Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Temp removal of account creation filter[edit]

I'm planning on testing the current efficacy of our Abuse Filter in stopping spam. On June 10th, it stopped 200 accounts from being created, but I'd like to see how the other subsequent barriers handle the load.

I'll do it on a day when I have free time to monitor the wiki. Let me know your thoughts and/or objections. G R E E N E R 01:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Disabled the filter. Let's see how the other systems fair. G R E E N E R 13:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
6 hours off. 7 spam accounts created. 6 attempted spam but were stopped by other filters. 0 blocks on spam accounts (filters aren't set to do so atm). G R E E N E R 20:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the account creation log is hidden by default on both wikis thanks to Poke's extension. As long as they can't edit I don't think it matters if they've created accounts. -Chieftain Alex 17:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't the creation log spam that I was pondering. It was more me looking for the worst case scenario of actual spam given that there are fewer eyes around here. June's been very busy for me, so I haven't had the full couple of days that I wanted in order to run the filters through their paces. G R E E N E R 17:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Good morning, folks. I'm not sure if you have already seen this Reddit thread by numma_cway, but, in case you didn't, it might prove to be an interesting reading, and possibly, a later on addition into the assembly of extensions this wiki operates with. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for passing that on. I believe atm that it's Anet's goal to handle the security the same way across all five wikis that they manage. This particular wiki had the extra security of blocking all account creation, which put it out of step with the other four. If they decide to upgrade the security again, I'll make sure to bring this link to their attention. G R E E N E R 19:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

moderation discussion[edit]

moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Inactive Clean-up

related to this and few editors arent in the wiki discord [1] [2] [3] two editors questioned Alex banning User:Falconeye and how it was handled, leading to questioning the admins resulted in several comments being deleted and them being banned from the discord and threatening to ban them on the wikis without their knowledge. admins say warnings were given but i see none just Greener linking a wiki talk page shortly before the ban by Alex who threatened to ban them on wikis too. so did inc who is admin on gw2w. whole discussion in the screens, except the comments deleted by admins. hope this won't be deleted too apparently questioning admins is a sure way to get banned. gl horrible also from recent changes [4] --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I have no opinion on the banning of Falconeye since I am out of the loop, but those screenshots make it pretty clear what happened. Some people claim to have a problem with the actions of admins, and were specifically told where to go to address these problems. Instead of following that simple instruction, they just continued misusing the discord for their complaints. Since the discord is not a place where action is taken on such complaints, they knew perfectly well what they were doing: spreading the word in an attempt to create some extra drama.
Questioning the admins is not why they got banned, and you know that just as well as I do. -arnosluismans (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
yeah konig...Don't even think of touching a page that guy has edited... Auron said it best on his user talk page. Justice (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The fact that this page exists, and that people have been encouraged to use it, shows that we are not above being questioned. The reason(s) for the bans on another platform were not caused by anyone second-guessing an admin action. Greener (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Since link 4 is to my talkpage I'd like to stress that while I questioned Greener intensly in our original email exchange, he never ever threatened to ban me nor did he directly or indirectly, explicitely or implicitely hint at it. And my block log is empty up to today. He's been impeccably civil throughout all conversations. So I 100% distance myself from the sentiment expressed by the IP. Steve1 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to add another thing to this and say that those bans were handed out on Discord not solely because of the discussion shown in these screenshots. There’s additional history involved which I am not going to comment on as the Discord server is a different platform that is separate from the wiki.
In addition, I want to reiterate what Greener said in one of the screenshots: Being a valuable contributor does not excuse bad behavior. poke | talk 22:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That Rollback[edit]

