Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 3

Cursed Angel

→ moved from Guild_Wars_Wiki:Admin_noticeboard#Cursed_Angel_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29

Has been warned two times but still continues to use the sig with the link ~ SCobra 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

oh no what a terrible violation, kill me. --Cursed Angel 23:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

CA, that's quite a slippery slope you're going down there. Don't doubt that Anja, Tanaric, or anyone else will ban you for a month or more if you keep antics like this up. Calor 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. It's not terrible, no, but disruptive. Not a long block, but if you don't change it the block will get significantly longer. - anja 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

DAMN MY CURIOSITY! I went and clicked the poxy link and not only did I get rick Roll'd which i don't much mind, but i had to shut down Firefox due to it pinging the lyrics at me when i tried to close the webpage. That's not even funny, just REALLY annoying! -- Salome 00:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Firefox is just out to get u, it is out to get all of u =O (use IE7 yay!!!!) --Shadowphoenix 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IE7 has the same problem.... — Galil 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

no u....XD--Shadowphoenix 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OT: win --  (CoRrRan / talk) 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sshh! You're not supposed to tell people that! (The upload form is using javascript) — Galil 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

<WEG> --  (CoRrRan / talk) 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently im not allowed to jokingly call you a crazy lady, Shadow, so sayeth the Mighty Galil. So you win this round Shadow, but i'll be back!!!(cackles manically) -- Salome 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When you come back, don't forget your towel! — Galil 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FF3b3 > IE7 or IE8b1 or 2. And just hold down Enter for a few seconds to get out of those types of rickroll links. Calor 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IE7 > FF (all) --Shadowphoenix 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No fair! You're not allowed to win me over with hitchhiker's references again! sneaky Bad Galil, Bad! Oh actually on an even more offtopicy subject, did you get your sysopyness as noticed that theirs no active requests anymore? -- Salome 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Dunno. It should've just ended, but it's open until a bureaucrat checks on it and makes a decision AFAIK. — Galil 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll solve this once and for all. FF3 (voted best browser for 2008 and its still in beta) > IE8 > FF2 > Camino > IE7 > Safari > IE6. Now can we stop all this hate? -elviondale (tahlk) 04:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No. You missed Opera ;-) --Xeeron 11:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it goes between FF3 and IE8. Lord Belar 15:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? they all take you to the same internet, and if you really a hacker cares about browser you use when hes considering tearing your computer asunder your sadly mistaken.--Ryudo 15:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"and if you really a hacker cares" Huh? — ク Eloc 貢 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

if you really think a hacker cares -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Opera? You're kidding, right? and @ Ryudo, perhaps someday you'll stumble across padding:15px; p/adding:16px; width:200px; w/idth:199px; and wonder what in the world is going on. and hackers do care what browser you're using. so do designers. -elviondale (tahlk) 19:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Skakid9090

→ moved from Guild_Wars_Wiki:Admin_noticeboard#Skakid9090_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29

I'm sorry, I don't log on to GWW to see this. It's disgusting, and has no place on the wiki, especially on a page that is as likely to be viewed as a game update talk page. Kokuou 06:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the link, however the IP is a spam account --Shadowphoenix 06:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about Skakid9090's comment. I won't repeat it here. Kokuou 06:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, I see now --Shadowphoenix 06:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if the comment is worse than any other on a skill update or game balance discussion, but his userpage is in violation of GWW:USER (hey, if people makes efforts to avoid breaking NPA, we can make efforts too :P).--Fighterdoken 06:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He didn't break any policies, and it wasn't really an offensive comment (nor was it made with intent to offend). It's pretty accurate tbh. -Auron 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably would be appropriate for an admin (cough cough *Auron*) to warn him about his userpage violation, no?--Ryudo 06:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry? How is it not an offensive comment? I get that the intent behind it is probably not specifically to offend, but the word itself is highly offensive, especially in the manner he used it. What if he had used the N word? Would it be unacceptable then? How is it accurate? Please explain to me how it can possibly be justified. For the most part, I avoid the skill balancing pages solely for the reason that I don't want to have to see this kind of language. I don't want to have to be wary of every single talk page. It may not be a policy, but it's definitely appalling and low-class. You block Yseron for trolling and using MILF, but Skakid is allowed to get away with his offensive comments and trolling? Kokuou 06:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think admin actions are requried...yet if he does it again then yes, however a warnign may help (admin action is required now for is breach in GWW:USER). The subject of Yseron is that he did more than that, he constantly spammed talk pages, trolled, and vandalised. --Shadowphoenix 07:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A warning is almost always given before any action like a ban is taken. Which I what I support doing. Cant see a ban just for that though...its pretty minor imho. not appropriate to be sure, but not "omg ban" material.(way to edit confilit shadow xD)--Ryudo 07:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's distateful, but not against policy. We can't just start ordering stuff removed if it offends us even slightly, cos the noticeboard would be full of menial posts and people whining. -Auron 07:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryudo; I'm not an admin. -Auron 08:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You should be.--Ryudo 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I know, I realize I'm probably making a mountain out of a mole hill, but this is the very reason I don't go to GuildWiki anymore. I can't stand the immature comments, the flooding of recent changes with "spam pyramid" talk page drivel, and the inability of some (not all) users to have a serious conversation. When I first came here, it was refreshing to see the community acting polite to each other and using opinions and well-thought out comments to have conversations (for the most part). Not only are many of Skakid's comments immature and unconstructive, I don't want to see this wiki go down that route. What's the point if the admins are unable to ensure its users are respectful to one another? The word he used is certainly offensive to many and using because of one's inability to articulate in a more appropriate manner is, in my opinion, disrespectful to other users. (Not to mention the GWW:USER violation and possibly GWW:SIGN violation.)Kokuou 07:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

meh. I feel your pain, but youve pretty much made your full case by now. Anja and the other admins will see this when they wake up (its 330am EST, my bed time) and they can decide how to act on it. My guess that he will get a warning on the comment and be forced to change his userpage. Sorry kokuou, your a nice person, but if you really want to stay away from all this kind of stuff, you will, like you said, have to stay off of talk pages xD.--Ryudo 07:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd think the first step would be to talk to him, IMO. Tell him your perspective and ask him not to use language like that on talk pages (or at least on busy, easy-to-see ones like game update talk pages). If he doesn't respond (favorably), then go to the arbitration committee and ask for a mediation. If it's causing you undue distress and isn't against policy, sysops probably can't do anything about it; and definitely not anything more than you could. If the arbcomm accepts the case, they can tell him to clean up his act (or tell him not to post on busy talk pages, where his language will be seen by many). -Auron 07:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ehh. I don't really see that as something worth blocking unless it becomes prolonged and Skakid carries on doing it. As Auron says, the first measure should be a message on his talk page and we'll see what happens after that. If he carries on, sure a block would be necessary, but as of that comment, I don't think it is. I don't think it's too offensive either - it's not relating to any user or person nor anything to do with the wiki. What I make of it is "abuse" of some build or skill in-game, so I don't think that should effect anyone personally. Bad language, unless it's used in a derogatory way against another user or, as Yseron used it, to cause disruption, isn't really a blockable offense. As to other examples of bad language, think of the context in which it's used. I agree with Ryudo in that a warning or notice on his talk page should be given first. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OH NO SKAKID USED THE WORD FAGGOTRY BAN HIM IM SO OFFENDED --Cursed Angel 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mgrinshpon

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Mgrinshpon_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29

Now, This is what i would call "offensive content".--Fighterdoken 21:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

1) How is it offensive? 2) What policy does it break? — Teh Uber Pwnzer 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you find it offensive, you might want to try to ask Grinsh to remove it first before bringing it here. I don't see a reason to censor user space, until we have a clear statement alot of people find it offensive. (Consensus, if you wish.) I don't find it offensive myself, so I'll pass on this one until more people comment. - anja 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Erh... did you read it until the end? Maybe i am having troubles understanding something, but i would think that sexually explicit content is forbidden on the wiki by GWW:Common Sense. The page was already blanked by other user, but cases as these have been dealt before by sysops.--Fighterdoken 22:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

get a real policy then we can talk, common sense does not exist on the internet Antiarchangel 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, banned 3 (or was it 4?) for saying americans are bad. This world fails. 68.35.91.2 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is, you are not in any way forced to read it. It's in user space, and it's not a main user page or talk page. As I don't find it offensive myself, and I know my view on what's offensive can be kinda lenient sometimes, I don't want to make a decision on this. I'll gladly leave that to another sysop, or simply discussion. - anja 22:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

... 68.35.91.2 22:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

-sigh---Fighterdoken 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't on a main page or even a talk page. There's no reason to delete/ban at all. I'm not even sure why anyone would be offended by this, and I even found it moderately amusing. And doing something here won't stop grinch from writing these short stories. Lord Belar 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the content from the page as it's too sexually explicit and has no space on this wiki. I won't be deleting the page as I don't really see how that will help - if anything, it'll cause more reposting later on and further trouble. I also won't be blocking unless it is constantly put back onto it. Do not revert back to that edition, nor post anything similar. I'll be leaving a comment on Mgrinshpon's talk page. Oh, and Guild Wars Wiki:User pages covers this perfectly fine, thank you. -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Brains here, that is entirely inappropriate for anywhere on this wiki. And is against the user page policy. --Lemming 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-added again. I'm removing it. Calor 01:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pssh. You're all just jealous of my sexual escapades (to be henceforth known as "sexcapades"). —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I could make my own page detailing sexual experiences...but I won't, because I have common sense, and care to avoid Poke or Brains's banhammer. And, frankly, I don't care about your "sexcapades" and don't feel an ounce of jealousy (if jealousy is measured in ounces). Calor 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres just no place or need for it in the wiki. Period. -Dominator_Matrix 01:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Apparantly my banstick hits harder than poke's and Brain12's banhammers. :/ — Galil 01:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. I have a feeling I'm about to find out, though... Calor 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

