Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 4

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Users who only contribute to their userpage

We have a few users who only contribute on their own userpages. Not mostly, but rather exclusively on their userspace (not even the talk page, rather the userpages themselves). Of course this isn't against any policy and etc...But does that bother anyone else? Feels like the main point of the wiki, to be a tool for documenting the game, is being ignored and replaced by free web hosting. IMO, this is something that could be actively enforced, not by banning people or taking any kind of punitive action, but just with a sysop leaving a message pointing how userpages are also important, but improving the wiki is more important than that. Or would it be better to leave this alone? Erasculio 12:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd be better of leaving it this way ~ KurdUser Kurd sig.png 13:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
May I see some examples?--User-Raph Sig3.JPGRaph Talk 12:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I meant more in principle, but here's an example. Erasculio 12:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
i know what you're talking about and i agree. it's sad i have to count myself amongst those who don't contribute very actively to the actual wiki (besides making some templates, voting and helping)... :( i think the cause for this is mostly that the wiki itself is stable and contains most information needed, so the most important task left now is maintaining this. - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.png 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is still plenty to do based on this and this and that's just images. --Kakarot Talk 13:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Try looking at the entire PvP section of the wiki, it's all stubs. There is plenty to do, but all RC tends to be is talk, user talk, user and guild space. Misery 13:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I also totally disagree that user space is "also important" ;o Misery 13:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
i didn't say we're done. i only said the most important stuff is there, which doesn't exclude subs being left. also, most pvp articles are on a level where i'd remove the stubs. images are also additional features that aren't crucially needed. - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.png 15:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahuh, very complete. Misery 17:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
Why do you take such an interest in what I do exactly?
I have contributed to the wiki, including adding to articles, but not lately. Whether I use my userpage to keep a list of of what I need to do with characters really should not be the largest concern in the world, but if it bothers you terribly I can simply move it to my own webserver. Free webhosting isn't an issue for me.
Ghosst I Make Dead PeopleTalk • 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Y0_ich, I'm not bringing this issue to complain about users like you who spend most of their time (or a considerable part of their time) on the wiki helping others. Someone who's always helping people to edit the wiki and understand how this place works is also improving the content we have, although indirectly, so those contributions are IMO as valuable as adding content to a mainspace article. Same with the sysops - even if they didn't contribute directly to the main space, they're already helping to improve the wiki by dealing with vandals, with disruptions and by keeping the structure that allows users as a whole to add content about GW.
My concern are users who don't do absolutely nothing to help improve the content on the wiki, be it directly or indirectly. An user who does nothing but work on his/her userspace isn't really improving the wiki, be it directly or indirectly. So far the community just ignores when that happens, but I believe a note - not a demand or a punishment or a threat, just a note - pointing how the wiki as a whole matters more than one userpage could be useful in those cases. Erasculio 16:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could have something like autoconfirm, where you were only allowed to manage your userpage after making a couple of edits in main page articles.--Fighterdoken 16:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No it does not bother me. Why should it? I never see them except in RC once in a while, they don't troll, vandalize or else disrupt wiki. But they get a nice place to be together with a community. The user space is also a BIG gateway into editing main space. Experimenting in user space lets you get confident with code and curious about main space, in my own experience. That's why I think any kind of limit to what you can edit is bad.