moved from User talk:Rainith

Just wanted to say Thank you. I had seen what was written before, and not being familiar with the Assassin that well, I too would have rolled it back. Thank you again. Tikka LeFem talk (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem, I thought it just looked like a diatribe and general whining. Since the author was given a 'time out' by Greener, I felt that should probably be removed. If anyone feels otherwise, please let me know, I'm open to reverting it if it actually has some worth. --Rainith (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Read thru that venting off - so what exactly is the reason for reverting? That guy didn't break any rules in that essay, no swearing, nothing. I don't see that the rollback was justified. Whining isn't a reason from my understanding.
I'd even go so far that this other essay which was reverted twice by the IP was also within acceptable bounds and the IP was out of line to revert (and even do it twice).
Lastly, I actually feel that the one week ban for some swearing on a sandbox talk page which was self-reverted was too much. We had people break actual wiki rules and cause real disruption who didn't get a ban at all. Seems a bit inconsistent to me. Steve1 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Re: The week time-out. There was also their repeated attempts to be overly inflammatory, despite numerous warnings, that led to the length that I gave them. I didn't give these blocked edits too critical of an eye at the time, as I was focused on cleaning things up. Now that I've gone through them again, while a couple are appropriate warnings, others were caused by the same copy/pasted version of their text (i.e. the amount of filter warnings they had is over-inflated relative to their desire to be inflammatory).
Re: Their final version. I hadn't noticed that one version had stayed up until Rainith came along and rolled it back. As Rainith said above, they're willing to bring it back if that's a wish. Greener (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
My personal thoughts were that it should be removed for the simple reason that this isn't a forum, it is a wiki. I would have left it (and been against the ban) if it has been a similar post that was replying directly to information posted on the article page, that is (IMO) what the article talk pages are for. Or if this had been posted on their own userpage, fine, no problem. But it was posted, without being really related to or in response to anything on the article's page, which (again IMO) shouldn't necessarily be there and is of no use to the wiki or the wiki's goals of documenting the game.
That said, if you feel I overstepped, I will revert, just respond here and let me know. --Rainith (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi gang, I am taking this moment to add my .02 since this happened after my 'thank you for revert'; sure I myself could have done the revert, but I too was wondering if the "essay" should be there or perhaps on the ip's talk page (formerly known as Flameviper and further referred here as 'ip'), and since the comments was already reverted and also seeing that the ip was already put into 'wiki-timeout'. As for the 'time out' given; true the ip had/had not swore, depending how tightly the filter is set - the word "Hell" was used at least once, and that is even in most religious texts, so mute point and the usage of 'cuck' and 'ASS' being used a few times - 'ASSassin' (ip obviously has a disdain for the assassin class) and had even went to lengths to show this displeasure for the assassin class to emphasis his disdain cleverly. Now, the other inputs made from that 'ip' on other pages, seemed to me as simply that - a random wiki tagger. The action I feel IMHO, taken here was justly warranted.
Overstep? I think not. Swearing? Perhaps so, but I feel a mute point atm. Corrective action taken? Yes and duly met with. Humble reminder, this is coming from a wiki-user that enjoys reading this wiki for the insightful information contained herein for our game - Guild Wars. Do I check the "Recent Changes' ? Every time I log in, mainly to see what's newly added, with the occasional "tagger like activity" that is still happening; but thankfully not so bad as way back when, and when encountered, I simply revert when warranted.
Tikka LeFem talk (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I suppose nobody cares, but that assassin rant was hilarious to read while i drank my morning coffee when i noticed it in recent changes. 18:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
What in the seven hells are you talking about, Tikka?
Snark aside, I was talking about this fanboi IP:
Rainith, the whole thing is pretty inconsequential. And I don't know what FV was trying to post when triggering the abuse filter. Nonetheless, the 2 rants which got reverted didn't break any rules imo. On the other hand, also IMO, aforementioned IP overstepped when reverting the first time and certainly broke 1RR when doing it again - without any consequences. My personal takeaway: Whole thing inconsequential, both admins didn't do a good job. No one really cares. No need for you (Rainith) to undo. Steve1 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not here to be the great arbiter of justice. I am here to make sure that the wiki continues to function. The chances of that IP editing the wiki in the future are exceedingly small. The chances of them trying to edit while blocked is even smaller. That IP may not even be the next IP the user has when they attempt to edit next. After cleaning up after those children, I frankly couldn't give two fucks about them; they weren't even worth the time or energy it would have take to uselessly block that IP. But, if it makes you feel like justice has been served, here you go. Greener (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
FWIW I do think I should have handled the revert slightly different after reading folks concerns. What I should have done was removed it from the Mainspace talk page and moved it to the Userspace talk page along with a note saying that while not appropriate for the Manspace, we do allow that sort of thing in the Userspace. I'll keep this in mind going forward. --Rainith (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
So brave. 17:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't chastize yourself too hard. You offered to self-revert. Twice. Cheers, Steve1 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Flameviper's entire posting history on the wiki is ranting about the game, and experimenting with abusefilter to see what words they can get away with to rant about the game. We are not a forum, and while users occasionally getting off-topic is fine and expected, a user who comes here solely to use the wiki as a soapbox and no intention of contributing to the wiki amounts to vandalism. Revert and a brief block was an entirely reasonable course of action. - Tanetris (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)