He redid it again....--DominatorMatrix 01:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So you still haven't learned how to read? —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 01:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok at first I was like, it just needs to be removed and you get a warning. But sense you re-created the page I think that you are in need of a block, this is in complete violation of GWW:USER (not to mention also breaching GWW:SIGN). I think that a 1 to 2 week block might make you re-think making pages like that. But from your block log I can see this is not the first time, so infact imo you deserve a 1 month block. No one needs and/or wants to hear about things like this on the wiki, the fact that you even posted it is a bit strange. Imo you deserve a 1 month block and if you circumvent the block it should then be extended. --Shadowphoenix 06:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(finally a mature response, this is progress). I fully agree with you Shadowphoenix, 100%. --DominatorMatrix 06:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Not to mention that your current revision is not much better, it obviously is directed towards a sexual aspect. Imo it is directed at rape which is not acceptable in a major fashion. The underlying fact imo is that the page should be marked for deletion (as well as the block) and his block should be extended if he attemps to re-create the page. Obviously each revision is going to point toward a sexual aspect and that is not acceptable here on Guild Wars Wiki. --Shadowphoenix 07:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so, whoru? —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A few comments; firstly, if you aren't an admin, shut the fuck up. This isn't Request for Comment, it's the admin noticeboard. Nobody's asking for your opinion.
Second, this isn't the place for a debate; not even for Mgrinshpon to debate. It's just a place to let the admins know something is up. The discussion should be happening on User talk:Mgrinshpon, if anywhere. And really, if you want to take the high-and-pious stance on the matter, just can it now. Nobody wants to hear your condescending crap.
To recap? Take it to the talk page of the user in question. Admins can post here all they want (but I'd suggest only using it for updates on the situation), but users really need to keep their shit to themselves... or on the right page, if they really want to flap their jaws. -Auron 14:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the language, but my point stands. -Auron 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Auron is right, admins don't need anyone's opinion, just add their names here and let them decide what to do. --Cursed Angel 16:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because I am not an admin does not mean I cannot have an opinion. I was simply giving my opinion in a calm manner. The admins do not have to use my opinion, that is why it is an opinion. Considering the fact that eveyone else was giving their opinion on it I gave mine. Please do not resort to name calling, that is not necessary. --Shadowphoenix 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

/agree. sometimes basic user opinions are neccesary. I personally thought this should be straight out the door, but to see so much argument over it is strange. if there is this much controversy between the admins, perhaps the users should post their feedback as well. Like Shadowphoenix said, everyone has an opinion. I don't see any other place to put it for this, so might as well put it here, where we know it will be read. And auron, there are other ways to express anger then mindless cursing. Just a forethought. Wandering Traveler 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The point was not to stop you from giving your opinion, just point out that this is the wrong place. This should have been brought up in Mgrinshpon's talk page in the first place, and not here. Just because you are not an admin doesn't mean you can't contact people on things you feel are inappropriate. This is not a "whine about people all you want" noticeboard. - anja 18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x3) I was not whining, I was stating my opinion on the subject. He was asked to remove it he did not, and imo that calls for a block. This is not his first time doing this so imo it should be a lengthy block. --Shadowphoenix 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x5) He could've done so without using rude language. Just because you're a fucking admin doesn't mean you're above us. -- Mini Me 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this is now on a fucking talk page, people can add comments to this if they want. I know this wasn't on the talk page when you added it,

but whatever. I don't give a shit.

I believe members should be able to voice their opinion on these sort of things. Just do it on this page, under a header with the member's name, ::imo.

I'm so terribly sorry for not keeping my shit to myself, and flapping my fucking jaws, and probably my high-and-pious stance on this matter. -- Mini Me 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and "sorry" for the language. But my point stands, too. -- Mini Me 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) I just want to point out (no reason, just pointing out straight out of the blue): This is a noticeboard. Not a discussionboard. Not an opinionboard. It's a noticeboard. Admins get notices to things they might find useful and that's it. Discussions happen on related talk-pages. This isn't a related talk-page, this got moved here since it doesn't belong on the noticeboard. User talk:Mgrinshpon/Breaking News is a related talk-page. Opinions go into discussions on said related talk-pages. Users are free to give opinions as long as it's in the right page. This page is more like a sysop talk-page. I could go add my opinions to your talk-page, but I won't since it's not the right place to do so. This is no different. — Galil 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What we are saying is that the admins cannot decide whether or not to block him, so we are giving basic user opinions. --Shadowphoenix 19:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh I've already decided not to block him. I don't see how that will help anything. If the situation continues, then yes, I will block (or let another sysop block). The page is up as a copyvio so it's going either way. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see why you did not block him, you told him to blank the page and then he recreated it. Then someone reverted it and he puts a copyvio on it. This is strange.... --Shadowphoenix 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(continuing from where Galil left off) I'm not an admin. I don't get any more of a say than you do, but at least I know not to spew off my unwanted ideas at every case that touches the noticeboard. Average users can get a say all they want, they just need to know where to put it. The talk page of the issue in question is generally the place to put it, not the noticeboard (which, as Galil has pointed out, is conveniently not named the post-your-opinion-here board... or as we like to call it, GWW:RFC).

I'm not telling anyone to go away and stop talking, I'm telling them to stop cluttering up the noticeboard with non-notice comments. Admins, being admins, can post on it to respond or to inquire further about the situation. It's a tool for them to keep tabs on the wiki, not a tool for you to voice your opinion. -Auron 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) If this is more like a "sysop talk-page", why don't you make it editable for sysops only? If a member comes up, one that everyone knows, not some random ip, the first admin to comment on it could add a message to his post stating anyone who adds his opinion to the noticeboard will get it removed and will get a warning. After 3 offenses, hand out a short ban. Problem solved. -- Mini Me 19:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because unwavering punishments as a blanket policy is definitely a plan without flaws. -Auron 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't have any flaws. Atleast it'll help... a bit. Care to think of a better? -- Mini Me 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Post somewhere else. On the "offender's" talk page first. The admin noticeboard last if necessary. The Arbcomm if absolutely necessary. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's pretty obvious by now, isn't it? How will you get people to do that if any more cases like this come up? Pop into the middle of the discussion again and go "Hey guys, you're not supposed to post here! Kindly fuck off, thank you."? -- Mini Me 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

stop this faggotry, ur not supposed to write essays on the fcking noticeboard so get off, auron is right, brains too, just deal with it --Cursed Angel 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

CA stop trolling and let the conversation end its self --Shadowphoenix 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict xa billion) I would think it was pretty obvious that they should go to the talk page first by now. If they do happen to post on the noticeboard first, I don't know. I'd cross that bridge when I came to it. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's not obvious... Anyway, whatever. It's your notice board, and this discussion has ended for me. -- Mini Me 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (Edit conflict) You gotta remember, Brains, that this user already has an historial for posting such content on the wiki. Do you remember the story about Gaile? (check historial and block log if not). As such, i thought a new warning was not really needed. You can't warn users every time they do something, if they just keep doing it after certain amount of time.--Fighterdoken 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well it does state fairly clearly in bold at the top of the page, Do not post here in regard to content matters or user disputes. So yes they should be on the relevant talk page first, the second if no admins notice post on one of their individual talk pages based on who you see is active at that time, and as a last resort or if it is so urgent it can't wait post here. Discussions most certainly do not belong on the noticeboard once the report is up there. There are two reasons for this, 1. it clutters up the noticeboard. 2. it pings the admins that have the page on watch (which i expect is all of us) every time someone responds to that discussion instead of for important urgent vandal/spam related issues. --Lemming 19:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

When did the admin noticeboard become such a drama-filled place? The way I see it, user space is largely unregulated, and people need to calm down. And also not make it so that half the RC is trading inane comments on non-issues. I say ban everyone! - THARKUN 04:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving topics

A side-question: Why do we move those things always to the talk page? Imo the talk page should be about the page itself, not about issues discussed on the page.. poke | talk 18:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I took some advice from #User comments here, mainly ab.er.rant's comment about moving long, and often slightly unrelated, comments to the talk page. And I'm still on the side of having the noticeboard as a noticeboard, and the talk page for discussion. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well imo that shouldn't have been removed yet, it was not unrelated. --Shadowphoenix 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No but still the wrong place. - anja 18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) As I said, I would prefer to have the talk page as a discussion page about the noticeboard itself. When we continue like this, topics like the layout proposal will never get noticed.. poke | talk 18:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a layout proposal? o.O — Galil 18:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(argh, edit conflicts) The problem is, the noticeboard isn't useful when it's 40 scrolls long from long discussions. We need to move them somewhere. - anja 18:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, Anja!!!! GRRRR!!! :P) Thanks, Galil :P poke | talk 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And Anja: Discuss a topic and archive it, that should work against long pages.. poke | talk 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x4) Then a subpage for the solved cases that went off-topic or became unnecessarily long? I don't think discussions like the web browser one belong on the noticeboard itself. I agree with Anja. Galil - see the admin information section. I don't think we should archive things that are still recent, but closed, if you know what I mean. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with poke (it's odd agreeing with him for once xD), that's what archives are for. And with subheadings long pages aren't that much of a problem IMO. — Galil 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think it becomes a problem when you have to sift through the discussion to find the notice, another issue or an admin's response. That shouldn't be a problem with a noticeboard. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, this is to the one above) Brains, where is the difference in archiving it on the noticeboard only or in two separated archives, one for the page and one for the talk page (with the most of the initial comments even copied to this talk page)? Imo there is less content to archive if we only archive the page itself and keep the talk page clean from those topics. poke | talk 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because some of the closed issues, like the one above, are still being discussed. The discussion has no place on the noticeboard after the issue closed - it's now not an issue, but simple discussion, which belongs on the talk page or a separate page. Yes, if the issue was still open, I would leave it on the page for more concerns and thoughts of other users, but not when it's closed. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How is the issue closed he recreated the page then made a just as gross story up. --Shadowphoenix 19:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Count the headings for bot vandals and imagine how much room we would have for those discussion when they were archived.. poke | talk 19:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And Shadowphoenix, Brains meant the topic one above grinsh's.. poke | talk 19:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok nvm then XD --Shadowphoenix 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The point is, Poke, the noticeboard is not solely for discussion. Are we going to start immediately archive bot reports just so we can house a discussion for a more "important", and generally closed, issue, when there is already a talk page in place for it? If this talk page isn't the appropriate place, when I suggest we make one that is. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to bring up the layout proposal again, as it would definitely saves a lot space. poke | talk 19:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout proposal for this page

