Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy

Archive

---

/Archive1

Visibility?

Are the policy proposals visible enough? Every time I come across a proposed policy it's entirely by accident. I don't think proposed policy discussions are visible enough to the casual user who doesn't deliberately look for them. I would hate to think a small minority of the wiki were having policies pass because people who would otherwise oppose them didn't know about it, (or worse, a certain minority knowingly proposing policies with the knowledge many would be opposers won't find out about it). Dancing Gnome 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

They are all listed at Guild Wars Wiki:Policy#Current proposed policies. More visibility for proposed policies and more visibility for the policies as a whole would be great though. -- (gem / talk) 20:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a link on the main page? br12 • 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The lower red box here might be worth taking a look at. We are missing that helpful info on the main page. (Haven't really notied earlier since I don't enter the site through the main page) -- (gem / talk) 20:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a link to the categories is helpful.. especially on the Main Page... We should rather clean the policies page a bit more up, to make the policies more visible. poke | talk 20:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I did that, sorry br12 • 20:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How about removing the blaa blaa and just leaving the policy names as a list. I never use this page, I jsut opt for the category. The text makes it awfull to read. -- (gem / talk) 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All the above suggestions are great but what I think would be really good is if whenever a proposal reaches approval/rejection stage we get a message show up like when the bureaucrats message did. This would make sure everyone who logged in around that time was aware someone was trying to pass a policy they might not like. Dancing Gnome 22:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is using the message system not a bit unnecessary? I agree that policy proposals could do with better visibility, but I think that this is going from one extreme to another. If there was an opt-in system for the message then I could gladly support that (and I believe it would be possible using some javascript) but I still don't know if that's ideal. Personally I'd just like to see an incremental improvement for the time being. LordBiro 22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A no for using the site notice for this. There are many policy proposals and most of the proposals are very minor modifications and additions. Most users aren't even interested in how the wiki works on the background, they just use it for searching info. -- (gem / talk) 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and for the same reason, I don't want those links to be added on the Main Page, as it's mostly used by visitors but not by contributors. We should make the Policy page clearer and add hot topics to Guild Wars Wiki:Community portal.. poke | talk 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It really should be easier to find.--Yankeefan984 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives and New Comments

I scanned the Policies pages for information on updating or adding comments to archived content. Here's an example: This thread was something I had archived from my main Talk page, but when archiving other content, I realized I had an additional bit of information to add to that previously-archived article. I wanted to make that addition, since it was a "wrap up" of the topic and contributed something to the historical record of the game. Is it acceptable to add the comment, as I did, with a reset indent and a notation that it was added to the archive page after the materials were archived? I'd appreciate knowing the best way to go about this rare but occasionally-useful process. Thanks. -- Gaile 02:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you comment, save and then archive. People won't look in an archive for new content and thus will never see the resolution to a topic. If you comment and save, it is at least recorded in your talk page history, even if you remove it straight afterwards. - BeX 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree. But what about something that was archived a week or two ago, as this page was? You see, I didn't think about there being a "resolution" to the question, and I archived it some time ago. Then, there was a change (the requested feature was re-introduced) and I wanted to note that, for historical and informational purposes. I could "unarchive" the comment, I guess, add the final note, wait a few days, and re-archive, but that seems cumbersome. It's a puzzle, isn't it? -- Gaile 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also be unsure of that situation. Technically any comments should be brought out of the archive and restarted, but if amending comments on your own talk page, I'm not sure, and it does seem a bit strange. I think that a safe way to do it is to amend the archive, and either bring the topic out onto your talk page maybe under a section with "Recently updated archive topics" and then leave it there for a bit for any new comments, or alternatively, unarchive, add comment and rearchive. I think either way would be accepted. - BeX 05:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't Delete Talk Page

Where does it say that? The only thing I have read is when a page contains information such as a ban, which is pretty rare. And why can't I delete redundant shit from my talk page? Anon

Here - BeX 05:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So by "remove" it means have the page deleted? And what is the reasoning for that? Why can't I delete soemthing no matter how pointless it is? EDIT: From Guild Wars Wiki:Deletion policy: except in cases where the user page bears an important message (such as a banned user warning). The only place I have ever seen a banned user warning etc is on a talk page, which implies it can be delete, otherwise there would be no reason to put this in the policy. Anon

