 20:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Cheer up, Entropy. We are still considered the good wiki from what I hear on vent. We are slowing down in contributions because the game is slowed down in having new things to add. Until the official wiki becomes as good a source of knowledge as this wiki is, we are still going to get more visitors and users. We can measure slowdown as a lack of updates in RC or the moving to the official wiki by older users, but that doesn't mean we are going anywhere for a while.
When it comes to dealing with vandals and trolls, I had posted this around the same time as my RFA and Pansola flagged it for moving over to a proposal for an official policy. Although I hadn't planned to make it official, I think GW:QDV could really help. I'm against having too many policies spelled out but I think this one can be used to stop excessive discussions and fighting. I have to flesh it out more, but I thought you should have a look. —JediRogue 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents on the comments above on the life expectancy of this wiki - the only thing that saves this wiki is that many articles from the earlier campaigns are still better documented here v. GWW. But that's not enough to keep this wiki going long-term - I knew when I resigned that this one had a limited life remaining. I find that a little sad, but all things come and go with time. This is partly because the original GW series is ending; but also because GWW has direct links from the game, and because they gave admins from here an easy path to adminship over there (via grandfathering then re-confirmation), and because of bad feelings on this wiki following the sale, and because of elitist claims (some completely unfounded, some with legitimate grievances), and because guilds and builds are documented elsewhere - not here, and because ... well, you get the point. At the least, a new GW2 wiki will be needed - but ANet will have a major advantage as they won't have years of edits to catch up on.
It's sad and painful to admit; but, IMO: it was a fun ride while it lasted; but even with additional admins, this wiki will at best be able to maintain itself, never again growing. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh alright, Jedi, I'll leave the poor vandals alone. I think that draft looks good.
Barek: Yeah, my sentiments exactly. My main concern is that I couldn't live to see GWiki eaten up by vandals and crap before the ride's finally truly over. We're not even really able to maintain ourselves at the current rate. I want to leave the Wiki in the best shape possible once it gets shut down for permanently and buried in history.
Oh and by the way, GWW is gonna shoot themselves in the foot with trying a Builds thing. Just like they did with Guilds. :) Entropy Sig (T/C) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
All GWW comments aside (:P) I would be willing to do whatever's necessary to help. I'd be interested to know if anyone, particularly Entropy and Barek, have any suggestions as to either who could take the role of sysop, or alternatively any other actions that could aid the wiki. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't know most of the current active participants - the best I can point towards is the list of current nominations at Project:Requests for adminship. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That was deep. We gotta be watchful and shutdown the wiki as soon as we realize we can't even maintain it anymore.Ereanorsignreanor 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

...This gloomy atmoswhere is depressing. How about a brainstorm over what can be improved here so we can work on it? <_< Jennalee 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What are the current... "requirements" for admins? We go to a lot of lengths to get sysops that are very active, patrol RC, and so on, but we're running low on those. Would possibly promoting more less active, yet trusted users to sysop status help? While not everyone can be on every minute of the day, having merely a larger number of sysops would reduce a lot of problems, in my opinion. Not to mention, like you said Entropy, the small number of Sysops makes those that do have Sysop rights seem more important then they really are or need to be (I'm sure you yourself get a lot more work then you really need, being one of the few active admins).
I would nominate myself for adminship if someone thought it would help, I really would. But I'm also hesitant to nominate myself for a job like that if I'm going to end up being one of the only people with said job. I think one of the main draws I have towards GWW is how clean everything feels... there's always a lot more stuff that happens before people get banned, and it's probably not the smoothest system, but the fact that there are so many people working on everything means it still gets stuff done faster. I think simply having more admins, who can all keep eyes on one another, and fix little problems, would make everything run a lot smoother. Not to mention, everything running smoothly makes it more enticing for normal users to want to hang out here. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 06:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wishlist Edit

I have Kaya's Daggers lying around. Just need to get rid of them --- VipermagiSig -- (s)talkpage 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Price? Entropy Sig (T/C) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't really mind. 36gold? (else even the Merchant would give more :O ) --- VipermagiSig -- (s)talkpage 20:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Haha, accepted :P Entropy Sig (T/C) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's sad, really Edit

the one labeled "wow" --Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO there's something about GWW that perverts people. I have seen more than one good GWiki contributor go over there and turn into someone completely different. Some of our best people remained unchanged...true to form, Karlos was outspoken and passionate, Skuld was...Skuld, Tanaric was the impeccable leadership guy, Gares was Mr. NPA, et cetera. But a lot of the other users...*shudder* I don't know why that is, but it makes me afraid. Entropy Sig (T/C) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. I'm afraid to post over there now in fear of getting an immature answer from the people that I once looked up to.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Or get some trolling message from uhh... "Entropy"... --Gimmethegepgun 20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Strange thing is, it's only GWW. Skakid is still a good, helpful contributor on PvX (As much as any of them are.) Lord Belar 21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ya, and that is what makes me confused. Is there something so fundamentally different about GWW compared to GWiki or PvX? I dunno...but it's scary. Entropy Sig (T/C) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. I'm only 14, and seem like I'm more mature then them...--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Age does not necessarily mean maturity. Lord Belar 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, just look at Bush! He's 61 years old and he STILL acts like a 5-year-old! --Gimmethegepgun 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Politics ftl >.< --Shadowcrest 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
He's still right. Anyway, I think Skakid is a troll even at PvX.Ereanorsignreanor 03:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:JennaleeEdit

