Difference between revisions of "Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard"

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Personal attacks: new section)
m (Personal attacks: proofreading FTW...)
Line 163: Line 163:
  
 
{{moved|from|[[Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Personal attacks]]}}
 
{{moved|from|[[Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Personal attacks]]}}
I just wanted to follow up briefly on what TEF said and I thought as we're getting more into discussion that I would move over to the talk page here.  The two IPs that I blocked were blocked solely for their comments in [[User talk:Nathe#Augury Rock and etc]], not for anything they might have said/done in the section above it ([[User talk:Nathe#Well done!]]).  As Jon had posted in the '''Well done!''' section, I didn't take anything in that section that the IPs might have said.  I considered that section dealt with by Jon.
+
I just wanted to follow up briefly on what TEF said and I thought as we're getting more into discussion that I would move over to the talk page here.  The two IPs that I blocked were blocked solely for their comments in [[User talk:Nathe#Augury Rock and etc]], not for anything they might have said/done in the section above it ([[User talk:Nathe#Well done!]]).  As Jon had posted in the '''Well done!''' section, I didn't take anything in that section that the IPs might have said into consideration.  I considered that section dealt with by Jon.
  
 
In my mind what the IPs posted was purely trolling, they were both trolling Nathe.  In theory I could have blocked both Vili and Nathe for ignoring Jon's warning to let it go, but using my own personal judgment (you know what sysops/admins are supposed to use in addition to the wiki rules), I decided not to.  I didn't block Vili as his comments seemed to me to be well thought out and with the possible exception of his post script, not confrontational in any way.  I didn't block Nathe because I am loathe to block people for responding to comments on their own talk pages, unless they are violating some other rule.  I hope that clears up any questions, but if not let me know and I'll do my best to answer them when I can.  --[[User:Rainith|Rainith]] 05:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 
In my mind what the IPs posted was purely trolling, they were both trolling Nathe.  In theory I could have blocked both Vili and Nathe for ignoring Jon's warning to let it go, but using my own personal judgment (you know what sysops/admins are supposed to use in addition to the wiki rules), I decided not to.  I didn't block Vili as his comments seemed to me to be well thought out and with the possible exception of his post script, not confrontational in any way.  I didn't block Nathe because I am loathe to block people for responding to comments on their own talk pages, unless they are violating some other rule.  I hope that clears up any questions, but if not let me know and I'll do my best to answer them when I can.  --[[User:Rainith|Rainith]] 05:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:17, 19 July 2011

wtb archive

i would do it my self but feel like someone would yell at me..-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 09:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some kinda policy about being bold? --BriarUser Briar Sig 3.jpgThe Spider 09:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
didnt mean this page meant the admin notice board....-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 09:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Guess thats what I get for being bold eh? The humor in it is not lost on me. :D --BriarUser Briar Sig 3.jpgThe Spider 09:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. WhyUser talk:Why 15:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Formal complaint

moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Formal complaint
Borderline discussion, however, needs to be said, now that I can again. If you are unaware you are blocked because you sign on and see nothing, then are told you are blocked for trying to bypass one, how is that fair again? The first time I saw a block was when I supposedly tried to bypass it. Since I wasn't even aware of one, and I wasn't trying to bypass anything, I didn't look to see the adjusted date, which wasn't fairly in place anyway. Then the second time was the same thing, not aware of a block, and didn't try to bypass something I had no idea about. And yet, this time the block was extended yet again. (And before you try to get on me about *discussing*, also remember you need to do the same to Tanetris.)
You cannot e-mail someone (I will take your word for it about the b-crats) who is a regular level system admin (or lower) without an account, because the system will not let you. I tried. And if you sign in with an account that is blocked, no matter the ISP number used, then you are still blocked. As best I was able to tell, including requesting a review of an unfair block extention, if you cannot edit pages because of being blocked, then you are pretty much screwed. Unless, of course, you wish to take something that far as to involve a bureaucrat, which I didn't see the need to do, thinking that just talking to another admin of the same level would be able to resolve the problem. Either way, my complaint stands. 69.182.147.69 08:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I moved this to the talk page so it can be discussed properly. WhyUser talk:Why 14:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you try logging in then using the email feature? Account blocks prevent page editing, but we only lock email privileges in cases where spam or abuse is likely. -Auron 15:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Salome?