Well, "deletion" of talk pages would imply that you "remove" the content on it, and since content can't be removed as specified in the user pages policy, you can't delete them either. Only way a talk page can be deleted is if it was originated on vandalism, or if it's a remmanent from a vandalism (which qualify just a G4 on the deletion table).
Anyways, if you want to get rid of the content on your talk page, just archive the content on it, keeping the archive link visible (you can do it as much as you want, even thought it may not be healthy).--Fighterdoken 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A deletion turns my talk page into a red link, it has no existence on the wiki any more. Removal is quite different, the old content can be viewed in the page history. Anon

In a nutshell

Should we use something similar to Wikipedia's nutshell template? I'm thinking of something like this:

This policy / guideline in a nutshell: Summary of policy. More summary of policy. Etc...

-- Gordon Ecker 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am weary of adding those boxes. See my post at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Be bold. Whatever could be in that box, should be in the opening paragraph anyway. --Xeeron 11:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Xeeron. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But there is no formatting style guide for policies and quite a lot of them get misunderstood, what should be in the opening paragraph isn't necessarily in the opening paragraph. Anon

Then fix the opening paragraph, don't add useless fluff such as yet another template. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But the opening paragraph is part of the policy, so changing the opening paragraph of an existing policy page would require the proposed change to go through the formal policy change proccess, while the summary would clearly not be part of the policy, allowing it to be edited without a policy change proposal. Anyway, we could just try to slip better opening paragraphs into any future policy change proposals. -- Gordon Ecker 02:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Either the summary is policy, or the summary is worthless, because it doesn't reflect policy. Having "looser limits" summaries is a very bad idea. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's actually what I do first whenever I propose a rewrite. I also don't really like the in-a-nutshell thingy simply because it sorta stops people from even skimming through the thing policy. "Oh look, a summary. I'll just read the summary and assume that I know about it." kinda thing... -- ab.er.rant 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia have to have those because their policies are a mess and inertia prevents fixing them. We should never be in that situation. Backsword 13:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Going around a block

Would going around a block renew your block time or extend it? — ク Eloc 貢 00:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the sysop who notices and blocks decides to do. —Tanaric 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Too Many Policy Drafts

I can't imagine that I'm the only one who thinks that it is poor form to create a new policy draft for a subject when one already exists covering the same subject. What's the point. There is no way it can be claimed that consensus exits to implement a policy proposal when a conficting proposal is open. At the very least, if one feels that the creation of a new policy proposal is justified then they should be willing to mark prior proposals on the same subject as rejected. -- Inspired to ____ 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, many of things listed as proposed policy changes have not actually been proposed but are merely drafts that someone is working on. Does anyone else have a problem with this? -- Inspired to ____ 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not especially. Create another subsection if it's a problem. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And call it what? "Policy changes someone is thinking about proposing and thought you might care to look at if you've terribly bored." They can add to the Requests For Comment, they can ask a couple people to look it over, but what is the point of listing it here? -- Inspired to ____ 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a suggestion to list whatever policies are being drafted (akin to the listing of whatever policies are being proposed). And there's no need for such a long title, silly, just call it Policy drafts! ... But if that's another problem, let's leave drafts out altogether. -- Brains12 \ Talk 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And the more I look at it,what a mess. Most drafts actually aren't listed and actually other then not seeing the point in listing them, its really the cleanup of a list that seems to be the biggest problem. Also, some things are titled as drafts but have actually been proposed and visa versa. I don't know if its worth asking for comment on or not, but for now I'm going to use Category:Proposed_policies to find changes someone is actually trying to make to existing policies. -- Inspired to ____ 20:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be blowing this out of proportion. It is very important for policy drafts to be discussed b4 they are proposed. There may be things that need to be changed etc. etc., and once its proposed, you can't make major changes to it. I do think that it might be a good idea to make a new header for them, but taking them from the list altogether seem quite ridiculous imho. --Shadowphoenix 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

lol. Can't actually decide which way I'd rather have an idea referred to as. Anyway, both are how I felt after spending time thinking I was doing the prudent thing and reading through policy change proposals to find they actually hadn't been proposed. Which wouldn't be bad if I nothing else to do. And it is very very important to have policy proposals discussed before they are implemented. -- Inspired to ____ 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can be confusing to have a lot of drafts going on but it shouldn't be disallowed. Contradicting proposals gives an option to users and it can be used to gauge support for either view. Like back when we had several different proposals and debates taking place in several talk pages on revert policies. The problem is just in the presentation. Just re-organise it into something that you think is better. If it's good, no one will revert you.