Again, I want to point at User:Poke/sandbox/1, which contains a proposal of a new cleaner and compacter layout for this page. Especially the bot vandal section helps to keep bot vandal-sections as low as possible (as they normally don't need any discussions). For all other things like the one above, there is enough space below to add a section (with a nice title) and even to discuss a bit. I think we should also change the initial text to express that we don't want long discussions here.. poke | talk 19:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, and agreed. — Galil 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. Gogogo Poke. Calor 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks nice, specially having the sysop list in there also for when needed. No objections here.--Fighterdoken 19:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it, go for it ;) --Shadowphoenix 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You should also look at the previous discussions: #1, #2, #3 poke | talk 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good Poke, keeps the vandal/spam bots section nice and compact. --Kakarot 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it. :) - Bex 01:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I also like it :) --DominatorMatrix 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see comments from Aiiane, brains, Xeeron and Biro, as those had minor or major problems with this proposal in the first discussion. (Of course everybody else is free to post his/her opinion as well :P) poke | talk 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it enough to see how it would work - again, I'm not so sure about how major discussion will fit in, but I think we should give it a go and see what happens - as you said, compacting the bot and vandal reports would leave more room for the more "complicated" cases. However, I think the colours should be changed around so the ticks (solved cases) are grey and the crosses (unsolved) are red - the latter are more urgent and the former don't need as much attention. But that's nothing I'm going to be arguing about. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That does make sense, I changed it. And this layout is not meant to allow discussions as we have above but it would allow to have longer sections on the page without having length-problems. poke | talk 14:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Where would the discussion go for cases similar to the above? On the noticeboard or moved elsewhere? (On a side note, maybe you should merge your bot report template to IP, for familiarity's sake) -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We should first try to leave those things on the noticeboard itself - imo :P - and we should change the initial text to express that we don't want user discussions here.. And for the bot report template, it is meant to report only bots/vandals in the specific section so I'll leave it on its own whereas the IP template (which name should be changed imo) is to link to users.. poke | talk 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And for users there is no "status-icon" needed as those links should only be for reference. poke | talk 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to see how it goes. If there's too much unrelated discussion, we'll do what we do when the time comes. The template stuff makes sense; how about {{user}} instead of {{IP}}? -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a lot discussion on the templates talk, but it was not really resolved.. So I think we should just do it :P poke | talk 15:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, better yet, to avoid the previous debate, have both {{IP}} and {{User}}, so the reporter can use his or her preferred template. Calor 15:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That works. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Now we use {{vandal}} for vandal/bot reports and {{user}} (or still {{IP}} if you like) :) poke | talk 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Hey, this looks a little cleaner. Might get some getting used to, but I'd use this. Giving a reporter more options is almost always good. At worst, though, possibly confusing. --People of Antioch talk 17:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments remain the same as the last time this was brought up. Namely: the extra template frippery is both unnecessary and more work, not to mention encourages bad habits. I don't mind the actual layout changes. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My stance is very similar to Aiiane's: I dont mind/am mildly in favor of splitting it up into topics like "spam", "vandal" or "others", but I disagree with using the icons: These have no advantage over a manual "blocked" (or description of whatever action was taken) and add complexity to the whole site. --Xeeron 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While I still think that that icons never meant to replace a textual status given by an admin and I still think that it would be easier to determine if an issue is resolved or not without having to look through discussions (which sometimes get long), I think that is not a reason to prevent this layout to be implemented.

So, as some of simply don't want those icons to display the actual status of an issue, I made a modification to that template so that you no longer can set the status. Instead it will show a simple icon in front of that to show that it is actually a vandal/bot issue (Did I already said that I really like icons? :P). I hope this is ok for everyone then :) poke | talk 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Spliting the topics helps organise it a little, but not by much so I'm fine either way. I neutral about the icons since I'm fine with text. As for having to look through discussions, it's probably better that we discourage them from having the discussion in the first place. -- ab.er.rant 07:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As a response to the little notice about guild pages - it shouldn't have to say "note to admins about guild pages" - everything there are notices to admins. Perhaps a little section in the new layout for notices such as this? -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that would be possible :) So if no one opposes, I'll (finally) implement the layout :) poke | talk 14:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's anyone opposing this layout, it might be a good time to change over especially since at the moment there isn't much content; due to it being archived today. --Kakarot 15:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Exact ;) I'll wait until this evening then. poke | talk 15:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the changes so far. :) --Lemming 17:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor change that might of got overlooked. Right after the Vandal / spam bots title you have included an example usage of the new vandal template, you might want to fix the spelling on address (presently = {{vandal|<ip adress>}}) :P --Kakarot 19:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, thanks :) poke | talk 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And implemented! :) poke | talk 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good Poke, something I just noticed about it, something that I must of missed on the sandbox version; the Archive index; is yet another good addition to the noticeboard. I have always wondered why something like that had never been done before since it used to take up so much room in the previous version. :) --Kakarot 02:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I had to do that, we cannot show 13+ archives on the pages, it looks ugly :P poke | talk 10:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, I will regularly archive old topics (after at least 7 days without a comment) in both sections; so you don't need to do this - but if you want to archive yourself, please do not create new pages each time :P Thanks! ;) poke | talk 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Liche / Lussh

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Liche / Lussh

(Edit conflict) Yes, NPA but I think a warning is all thats needed. --Shadowphoenix 20:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

can't you please leave me in peace ? you really seem to wan't me to taunt you ! get out of me ! --lussh 20:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I shall reply in the order that people posted.

• Eloc please read the message at the top of the page, and please at least try and resolve disputes like this between each other without instantly shouting NPA and asking for an admin's help.
• SP please read the message at the top of the page which clearly states that this is a noticeboard not a talk page.
• Liche/lussh please try and calm down. If the both of you can just agree to avoid each other then ask for arbitration from the beauracrats. But I would suggest the both of you try and settle this between the two of you first. Please do not violate NPA again. --Lemming 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

don't worry, i'll make a last statement, on the next time i get bother again, byt the other guy who seems to be always on my back or another who can't understand my anger and stress i'll definitely leave, no need to say anything more, it's my last answer to stupiditys. --lussh 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good riddens. Prophet Ascension 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, fuck you all, i gave you more than thousand pictures in leth than five month, four times more than talks, i didn't excepct thanks, i only excepcted not being annoyed or harrassed, i was stupid, you are stupid, screw you all and good bye. you can ban me for ever if that please you, i said what i thought, at least i'll have some relief, i don't care anymore now. i log out--lussh 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Seiously Ascension, you haven't done nearly as much shit as lussh here. Lussh was a fucking awesome contributer and a few people, along with their horrific social ineptitude, took him off the wiki. Granted, lussh overreacted slightly but still, losing him is actually a pretty big loss for the wiki. Let's Love Grinch 11:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys this page is not for random discussions, its to report stuff to admins and then to be left at that. So can we please all stop having big long rambley debates on the merits of this and that as this isn't the place for it, unless you yourself are an admin. Also is that another sock puppet? How many of those things do you have mate? ;)-- Salome 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from using the admin noticeboard as a talk page, only discuss things if there is an argument as to what to do. --Shadowphoenix 16:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually i'm reticent to post this here as its still not the place to post this, but SP, even if their is an argument this still isn't the place to have a debate. This place is for the use of notifying admins and that's it, not so that people can play pretend admin when they haven't been duly appointed. If the person who has been reported wants to take issue with said report their are channels in place to do so. however this page is slowly degenerating into everyone sticking their ore in when it comes to admin decisions and that's not our place. Unless you are the reported user in question or an admin, their should be no debate on this page at all. My apologies for using this page to get that point across with this message, but i thought it needed to be said in context at the moment. -- Salome 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved all discussions to talk page. Such a sad and ridiculous incident. In short, backing off instead instead posting here, not chiming in with a false NPA claim (yes, there is no NPA), or not pointlessly trolling would've avoided this. I hope the relevant users learn from this. -- ab.er.rant 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Admin Noticeboard organization

Considering how many people (myself included) were involved in a massive debate right on the noticeboard within the past week, I thought this would be a good place to bring this up. When reporting a vandal, would it be too much to add a talk page to add details and debate content that may relate to the case? We wouldnt have to do it for every single vandal, but in cases like the ones we've had in the past week, having a seperate talk page for that could be useful. but if we keep moving everything to the talk page of this noticeboard at this rate, we'll be going through archives faster then Jay Lenno can go through viable careers (don't kill me >.<). Just a suggestion that may be useful. Or may not be. I don't know. -- Wandering Traveler 04:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to just delete the whole thing instead, but thought some of it warranted to be retained so I moved it here. I also considered moving it to one of the talk page of the users involved in the discussion but couldn't decide where to put it. But bottomline is, I do not believe a discussion should be had. When an issue is reported, until you're supplying additional supporting/conflicting evidence or such, don't add anything. Wait for admin response. Then if you don't like the way the admin handled it, bring it up to the admin who responded or post it on wherever the admin responded on. -- ab.er.rant 04:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

hm, valid point. my argument just got trounced.....ok, I stand corrected. -- Wandering Traveler 04:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I hardly disagree with always moving topics from the page to this talk page. It is simply not what a talk page is for. It is not meant to contain the things which should not on the noticeboard; instead it should contain things like this section. The reason why first the ultra big text, and now the red box is on the page is that people should know this when posting there. It is perfectly fine to keep that box for a week and then remove it but we should keep it some time so that people read it - and because it is so annoying, people will read it.

And to come back to the topic-moving; as people now will read that they should not discuss, I hope that the discussions will stop; but even if there are still some unnecessary comments made, I disagree from moving it to the talk page as the talk page would allow more discussion and that is not the point. I think in the point above it would be fine, if you, aberrant, would just have added a "resolved; and continue the talk on one of your talkpages" or something like this. And every following content could be deleted then or something like this - but please do not move it to the talk page. poke | talk 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That red box

I perfectly see where the idea is comming from, but stuff you cant get away from by scrolling down is still totally annoying. As a minimum it needs a *hide* button like the election notices. --Xeeron 11:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See above, and no there would not be a possibility to add a "hide". I think the box does not need to be there for very long, but you can always remove it by adding .noticeboardbox{display:none;} to your monobook.css. poke | talk 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me =) --Xeeron 12:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That box is some hot shit, I love you for it poke (stole it for PvX, hope you don't mind). — Skakid 13:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have spawned a few additions to a few userpages/talks... any chance it can be restricted to the noticeboard only? Would that even be necessary? -- Brains12 \ Talk 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by restrict? It is a rather simple code - and see also this section on Shadowphoenix' talk. poke | talk 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

>.< stop usng me as an example lol :D --Shadowphoenix 16:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course.. I saw the div class="noticeboardbox" on Shadowphoenix's page so I assumed that's what they were using. Seeing it on some pages is quite annoying, but I guess I'll have to live with it.. -- Brains12 \ Talk 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Shadowphoenix, I only saw it on your page :P

The class is only to give users the ability to hide it, there are no style settings included in that classname, so it's up the the people how they use it. But as long as it is not on talk pages, I don't have a problem with it; and there is still one method left: ask users friendly to remove it ;) (btw. I loled at Disrupt shot!'s page, nice change, Y0! :P) poke | talk 16:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Poke, maybe you should listen to brains and fullfill his every wish, idk if you have read The Scriptures of Brains12 yet but he is one scary dude ;) --Shadowphoenix 16:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Big White Gap