And also, I think the game being three years old, there already existing a wiki covering what we do not (most of the time) and us covering most things about most things, main space simply isn't as interesting as before. - anja talk 16:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
My comment was squarely aimed at Erasculio. Seems since I don't bother with him he's felt the need to single me out. Why he follows me around the wiki is beyond me, why I have to discuss it makes less sense to me. This is a waste of an op's time, but apparently it's "contributing". Ghosst I Make Dead PeopleTalk
Please don't degenerate this discussion by turning it into a personal issue; Erasculio's concerns go further than any one user, and I doubt he's doing it to single you or anyone out; it's quite a general issue.
Back on topic, I understand where Erasculio's coming from; however, I think along the same lines as Anja. Going from personal experience, my first contributions were to my userspace and guildspace, building my character pages and whatnot. I gradually moved to the mainspace and other areas. Granted, not everyone will begin contributing to mainspace or helping the wiki in another way, but I think the potential gain we get from userspace edits is enough to counter other concerns about them. If we restricted users from creating userpages from the off, as Fighterdoken suggests, we may lose potential contributors in the long-term (and there are also other problems that come with that). Giving notifications to the userspace-editors who do nothing but may not be necessary, but a polite message pointing them to our starting pages, such as Guild Wars Wiki:How to help, may give that little encouraging push that might make them start contributing to mainspace. We shouldn't make it a requirement or necessity (nor something to be enforced), and likewise we shouldn't restrict them, as they may introduce users to places they may not have known existed. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 19:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The wiki's been largely successful run the way it is (at least with regards to user editing), so there's no need to drastically change it and potentially deter new users from coming and editing here. Ghosst, Erasculio wasn't trying to single you out, he was simply asked to provide an example. He didn't come out saying "Ghosst, x, y, and z are all prolifically editing their userspace but not any other, more useful content-related namespaces". I'm guessing he saw your name popping up on the recent changes list a lot and figured you were a good example of the message he was trying to get across. calor (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
A polite message is what I'm aiming for. Maybe even just a link to the stuff that needs to be done (like the Projects section), to help the users who only edit their userspace thinking that there's nothing left to be done on the mainspace. Erasculio 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I share some of your concerns Erasculio, however, as Anja pointed out, the majority of these people do not disrupt the wiki. The ones that do however are another matter, there are some who have thousands of posts over 12 months or more... all in user/ArenaNet space who are simply here to troll, harass other users, or complain to ArenaNet about things being broken, or in some cases simply add their opinion into discussions that have nothing to do with them. These don't qualify as new imo, and have pretty much proven they are really not 'potential contributors' by their history and actions. I am torn about a solution, as the one and only time I tried posting a message to one of these users I was barraged with negative responses from the community indicating their displeasure in my suggesting that this user provide some 'positive contributions to the purpose of this wiki'. I don't think it's something we can make into policy, as the userspace is a legitimate part of this wiki, and the views of the community are much too diverse to easily reach concensus. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate having to even follow this discussion. Let make this clear since we need to spell every little tiny thing out on this wiki in grade 3 English:
I do contribute. I may not make it my full time job, but I do contribute. If I edit my userpage more than the main wiki articles and that is a giant issue (yes, I read the opinions where it is not) then put a big giant "THIS USER IS A USERPAGE WHORE" sticky on my page. I don't care. But, and let me make this explicit; Erasculio: DO NOT ADDRESS ME, REFERENCE ME, OR TALK TO ME. I joined this wiki with the aim of helping and I have, can, and do. Now then, I am removing this page from my watchlist so whatever happens beyond this post will go unnoticed. If you don't like me, tough. Suck it up buttercup. This was personal, and don't pretend it wasn't. I stay away from you, be a man and do the same. Sadly, I had to voice it.
Ghosst I Make Dead PeopleTalk