And as for the draft vs proposed, there's not really a formal distinction between them, and there's really nothing that stopping anyone from changing a proposed policy in a major way. The main difference for a draft is that it isn't complete yet or that it's not fleshed out enough. The discussions for them are essentially the same. -- ab.er.rant 04:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

Because of the large amount of adminship and election proposals at the moment, could we split them up into subsections? We should probably just have one proposal running at one time, as suggested above, but for as a short term thing while that discussion is still ongoing. For example, similar to the actual policy list:

===Currently proposed policy changes===
====Content policies====
*Blah
====Administrative policies====
*Blah
;Elections
*Blah
====Other policies====
*Blah

You get the picture. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a possible; but I do not agree with one policy being proposed at a time. Maybe if we could add a policy draft section in there as well. --Shadowphoenix 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant the above suggestion to be something for what we have at the moment, to sort through the bumblejumble and hibberijibberies. Stuff like extra sections or one proposal at a time is for the "Too many policy drafts" section. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

done. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Great :) -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Copyrighted content

I got a suggestion but cannot figure out how to merge it into the namespace

So I'm posting it here. Hopefully someone will help merge it.

I'm a bit tired of all the inappropriate jokes and references and bad language that get thrown around here on a daily basis. This has just gotta stop... Guild Wars is supposed to be rated Teen, and therefore I believe that all content on this wiki should conform to that standard.

I'm suggesting that from now on, all content in all posts must at least be appropriate for teens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.174.20.188 (talk • contribs) at 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

cool story bro -Auron 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm serious, I suck at this wiki stuff.71.174.20.188 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's such a fucking good idea, I think we should start immediately. Also, ASCII tits: (.)(.) Lord Belar 21:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We do not censor language, if it does not fall under the No personal attacks policy it will be left. You can ask specific users to tone down language in public namespaces (on their user talk pages) or if they are using language you find inappropriate on your talk page. As for a wiki-wide policy regarding language, I don't see that happening, though you can feel free to make a proposal and see if you can gain community consensus. -- Wyn 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Before we go any further, please read the discussion at Guild Wars Wiki talk:No profanity - this subject has been discussed extensively before, and I doubt any new arguments would turn up. Let's minimise the amount of time and effort taken to agree or disagree on this :/ -- Brains12 \ talk 21:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

What exactly goes into trivia sections... I see many edits and reverts on trivia because its trivial?!?!? I thought that was kind of the point myself... any guide on this subject? MrPaladin talk 18:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

umn, there should be no trivia section on policy documents. They're a completly different type of page from articles. Backsword 12:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Backsword, he's talking about trivia sections on articles and what is the policy regarding it. Afaik, there is no detailed explanation of what trivia is. I generally draw the line at "does it make sense? is it stretching? is it a derived reference?" --JonTheMon 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In general what we strive for is "This is what Anet was making a reference to when they made this". Obviously, there's some wiggle room on that, as we're not going to ask Anet about each and every trivia note, but if we can be certain that it was what Anet was referencing, it should be in trivia, and if we can be certain that it wasn't, it shouldn't be. Everything in between is grey area and generally decided on a case-by-case basis between whoever's paying attention (or we bug Emily if it gets contentious). - Tanetris 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Trivia means to me "not important at all but maybe interesting to know/funny to read" poke | talk 20:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie... So "this creature looks like a Dog" is a no no... but "This creature is made to look like Isaiah Cartwrights Dog (insert reference in Izzys talk article here)" is good MrPaladin talk 17:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Splitting

IMO we should consider splitting this page to keep the actual rules (everything in the "changing and existing policies" and "proposing new policies" sections except the lists) separate from the lists of policies and proposals, which could be moved to a project page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The proposed trimmed down, policy-only version is located at Guild Wars Wiki:Policy/Draft20091119. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sysop action concerning trolls/sockpuppets

→ moved from User talk:Auron

So after talking with Auron about this, I've come to the conclusion that we don't actually have consensus that sysops socking on IPs/other accounts and trolling users is bad. None of it is against policy and the recent situation involve Wyn's sock was almost completely ignored in the face of the other complaints against her.