Is there a reason why there is a big white gap on this page at the top? Looks weird, but maybe its just me, or perhaps my computer. You would think some kind of framing would allow the content text to show up beside the achive box.--riceball 03:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a big white gap. IE issue? -- ab.er.rant 04:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Tested in FF and IE7.--Pyron Sy 04:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine in Opera also. - Tanetris 04:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot of the perceived issue would be helpful, Riceball. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be using a low-res setting. At 800x600 the gap is "archive-infobox" size, but i would guess at higher resolutions it should go away. In any case, looks just like an aligning problem with the archive box actually. Maybe if the ToC and the Archive-box could be put more or less at the same height?--Fighterdoken 06:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Didnt know if I should have originally included a picture or not. 1024x768 resolution is what I am currently running.--riceball 21:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of us use widescreens so ya, when I change res to 1024*768 I see that also Clear your cache!!! Thats a pure cache error! Dominator Matrix 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can any one else confirm this? I cleared my cache and restarted IE even and still had this problem. Also dont know if I would say "most" use widescreens.--riceball 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Most use widescreens. And the problem is IE, probably. Calor 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is definetly some problem with your browser. I make the window really really narrow in firefox and there is still no white space there. The TOC should be on the right hand side. --Lemming 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the same problem riceball has when I open the page in IE, no matter the size of the window. - anja 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) I thumbnailed the image if you don't mind, it's a little large on the discussion. Try preview-editing and moving the archive box, TOC and shortcut box around. It may just be a problem with how the floating is laid out. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x3) IE7 does have this bug, I confirm :P Dominator Matrix 21:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) According to my databases this is a uniform glitch in the Internet Explorer Browser. It can easily be fixed if someone reworks the code for the noticeboard in Internet Explorer. --Myria83 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Made a few changes to follow the same formatting of this talk page. If there is any problem with it, revert is just one click away :).--Fighterdoken 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The incredibly thin TOC is incredibly thin. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ein? i did not touch the ToC, only changed all the div's for the archive-box and shortcut box. May need to adjust the first div? (in any case, if it has troubles with displaying (not here, at least), may be safer to just revert until poke wants to change it XD.)--Fighterdoken 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better to me. Though the text from the page doesnt start right under the TOC (which I think it should if memory serves me), but that gap is fine in my opinion.--riceball 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I have an irritating whitespace :/ I'll see what I can do and then poke or Galil will fix it tomorrow ;) - anja 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Erh, i think just removing the first "div-/div" lines fix the gap. But again, i am not sure why it was added, so didn't want to change it.--Fighterdoken 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If it makes any difference, since I'm sure it makes up an infinitesimal percentage of viewers, it looks fine on Safari, Camino, and FF3b4 on a Mac. - THARKUN 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I am still looking for a browser to get this error... poke | talk 14:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

nvm. solved. poke | talk 14:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay, finally the big white gap is gone. — ク Eloc 貢 15:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

J Kougar

Any responses from Kougar on the noticeboard should be removed, especially ones trying to taunt other users.--riceball 03:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

/agree --Shadowphoenix 03:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for Admin discretion (as you all know) but Eloc, who's clearly not an Administrator, acted unilaterally in a manner that reflected neither policy nor consensus. Which is why I reverted. Also, Kougar (though I happen to disagree with his methods) does have a point, banning individual IPs is pointless -- and on that note, I suggest that we stop adding his proxies to this page. Each time we do so, it just fuels Kougar (and gives him reason to taunt us), ignoring him (and his proxies) is a much more viable solution. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Until someone brings it up to ArbComm and they decide on keeping it removed, I see no reason to treat his comments any different than other users'. I don't agree with them either, but we would "only" ban other users, why treat him separately? Discussions aren't meant to be held on the noticeboard, that is correct. But we haven't removed any other users' comments so far. — Galil 03:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

/agree with Galil --Shadowphoenix 03:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And just to add to that, by effectively treating him differently, we only provide him with more motivation to go around lamenting double standards. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say move them to this talk page, but then people will comment on them... MiraLantis 03:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Have no problem with no longer adding his proxies on here, hopefully everyone will be good with blocking open proxies now. Isnt the red floating bar of goodness supposed to mean no one should be discussing anything on these bullet points other than admins? At least that was my impression. Would think taunts would fit in with what isnt needed on it, its quite needless and immature and just looking to get under peoples skin. I would think the admins need to get a little more on the ball and one way or another get people to stop posting their comments on here as well, as the others shouldnt be doing it either and you are right we dont need a double standard. As for why remove his and not others, most others are relatively benign while his are pretty jerkish. So I would think thats more worth the effort of removing.--riceball 03:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're not supposed to discuss on the Admin Noticeboard, that's true. But doesn't it make more sense to leave it to an Admin to decide what does/does not belong on the Admin Noticeboard and what should be done about comments that don't (given that there's no precedent for actually removing any kind of discussion -- including posts by Grinsh's sock puppets)? *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see that point as well, not sure how admins feel about that. So maybe they will say whether or not they want to be the ones to remove that trash, or if its ok for others considering it shouldnt be happening period.--riceball 04:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Guild infobox

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Template:Guild infobox

Imo, any template included on 4500+ pages should be protected. As I understand it, every time that template gets edited, it invalidates the html cache for every page in the Guild: namespace, meaning the server has to recache all of them. Also, vandalism to it would affect over 4500 pages (and need to be reverted, so the server would have to recache them all twice). ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 01:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That applies to just about every infobox and navbar templates that's used on this wiki. It's more convention that we use page protection as a means to prevent edit wars and abnormally frequent vandalism rather than as a prevention measure for unauthorised edits. -- ab.er.rant 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

Both pages (page,talk) need archiving (to keep things tidy). Dominator Matrix 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Poke said to leave it for him to do; seeing as he organised the layouts, that's probably best in case it goes to the wrong place. Archiving isn't urgent at the moment, so no harm done in waiting for him :P -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be no problem archiving this talk page since the organization Poke created only applied to the page although seeing as this is only 33kb it's not urgent. As to the page as Brains said, best to leave that to Poke as having only one person performing the archive there is less to no chance of mistakes or mis-organization happening. --Kakarot 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the need to archive the noticeboard yet.. - anja 09:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't either.. but did it now. Normally I would have archived the main page tomorrow.. So who cares ^^ poke | talk 13:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorting

For the admin info box, should we sort by; name, location, or time zone? (But still sort them by there status). Dominator Matrix 00:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

huh? They are sorted fine. poke | talk 00:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's currently sorted through user status, subcategorised by online activity, then subsubcategorised by name in alphabetical order. -- Brains12 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Skakid9090

Ohai so i herd I'm not ska, and I'm doing it for ska coz u suk =] 80.193.1.106 00:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NPA right there. Also, do you have any more examples other than your user talk page (I saw the piplup thing on Regina's page)--Raph Talky 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Who cares, ska's win, npa can be ignored for noxify 80.193.1.106 00:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NO DISCUSSIONS ON THIS PAGE PLEASE. -- Salome 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

the piplup's are copyright infringement someone said. so, thats another thing you can slam him on. =x. Plus, his pages are just generally annoying and his comments are rude. He's spammed userpages with stuff like "LOLROFLTLOLROFLT" and stuff. I can get those userpages if you want.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Piplup is Tab's picture. Too bad he's awesome, you're not. 80.193.1.106 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Heya, don't make assumptions. It's not my IP and the Piplup picture is released under the GFDL. — Skakid 00:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that i didn't understand half of what the GFDL said but... i don't think derivated works can be released under GFDL unless all the right owners were to agree, and since the character design doesn't appear to be property of the image author, i am not sure if it is right to say that the image is licensed under GFDL.--Fighterdoken 00:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a creation of Tab's that is strikingly similar to a Piplup. — Skakid 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because you're complaining about things like the piplups on his userpage. Stop bitching about stupid shit and I'm sure he wouldn't vandalize your userpage or post piplups on your talk page. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NO DISCUSSING ON THIS PAGE PLEASE. -- Salome 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No discussing that you can't discuss on this pagoshi~ —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

-_- im complaining about his piplup posts in OTHERS userpages, and his provokness to be rude and use proxys to harass other users. --'ÑöẊĭƑý 01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your claim? — Skakid 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you guys maybe discuss this somewhere else, it is pinging alot of users watchlists which is not needed --Shadowphoenix 01:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand that this page is for discussing an issue which is on the noticeboard? We are discussing the issue and if you don't like it, stop watching the page. That's the idea of the talk page of the noticeboard, in case you haven't realized. For talking. It's pretty cool like that. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 02:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry; for some reason I thought this was the noticeboard lol. Sleep deprived is not good XD --Shadowphoenix 02:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah shadow dont apologise, it was the noticeboard. skakid moved it here. Grinch and noxify and the random ip were quite happily spamming the notice board despite being told to stop it. Actually the only person who wasn't was Skakid. -- Salome 02:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

PvX checkuser says it's Napalm, which corroborates his statement on User talk:80.193.1.106. Don't blame skakid for everything, especially anonymous trolling when he's not banned, since he doesn't really seem to care about getting banned. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 03:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Skadid's contributions, I'm not seeing anything at all that is in violation of policy. I believe this is some kind of personal issue, that needs to stop.(edit) What I do see is a lot of profanity and rudeness on the part of Noxify, which also needs to stop.-- Wynthyst 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Here [1] Dominator Matrix 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of unacceptable trolling, proxy abuse or vandalism on that talk page. I don't think a block is necessary at the moment, but if it gets worse, then of course that may change. -- Brains12 00:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

dont know if you cna get him on this, but the guys that attacked me did constantly spam WERE DOING IT FOR SKA LOL YOU PHAIL and stuff like that. You can see on Ska's page he's like LOL noxify's page now gogogog! Don't know if you can gety banned for telling other people to attack someone for you, but yea. Just info for you.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that they did so at Ska's request? -- Gordon Ecker 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:Skakid9090 http://www.wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:NoXiFy

If you look at beforre I deleted all his comments he's like "im only doing it cause ska told me lawl. and stuff like that. i thinks--'ÑöẊĭƑý 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't tell him to do anything, get off my back and stop making false claims with no evidence. Thanks. — Skakid 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He raises a valid point. AGF. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there's removing discussion from the noticeboard, and then there's removing evidence and an admin's response. I thought we agreed that posting of evidence, links to the "crime" and, obviously, admin responses were fine? It was just the unnecessary discussion that wasn't? -- Brains12 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a link on this page that shows me vandalizing or even my intent to vandalize? — Skakid 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your smug self righteousness is kinda annoying ska. Although it's not you vandalizing his pages, you clearly have the ability to get your PvX friends to stop it, or at the very least request that they do so, however you choose to fanny about here and play little boy lost with grinchy acting like your own personal cheer leader. The bunch of you need to grow up and accept that you have the power to stop your pvx friends from hounding Noxify and more importantly from disrupting this wiki. Get over yourselves, your own ego and your own personal e-drama and take your virtual pissing contest back to PvX with the other 'leet' fannies where it belongs. -- Salome 19:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've stated on several occasions that I dislike Napalm. — Skakid 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We should also stop making such a big fuss over trolls. This is just.. silly. This is not a "oh let's all whine about Skakid"-topic. Provide evidence or relevant links, or just drop it. The admin noticeboard, or its talk, is not meant to be a place to vent your feelings about people in general. - anja 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