Ghosst, my comments were not directed at you, I KNOW you contribute, your history shows that, you are NOT a problem here. If you wish to direct comments to Erasculio regarding his posts here, use his talk page, and work it out there. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 20:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Ghost, relax! Erasculio did NOT single you out, he used you as an example which I ASKED FOR. Also, he said before he made the example, that he was thinking more as a general issue, as opposed to blaming certain users. Please, dont overreact, this is a serious discussion that is not pointing fingers (or arrows --->) at people--User-Raph Sig3.JPGRaph Talk 21:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
@Erasculio: I really don't see why you care if those users don't edit mainspace articles. Not everyone signs up on a wiki to "improve" it, some just want a handle to be known by when they occassionaly edit. Ghosst edits occassionaly, he's a bad example.
As long as they don't disrupt the wiki, I don't see why you should make such a big deal out of it. They're not doing anything wrong, they edit what they want to edit. If they want to edit mainspace, they will. If they don't, they won't. Big fucking deal. -- Mini Me talk 21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it feels like we're kinda of losing focus on the goal of the wiki. Between all the policy discussions, all the voting for someone (be it sysops or bureaucrats), talking with the Arena Net staff, dealing with skill feedback, managing Guild Wars suggestions, updating the userpages and just talking to people...It feels like documenting the game, which theorically is the main goal of the wiki, has been left aside. Of course, if doing all those other things is what people want to do (and I'm rather fond of some of them myself), more power to them; but I think that, in some extreme cases, a small nudge toward mainspace contributions would be more helpful than hurtful. Erasculio 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to my life. Probably this wiki would work alot better document wise if it didn't had User:, Guild: and ArenaNet:, but is hard to take something away from people if you gave it to them from the begining. So, same as others have to live with all the policing and guidelines and bureaucracy, we have to live with them wasting resources. At least we don't pay for the bandwith :).--Fighterdoken 21:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What I dont understand is why people arent taking this as a valid "suggestion". Indeed, this wiki was created to document guild wars. Dont get me wrong, go ahead and make your userpage as nice and fancy looking as you want but, using this wiki just to "advertise" yourself isnt really documenting the game. I am NOT singling anyone out here, but i am making a general observation, just like Erasculio and many other users.--User-Raph Sig3.JPGRaph Talk 03:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The main reason why I created my account here was to meet people in the community, not only for here but for Guild Wars itself.....I don't see anything wrong with that. Even if I were to strictly edit only my user page, guild page, and user talk page, I havent done anything wrong to the wiki. So why should I be punished for not "helping" it? I'm not understanding this at all...... --User Wandering Traveler Oie User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 05:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
For once, you would be wasting server resources on a unintended task (and wasting admin's time for when you "screw up", and wasting RC lurker's time by filling up RC with garbage). If your (refering to the person in your example) intention was to come here and "meet the community", things like Facebook would probably be more appropiate. All in all, i blame Anet for just throwing things to the air and not paying attention XD.--Fighterdoken 06:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok... let's get real here.... we can't force any user to contribute to mainspace... however, if we ALL took a little time (especially those users who have volunteered to be helpers to welcome new users personally, not with some prewritten template, and tell them about GWW:PROJECTS, and point them to the things that are ongoing needs of documenting the game, it might go farther than trying to make it some kind of requirement. People say... well, there are all the links in the nav boxes that all they have to do is click on... well, lots of people DON'T click on them unless they are pointed to them. If a user posts on a mainspace talk page and says... "this needs to be added to the article"... respond to them with encouragement to add it.. rather than doing it yourself. A lot of new users come here and think this is some ArenaNet site... that it's only for them to read, if they don't understand how a wiki works... I didn't when I started here. I'd like to ask how many of the people actively involved in this conversation are participating in an active project? I don't mean to sound critical, I know we all have our areas we enjoy, but seriously, Erasculio, your contributions total 2574. Of those, 830 are in mainspace, 941 are in userspace, 202 are in ArenaNet, and 516 are in GWW. I don't see that as being an overwhelming majority of your contributions being aimed at contributing to the documenting of the game. My percentages are even less... though my numbers are much higher, and a large portion of my userspace contributions have been in helping other users. If we want to change the way the community treats this wiki, we need to set positive examples, stop focusing on what everyone else is (or in this case is not) doing. We can't control how anyone else contributes, only how we do ourselves. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 06:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Wynthyst, I'm working on a side project to copy all skill animations into .gif files (progress may be seen here, still way too much stuff to go). You are a sysop, so regardless of how many content contributions to mainspace you have, you are already helping the wiki imensily just by keeping it stable.
Regardless, I'm not trying to excuse myself. Most of my contributions have likely been about either policy discussions and/or skill feedback and/or talking to the Arena Net staff; and it was that realization, together with of how many users have a contribution pattern similar or even less focused on the mainspace than mine, that made me begin this section.
That's one of the reasons why I think letting people know how they may help the wiki (and that they can, in fact, help the wiki) content-wise could be interesting. Not with any kind of restriction or punishment, but like Brains and Wynthyst said, by leaving polite messages letting people know about things like GWW:PROJECTS. I'm fairly sure a lot of users would still not contribute to the mainspace and that's within their rights, but if a few of those who today don't add content actually began contributing thanks to this strategy, I think it would be improving the wiki, even if only slightly. Erasculio 09:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested to me making a mini projects subpage in my userspace and moving this discussion there. Given how that's a very reasonable suggestion, I have made a page here, and hopefully those interested could brainstorm a little over there. Erasculio 13:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm kinda surprised this sort of comment came from you, Erasculio. It's rather disconcerting. A user account is merely a means of identification for a user. Granted, user space is not personal web hosting, and GWW:USER does cover that. If it's mostly just GW character stuff, then it's harmless. And to disagree with Fighterdoken, there's no "wastage of resources". A couple of edits and views per day from a single user on a single user space is of negligible impact to the server.