moved from User talk:Salome
Can you check the page here: [[1]] is this guy one of you? If so could you ask him to not tell people "you just suck" based on a simple disagreement please? Rogueonion 14:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
My apologies I meant to mention his "warning like yours," at the bottom of the page in the above. Rogueonion 14:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Salome for your troubles I took this to another, no worries. Rogueonion 15:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, if you read the above segment, you would know Salome is not the right person to address this issue with at the moment. Second, I find it quite pathetic that you have to knock on a sysop's door when someone sees through your straw man fallacies. Learn to see that different people have different views, and that his view is not wrong and yours is right. Koda User Koda Kumi UT.jpeg Kumi 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes ty for pointing that out Koda, it makes me respect you that little bit less to see how you approach this. if you notice my last post you will see where I said sorry for Salome's troubles and took it elsewhere. but that is ok because I stated my conversation was my opinion. but thats because Your attitude proves that we really do need another bout of voting. perhaps the entire sysop team should take a hit and instead of treating us with venom and rudeness. Be polite. I never said his view was wrong. Just stood by mine, and that of course makes me wrong in your eyes. It is ok. your attitude will eventually return to you 10fold from all sides. Rogueonion 21:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Two things - Koda isn't a sysop, and stop being a douche. It is a bannable offense. At the very least, if you're going to be a douche, be right about it; checking the list of sysops isn't very fucking hard. -Auron 22:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't calling me a douche a personal attack? Thanks for proving my point for me. Rogueonion 22:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Your point that Koda is a sysop? Funny, last time I checked, your name was supposed to be on the list of sysops if you were a sysop. Times change, I guess. -Auron 06:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Guys, I don't think Salome needs this right now. Auron, you know what personal attacks are, so don't make them (and then warn about bannable offences after). Rogue, not everyone is a sysop, so please make sure you inform yourself about who they are before you call for their removal: see GWW:ADMINS.
If you want to say anything more, please take it to another talk page. pling User Pling sig.png 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You people should know better than to start petty arguments like this on a user page of someone who is clearly having a hard time to say rhe least, you should be ashamed of yourselves. In all my time lurking here I would not have expected you to do that kind of stuff Auron. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.203.109.183 (talk).
Dear IP, please heed your own advice. There was no reason to continue this conversation there. WhyUser talk:Why 15:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) About the original argument, there's a list of sysops available on the admin noticeboard. And everyone, cut back on the passive aggressiveness please, I'm sure we can have reasonable debates without baiting flames. This applies to pretty much everyone in this section except Pling. WhyUser talk:Why 15:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And do not forget about the TPS report guys. I will have a memo sent right over. Thanks yea I would like to point out above where, I stated "Sorry for your Troubles Salome, I will take this elsewhere. I would have reverted the page but that would have gotten be banned. sorry for all of this ^ It was only my intention to learn a little bit more about the wiki froma sysop and request (which is stated in the wiki rules god I need to find the page...> help from a sysop if there is a problem. Thanks guys, RO. 108.75.73.62 03:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) OMFG, he really QQd about this? And here, of all places? Wow, this takes me back and tickles my soul. Nice hypocrisy, btw. Definitely comedic. Try not to whine about things you're not just as guilty of. Also, sorry to Salome and admins for expressing my amusement here of all places and now of all times. Teddy Dan, yo. 09:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

71.194.87.164

71.194.87.164 (talkcontribslogsblock log) What is this wiki's stance on such numerous and pointless spams of article talk pages? Checking up on a new edit to a talk page – and finding such off-topic posts – is rather defeating, especially when I'm checking the pages to see if someone has a genuine comment/problem/concern. GWW:TALK states that obvious cases of spam can be removed, or should these topics just be moved to the troll's talk page? G R E E N E R 02:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They should be discouraged but not really punished. The note you left on his talk page is fine. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 04:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to re-report this if they continue and I'll chime in on that talk page as well. WhyUser talk:Why 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
'tis back. Almost feel sympathetic for him having such a narrow focus on the wiki. Then again, I can't get Humans off of my mind. G R E E N E R 05:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I used my one free ticket to undo the pointless edits. It's someone else's turn if they come back. Ghosst I Make Dead PeopleTalk

Old but embarrassing

Last February (2010), Vandal Asima daiyu (talkcontribs (deleted) • logsblock log) edited Lunar Fortune/Drop rate so that the header for one of the drop rate tables was intended to be a pointer to a spam site. I caught this by accident when I created the table for this year's drop rates. This user only made one contribution using that ID, but they were not (apparently) blocked.

My concern is that a vandalistic edit managed to remain unnoticed and/or unchallenged for a year. Is there any easy way to find out, if...

  • ...hat same person (under cover of a different ID) make any other edits?
  • ...there are other edits like that one hidden in javascript elsewhere on the site?