Can we just remove posts that aren't reports or evidence to those reports, instead of moving them? -- Brains12 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it's not a talk page, i see no reason for not doing it, wiki-lawyering-wise... In any case, "don't discuss" warnings could prove to be more effectinve straight on the users's talk page.--Fighterdoken 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. It's getting to the point where I want to avoid the noticebaord because of too much drama on it :P - anja 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Skakid9090

I'm only putting this here because of my evident fear of discussion on noticeboards. I'd like to believe its skakid on that IP, but Can we prove its his IP? it may be just a "fanboy"....~ Wandering Traveler 05:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a fanboy(s), but its still started by skakid. Dominator Matrix 05:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot assume that. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

at this point, its probably true, ARBCOMM dangit! :P--Raph Talky 18:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you guys even read GWW:AGF? You need to AGF with this, we do not know if this is Skakid or not, do not accuse if you do not know. --Shadowphoenix 00:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

im tired of AGF, tbh. Its hasnt worked thus far, so im abandoning it until this is settled--Raph Talky 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can't just abandon AGF and expect anything to get resolved. I personally have not seen anything indicating Skakid9090 is the root of all evil here. I see anon IP addresses that are causing some problems, and I see Skakid9090 taking the brunt of the blame. Until you can PROVE it's him doing this, I suggest the entire issue be dropped.-- Wynthyst 12:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

id love to.....but.......hmmm......at this point, i dont think Skakid is causing most of this...but we need all these ppl to be banned. Skakid has been laying low though. We should be more concerned about Tab than anyone--Raph Talky 12:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, when you can prove that Tab is causing problems, not some anon IP, then bring him up on the noticeboard.-- Wynthyst 12:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

not to sound rude but...have u seen regina's talk page lately? Thats, apparently, one of his favorite places to troll--Raph Talky 13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tab has been banned for his comments on regina's page for 2 weeks by Gares Edit: oh and skakid is also currently banned. Ban logs can be seen here and here. -- Salome 13:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

btw... Regina's talk page, like Gaile's talk page before her is a favorite place for all trolls, it also gets pretty close attention from the admins. I don't believe you can actually link to any specific NPA violations because there are none current, the disputed post was removed yesterday and was being added/readded by an anon IP, so not attributable to Tab, or Skakid9090. -- Wynthyst 13:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wyn although if we accept that the IP which posted these comments on the Admin noticeboard were Skakid posting under an IP:

"I've been framed. It's pretty fucking obvious that I've been framed too, since he posted that everywhere. Try to be less of a dumb shit when making accusations about someone. Let the admins handle shit like this, because you're obviously not intelligent enough to comprehend common sense. Sorry for being a dick, but you deserve it. 69.248.232.88 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)"

"Also, does that even mildly resemble the kind of trolling I commit? I'm appalled you'd think I'd be that uncreative and blunt =( 69.248.232.88 06:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)"

Then we also have to accept it's the same IP who reposted the original trolling over and over again as it's the same IP address. Not saying that it is Skakid, just saying that the IP claims to be Skakid. -- Salome 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for a week by Poke. User:Skakid9090 is currently blocked. Some of these comments that "the admins aren't doing anything" (paraphrased, not a direct quote) are simply misguided. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting in favour or against anything then, just pointing out that the anon IP was infact claiming to be Skakid, that was all. EDIT: also not to add to wikidrama but just to point out that your post on the admin page about it being in jest and taking things in context, over looks regina's response to it where it was clear she didnt find it funny which can be found here, again not trying to get involved just stating that Regina didnt find said comment amusing regardless of it being in jest or not, but as you said Tab got banned for it. -- Salome 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention something: Don't let trolling and disruptive edits get to you personally. The more you let them get to you on a personal level, the more it'll frustrate you and make you more vulnerable to further taunts and provocations. If you feel that a certain issue is annoying you to the extent that you feel like lashing back, the best way to deal with it is to just move on to another page and don't bother reading the rest of it. Let someone else take care of it (someone always will). -- ab.er.rant 14:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I got to that point a couple of days ago and instead of just moving on, made a sarcastic comment instead and in doing so made myself look like a fanny in the process. *note to self not to do that in future* -- Salome 15:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you guys want to install checkuser. Lord of all tyria 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

did we not discuss that before and decided against it. Can't really remember why. -- Salome 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I still see no need to have it proven that Dir, Eloc and Gaile are the same person.. poke | talk 15:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before Poke, We decided that we're all different reflections of Anja and that she has the worst case of wiki-schizophrenia in existence. -- Salome 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, then Anja is about the most bipolar person the world has ever seen. Calor 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Multipolar? --Xeeron 19:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Droks

→ moved from GWW:NOTICE#User:Droks

none of you guys thought to think that this might be a sock puppet pretending to be the real droks? Look at all the contribs and the user page. Antiarchangel TROLL 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The "real" Droks? Calor 19:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

*eyebrow raise* Doesn't this count as discussion? --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Moved. Calor 19:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Real Droks, read his talk to see why someone would do that Antiarchangel TROLL 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. But does it matter if someone's impersonating him? This Droks is still a troll, and was deservedly banned. Calor 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess it doesn't matter really, so whatever Antiarchangel TROLL 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Protecting nonexistent pages

With the upgrade to MediaWiki 1.12, non-existent pages can be protected from creation. Up till now, we've been protecting pages from creation by using {{deletedpage}} and then protecting the existent page. Special:Protectedpages and Special:Protectedtitles also seem to be added, so categorisation through the deletedpage template is no longer necessary. Shall we leave the category as it is, or use the new shiny stuff?

The categorisation of normally protected pages is also made a little redundant, as the Protectedpages has options for edit permissions, namespace and restrictions (making it more useful than current categorisation). It would also help for those pages which don't have the category on. Should we stick with Category:Protected pages, or just use the Special page instead? -- Brains12 \ talk 14:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'd say leave the current ones for now and use the new way for any new pages. Eventually or even as soon as possible it would be good to make them all use the new way. --Kakarot 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Protected pages isn't a very long list. Switch them ASAP if it's a better option. -Auron 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also when it comes to Category:Pages protected from recreation do we just delete them and protect them considering they were only created with that template so they could be protected. On a side note since more sysops will have this on their watchlist than this page considering it was only just added in the update best to bring it up here so it doesn't get missed. --Kakarot 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To your first question, yeah -- G4 housekeeping would be fine. Second -- added my input on the talk page. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted and protected the pages which used to have deletedpage -- those pages can now be found at Special:Protectedtitles. -- Brains12 \ talk 01:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Oni

Pfft. Hostile comments? So what? 85.71.168.42 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, GWW:NPA, for starters. Being generally offensive is somewhere along the line. Didn't someone once get blocked with the summary "general asshatery?" I'm going to go look that up. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusing Izzy of not doing his job well isn't a violation of GWW:NPA since it's a comment on his actions. "Generally asshattery" can be a valid reason to block someone, but really only if they've become such a nuisance that they're seriously disrupting the Wiki.

Honestly, I don't particularly approve of his conduct, but it's not ban-worthy/admin intervention-worthy imo. 85.71.168.42 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Block Log, I've seen others blocked shortly for telling Admins and other Users they "Fucking fail," so why not for telling Izzy that? By the way, in the last 750 blocks, it was User:Readem and User:Ryudo who were found guilty of asshattery. Just for trivia. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm much to lazy to take an in-depth look at precedent. Anywho, Telling a user they "fucking fail," without linking that to the user's actions is a violation of NPA. Telling someone they "fucking fail" because of a particular action is not. 85.71.168.42 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I see the logic in that, but whether it applies to the spirit of GWW:USER or not is up to the admins. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ur not an sysop or burecrat, dont make the judgement calls for them--Raph Talky 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

i am talking to the ip by the way, kaldor nearly ec'ed me :P--Raph Talky 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm... key word: "imo." It's an opinion, I'm not telling anybody what to do. 85.71.168.42 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

i never saw imo anywhere in your statement. Your statement looks like you are telling us to not block Oni (Oni isnt a bad guy, but i HATE it when people flame Izzy)--Raph Talky 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) He's right, even IP's have a right to discuss, even if cases work against them. Everyone has a right to be proven wrong, or to prove right. If this were on the page, that would be wrong. You don't need to say something is an opinion, unless you're saying it's fact. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

in this case, he is indeed wrong about his opinion though, at least, thats my opinion, at this point, instead of clogging the talk pagee with right and wrong and possible flaming, i think we should let the sysops handle this--Raph Talky 21:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there we go. Three days from Brains. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 21:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be worth removing that section from Isaiah's talk page. Erasculio 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so now the issue of whether Oni should/'nt be blocked is closed. However, if I interpret Brains statement on the AN correctly, he saw the "asshattery" as lying in the potential volatility of Oni's statement, not in the fact that Oni wasn't "playing nicely with others." I really couldn't care less about Oni; I do care however that we don't see a resurgence of policy proposals along the lines of "GWW:BE POLITE." 85.71.168.42 21:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between being polite and being civil. Oni was violating the latter (well, and the former, too). Kokuou 21:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It might be worthwhile in so far as it would prevent potential wikidrama. On the other hand, some users might percieve it as an attempt to "cover-up" the Ursan debate. Meh. 85.71.168.42 21:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An ursan debate doesn't need to be covered up -- every point has pretty much been argued by every user and his dog, and then some; regardless, the hostile flaming and the debate of Ursan Blessing continues to incur drama and even more flames by other users and by the opening poster as well. Considering User:Oni's annoyance at Ursan Blessing, and evidently towards User:Isaiah Cartwright, a three day break away from the wiki is appropriate. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not saying it does. I'm merely pointing out that it might be perceived as such.