What in the world are you guys thinking? We all contribute voluntarily. We contribute because we want to. We don't contribute because other people are contributing. And we don't contribute because we are forced to. Yes, it may be that some users are just taking advantage of the existence of a user space and just want a personal space. Let them. If these users start filling their user space with non-GW related stuff, then feel free to point them out. This is similar to why we are still allowing anonymous edits. What is the harm of letting people have a little fun on a wiki that we don't own in the hopes that a small fraction of them take an interest in the general function and growth of the wiki? Why seek to drive them away by coercing them? I hope you all realise that those sort of so-called "polite messages" will undeniably imply "contribute or get out". -- User Sig.png 15:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's impossible to make incentives that don't sound like threats. Thanks for the great evaluation of our messages before you even saw them, that kind of informed feedback is greatly appreciated. Erasculio 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I am going to be honest... my original intent for joining this wiki was to have a place to document my characters and my guild. When I first joined I couldn't have cared less about the Main space. However, as I used my userspace to work out code and figure out how to do things I wanted to contribute more. So I started spreading out into the GWW space and Main space. This is how it goes for most users, they start with their userspace and SLOWLY move to the Main space and other areas of the wiki. You can't dictate this, you can't have a policy for it; that will only drive away potential editors. As long as they don't get disruptive, leave them be. They will come to contribute to other parts of the wiki in their own time. --Shadowphoenix Happy Halloween 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
May i ask... What is exactly wrong with a "contribute or get out" message? At least that would accomplish what the wiki primary role is, and we would leave all our "happy birthday" and "you suck at PvP" for forums and out of this place.
As you said, User: is not intended for be used as a webpage, but it is used (and as a blog, and as a game center, and as a character database). Also, you are wrong in one point. We discussed before, and the consensus was that it didn't matter what the content on User: was (even if it is non-GW related), so we can't "contest" it unless it breaks the rules (see link spammers).--Fighterdoken 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I have left this discussion alone until now. This whole thing is ridiculous really. Unless Anet have issue with people only using the wiki within their own userspace then I do not see the problem. Nobody here pays for the webhosting etc. As long as said editors stay within the policies set up for userspace then what is the problem, how does it adversely affect you, or the wiki in general? You can't force people to contribute. And you are potentially losing out on the users like SP who migrate from being one kind of user to the other that you will very probably drive away with this ridiculous idea. Seriously, everyone who thinks this is a good idea should go take some deep breaths and concentrate on some issues that actually matter. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 18:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess you are right, in the end this discussion (which may lead to a modification on GWW:USER, hence NOT useless) is going nowhere given that is hard to reach consensus between 1 and 0 on a binary system...
But i have to say it "just because i don't pay it it doesn't matter me" is an attitude i have never agreed with. Same as the people who goes and paints a graffiti at your house's wall because "it's not theirs, so they don't care", or the guys who breaks road signals because "it's not heirs, so they don't care". I would just love to see statistics of activity and content storage separated by namespace to see if i have a point or i should just shut up XD.--Fighterdoken 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
That analogy has about as much relevance to this situation as skill does to raptor farming. These users are not vandalising, and the people who own the "property" have not expressed a problem with what they are doing. I think you are missing the point that it doesn't matter what the stats say. Unless the owners have a problem with it, we should be encouraging all of these users to carry on using as if even one of them becomes a main space editor we are better off as a community and no worse off. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
srsly there's not much more to write about, it's been more than a year since GWEN. also, telling ppl to contribute or GTFO would look pretty lame. --Cancer Angel y so srs? 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying "contribute or GTFO" --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 19:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
And ideas to incentivize people to contribute to the mainspace aren't exactly new. Erasculio 20:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
And if you'd read the entire conversation, Cursed Angel, you'd know that, like Wyn says, no one's saying "contribute and GTFO" and that there are in fact things that need improving. Kokuou 01:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I "evaluated" your suggestion by your "a note pointing how the wiki as a whole matters more than one userpage". You are essentially suggesting that we recommend these lurkers to start editing the main space and edit their user page less. No matter how polite you try to be, you will most assuredly come across as being threatening/overbearing to a certain group of users. Look at how Ghosst reacted. Look into history and see the varied and often hostile reactions at the supposedly "friendly" welcome message we used to have.
I'm not aiming to step on anyone's toes here, I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of nudging people to contribute their time and effort for something that should be entirely voluntary. It's one thing to hold a contest for who contributes the most but quite another to inform a user that he or she is spending too much time on non-main space stuff. It's almost like a forum moderator telling you not to edit your profile so much and post more comments. Or telling people not to loiter around malls idling away and not buying anything. -- User Sig.png 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, if it makes you uncomfortable, you don't need to participate. I believe Ghosst reacted the way he did because it seemed he was being singled out in a very public way. I also believe the reason Erasculio created the page in his userspace was so this conversation could be taken THERE, and not continued here. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There is one crucial point to this argument which did get mentioned in passing but a lot of people seem to have overlooked. There is very little new content in the game right now, and lets be honest, most articles exist and have content. Yes there are still bits and bobs that need doing, but there isn't massive volumes of data that the wiki is missing. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 13:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually, Lemming, that is a comment I have made even recently. Another situation has occurred which will be misleading as to user contributions (albeit an extremely rare occurrence). You will see the majority of my upcoming edits taking place in the user space, but it is driven by trying to cleanup the missing pages list. See here for more info.Mohnzh say what? 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We still don't know the maximum health for almost all monsters, though. Or maximum energy, or armor against each element and each kind of physical attack. The articles with skill update story are only beginning...Not to mention all the projects, all the stubs, etc. I think there's a lot to be done, even though I wouldn't be surprised if most users have not been made aware of everything we could do here. Erasculio 16:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Half the Guild Hall articles are still stubs and I am the only person doing them. I'm pretty lazy so it's getting done slowly. I am sure there is a crapload of data that is missing, to say otherwise is naive. There are some quest articles around with no data at all that I have seen in my travels. Misery 16:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, because I am completely for the preservation and COMPLETE documentation of GW, but Aberrant and Wynthyst and the others have a point. I say we compromise. Don't immediately tell a user that he/she needs to contribute to the Mainspace or get out, take it slow. If they spend about 5 months on solely their userpage, guild page, etc., THAT is the time to give them a little nudge to start working on projects, or expanding stubs. "What if they refuse?", well, let them! They have a right to do what they want on the wiki, provided it doesnt breach policy. If they say "ok, ill see what I can do," thats great! That means one more actively contributing member of this wiki. My main point in this set of paragraphs is this:be patient! Wait a while, and they'll eventually start contributing more, even if you had to nudge them in that direction after 5 months. But if they dont, dont hawk over them about it, or they become one more "dead" user that might've started helping erasculio with animation .gifs after about a year.--User-Raph Sig3.JPGRaph Talk 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