There's an alternative argument that perhaps he's circumventing a block by being on his main account while his IP sock is blocked, but it's not watertight. For one, we don't really have hard and fast rules on circumvention, and two, we generally turn a blind eye to circumvention if a user is being helpful, and three, we wouldn't have noticed the circumvention at all if we hadn't CheckUser'd, and I'm not sure we should have in this case.

In the current state, I do not feel comfortable exercising discretion and blocking Auron -- I do not believe this is a sysop decision yet.

Instead, I'd like to open this up more generally, and figure out what a user can and cannot do on a sockpuppet. Further, I'd like to figure out how the community feels on blocking a "main" user if a sockpuppet is blocked (in cases more complex than mere vandalism), and what criterion we should be using to link said accounts/IPs. And thirdly, I'd like to establish if sysops have any additional restrictions or expectations beyond those of an average user with respect to sockpuppetry.

—Tanaric 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also on trolling. We don't really have any consistency on dealing with trolls either. —Tanaric 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the sock is being used to vandalize, harass or NPA then the sock and the user using the sock should both be blocked. If said sock isn't being distruptive then I don't see it being an issue.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Users are perfectly capable of being disruptive and retarded on their main accounts. You of all people should know. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 18:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If a sock breaks a policy, block it. If someone uses another account to circumvent a block, block it for the duration of the block, unless it was an account created specifically to circumvent the block in which case a permanent block on the circumventing sock is appropriate. Otherwise, socks should not be blocked, we have no policy against them. People should not be randomly checkusered and checkuser results should only ever be mentioned once they become relevant to a policy breach or ban evasion. In fact, this never should have come up at all, as was discussed when checkuser rights were gained. It is unfortunate that certain sysops were not made aware of this. Misery 18:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum:Ok, the IP broke 1RV and you could also say NPA if you want, but I am surprised that checkuser came before block if that is the complaint of the original sysop. If the policies were breached, they were breached, irregardless of who is behind the IP. Misery 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"So after talking with Auron about this, I've come to the conclusion that we don't actually have consensus that sysops socking on IPs/other accounts and trolling users is bad." Yes, we do. wth are you talking about? -Cursed Angel 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping I misinterpreted that statement, because from my point of view Tanaric, you basically just said sysops are above any disciplinary action when they troll. But we ban regular users pretty consistently when they troll, so how exactly would that be fair? It's been confirmed that Wyn trolled a user using an IP. The accusation that Auron did this as well is suspect from any evidence I've personally seen.

As for everything else, Misery stated pretty much everything I would have said regarding blocks. Though I'll add my own opinion regarding CheckUser. It can been seen as circumstantial evidence when it is appropriate to be used. I don't agree with using CheckUser on a whim unless the admin feels it is absolutely necessary and then there must be a reason tagged with the CheckUser.

In addition, if we are going to have a full-blown discussion on this issue, I am going to move it to a more appropriate talk page. — Gares 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A few months ago, I was told that Auron was using the IP to troll DrogoBoffin and "laughing" about it in IRC. Obviously I was concerned - some probably know I'm against disruptive sockpuppetry, and trolling/baiting using an alternate account falls under that category. I was also concerned that it was a sysop doing this - disruptive trolling isn't something we accept from users, and that includes sysops. However, the case didn't seem "extreme" enough, and this was like a month after it actually happened (late December), so I didn't pursue it further. There had also been no contribs since.

After I saw the block a few days ago in the log, I browsed through the contribs and talk page, and became a little suspicious due to the comment by Kaisha (for more reasons than the most obvious, but I'm not sure if I should go into detail). These reasons led me to use Checkuser; going by said comment and contribs, I had a pretty good idea who it was, but Checkuser might confirm, and it did. I first considered blocking; the IP was blocked for violating 1RR, though I would have also included NPA and trolling had I been the one to block it. This was, to me, clearly malicious usage of an alternate account, and it wasn't the only one I was concerned about. Also, Auron using his sysop tools to protect the talk page and to block Briar (talk • contribs • logs • block log) for (unrelated) 1RR moments after he violated it himself (even if on another account) was a little... ":/". I decided to ask another sysop for advice (this is a good route in any potentially controversial case, but, considering past events, more so here).

My opinion about this is that it isn't acceptable. This wasn't the first time the account was used, nor was it the first time it was used maliciously. I also don't consider it acceptable sysop behaviour - I've considered Auron to 'walk the line' various times in the past, but those contributions combined with malicious sockpuppeting stepped beyond it.