Tbh, part of this is that I simply dislike NPA getting thrown about so much. 85.71.168.42 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) , Brains spelt wars wrong :P (im not that liberbal)--Raph Talky 21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) , stop that dammit!.....er...could you dumb down your sentence a shade? im too lazy to figure it out :P--Raph Talky 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Protecting Pages

As of recent events I was thinking that we should move protect (sysop only) certain pages that really have no need to be moved. For example Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for comment, Guild Wars Wiki:Projects, Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting, Guild Wars Wiki:Community portal, ArenaNet:Portal, Guild Wars Wiki:Reporting wiki bugs, Guild Wars Wiki:FAQ as well as there respective talk pages. This isn't a complete list but it gives a small example of what I mean.
There really is no reason any of these should be moved by a non-sysop and I've already taken action in regards to three pages: Guild Wars Wiki:Policy, Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy and Talk:Main Page but wanted to check if there was any opposition before moving onto any more. --Kakarot 17:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken care of the Community Portal, Requests for comment, Reporting wiki bugs & FAQ and updated my above post to reflect that. In regards to pages like Projects, Formatting and the ArenaNet Portal should it just be the main page or should we also do subpages. Also if there is any other pages that should be protected from moving just list them here. --Kakarot 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just main pages, imo - formatting guidelines etc. do sometimes get renamed by non-sysops and it's not a terrible imposition to revert moves if necessary. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok done. --Kakarot 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On the same topic, i think we should "really" re-consider what was being discussed on the RFTA page some time ago. It will not kill our current resident vandal, but at least should be able to contain his behavior. After all, he doesn't restrict himself to GWW or ANET, but also goes for userpages and main namespace articles, and protecting everything may be a bit too much. I am sure there has to be a workaround for bots and admins if such rate limit were to be implemented.--Fighterdoken 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bring it up on RFTA. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

captcha problems

Whenever I login I loose my login after navigating away from the login page. So I am forced to use the captcha to make edits. Although I just tried adding to the botwatch at Gaile Gray's page but after answering the capcha at least ten times correctly, I'm doubt it works correctly. I have cookies enabled for this site, so thats not the problem. 69.19.14.28 14:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you using wiki.guildwars.com or www.wiki.guildwars.com to access the site? Do you have any form of cookie-blocking enabled on your browser? What browser are you using? What link/item are you trying to add? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually use wiki.guildwars.com but I just tried www.wiki.guildwars.com both I loose logins after navigating away from login page. I didn't try editing the botwatch from www.wiki.guildwars.com but editing from wiki.guildwars.com I had the above problem. I do have cookie blocking but I have both www.wiki.guildwars.com and wiki.guildwars.com set to always allow cookies. I use firefox, although I have the same problem in IE7. I was trying to add a item to the botwatch in the discussion section of Gaile Gray's wiki page. Only thing I can think of that could be causing this problem is I don't have my own IP, I'm on a satellite connection that shares the same IP with all users on the NOC.69.19.14.28 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests

Should we include a section or subpage for requests? Things like undeletion, protection, unprotection and salting (title protection) and unsalting? If so, I would prefer a subpage, as it could be watched separately. -- Gordon Ecker 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here. As its emergency but not front page worthy. This way its less cluttered. Dominator Matrix 04:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole noticeboard is somewhat of a request page. It's been successful in notifying admins when there's a page needing protection, or a user needing blocking (or any other user-admin oversight). I'd prefer having this one page for notices and requests -- it's not like we get those requests every day, nor is it that there's no room to put them in. Likewise, there's no need for a separate section as it's easier to simply make a new level two header (click the + tab); however, I could see where it could come in handy -- keep all similar requests in one place -- so I don't oppose that as much as I do having a separate page. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Pling brains. As long as there are not that much requests, there is no need for a split, especially not on a second page as that page wouldn't be that attractive as the noticeboard currently is. poke | talk 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Poke and Brains. This page has always served its purpose, from vandals to protect/delete/undelete with little to no hitches. The efficiency of the process wouldn't improve with a subpage. If anything, it'd suffer. Calor 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's going to be used for general requests, I think we should remove the "Post only issues that require administrative action as per policy, i.e. blocking vandals, protecting pages etc." line. -- Gordon Ecker 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh why? I'm a little confused as to how that affects requests. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the note indicates that anything which does not require administrative action as per policy should not be posted, excluding other requests such as undeletion. -- Gordon Ecker 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Then it would be the "as per policy" that should go; as the requests you mentioned are all administrative actions, the whole line doesn't need to go. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the "as per policy" bit. -- Gordon Ecker 05:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

NPA Mess

→ moved from GWW:NOTICE

Any chance someone might step into the " Why do you favor gimmicks?" section of Izzy's talk page and attempt to shut down what has basically become a mess of NPA violations and people attempting to excuse the NPA violations with poorly though out excuses. There is no excuse for trying to break NPA and attack others. Rakyren 13:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given a warning on the page, but take your own advice and don't personally attack others either. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should consider protecting the page form unregistered edits. -- Gordon Ecker 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? Half of the troublesome edits are from registered users anyways. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the other half can't be dealt with through warnings, blocks or arbitration. -- Gordon Ecker 05:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure they can, block the IP. It's the same for every page on the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is only an effective deterrant or preventative measure against people with fixed IPs who don't know how to use proxies or can't be bothered to do so. -- Gordon Ecker 06:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you then proposing that we restrict editing on every page on the wiki? My point is that there is nothing special about ip edits to Izzy's page as opposed to regular user edits to that page; it's merely a high traffic page in general. That doesn't mean IP edits to it should be disallowed. (p.s. I'm going to move this convo to the talk page.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's also implying that other high traffic pages like Regina's, ArenaNet portal, game updates and such should be similarly protected. Would it be workable to encourage sysops to additionally modify or outright remove needlessly or purely inflammatory comments, rather than just leaving them there? -- ab.er.rant 08:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of only protecting user talk pages for non-admins which are frequent targets of anonymous trolling, personal attacks or vandalism, and only doing so with the user's permission. -- Gordon Ecker 10:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They're also the pages on which it's most common to find useful correspondence from IP editors. No thanks. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aberrant's comment, though, to remove some of the purely inflammatory remarks and purely NPA attacks from talk pages. Erasculio 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove trolling comments and apply a ban. Every single guild wars forum I know of does that, and it works pretty well. If you have a message with content, they'll usually just snip the personal attacks bits, but if it's just a personal attack, the post is deleted & temp ban is applied. Don't see why we'd do it differently here, the personal attacks are every bit as prevalent, and ANet staff don't need their time wasted by idiots who can't formulate a simple non-attacking essay. -Auron 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The red irritating box

Should it be put back? Since it was taken out a couple of weeks ago, it appears to have been an increase in comments in the noticeboard, so it may be a good idea to keep it there a little more. Besides, there was a workaround for fixing the box at the top for those users concerned, if i remember right.--Fighterdoken 20:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there was. I used the workaround, so I don't care either way. Calor 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So... no support for annoying boxes i guess.--Fighterdoken 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Or... no oppose :D? (I share Calor's sentiments. Those who know not to discuss probably have removed it already with the code; those who don't know not to discuss won't notice they shouldn't discuss, so keeping the red box is probably a good idea.) -- Brains12 \ talk 22:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the box should be put back up again, terribly annoying watchlist pinging with the recent discussions --Shadowphoenix 22:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say put it back up. As annoying as it was, it did keep down most discussing. — ク Eloc 貢 20:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No opposition for like a week so I added it =) — Skakid 20:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem here. Dominator Matrix 00:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:74.61.209.219

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

agreed, except for one question. Ignoring the part where he called me a nub, or where he/she responded negatively to the other users warning him about our policies?--Raph Talky 22:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2 Wrongs != Right , like the others have said, if you just dropped it earlier it wouldn't have gone awry.--Underwood 22:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from discussion here thank you. This is a noticeboard. --Lemming 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving to the noticeboard talk page should only be (and has been, previously) for very long bits of discussion which overshadow the rest of the noticeboard, or for discussions which are intended to continue (like the "NPA mess" section). I don't think moving is necessary when 1. the actual discussion content and size here is not detrimental to the noticeboard and 2. when an admin has told them to stop and it has stopped. (Also, it should preferably be an admin who moves it. I understand Shadowphoenix's intent and good faith, but it is a noticeboard for admins.) One of the main problems with discussion on the noticeboard is that it pings the watchlist too often -- however, once that discussion had stopped (hence no more pinging), it doesn't need to be moved unless it's taking up too much space. Those are my two cents, anyway. -- Brains12 \ talk 11:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I have moved discussion for the noticeboard before, so I didn't think it was an issue. Also, I apologize; I seem to have misunderstood that only if the discussion is ongoing. I will keep that in mind next time (if there is one, that is) :o) --Shadowphoenix 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert war thats going on

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

Censorship is bad. Now stfu. Lord of all tyria 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

uhm, what?--Raph Talky 14:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we stop discussing on the admin board please? -- Salome 14:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

fine (on a side note, telling people to stfu is bad also o_O)--Raph Talky 14:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lord is from PvX wiki, telling people to stfu is widely encouraged on that site. :P not a talk page btw --Super Igor 14:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is now, so nyah;)! Yay, high culture! Anyway, I just skimmed through the policies and guidelines and there's nothing in there about foul language in particular, just about the acts of being degrading to specific people. Heck, I think that the fact that other people are being degrading to each other is fine, e.g. "I was standing in Shing Jea US 2 and watching people call each other 'gay' and 'n00b' again."

... Also, Suxon my Kurdick or whatever it was has this ring of juvinile potty humor about it, like, just a notch above, say, "You Stepped In Our [Poop]". *shrug*. Dosn't bother me so much as give me an idea of the type of people that made the thing ... Random thoughts. --Star Weaver 15:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

^ --Super Igor 15:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

eh, i just find creating guilds with names like that (and putting stuff like that on the wiki) is in bad taste, mainly due to some new wikians may leave if they see that kind of atmostphere, thinking that we try to promote that. But i think im going too in deph. If its not against our rules, ill leave it alone, just didnt know whether or not it WAS.. earlier--Raph Talky 16:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Taste? ok.. maybe, but it's not for us to dictate taste, or decorum, or morality for that matter, it's for us to document the game. These are common terms, and as long as Anet does not place any sort of limit on them, neither should we. Stop trying to impose your personal opinions on articles. -- Wynthyst 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

wynthyst, im talking about the guild name Suxon my Kurdick [GULP] -_- stop misunderstanding my posts!--Raph Talky 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not misunderstanding your posts. It's very possible that it is a valid guild name. It is not something that Anet regulates against. It also doesn't change the fact that you don't change/delete comments. -- Wynthyst 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

i dont think you read my post right. I said i thought it was in bad taste to have it on the wiki, so i removed it. But Brains along with Skakid already clarified that its ok to have it there, so basicaly ur just giving me old info. Also, if you read the page i already realized thats a real guild. You also sound like your mad (judging from the stern "tone" of your posts.--Raph Talky 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

New users wouldn't direct themselves to a talk page of a redirect for a somewhat derogatory term; but I get your intent. I agree with most of Wyn's views on this. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

well you both have a point. In short, though, my point was "the fact that i delete the name when i didnt need to was an oversight on our policies on my end", super short:i goofed. No harm done, though--Raph Talky 17:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

lets talk moar on the noticeboard! anyone else have anything to discuss? --Cursed Angel 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

how about that er.....gravity?--Raph Talky 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

gravity is pretty fun, go on --Cursed Angel 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

it makes heavy stuff fall with a thump..--Raph Talky 00:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It causes dazed and crippled and prevents teleporation in its AOE. It's the imbaforce. It ganks your NPCs before the gate opens. The only counter is the "Fall and Miss the Ground!" build, which is, of course, equally gimmicky. It proves that Izzy doesn't know how to do his job, as gravity has been breaking the game bad since around 1934. --Star Weaver 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's gonna make that big meteor in 2012 fall on us (its gonna kill us all by using BAMPH!)--Raph Talky 16:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If you don't mind, some of us have this page on watchlist because it's typically devoted to actual wiki operation issues... could you please continue this on a user talk page if you must? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

New template?