May not be possible but if it becomes the case of 5 months then a friendly nudge,why not direct the users to pages that need work relative to their interests.Such as,I rarely visit main space or edit much other than my own page,I would (after 5 months or such) be pointed to something Necromancer related,as that is my main interest/profession played. Might be a bad idea but could encourage more contributions of a nature relative to the contributorUser BlackBlood Pacman1.JPGBlackBlood - talk 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but we are not mind readers, that's why contribs are individually driven. Also remember is good to keep clients happy, so between bothering ppl who just pimp out their userpage and let them be, Anet has and easy choice. So do we.User Ereanor sig.jpgreanor 21:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone with a "pimped" player page would have some sign relative to their interests.Example is my userpage/subpage's where it's clear I only play one profession,it isn't too taxing to figure out User BlackBlood Pacman1.JPGBlackBlood - talk 02:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Template protection

Do we want to temp protect templates such as Template: NPC infobox so that only autoconfirmed users can edit/move the page, in light of two recent streaks of vandalism? calor (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why haven't they? Dominator Matrix 03:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Even a Template semi-protect would be nice. Its pretty rare that we have to change a template around (I think?). --User Wandering Traveler Oie User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 03:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
IMO perma autoconfirmed-edit and sysop-move --JonTheMon 03:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The job queue is still at ~85,000 so we should wait :/. Dominator Matrix 03:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict x2) (Damn EC's) They were for a time, but they went for months without being touched, and there was no reason to unnecessarily protect pages. Also, Jon suggested edit=autoconfirmed, move=sysop, seeing as there is no need for the pages to be moved under any foreseeable circumstances, and they could be moved by a sysop if necessary. To WT, small fixes are relatively frequent depending on the nature of the template. And me cries about job queue. calor (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
NO we dont' want to protect templates. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 03:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not? (spake the ignorant) --JonTheMon 03:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Why? (not doubting your judgment; simply want to see both sides of the coin). Protecting a few relatively high-use templates from edits from unregistered users to keep the wiki running as smooth as possible seems reasonable enough. calor (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I'll say this once. IP's and new users just can't be trusted. I don't care about AGF. Plus it saves the wiki from crunching old data like this. Dominator Matrix 03:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
In the case of templates such as the one given here as example (and a few others), most changes (even from registered and known users) are discussed first. Changes not discussed are usually vandalism, made by mistake, or just typo-fix/maintenance. Since the last changes i named are done by registered users anyways, there is most benefit in having them semi-protected than in not.--Fighterdoken 04:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The vandalism came from a registered user, so I don't think autoconfirmed protection is necessary; I don't think sysop protection is necessary either, seeing as most edits to templates come from non-sysops anyway.
Dominator, that attitude is completely unacceptable. Assuming good faith and trusting both registered and unregistered users are core principles of a wiki. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 15:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, the vandalism last night was from an experienced registered user who knew exactly what to do to cause the most serverload issues. Putting protections on any page should only be done in extreme circumstances. I agree that I find Dom's attitude unacceptable as well. It's not going to kill the wiki or any of us if a new user unintentionally makes an error and we aren't going to stop vandalism by protecting them. The vandals will just find something else. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
We had that discussion a while ago, and I still see no need for a permanent protection; especially as the vandalism has reduced a lot in the past. poke | talk 17:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting comments, ShadowFog

Well Brains12 blocked ShadowFog, that was the most stupid block I've seen in a while. I don't see any merit behind it. He was discussing ideas just like Auron, yet he gets blocked because Brains12 has preference toward sysops and select users. I've had problems about heated discussions in my page and the first thing told to me was that I could not delete comments unless they constitute a NPA, but here comes Brains12 saying that what ShadowFog did (the exact same thing Auron does in all of ShadowFog's post) constitues a personal attack. Brains12 does an awful job being sysop.

I'll ask this, can I remove and delete every comment in my archives and discussion that has trolling, snipe and insinuating personal attacks (which is snipe)?Auron(sysop for those who don't participate around here) called ShadowFog an asshole and trolled almost every post by him,so also can I remove trolling comments from the wiki pages?Auron could remove them and removed also all comments from ShadowFog, even those that aren't trolling(when in fact none of them were trolling, for trolling see Lilondra postings) by ShadowFog, can I remove comments by anyone who has express dislikeness to me and me to them from my pages?--Wealedout 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You can on GuildWiki. >.> I don't know what the policy is here, but I'd think that since it's your talkpage you can do whatever you want with it. Whether you can or cannot do it, though, is irrelevant to the block reason. NPA is srs bsns and all. Vili User talk:Vili 20:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Wealedout, you may wish to check the noticeboard and see who it was that actually told Shadowfog his comments were NPA violations, it wasn't Brains12, even though Brains is the one that eventually did block him. If you feel that Brains12 is such a bad sysop, you are free to call for a reconfirmation. As per GWW:USER you are welcome to remove comments that violate GWW:NPA if you wish, from your user talk page, and archives, but be sure they really are violations. If you feel Auron (or any other community member) has violated NPA, feel free to link it on the Noticeboard, and appropriate action will be taken. As for removing comments from talk pages other than your userspace, no, you may not. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 20:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the OP is refering to the removal of messages that, even though were from the same user and in a simmilar tone, were not a breach of NPA (the second batch on the link posted in the admin page). Still, those messages could easily count as trolling, so it falls on a grey area. Most users would just archive them, but there are precedents already of removal of that kind of messages in other userpages.--Fighterdoken 21:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It's funny how people keep saying Auron keeps breaching NPA but noone ever reports him. Mini Me talk 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No, they can't. It's our user talk page directed at them, not a second userpage, in our system. Backsword 08:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
So theoretically, I couldn't make people shut up even if I wanted to (via censorship), unless it was some sort of NPA? Hmm. That is disheartening. Vili User talk:Vili 10:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if they are providing relevant information, you are not supposed to shut them up. OTOH, if they post to harass, report them, and a sysop will deal with them. That's more effective, and will not ping your talk. Backsword 12:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Ye. Sysops can deal with most people, but if someone is really being an asshat about it (but not really breaking NPA) you can take it to arbcomm and they can make a ruling telling that person to stay away from your talk page. -User Auron csig.png Auron 12:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the first thing to do is ask that person and try and work it out between yourselves. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 15:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal responsibility? Preposterous! -User Auron csig.png Auron 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I tried at the beginning of my talk page to gently try to tell other about them being asshats, but what I got was Brains12 taking their side. ShadowFog used the same quotes from Auron's trollings, he got banned, Auron deleted all of ShadowFog's comments from his page. Well I want to do the same about my archives (entertaining stuff) without being warned and banned, but not one sysop has come forth saying that I, like Auron, can delete anything from my talk page I dislike, just like Auron;even if it isn't NPA.