I think you should protect that against unregistered IPS as well, since it keeps getting spammed at (and not the good kind the spam crewe do) --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 20:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage wasn't as bad as the userpage itself, but yeh that might be prudent. Entropy Sig (T/C) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And quit feeding the trolls. Can't you see the signs around the zoo? Feed them and they'll bite your hand off. the zoo claims no responsibility for lost limbs if you feed the trolls --Gimmethegepgun 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I enjoy feeding the trolls. It gets all that flamer instinct out of me without any repercussions, because as we all know, retorting against a true vandal isn't breaking policy (usually). Entropy Sig (T/C) 20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to protect all pages against IP edits? I think this guys going a bit far.. --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
We aren't blocking IP edits to the wiki. Lord of all tyria 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What i mean is all userpages --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The Proffession pages need protection, imho. They only get vandalized --- VipermagiSig -- (s)talkpage 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I will look at those but I don't recall them being heavily vandalized lately. Protection is not to be used lightly. Entropy Sig (T/C) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh...most of them haven't been touched in the last month or so, I don't think they are Protect-worthy at the moment. I will add them to my Watchlist, though. Entropy Sig (T/C) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

plz banEdit

that IP. --Shadowcrest 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

please archive. Your page takes too long to unvandalize lol. —JediRogue 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
/agree with both :) --- VipermagiSig -- (s)talkpage 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ye, took me ages! RT | Talk - The Whacking editor 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
agree, lol --Shadowcrest 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Without a range ban, blocking single IPs vs persistant vandals is entirely worthless. Lord of all tyria 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
ban them all then. he'll stop eventually --Shadowcrest 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If people like this crop up more regularly than usual, we might need to block open proxies. Lord of all tyria 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
We'll do as best as we can, a medel to all who helped today should be commisioned. RT | Talk - The Whacking editor 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Moar medals, yay^^ --- VipermagiSig -- (s)talkpage 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
How regularly is more regularly than usual? Recently it seems we have a dynamic-IP vandal every day, sometimes more than one. Not to be pessimistic. just an observation --Shadowcrest 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't really do a range ban - the vandals lately use anonymous proxies (likely TOR nodes). The problem is that the list of confirmed open proxies changes daily - and even then, the available black lists are not even close to 100%
At one time on GWW, one of the admins compared the IPs of vandals who were using open proxies to Wikipedia's blacklist of open proxies ... less that 1/4 of the IPs checked would have been blocked (maybe it was less than 1/10 ... can't recall exactly, but amazingly small percentage). Added to the problem is that it's impossible to maintain manually due to the shear number of IPs involved, to use the list requires a server admin to get involved to do imports of the blacklisting tables.
In the end, the only way to manage it is to have enough admins on to address it as it occurs. Eventually the vandals move on to easier targets. But, currently, there's a notable admin shortage on this wiki. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the problem is, this vandle is twice the age of your average teenager and as such very experianced and knowledgable of how to get around blocks. I only vandalised one user's page because I felt she had done enough to earn herself some harrasment, when others stuck their noses in where they didn't belong I also screwed with them a little for laughs, but the whole original intent was just to mess with the one person who deserved to be messed with. You're right though, you can block IPs all day and night and not stop me until I move on, which I actually think I will do soon because I think I have given the user I was after enough of a hard time for now. If she does something more to deserve it I may have to come back, but for now my goal was completed.
Translation: I'm older and can act maturely but I choose not to do so. Also, I cbb making more accounts to vandalise this user's page - too much effort. Jennalee 04:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if you just vandalize one userpage or several - you're the only one who holds the opinion that Jennalee did something wrong. Unfortunately you chose to display that discontent in a harmful and destructive way, and so that got you a ban. It is my business to keep this wiki running and ensure it is a safe place for all to contribute. I honestly don't give a damn about "sticking my nose where it doesn't belong", because when you mess with GuildWiki users, you mess with me. When you committed your acts of vandalism, you made it my business.
This is the path you chose, and this is the outcome of that path. Should you choose to return and continually harrass Jennalee or anyone else, I have only one thing to say: I pity you, sir. Next time I will not be so lenient. Entropy Sig (T/C) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Orly, I suppose with marco gone. RT | Talk - The Whacking editor 21:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It is almost 100kb again, but there are too much relevant discussions going on atm. I think that we just have smarter vandals nowadays. Silly kids know about TOR and crap all the time now. Entropy Sig (T/C) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the term "gone." It sounds like I died.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, some ppl always prematurely assume the plan will succeed... -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 02:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Entropy what is TOR? 11:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
From the tor main page: "Tor is a network of virtual tunnels that allows people and groups to improve their privacy and security on the Internet.". --VeneliX 11:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Recent update: lulz seeker still hasn't found something productive to do with spare time. Meh. Jennalee 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dye Colour Charts Edit

Hi Entropy, Wasnt sure where to ask this so I'll ask here. Lately I've been farming the CTC (Destroyer Cores) and I get alot of weapons that have no dye guides for them. Previously Jennalee told me that if the weapon isnt affected by dye that much, theres really no point.