See also: Whois info about the site

 — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Check user returned nothing of use that I could see. The second hidden link was just a copy/paste situation. I can find no other use of "onMouseOver" which may be harmful on the wiki. G R E E N E R 02:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Super. Thanks for checking. (Probably means we have a stellar team of sysops and vandal watchers ;-)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Misery#I stumbled upon this today b/c raine wanted a story

Maybe I don't get it but I fail to see how this is pornographic. There are no pictures in the linked page and the content of the story it self is IMO rather mild as it lacks graphic anatomical details. I really don't see the harm in just leaving it, but I guess I'm kinda curious how it is inappropriate content for someone's user talk page? --Lania User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg22:24, 09 March 2011 (UTC)

^ Wow. What wiki are you on Lania? Sardaukar User Sardaukar sig.png 22:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
GWW's policies and Anet's ToS and RoC clearly state that pornographic material and offensive content is prohibited. That said, there seems to be a very wide range of opinions on the wiki and world-wide as to what constitutes as pornographic and offensive material. I don't really care if they delete the link, and to be honest, it's probably the best thing to do to simply delete it. But I'm curious as to what line was crossed for that link to be a porno/offensive material on a user page. Using words like fuck which is offensive and considered vile by some people is allowed, but a story containing some sexual content is not. It really is kinda of a grey area IMO. I mean there is already an apparent split in opinions among the active users/sysops. Felix seems to think it's borderline, ie. a toss up. Why wants it deleted. While others like Raine and probably Misery is okay with it... and of course Tahiri and Dandy would want to keep it. --Lania User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg22:59, 09 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not shocked by the content or whatever, but people have been blocked for less. I don't think we (a wiki about a videogame) should sport such content, be it linked or actually on the servers. I'll just remove it since apparently Raine either doesn't care or doesn't read the noticeboard. WhyUser talk:Why 23:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. First, the story is pornographic. Pictures aren't required for something to be pornographic and a story that contains incest, rape and brutality is. And regardless of how people here feel about that, there’s simply the fact that it has no place on this wiki. This isn’t a wiki for amateur porn writing, and talk pages should be primarily for discussing how to further the purpose of this wiki which is to document the game.
It doesn’t help the situation when the link is on a sysop’s page and another sysop is contributing to the discussion and writing of the story. I find that more troubling then the story. Sardaukar User Sardaukar sig.png 23:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
This seems similar to Mgrinshpon's stories; the main difference (which in my view is relatively insignificant) is that he posted the stories on GWW itself. His stuff was deleted and he was blocked. -- pling User Pling sig.png 23:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope you'll understand that all of my care is currently directed elsewhere. — Raine Valen User Raine R.gif 23:42, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)
If you're referring to your recent 12h block and its aftermath, your first comment in the thread we're discussing here was yesterday. I would've appreciated if you had taken action then, rather than now. I don't have a strong opinion on what's going on on your talk page, but the fact that you didn't take action on Misery's talk page when you had the chance is disappointing to say the least. WhyUser talk:Why 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
After checking some timestamps, it seems that you didn't express your potential disappointment until after said block; why you would have expected me to remove it, previously, I am not sure. — Raine Valen User Raine R.gif 0:05, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)
Because you commented on the section three times before your block and before Felix put it on the noticeboard? -- pling User Pling sig.png 00:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes; that's what I'm saying: given that, why would one expect a sudden change in behavior? — Raine Valen User Raine R.gif 0:13, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)
I don't expect a sudden change in behavior, I expect you to be a sysop, even when things aren't yet reported on the noticeboard. But I'll stop arguing, clearly our interpretation of the role differs. WhyUser talk:Why 00:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gtn

Regarding Gtn (talkcontribslogsblock log) - I disagree with the block, explanation at User talk:Defiant Elements. DE's still semi-active, so I brought it up here too. It's not exactly an important or crucial matter, but blocks should be given out fairly whoever the target. -- pling User Pling sig.png 22:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