Uh, since half of the discussion was moved, you might need to read User talk:Auron for my comment to make more sense. -- pling 18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

CursedAngel: No, we don't. Half the responses on any given talk page are trolls these days. We do not block for trolling, at least not with any consistency.

Gares, I think the current status quo is that sysops are above any disciplinary action when they troll. This is clear from Wyn's abandoned ArbComm and complete lack of any sysop intervention (barring Pling). I do not agree with this status quo and am seeking consensus to change it.

Auron has admitted to being that IP on IRC and in private chats with me. I apologize for not making this more clear.

Re: Misery's comments...

"If a sock breaks a policy, block it" -- well, how do you know if it's a sock? We don't generally block users for minor policy infractions immediately. The only reason Auron's sock got blocked is because he blocked it himself.

"If someone uses another account to circumvent a block, block it for the duration of the block" -- okay, then we should be blocking Auron right now. Except blocking a sysop has no technical effect, something we've yet to really establish in principle either. The last time somebody threatened to block Auron, he said he'd ignore it. What does this buy us?

"People should not be randomly checkusered and checkuser results should only ever be mentioned once they become relevant to a policy breach or ban evasion." Since Auron is that IP, the IP breached policy, and since Auron is evading the block of his IP, all of these conditions appear to be met. What exactly are you taking issue with?

—Tanaric 19:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Misery (she's a horse), there is no policy against them. No policy against them = no block. Also after reading through Gares post, maybe one of the issues at hand is that users are being banned to easily. Trolling in all fairness does not break a policy, and should really only be a ban worthy offense if the troll is obsessive or bording NPA/1RV etc. Also Tanaric I think Misery meant that the IP/account that was trolling should be blocked. --Frosty 19:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I should have made my statement a bit more specific, but you are correct. Certain type of trolling shouldn't be considered offenses that require sysop action. The concept of a troll is not always necessarily a bad thing. Trolls do get some leeway when it comes to posting off-topic in discussions. However, I can understand banning for continuous and clearly irrelevant posts during a discussion with a given reason as being disruptive by attempting to obstruct a discussion's course of events. — Gares 19:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So Auron has broken policy, trolled and then evaded the ban. I personally wouldn't see an issue if this hadn't been done by an admin, no one would reconsider blocking me for just that same thing.

Also iIrc he hadn't breached any policy at the time he claimed he'd ignore a ban.

Echoing Mizzels: "If the policies were breached, they were breached, irregardless of who is behind the IP." Even if you have priviligies to unblock yourself, trolling and breaking policies... why am I even trying to explain this to you, can I say "you're fucking retarded?" on wiki or do I have to say that in a mail to not get blocked? -Cursed Angel 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So, I read here that I am "crazy" or "nuts" for demanding that sysops should not use sockpuppets to troll, and should be subject to administrative action (like de-sysoping) if they do. That leads me to question whether this wiki is still run by people who think the purpose of the wiki is to serve the players with good information about the game, or instead by a cabal who think the purpose is their own personal enjoyment. For now, I still feel the answer to that question is the former (even if the majority of users that I assume hold this view is dangerously silent a lot of the time).

I agree with the view that sysops seem to be above the law. There is a mounting pile of evidence. However, for me, the conclusion is not that sysops should get a "free out of jail, always" card, because nothing is done in other cases, the conclusion is that we need to clean up our act really fast, before the reputation of sysops here is entirely ruined. --Xeeron 21:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto what Xeeron just said. Manifold 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't really remember a particular time where we put sysops above the law, and i know we made it clear on policy that doing so shouldn't be acceptable. Sysops do, by the nature of their position, get an extension on the assumption of acting on good faith, but if it is clear that they are just "doing it for the lulz", then they have to get the same treatment than random_ip_001.