So before I feed these weapons to the merchant, I was just wondering do you care if dye doesnt affect much of the weapon? I'm more than willing to do the dye guides for them, and I feel even if they dont change much it would be handy to have them anyway. Thoughts? Khazad Guard 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well er, nvm that it's just my opinion - use your personal judgement on whether you think it could do with one <_< Jennalee 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea about that kind of stuff, I try to stay out of weapons and armors and leave that to people like RoseOfKali and Jennalee and others who have much more experience. I think that...Every single item should have a note about how dye affects it, but we only need dye charts when it makes a noticable difference, either to the inventory icon (Bandana dyed black is invisible) or to the appearance when worn or wielded (Chaos Axe for example, duh).
Use your own judgment - if you think dye makes enough of an effect that someone may find a dye chart useful, go ahead and make one. Remember that no matter exactly how much is affected, dye charts can only help, not hurt. Entropy Sig (T/C) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The things dye charts would be most useful for IMO are those with parts which dye like the Chaos Axe or Enameled Shield - aka not true to the dye applied but somewhat inverse, or not quite as you would expect (eh. a Tyrian Cleaver where yellow dye turns it lime green). Jennalee 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yea, just wondering - is there any particular reason why we don't have mediawiki's software automatically resizing jpeg images since the Wikia move? Some of the dye charts turned out quite large even though I did compress them more than usual, which I don't like doing, and it'll be hell for any poor 56k users. Jennalee 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you couldn't just |thumb for the larger dye charts, and have them click for full-size. Otherwise, no idea. Ask Biro. Entropy Sig (T/C) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I do thumb for them but they load the full size these days and just use the browser's resizing to make the thumb Jennalee 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's...stupid. What's the point of thumbing, then, if it only reduces visual size? -_- Entropy Sig (T/C) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
So it doesn't make the page very wide like this -________________________________________- for those running lower screen res (reccommended for images wider than 550px to thumb to that) but otherwise, no particular reason. Jennalee 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ehh, no real excuse to run something smaller than 758x758 nowadays unless you're on a laptop. Entropy Sig (T/C) 18:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, back to the original topic, I wouldn't mind that auto generation of resized thumbs which are small in file size feature back since I see it on GWW everywhere and this makes me miss it here more :/ Jennalee 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"admin expectations" Edit

Just letting you know I have added a section to GW:ADMIN. The section outlines how people can expect me to act on an average day. I feel this gives a mechanism for flexible consistency, while still allowing each of us admins to act in as much freedom as we had. At least, my patterns were build and modified and inter-influenced by watching how other admins used to act. Documenting the general patterns without making it binding whatsoever allows any newly introduced admin to catch on to some kind of common standards. I do feel very sad that I ended up spelling things out, but I think it is kind of necessary in light of the loss of so many old-timers while still holding on to the old values. If you oppose the existence of that section, I'm willing to hear your thoughts and discuss it further. If you support the section, please also add your typical patterns there (I would think there are some similar-but-not-identical to mine, and perhaps some differences). If you feel "meh" about it, bite me. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 07:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC) needs a bit of a rewrite because that section clashes with the rest of the page. It is not "policy" in the way the rest of GW:ADMIN is. Imho it should be a separate but prominently linked page...anyway, I'll add my part, and leave you to figure out the logistics. Which is your specialty anyways, Pan. :) Entropy Sig (T/C) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive Edit

Note: please wrap up any open discussions soonish, there are lots of important ones here but I'd like to archive quickly because it's broken 100kb again. Entropy Sig (T/C) 18:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes and Layouts Edit

Can ya show me how to set up my userpage with some, like how to make userboxes and stuff....--Holy Sig (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To make a userbox, use the userbox template. Follow the directions on that page. Also, don't indent it (with colons) or else it will break the page's formatting --Gimmethegepgun 02:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
All users are free to "borrow" any of my userboxes and other layout stuff. I appreciate credits but don't require them.

Wishlist Edit

I have a req 10 Sephis sword, it has a 15^50 but the other mods are crap. You can has it. --Feardrake 01:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...I already got a free req9 max damage one, but yours is 15^50 which is to say the least, expensive. I'll take it if you don't want it. :) Entropy Sig (T/C) 13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a req 10 Tyrian Sickle lying around. It's inscribable, currently 15% stance and Zealous. You're certainly welcome to it. Felix Omni 14:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. Thanks. :) Entropy Sig (T/C) 14:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well uh... how should I go about giving it to you? >.> Felix Omni 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA unless otherwise noted.