I want to do the same, delete everything in my talk page about everyone who post, posted different ideas, dislikeness towards me and what I believe(in this case it was about ritualist stuff).--Wealedout 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Shadowfog was actually trolling and being extremely aggressive. Everyone is allowed to delete comments like that. Mini Me talk 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
To clarify that: I was the one calling ShadowFog's posts a NPA and I stand by that one. It was not a very strong NPA, that is why I stopped at a warning instead of a block. However, Brains (no doubt also in light of earlier actions of ShadowFog) had a different interpretation and choose to issue a block on top of the warning.
I can only speak for myself, but I am confident that all other sysops see this the same way when I say that I would act exactly the same way if Auron were to behave in the way ShadowFog did. --Xeeron 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like this Xeeron, no? He did not like all of ShadowFog's comments and he deleted them all from his page and nobody has answered me yet. When Armond made that NPA attack on my page, I did not delete it, but we users can use this as precedence to say that any user with any kind of NPA comment & non NPA comment in their User:Talk pages can delete the comments?

I thought that only NPA comments should have been deleted, not every comment, isn't it against the rules?. So that means when Wandering Traveler undo my action of deleting Nuklear's comment, it was an action considered for ban for edit war? I'll rewrite it in case it misses attention:I want to do the same, delete everything in my talk page about everyone who posts dislikeness towards me and what I believe(in Auron's case it was about ritualist stuff).--Wealedout 02:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how I've been called on a revert, I'll ask this: Are you talking about the revert I did here some months ago? If you are, I reverted it because there was nothing I saw that was in line with NPA. It was a friendly request by Nuke to bring up something with him, not a form of attack. If that is not the edit you're talking about, then please link to where I was reverting statements. User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 02:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I also believe that the rules for deleting comments from talk pages are fairly clear. If you feel a comment violates GWW:NPA on your talk page, you can delete it. However, if you feel a user has indeed violated NPA, it should also be reported on the Admin Noticeboard so that appropriate administrative action can be taken. As an admin, Auron made the decision that the comments did indeed violate NPA, but chose not to take further action against Shadowfog for it, that decision was made by additional admins being brought into it when Auron's comment deletion was questioned on the Noticeboard. So by trying to cause problems for Auron, he simply brought his own violation into more prominent view. I don't see what is so difficult about this to understand. I also don't understand this ongoing vendetta to cause problems for Auron, it's becoming a predictable pattern. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 03:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Nuklear's comments were not personal attacks. The things you said were bordering on NPA, and I believe Wynthyst was warning you for that. I think you need to learn what a personal attack is and what isn't one. Mini Me talk 13:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what is a NPA Mini Me. If you write with more dedication Mini Me I might discuss more with you, about Wandering Traveler, I'm not calling you for a revert, don't worry about it, but what you wrote is important to what I am asking: "I reverted it because there was nothing I saw that was in line with NPA",

Auron can troll all he wants and put holiday dildos( <:p )in his signatures all he wants I don't know any vendetta against him and like I've wrote before to him,I don't have any personal vendetta against him, if he has been repeatedly scorned by users then that is new to me. I'll put it more clearly, I am discussing about:

"lol yes indeed! Anything works in PvE! Bu who the fuck said you have to move in to melee range? Why dont they or better yet you have a fucking monk, use your head. Looks like in that statement it was just small ideas but it's amusing how you guys tend to overextend small ideas. Is the game that bad that you get so bored in GW and go here make a fuss about some small ideas? Time wasted with small statement is better spend in GW.--ShadowFog 04:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)"

In ShadowFog's defense, I would have said the same thing. I don't find anything wrong here. In Auron's defense, ShadowFog used "fuck" a lot but profanities is no cause to ban anyone here. Yet, it was deleted. Well I ask again:Can I do the same? Delete everything in my talk page about everyone who posts dislikeness towards me and what I believe(in Auron's case it was about ritualist stuff).Because in this statement by ShadowFog he was discussing different ideas to the other participants and like everyone, this particular statement tries to convince other users of his ideas just like every discussion in the wiki.--Wealedout 15:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see why I should write with more "dedication" when I can get my point across in short posts. Mini Me talk 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
--> You can remove personal attacks. <--
That comment by ShadowFog contained personal attacks and snide remarks, and Auron is entitled to remove it (as others have already said). Reading Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks might also help you. If you're unclear about what is or isn't a personal attack, ask an admin if necessary.
Length doesn't show the strength or "dedication" of posts, the arguments contained within them do. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 17:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Holiday dildos are not NPA and as such not interesting to the discussion. Auron did remove parts that are not directly NPA, but did not make sense without the NPA. When I followed the link, I thought about the issue, noticed that this had not been forseen in the policy and decided that removing non-relevant text that is a direct follow up to a removed NPA was not a bad enough action to warrant mentioning it to the user (in this case Auron). In fact, I just noticed that (still on Auron's talk page atm) you can find a post by me reminding him to tone down his language, so you should drop your case already. --Xeeron 22:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


Is one count of vandalism enough for consideration of a block? If not, at what point would a block be appropriate? — Jon 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking assume good faith into account, revert the first instance and leave a warning on the user or IP's talk. If they do it again, OR if the first instance of vandalism was obviously something they knew to be wrong, report it on the noticeboard. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a little hard to assume good faith when their edit screams vandalism. I would have left it at a warning, but seeing other vandalism posts in their contribs, I decided to report it and leave it to the sysops discretion, as I'm sure theirs is better than mine, and I trust their judgement. — Jon 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
That's what I'd do, indeed. Besides, the admin noticeboard is not a place where you claim users should be banned, it's a place to make the admins aware of the actions of users, so even when it's just one act of vandalism, you might want to post something here, just to make sure the user is being watched, even if it does not lead to a block. WhyUser talk:Why Are We Fighting 13:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the type of vandalism. If there is racist/sexist etc. vandalism I'd block straight away on the first instance. However, most blocks for vandalism are issued to prevent further vandalism, rather than as a punishment - especially for anon IPs. If there is only one isolated instance, just revert and leave a warning. If it continues or you are unsure about what to do, leave a message on the Noticeboard and we'll take care of it. -- User indochine dsk tree.png Indochine talk 13:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Many vandals are kids fooling around, so a simple "yo dawg stop vandalizing" is enough to get them to stop. -User Auron csig.png Auron 13:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If a block is appropriate depends on multiple things, for example what kind of vandalism is it (blanking page, replacing with PAs or similar, adding gibber etc.), how it is done (for example the typical gibber identification way), who does it (anonymous or registered, how is that user's name etc.) and also when it was done (is it already hours ago since the last edit, then it doesn't look as if the user is coming back).. poke | talk 15:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