Should we make a new template {{bot|ip here}}, for the gibber bots? Or is the vandal template good enough? Later on this would help show a better history. Dominator Matrix 00:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm wary of adding another template to the page, in addition to two already similar templates. In fact, I'd prefer just using one template -- there's not much point to using a whole 'nother template just for an icon, but I've kept my peace with it. However, I don't think I would like an extra one :/. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I share the same sentiments as Pl.. err, Brains. Calor 00:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any difference between a "vandal" and a bot that "vandalizes"? I think the first idea of that template was even for those gibber bots alone.. So, no, the current usage is fine. poke | talk 12:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any difference between a "user" and a "user" that vandalises? :) -- Brains12 \ talk 13:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but as we have discussed a while ago, {{user}} might be used for other areas, just to link. poke | talk 13:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And, yes, there is a difference in the length what is needed to be said about it. poke | talk 13:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if we used ;{{user|Blah}}, it would work the same way as vandal does... it wouldn't affect any other usages either. The only difference between Vandal and User is the image; the difference of length isn't relevant, seeing as User is smaller than Vandal anyway, and vandal reports are smaller in length than user reports. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hovering Annoying Red Box

Is it temporary and going away soon? 122.104.167.139 02:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See a couple of sections above: #The_red_irritating_box. But in short, no, it's not temporary; if you really can't stand it, register a user account and hide it. For the most part though, you probably shouldn't be needing to spend a lot of your time on the admin noticeboard. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You can hide it? — ク Eloc 貢 21:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

.noticeboardbox{display:none;} in your monobook.css. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Gibberbots

Gone again? Calor 22:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Nothing to occupy my time. Same with the "black power" and "LOL LOL VANDALISM" guys going. Calor 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well those were just annoying so I was glad to see them gone; gibberbots do no real harm. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but the move dude added a new element of interest in reverting (and collaboration, i.e. user 1 moves back, admin 2 kills redirect). There's none of that with gibbers. But oh well, wiki survives. Calor 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"I have mixed feelings about this." <- lol'd about that! :D But it's true, I'm a bit sad :( poke | talk 06:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User: 75.91.99.114

If this "human user", as reported on the main page, is that destructive on a regular basis, why does no one contact their ISP? If it was a hacked PC or an open wirless network, the onus is still on the customer to prevent that kind of abuse from taking place whether they intended it to happen or not. There is a difference between being at odds with someone and outright vandalism.

It's really not that difficult to find the info ...

Windstream Abuse, +1-888-292-3827, abuse@windstream.net

Ghosst Talk 13:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, what? Why should we try to find out if a user, which only vandalized the wiki and not did any good contributions, was hacked so someone else did it instead? We simply block that IP for a while and if the user comes back as a good contributor, fine, if not he will blocked again. It might not be difficult, but we would probably have to invest a lot of time to get that information and it is not sure if we even get information or if something happens or if the owner really didn't do that vandalism by himself.

We have a lot vandalism on the wiki, which is quite normal for a highly visited website, but if we would always think of that the edits might be mistaken or done by someone else, I don't think the wiki would look like as it does now ;) poke | talk 14:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just curiosity ... wasn't sure what your specific policies were. I think you missed my point about IPs and IP abuse (as in the abuse of another person's IP), but this isn't the place to discuss it. Ghosst • Talk •

Copyvio images and replacing before it's been deleted

Lately I've noticed an increase in people uploading replacement images after the original was tagged as a copyvio. Normally if this is done after it's deleted there is no problem but there have been at least three recent/semi-recent images that were replaced before deletion of the copyvio image was able to be done.

The first one I noticed ended up being deleted completely because all revisions still contained copyvio material and was requested by the user who uploaded the original version. For the second one I just deleted the revision but since I'm not sure if there is anything else that needs to be deleted particularly in reference to the history I left the third one for now.

I would of done this message on the copyvio template talk page but more people seem to have this on their watchlist than the other and I would prefer to resolve this issue as fast as possible as it's getting annoying having to pick through the image revisions and possibly the history for what to delete rather than just delete the entire image as we used to be able to do. Should a note be added to the copyvio template mentioning that the image must be deleted before a replacement is uploaded in it's place and/or maybe a note somewhere else? --Kakarot 13:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the copyvio template already states: "Do not edit this page! Edit this link instead.", but i guess people don't consider a re-upload as editing. Personally, i thought that just deleting the offending revisions (for images only) was fine, but i am not that knowledgeable in the copyvio deletion structure as to state it as a fact.--Fighterdoken 18:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of offending revisions only is fine. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and it should be quite easy to determine if a new revision still contains the copyvio or which of the old revisions contained a copyvio and so needs to be deleted. Nevertheless as long as there is a copyvio within the file history, the tag shouldn't be removed. poke | talk 22:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandal issues?

I'm not sure exactly what you feel I vandalised, I did not censor ANY information. The suggestion were placed on the suggestion page, the discussion on the discussion page, where they belong. Also, I did not violate 1RR, I changed it, you reverted, and I reverted. That's one revert each.-- Wyn 12:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is 1 revert (total) for the content in question. I understand if one of us is mistaken, but such things should be clarified. Also, it is best to include another admin when making the decision of banning a user over 1RV. --Readem 12:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, when moving a section, move the entire section rather than just a fragment. It prevents confusion, and short-tempers. --Readem 12:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wyn has done nothing wrong. Our rule is not one revert total, it's one revert user. Backsword 07:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, please read the policy before you attempt to (incorrectly) correct someone about it, Readem. This isn't GuildWiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin rights

The changes to Izzy's talk page have been explained. All skill/game mechanic suggestions belong in the ArenaNet namespace, not on an individual user's talk page.-- Wyn 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They belong in a place where the game DEV actually has time to read. Think logically, and you will soon understand that there is only so much time in one day (that Izzy is available to check a god-awful Wiki). I sincerely doubt he reads half of those pages in the Anet name-space. As I mentioned before, get a better system. --Readem 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Isaiah didn't read his previous user page because he couldn't handle it (he said more or less that himself). Keeping his old page as it was would be just a waste of time, then. Any idea of what kind of change you think should be aplied? Erasculio 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking I try to avoid wiki's as much as possible; not currently. I do know however, a new system should be sought out and implemented. Perhaps with a few more than 5 hours (in the past 36) I will come to a more reasonable solution. --Readem 12:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it, the current system doesn't make any sense at all. The only thing Izzy will see, will be compliments; all the complaints and suggestions will have been moved by an administrator. This by far, is an inefficiency that should be avoided if at all possible. Maybe try a reverse scenario? Not sure atm, too tired. --Readem 13:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Pages-long compliment threads aren't allowed, either. If it's a one-line "good job," it doesn't clog up his talk page. If the game discussions that you and I like were comparatively small, it wouldn't be a problem, but when each post is 1000 characters and each person posts half a dozen times... they need to go someplace else. -Auron 13:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really wanting to get completely involved, but Readem are you saying that Izzy is unable to navigate to other pages. If that's the case I'm sure you could teach him. I'm sure he knows where complaints and suggestions go and I'm sure he has the common sense to check out those pages. TBH I think you're underestimating the common sense of other people.- TheRave 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And I think you're over-estimating how much time Izzy is willing to spend on clicking around and reading the wiki feedback pages. -- ab.er.rant 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If he has a block of time to go through feedback, he could probably get more information by reading concise, organized feedback pages than he could by reading a cluttered user talk page and its' archives. -- Gordon Ecker 03:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

About the section on ursan blessing/Izzy talk...

I thibk it would be reasonable to add the feedback pages to those two pages. Those pages sure could use that extra sysop attention.-- NUKLEAR IIV 21:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Izzy's talk

I just wanted to ask if anyone else is watching (and acting on) that page. I've seen Poke and Wyn a couple of times there, but I'm under the impression that not many other people are.-- Brains12 \ talk 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. But I could if it's needed. - anja 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching it, but I've not yet found cause to act on it. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I keep an eye out and look at new posts. I don't act unless I"m absolutely sure though. -- Wyn 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Same with DE. Anything I could remove you've already moved/removed :D -- ab.er.rant 17:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do watch the page, but haven't done anything with it. -- Indochine talk 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Same. calor (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NuclearVII

Auron that is not a discussion page, want to discuss about my post discuss here.--Wealedout 05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked through a few of his deletion tags and they made sense. He swears a bit, but as I said earlier, we don't censor comments or ban for profanity. -Auron 05:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Auron.--Wealedout 13:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding this...