C'était un petit erreur. Gtn made a guild page where it shouldn't have been. I've created the guild (mirroring the alliance's format). DE can talk either here or with me about my removal of the block. G R E E N E R 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
yea i think his ban was kind of hasty and not really thought out it seemed that he was just confused and didn't know where to make his guild page. as wyn pointed out on his talk page.-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 01:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Admins aren't always fair in their use of the ban. I've experienced that, first-hand. While I agree that it should be fair, it's simply impossible. Until each individual sysop is held accountable for unjust actions, there's no need to worry about consequences. A system supported by logic and truth rather than popularity and elitism. But... feeling threatened/challenged/opposed/whatever, most sysops will only bare fangs and mercilessly attack such an idea. So, unjust blocks will inevitably continue to occur without anybody willing to prevent them. Unless... Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Anyway, I agree that Gtn's block was "earned" probably by simple misunderstanding. When I first started, I almost accidentally turned the main page into my user page. It's a good thing I saw the "Show preview" button. To err is human, but bad habits should be fixed. Bad habits like reckless haste and unjust banning, for example. Teddy Dan 12:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thread necromancy: -1 --JonTheMon 12:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Cool story. However, Relevance: +1. Let's not goad me into another unjust ban. After all, this is a talk page and my contribution was relevant on more than one count. Teddy Dan 13:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not post here unless there is a need to discuss an issue further. This section has already been addressed. Poorly hiding another personal agenda in an unrelated topic both derails the original topic and creates general disruption.

If you wish to have your own pulpit, use your own user page (and please read GWW:NPA). Otherwise, use this page only when there is a topic which the admin need to be contacted about. G R E E N E R 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

People moving valid discussions,

moved from Admin Noticeboard
I would like you to look here and realize your "valid discussion" was misplaced. Be sure to read the whole thing before you reply. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 21:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to report Felix for discussing here where there should be no discussions. I also would like to point out that Making the statement of fact that "Mesmer has received nothing other than buffs over the last year" hardly qualifies as a suggestion. 108.75.73.62 21:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to report Jonthemon for removing my comments from a page for no reason other than his personal wants. 108.75.73.62 21:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how ridiculously petty this conversation is, it has become something of a problem lately, almost everything is getting moved, regardless of its validity, or the validity of the OP. --BriarUser Briar Sig 3.jpgThe Spider 21:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Validity is entirely immaterial. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 21:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess regarding a comment made on greeners page that I need to clarify, I am only reporting jon for removing a comment I made entirely from a page because of his personal disagreeance with that comment. He did not A. move the comment, he re-moved the comment entirely. A sysop should know better than to do such a thing. 108.75.73.62 21:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
When did Jon ever state anything to the contrary? User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 21:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Somebody accused me of blaming jon fully for your actions as well as his own. He(jon) whether a sysop or not should not go around completely reverting a comment that he disagrees with. and You should not have moved a page that is not a suggestion but a discussion based upon a fact. 108.75.73.62 21:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Guild Wars Wiki talk:Feedback organization. Please read it before you keep arguing, because the entire wiki disagrees with you. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 21:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
How does the comment "mesmers have received nothing other than buffs for a year" create a suggestion? I do not see that. I am sorry you are wrong here. 108.75.73.62 21:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
if you bothered to read that huage wall of text it somewhere in there talks about how live team dev's talk pages get flooded with random comments. i think the move was thus such a case here.-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 22:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It also states in that wall of text that suggestions would be removed, I reiterate- nowhere in my conversation did I make a suggestion. 108.75.73.62 22:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Proof that Jon removed my comment entirely from a page: [[2]] 108.75.73.62 22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
i am guessing you don't know how to read "flooded with random comments"-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I am guessing that you guys are just on a power trip. I am asking that whomever moved/removed my comments are removed from sysop status or given some form of punishment for abuse of their sysop powers. 108.75.73.62 22:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Felix and Jon

(copied from notice board for context) I am asking that they be dealt with regarding the threat of blocking me for not breaking any rules, and removing my comment from a page for no reason. This is trolling from a sysop (I am not sure what felix is he says he is an "admin" whatever that is. I feel that if I have to follow the rules so also should they. They are censoring who can talk to the devs by moving conversations that are not suggestions off page. 108.75.73.62 23:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