NPA Violation by User:Dark Morphon

moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard
Why not? It's a personal attack, isn't it? 18:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, technically it can't be an NPA violation because he's decided that a particular IP is uncool. If you had an account, on the other hand... --snogratUser Snograt signature.png 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
He calls a person who contributed on that NPA a dumbass. Just because the IP can be used by another person doesn't mean that it wasn't an attack at the first person. 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, he claims IP should be in the "dumbass" "dumbness" (i failed there too, note the difference) list, plus calls other users "idiot" and "fag" in the same page. Certainly not entirely "in compliance with the NPA police", but i guess he may have been trying to be sarcastic, specially given the people who is on his "cool" list.--Fighterdoken 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a reason to doubt he's being sarcastic, just look at my talk page. At any rate, I would like the wiki to speak out if this is an NPA violation or not. If it's not, what is to stop people from making other lists. It is an NPA breach to call someone a shithead, but is it ok top put someone's name on a list of people who are shitheads? If it's ok, then I am more than willing to make my own "list of people whose intelligence level doesn't allow them to understand game balance". 09:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be a very long list. It would also be uncool.
Oh dear, I committed an NPA! Vili User talk:Vili 09:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Dark Morphon has been blocked, and the NPA violation comments have been removed from his page. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 10:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Still, I'd like to know the wiki's position on those lists. The uncool list is ok, I read that. What kind of lists would be ok, and which ones wouldn't be? Being on the uncool list of multiple person could potentially result in angry people, heated debates, etc. So how about a friendly: "let's stick to the positive lists only" request? 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You can have whatever lists you want that don't violate NPA, it's pretty commonsense. I mean, a list of assholes would be a violation. A list of people with poor attitudes would not. We aren't going to spell out every single thing that would/would not violate a policy because that's just inviting the wikilawyering. Each case is taken one by one. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 14:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Snograt, a personal attack against an unregistered user is as much of a personal attack as it is against a registered user. It's not "No personal attacks, unless they're IPs". --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 16:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Wyn. I'll keep that in mind. 17:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I know, Plingggggg - and my apologies to you, 145, for that flippant remark. Wiki rule #1 - never edit when under the effects of extreme tiredness ;) --snogratUser Snograt signature.png 20:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
But that's when I do all my wiki edits. :\ Any more, here's a general rule of thumb for lists. Don't make them if you wouldn't want to be on them. Vili User talk:Vili 09:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sowait. "You're an asshole" and "You have a very poor attitude" are different things? I read the policy as "No Personal Attacks", not as "No Foul Language" or "No Mean-Sounding Personal Attacks". Calling someone a "fuckhead" by any other name is still calling them a "fuckhead", no? If that's not the case (as I suspect it isn't), then why is it any different for listing people? User Raine R.gif Raine - talk 01:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but intent has a lot to do with it. If someone called me an asshole, I would take it as an insult, as it was probably intented as one. If someone told me I had a bad attitude, I would see it as the pointing out of an error. I don't tell people they have a bad attitude to insult them. — Jon 01:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Intent does matter, exactly. So what's the difference between a list of "assholes" and a list of "uncool people"? I don't see benign intent in either case. User Raine R.gif Raine - talk 02:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if I said you were a decadent slug, that's considerably less insulting than saying your daddy's so black, he... etc. Degree of insult and intent are both important, I guess. Vili User talk:Vili 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
So should the policy be edited? Because right now, it's looking more like "No Maliciously-Intended and/or Particularly Foul Personal Attacks or Might-Be Personal Attacks by Shard or Auron". GWW:NMIaoPFPAoMBPAbSoA FTW? User Raine R.gif Raine - talk 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"In Dubione?"

"Voting weight"? Don't think you understand how decisions are made here. We go by consensus, not voting; anyway, the increase in the strictness of enforcement on Izzy's talk page was decided by consensus - I guess you could call that your "voting weight" if you really wanted to. All I've seen so far are various "why you do that for?" or "stop being a retarded ass kisser" comments, but no one's actually restarted the discussion about the 'volatile'-talk page system and tried to find a new consensus.

Also, you need to realise that not every page can or needs to be the same... grey areas and exceptions exist, and Izzy's talk page is one of two talk pages where such an exception has been put in place following the discussion and consensus. Also also, the noticeboard (and the wiki in general) isn't a courtroom or soapbox :/. Less hyperbole and righteousness, please. "for the proper bureaucratic system."; "a convention can only work in a righteouss community if it applies to everyone and every case"; I don't even know what to say to that.