96.233.15.152 (talk • contribs [deleted] • logs • block log • abuse filter log)

Vandal, on User:Kakarot --Shadowphoenix 13:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. --Kakarot 13:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we not avoid this? I know it is only a guideline for involved Sysops to try to not use their powers, but something like this should be avoided. Just wanted to throw that out there. --Antioch 15:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems in vandal cases... the guide focuses more on personal disputes like personal attacks.. poke | talk 15:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism cases are generally pretty clear-cut, so I, like poke, don't really see a problem. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also have to agree with Poke. Secondly just a little clarification on that particular incident, at the time we had a particularly persistent vandal (it appeared to be the same person using multiple IPs). Also if you are referring to how it was reported for vandalizing my page and blocked by me, as shown by its contribs mine wasn't the first to be vandalized by that specific IP and as shown by its block log was already blocked before the report was made. --Kakarot 13:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, just thought it applied to everything (just especially NPA). Anyway, just thought I would voice my concern. --Antioch 15:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple accounts for a single person

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard#Multiple accounts for a single person

I don't think it's strictly forbidden in any policy, but isn't it an issue when an user has multiple "identities"? For example, on the Skill Feedback discussion, we have user 67.159.44.138 making some contributions. But if you look at his history, he has said he is J. Kougar some times (as seen here and here, for example), and also said he's Jette (as seen here). Given how three of those "users" have been in the discussion (and how all three of them have required admin action in the past), isn't allowing those multiple accounts just a way to avoid accumulating blocks? Erasculio 18:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem with proxy IPs, not accounts. It has been discussed, and iirc the conclusion was that it's impractical to find and block proxy IPs, since there are too many and they can still be used for a good purpose (other users/new users using the same IP). - anja 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the past I've used a variety of proxies to evade a ban. That was all discussed and such in the arbitration, and is long since in the past. The particular IP you're quoting is from HideMyAss.com, which is easily the most known free proxy on the web. Unlike the majority of the ones I've used in the past, which rout through programs like MultiProxy, HideMyAss.com allows anyone to just pop to the website and post away. I haven't used that proxy in ages, I didn't bother because it is such a well-known proxy and one used by so many (and frankly I thought it had been long since banned). I'm not under any ban and thus, not bothering with proxies. If you'll notice I had no issues with posting my opinions in that discussion already, I don't need a proxy to hide behind to do so. Besides, many of the users in question there are already well aware of my feelings about them, both good and bad, and if I want to make fun of Shard again for not knowing that Ritualists don't have Hex removal skills, then I'd just do so (I think he's more than used to my giving him a hard time).  ;) I don't know who all is using that free proxy now, but again, it's a free and common proxy known to most everyone, so ban it if you want, but I really don't think that it's very likely that only one or two people are using.  :) ~ J.Kougar 19:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up Kougar. I have moved your comments to the talk page since it is more of discussion of a notice that doesn't belong on the noticeboard. -- Wyn 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you didn't feel the above response to the statements on the main page was relevant enough to stay there, and I do know that generally discussion there is kept to a minimal, but I thought I could at least give a little more insight into the proxy that was under discussion, given my particular knowledge of such things. However, if you feel it best moved here to the talk page, so be it.  :) ~ J.Kougar 20:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

...and as a side note, some of the more widely known proxies like HideMyAss.com might be better off perma blocked.  ;) ~ J.Kougar 20:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, though I don't condone it, I'm sure there are workers in offices somewhere who contribute positively using a proxy such as that. Though it may not be that proxy (well known), going to any length to perma-block any proxy site is a bad idea, as we could lock out positive proxy users. It's best to deal with proxy disruptions on a case by case business. --Antioch 20:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We cannot realistically and definitively identify how many accounts or IPs belong to the same person. The only real issue with multiple accounts is when it is being abused, so it's easier to take them on a case-by-case basis. -- ab.er.rant 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved mergers.

Requesting as general housekeeping to delete everything marked as resolved on User:Backsword/Sandbox/Merges, in three days. DO not touch anything not resolved. Backsword 18:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning unregistered users

Looking at User talk:75.182.89.73 makes Pling a sad man/girl.

• "You're not a user therefore do not get a userpage. You shouldn't have this talk page either, but you refuse to make an account."

Editors do not have to register an account to contribute, talk to other users, have other users talk to them, or generally have an opinion. Saying otherwise is very much against the spirit of a wiki, where anyone can edit. Guild Wars Wiki:User pages only disallows unregistered userpages, userpages being things like User:Brains12 or User:Anja Astor -- not User talk:Brains12 or User talk:Anja Astor. In fact, I don't really see why we even disallow unregistered userpages - if the reason is "IPs can change", it's pretty weak... but that's a discussion for somewhere else.

• "These comments carry a heavy taint of Shard." / Im guessing Auron, Grinch, or shards long lost cousin." "Well, he could BE Auron." / "You're right, I bet it is Auron..even though I have never met Auron so it would be hard to tell. By the way he knows him and such."

No. We do not assume that unregistered users are registered users who want to do bad things, and certainly not on the talk page of a person disrupting; that just adds to the food. This witch hunt is totally inappropriate.

When we get people (specifically unregistered users) who disrupt or personally attack others... don't feed them, don't accuse them (and other users) of malicious sockpuppeting and abusing accounts, nor tell them that they have to be registered. Registered status is irrelevant to any situation (apart from elections and blah blah). Even if there's an unregistered user being very helpful and constructive -- you don't need to tell them to make an account; if they wanted to do so, I'm sure they'd press the big button that says "create account". If a user has been reported on the noticeboard, leave the situation be. You don't need to join in a witch hunt over who an unregistered person may or may not be. -- Brains12 \ talk 12:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well spoken. Though about this (going slightly offtopic): "In fact, I don't really see why we even disallow unregistered userpages - if the reason is "IPs can change", it's pretty weak..." I just have to say I personally am against it partly due to IPs' being both sharable and changeable but mainly since you can own a username, but you can't own an IP (unless you run your own ISP). Since you can't own an IP, I see no reason why you should be able to claim it as yours. — Galil 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Added: But as Brains, I also don't see the point in placing anons under a separate banner than registered users. An anon can easily register if he or she wants to, but why would it even matter if he or she did? They would still be able to do the exact same things. Also trying to figure out who it "really" is, is both impossible and pointless. — Galil 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Pling, for the most part. That entire situation was a fiasco, to say the least. Shame I was sleeping. I also agree with Galil. I'm in full support of IP's contributing, but if they want a userpage, registering isn't too difficult (and probably gives more anonymity as your IP is hidden). Nobody can claim ownership to a single IP due to the fact that your IP can easily change. calor (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Pling, that "witch hunt" was totally uncalled for and was inappropriate of the users involved. I agree with Galil and Calor about IP userpages, since they can change very easily its hard to tell who is who and what is what. Overall, the situation got out of hand and shouldn't have happened. --Shadowphoenix 19:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as one of the guiding principles of a wiki is that you don't need to register to edit, the whole fiasco is kind of sad. I agree with above. That's about it :P. Ale_Jrb (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd like to apologize for my part in the fiasco. — Seru Talk 19:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Abusive Sysop

← moved to User talk:Auron

"Locked" -> "protected"

Could we change MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext and MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning to say "protected" instead of "locked", as that's the correct/most-often-used term for page protection? Minor change, but it's nice to be consistent and use the right lingo :P -- Brains12 \ talk 15:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. -- Wyn 15:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me too, although since apparently those two pages don't exist yet; probably the default mediawiki message; you have to create them before you can "change" them :p --Kakarot 16:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to change it. Unless anyone's vehemently opposed, I'll change it later tonight, if I'm on. calor (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First. poke | talk 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we do this one and this one too Poke? --Kakarot 18:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

sure, any more? poke | talk 18:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, it resonates a more good faith message saying it has been protected rather than locked, even though it is the same thing. lol, but I am for it. --Lemming 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

Currently at NoXiFy's front page was edited by 218.14.227.198 adding a box like this:

This user is full of Laughing Gas.

TheRave reverted the edits by 218.14.227.198. Followed by Armond that reverted edits back to 218.14.227.198 state claiming it's not vandalizing. Can someone make a call about 218.14.227.198 edit's if they are valid?--ShadowFog 14:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my edit summary was unclear, mostly as I decided to leave the "reverted edits" notice. Let me explain.

The way I saw it, the anon (218.whatever) added the box because it's funny. I figured if Noxify wanted it gone, he would remove it - unless he's been banned again and I haven't noticed? - but in the meantime, it wasn't doing any harm and it was, in my estimation, a neat joke. I, personally, didn't think of Nox as a bit of gas in a whipped cream bottle until I saw that.

Of course, GWW policy might be stricter on editing someone else's user page than PvX policy is. Either way, the whole thing would be solved simply by Nox stating his opinion on the matter. If he approves, it stays just as if he had added it himself (let's not get into the technicality of "Armond added it last so it's not the same", please); if he removes it, it's a moot point.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Armond. -- Wyn 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So in summary, anyone can add a "funny box" to a user page and can only be removed if the user agrees to it?... Ambiguous. I have to see it to believe it!(chuckles) Can I see the page about editing user's pages?--ShadowFog 15:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, AGF, and it could been Noxify himself - but I tend to agree with ShadowFog. It is still a userpage and others shouldn't decide what is displayed there. In case of doubt the last version by the owner should be the version that should be kept. poke | talk 16:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The relevant policy is this part of GWW:USER: Unless correcting a policy violation or making a maintenance edit, users should avoid making edits in another user's user space against their wishes (not including talk pages). All such edits must include an appropriate summary message explaining the edit. If the reason for the edit may not be immediately obvious, add further explanation on that user's talk page.

In this case, seeing how Noxify has repeatedly complained about other users, it seems very likely that Noxify will not wish to have that userbox on his page. In general, it is standard procedure here not to edit other people's userpages unless the edit is clearly uncontroversial or the user specifically allows edits to his/her userpage. --Xeeron 18:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his complaints were about someone reverting an unregistered edit to a userpage of his. Anyway, there's no need for all this fuss and bother in this case; just wait for him, and if he wants it he'll leave it and vice versa. It's not exactly vandalism or disruptive. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

His posts on the admin noticeboard (e.g. this) make me think he will rather take that as an attack rather than a friendly joke. And Armonds edits to his talk page make me think that Noxify is not a close friend of his that he is on friendly terms with. It is clear that infobox is there to make fun of Noxify. If he really likes to be made fun of that much, he can re-add it to his page, but I presume he wont. --Xeeron 19:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: He also made his last edit after the box had been reverted the first time (and before it was put up again) and did not add the box to his userpage. --Xeeron 19:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As with ShadowFog and Xeeron, simple courtesy would indicate that one does not trivially edit another user's user space unless that user has explicitly requested or granted such. You don't know whether a user would realise his user space was edited or not or how long a user will go without checking back, so you cannot simply edit another's page and then assume that since he/she did not remove it immediately, he/she approves it. That user may simply have not had the time to notice it. -- ab.er.rant 01:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Imo, if he's not watching his own page, that's his own fault... -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether he's watching his own page or not. The issue here is that you don't watch your page 24/7. -- ab.er.rant 05:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures and Signature

← moved to HELP:WIKI#Pictures and Signature

Skakid trolling... again.

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Skakid trolling... again.

So you counter his joke with trolling? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC

No. For one, posting that on here and demanding a ban from the sysops (and mildly insulting them), doesnt really get anywhere. Frankly, you're doing more harm than good in this case. Please take this into consideration in the future.--Raph Talk 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I agree with Noxify's usual behaviour, he has every right to report someone that persistently violates NPA (albeit, demanding a ban was a little overboard). Kokuou 04:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)