I will ask again that you cease this administrative service on behalf of ANet on this wiki. We do not have a position of "ANet Police Officer" in this wiki and it's not something we ever decided to do. You need to separate being an admin on this wiki and doing a favor for ANet/looking out for their best interest/etc. --Karlos 07:45, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
- Would it satisify you if the separation is done via me longer being an admin? It's not a threat, but a simple evaluation of how I can serve the GuildWars community. Major vandalism hasn't been a big problem especially since the spammers are all kept out, so I don't think GuildWiki will notice the difference whether I continue as an admin or not. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:55, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
- Hmmm, I for one would not want you to step down, but to your question a question: How does the GW community benefit from you stepping down? Is the alpha-leak issue such a huge problem that it demands handling and as such, if you are unable to place this warning in your signature it will put the game at risk? I find your question exaggerational. I do not think the GW community will benefit from you stepping down, I do not think they are benefitting from that tag to begin with. --Karlos 08:03, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
- The community will not benefit from the act of me stepping down itself, nor will not placing the note in my sig put the game at risk. But helping leaks plugged in a timely manner will benefit the community in the long run. The effect of it is probably hard to notice, but on the other hand the effect of me staying as an admin vs stepping down is also hard to notice. I don't think me stepping down hurts the community to begin with, whereas pluging leaks in a timely manner benefits the community subtlely. Let me know if you are interested in a more indepth theory of why pluggng leaks in a timely manner will subtlely benefit the community in the long run. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 08:13, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
- Proceed. I'd like to know how you plan to "plug" them as well. --Karlos 09:23, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
- I'd also be interested but I do not see what you being an admin has to do with this. I think this is more an issue of you acting on your own perogative, potentially against what the wiki wants. --Fyren 15:46, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
- I agree with Fryen, but i didn't want to debate the point of whether me being admin has anything to do with it. Just because I am not in my admin shoes does not prevent others from seeing me and assuming I am in those shoes. It's similar to the older issue where what I would've done as an user anyways got perceived as an action taken by an admin (though the effects/implications are of quite different nature). Anyways, I have to apologize and inform you guys that the full explaination will have to wait until either Sunday or next Wednesday, depending on how screwed I am in real life. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:09, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
- As PanSola's link is in his sig and not within an actual article, and because we have never established a policy on sig format/contents/length, I really don't see a problem with his sig. It's not for personal gain and he has made it clear whenever the subject comes up that it's not something done as part of his admin duties. So, to me, while it does impose clutter into talk threads, I see no other harm being done. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
- I disagree on the same principle that was used against me before (rightfully so). I believe that if he wishes to maintain this in his signature, that it should lead to a wiki page on his user space that explains EXACTLY what is going on. My objection is not based on me or you (Barek) or Fyren not knowing where PanSola stands as an admin. My objection is that a regular user sees this in some talk thread, clicks on PanSola's name and sees that he is an admin (or already knows it) and assumes that he is the "Wiki admin in charge of Alpha leaks" or something. A position we do not have and seem to be clearly against having. As such, I would prefer if that PM link on Guru actually pointed to a user page here that says something like: I, PanSola, am doing this just as a GW player, not as an admin, and here is why you should contact ME specifically (I know someone in Guru/someone in ANEt that can look into these things quickly) and here is what it means to the wiki (I can/cannot delete pages on the fly if they violate this...). Things like that that leave no ambiguity as to what is going on. --Karlos 23:56, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
I apologize for not responding to this discussion a month ago. This is something I should have been involved in. The GuildWiki has no stated policy on removing "alpha leaks" and thus mass reversion of them should not occur. There is no way for the GuildWiki in general to verify "alpha leaks" are actual leaks from the alpha or simply rumors. Additionally, there's nothing prevented somebody from using the excuse "alpha leak" to revert obscure, but true, information. If everyone has the ability to cry "alpha leak," our ability and purpose are greatly limited by your proposed remedy of reversion + confirmation with Gaile.
It's well-known that we're the most popular fansite on the Internet. It's also well-known that ArenaNet staff use the GuildWiki themselves—Mike o'Brian and Gaile have told me themselves, over the phone. Thus, I don't think it's too much of a leap to figure that, if they see something that's really as damaging as you say, that they'll contact one of us privately and ask us to nuke it.
That said, I think a policy proposal should definitely be made; it would be interested to see how such a proposal plays out. I am also interested in your theory on how removing real alpha leaks benefits the community.
In this particular matter, I'll temporarily desysop anybody who uses sysop-restricted abilities to remove information without the backing of policy or a request from ArenaNet. I don't mean to threaten, but I wanted to make my stance on this clear, so no misunderstandings can occur later.
—Tanaric 09:37, 14 October 2006 (CDT)