By the way, "short and neutral summary" ← --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 23:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's about time we turned that discussion into a policy? Would make it easier to handle this kind of thing. Erasculio 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it was Guild Wars Wiki:Talk pages that people wanted to put it in. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Ta-daaa. Erasculio 01:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
One last question, not request: Is there a controlling instance that prevents the rest of the Wiki being "concensed" like this? Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 01:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"concensed"? --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 01:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
*Censored? — Jon 01:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not a native english speak and I try to do my best :( I meant something like "given the property of being protected against any comment but of one single kind of topics". Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be censorship. — Jon 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The controlling property is YOU. Get involved in the discussions and alter the consensus if it's not to your liking. Power to the people. :p Vili User talk:Vili 01:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Not to come back from inactivity purely to troll, but that's too cliche. calor (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The admins have the discretion to 'judge what belongs and what doesn't', but those admins are chosen by the community, the pages are chosen by the community, and community consensus trumps any other decision. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Your mom is cliche. (omg npa!) The point was that I don't see the logic in complaining after the fact about the result of a decision based on consensus (ie. to monitor Izzy's talkpage), if you couldn't be bothered to participate in said consensus. (If the user did not exist on this wiki at the time of that discussion, then that makes my points null and void for him personally, but still valid in general. Don't whine about elections if you don't vote/participate in any way. :p ) Vili User talk:Vili 02:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
It's ok to complain after the fact, but do so in a discussion that is intended to review or redefine the consensus. Don't meaninglessly say "that's bad" and not actually do anything about it. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Stupid people electing other people is a cliche, but that's how society runs. The truth is, if you don't like something, go eat a pop tart because there's nothing you can do to trump the opinions of a hundred idiots. ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 02:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Because they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience? ;) 2 things for Brains... firstly, I don't think this is "a discussion that is intended to review or redefine the consensus", hence my comment; and secondly, random irrelevant link. :) Vili User talk:Vili 03:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FIELD_OTHER vandalism

It ought to be possible to block edits based on edit summary, I think...that would kill this type of vandalism easily. Vili User talk:Vili 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not possible without extensions, but not needed either... We had much harder times with vandalism in the past, so we will handle this ;) poke | talk 17:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Not to ask a stupid question, but due to my inactivity, I have no clue what a FIELD_Other bot/vandalism is. For my knowledge, what is it? calor (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
That's the edit summary, replaces one section with some garbage. Vandalbot. Misery 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Similar to a gibberbot, but with "FIELD_OTHER" in the edit summary (and sometimes the edit itself) instead of gibberish. - Tanetris 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I feel enlightened. calor (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Brains has kindly enough provided us with an example (albeit invalid in that the edit summary is not FIELD_OTHER but garbeled). — Galil Talk page 20:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Some did manage to get the FIELD_OTHER in the article text and the usual gibberish in the edit summary. I think. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
FIELD_OTHER sounds like a default value. I think we're experiencing a serious deficit of competent gibberbot programmers. Must be the economy. Lord Belar 21:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I think they've fixed themselves now, I'm only seeing the usual gibberish. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 22:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Good. I'd hate for us to have sub par vandals. Lord Belar 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just a thought, but wouldn't it be a good idea to change the policy on blocking, so that sysops can block bots for a longer period of time to start with? These bots coming back from their blocks are just a waste of time, imo. WhyUser talk:Why Are We Fighting 12:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that just extending the ban each time is enough. Until a specific IP address proves a history of bot vandalism, I don't see how we can, in good faith place long bans on IP addresses. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 12:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Blocking.. policy? --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 14:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea, or whatever guidelines you sysops work by :P WhyUser talk:Why Are We Fighting 21:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong, cuz I should probably know these things!), there is no policy preventing admins from blocking for a month or more on first offense of bot vandalism if they choose. It's just a matter of tradition and admin choice to start low and work up. - Tanetris 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking, I totally agree with beginning with small bans, and building them up, when we're dealing with normal people, but I don't really see a reason to be civil to a bot account WhyUser talk:Why Are We Fighting 21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Somebody should fight fire with fire and code an anti-bot bot. The name Poke springs to mind for some reason. You could call it something snappy - "Butt Plug" would be my suggestion. --snogratUser Snograt signature.png 21:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean vandalise before they do, just to spite them? I'm up for that! --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 21:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's ClueBot seems to be a fairly effective anti-vandalism bot, and it's open-source. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, leave us sysops some fun <_< Blocking is the only fun thing that is left! (We can't even deletion-spree inactive guilds anymore! :P) poke | talk 13:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Mmn, valid point. We're growing in membership, unless I'm mistaken, and taking a page out of wikipedia's book sounds cool. If we want the personalized services of a person though, we should get more Sysops, no? Meh.--TalkAntioch 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
ClueBot doesn't block, it only reverts vandalim and leaves warning messages, which anyone can do, so a vandalism reverting bot wouldn't be a substitute for sysops. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel

a little bad about this. I hope it is not considered wikilawyering, tagging so many conversations with {{noarchive}}? and Auron, nvm the edit summary, hadn't read your comment on this page yet. Thanks anyway. WhyUser talk:Why Are We Fighting 12:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is bitching endlessly about loopholes in policies, e.g. attacking ArenaNet isn't NPA because ArenaNet isn't a person. I think what you did is fine, as we've already archived loads of those questions, and a poster of that type of question (about losing account info, etc.) can find a question similar to their own in about thirty seconds with minimal effort. calor (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)