moved from admin notice board
From my previous conversations with you, I am sure that you have no intent to be disruptive, but your posts are disrupting things nonetheless: your point has already been made elsewhere (although, of course, using different words) and it has been addressed (although perhaps not in the way in which you had hoped). Admins are always justified in reverting any attempt to end-run their decision removing the post in the first place.
Sysops are entitled, even required, to preemptively move disruptive posts from ANet staff talk pages. I was originally on the fence about the initial {{move}} today; the discussion above (particularly your own arguments) have changed my mind: I now believe that the decision to move your post was also justified.
tl;dr Jon and Felix are not censoring you; they are not trolling; they are following the appropriate rules/guidelines.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe you are wrong I respectfully disagree. No, I had not intended to be disruptive, however they are censoring people from talking with the devs. I think that a year is a long time and John Stumme may not be aware that every mesmer skill (included in updates for pve) has been a buff to mesmers and was noting that so that it could be looked at from a bigger perspective. Removing my comments is censoring by not allowing me to post. It is ok to disagree however the method to which they are removing comments from not only the devs pages but also proper feedback spaces is alarming to the extent that they indeed ARE censoring people from having a say. Nowhere did I make a suggestion and nowhere did I try to start an argument. They did so by censoring my attempt to be heard regarding the seemingly overly buffed mesmer and the seemingly overly nerfed everything else over the last year. It is what it is, and the wiki is the wrong place for Anet to be in discussion with us regarding anything to do with this game as the fans who are considered "sysops" will always censor those fans that they disagree with, that is human nature. Thanks anyway have a good day. 108.75.73.62 23:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
NO ONE "REMOVED" YOUR COMMENTS. THEY GOT MOVED.-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 23:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Jonthemon removed a comment I made after the other conversation had been moved. 108.75.73.62 23:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Erm, no. He reverted your attempt to ignore the move. I am sorry that you equate this with censorship. Your idea has been put forward; it's not going to get any more attention from ANet than it already has.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I wish you could understand that I am not asking them to nerf anything, I was just attempting to point out that over the last year that have super buffed a class that did not need such super buffs, considering that everything else is receiving nerfs at the same time. Anyway I give you you go ahead and censor everyone who you disagree with I could care less, I do know however that anet is losing money because the common player cannot be heard do to the censorship of other players. 108.75.73.62 23:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So it would seem that this conversation has covered numerous pages, a few varied topics, and repeats itself a more than once. Since I don't want to go to all of these pages, I'm going to respond here and try to cut to the chase.

108, your point that mesmers never received the general back-swing from the buff/nerf pendulum is true. It's something that I hope the developers are aware of and have taken under consideration. If you feel that it's a topic they may have over-looked (or more likely a topic they should take a second look at), please bring it up on a feedback page. As Anet has pointed out on blogs, forums, official website and in interviews, iteration is one of their core philosophies. Good feedback is good business for them. Give back to a game you love on a topic you care about, and do so in the most effective method we as players have available.

The best I can offer you is the following: Create an account on the wiki. Come to my talk page again and let me know that it's you. I'll create your feedback page and help you set up the suggestion with the appropriate text and categories. G R E E N E R 03:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Spam bots

For the admin who haven't read up on wikimedia's vandalbot info, using this link is a great place to start. Just change the IP address/name in the URL to the contributor you wish, then click on the "rollbacks" to hide both their edits and your edit from the Recent Changes page.

For the other great wikier's that have helped so far tonight, while I'm around, I can do the rollbacks and stop much of the spam. Thanks! G R E E N E R 04:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

nice job trowing down the hammer...it seems like everything is getting hit hard with spam i mentioned portal2 on twitter and got 50 @zesbeer's from bots then today i see all this botting. its quite ftl-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 05:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
No prob. Only 2.3 million IPs or so to block, then I'll get some rest. G R E E N E R 05:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright folks, my eyes have been closing for too lengthy of periods. I'm off for the night. G R E E N E R 07:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not merely innapropriate...

... but this user may be just another vandal, only less of a bot. So far, its only contribution that I've seen has been a gif which seems to me to imply emphasis on the innuendo of the username. Teddy Dan 11:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I just saw a contribution from this user. The legitimacy of their existence as a wiki user is proven, only the potentially inappropriate nature of their name remains in question. Teddy Dan 13:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from discussing here! (read the rules)

so with the new Vector skin that text box for firefox 4+ appears behind the search and other stuff, dono if there is a fix for this maybe just have it show up lower on the screen?-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 01:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that it's a problem in FF4 and 5. -- Hong 13:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Personal attacks

I just wanted to follow up briefly on what TEF said and I thought as we're getting more into discussion that I would move over to the talk page here. The two IPs that I blocked were blocked solely for their comments in User talk:Nathe#Augury Rock and etc, not for anything they might have said/done in the section above it (User talk:Nathe#Well done!). As Jon had posted in the Well done! section, I didn't take anything in that section that the IPs might have said into consideration. I considered that section dealt with by Jon.

In my mind what the IPs posted was purely trolling, they were both trolling Nathe. In theory I could have blocked both Vili and Nathe for ignoring Jon's warning to let it go, but using my own personal judgment (you know what sysops/admins are supposed to use in addition to the wiki rules), I decided not to. I didn't block Vili as his comments seemed to me to be well thought out and with the possible exception of his post script, not confrontational in any way. I didn't block Nathe because I am loathe to block people for responding to comments on their own talk pages, unless they are violating some other rule. I hope that clears up any questions, but if not let me know and I'll do my best to answer them when I can. --Rainith 05:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)