If an admin is blocked for any reason, and they just decide to ignore the block and stay active, we have the tools to force them to stay down until the block is meet (a temporal de-sysop'ing request to any bureaucrat, by example). Others action can be taken if required, but not blocking on the grounds that "it won't work anyways" is a mistake.--Fighterdoken 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we all seem to agree. Blocked Auron for 3 days, same length as the block on his IP. —Tanaric 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it cause sysops can bypass it anyway....since a block dose f'all why not restirct there rights? Remove there sysop tools for a period of time? Why is everything so complicated when it dosen't have to be.----Xtreme 23:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If Auron did such a thing, he'd be sure to lose his sysop tools permanently. Happened to me once, luzl. elix Omni 23:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's really not a pretty process to strip sysop rights, especially as a temporary punishment. I mean, look at the amount of difficulty already involved with the process here - creating an RfR, and then the community takes a week voting (during which time the importance of the infraction tends to wane anyway) - finally, some bureaucrat happens to stumble on the page and reflexively passes the RfR, letting the sysop keep their seat. RfRs always generate much drama and lulz...think of the trouble that would arise if bureaucrats just went around stripping willy-nilly, bypassing that policy entirely. Vili 点 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"RfRs always generate much drama and lulz...think of the trouble that would arise if bureaucrats just went around stripping willy-nilly, bypassing that policy entirely." It could happen though...unlikely as it would be bypassing policy. As it's not an emergency. The amount of drama does affect the RFA too, so as you said it's not pretty but sometimes is the only option. --Dominator Matrix 00:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good job guys. Now go ahead and ban Wyn. Otherwise you're all just a bunch of hypocrites. 208.100.1.46 01:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Also on trolling. We don't really have any consistency on dealing with trolls either." I believe that one needs to be made, or at least a heavier stance on trolling should be taken. At the end of the day, the wiki is here to document the game- :"the purpose of the Guild Wars Wiki is to document the game. Users should focus their time and dedication on Guild Wars Wiki-related contributions"-GWW:USER.

"That leads me to question whether this wiki is still run by people who think the purpose of the wiki is to serve the players with good information about the game, or instead by a cabal who think the purpose is their own personal enjoyment." More and more you see these "trolls" disrupting the wiki, but also not contribute to the Main space at all (except talk pages). Unfortunately people do feed the trolls, and the problem continues to grow. It would be a bitch to police, but the direction taken on Regina's page was one step forward. While some of us try to contribute to the wiki, and actually build it up, others are simply trolling or using the wiki as a chat room or their own blog.
Look at the recent changes and you see piles of stupid comments, "shout outs", updates on title tracks, and other crap, but look at their contributions and they are restricted to their own User space. Basically, sysops need to ban people more for being douches (even if it's just a day at a time, eventually they will learn) and not making positive contributions to the wiki. Hell it'll cull out a lot of members, but the ones that are left are the ones that are trying to help. I'm not against socialising and a bit of fun, hell I do it myself, but it needs to be done in moderation. ~Celestia 01:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem around here isn't necessarily that. the problem is that some users are just untouchable and that policy prevents the sysops from doing anything about it. look at wyn. she trolled the shit out of several users and rarely users her sysop tools for anything useful, yet shes still here....allowed to edit. even though she did the exact same thing as auron who is banned. this site has progressed to a ridiculous point. you guys need to get your policies straight and stop chaining your admins or giving them a higher status. both are just wrong. 208.100.1.46 01:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I take serious exception to the above comment. I have NOT "trolled the shit out of several users" nor have I "rarely used my sysop tools for anything useful". That is probably the most ridiculous comment I've ever read here, and I've read more than I can count. The problem with your approach Celestial is that the trolls/non contributors far outnumber the sysops, and from someone who has taken more than her share of their abuse for trying to do that with little or no support from other admins, in fact quite the opposite most of the time, it's simply a battle I'm no longer willing to fight. I will continue to be a wiki janitor, but when it comes to trying to monitor/police user behavior, it's not worth the stress or the grief, especially if every time I let the stress show, I get thrown under the bus for not living up to some holier than thou standard that some people seem to feel "some" sysops should be, while letting others be total shitheads. -- Wyn talk 01:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Celestia, please stop pretending that the wiki needs improving. We're not back in the times when the wiki was just formed and we needed to tell people to not copy from GuildWiki and every third link went to a nonexistant page; the wiki today is a very thorough documentation of the modern game. I'd even go so far as to say that 95% or more of all "improvements" to the wiki are essentially optional (skill animations, improved formatting, tactics pages, etc). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Accusations should be backed up with links to specific edits. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 01:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and btw 208... I WAS banned so get over it. -- Wyn talk 01:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

@Armond That's not excuse for people who don't plan on contributing to that 5% (and there's plenty more "interesting but not essential" things on top of that) to use the wiki as a social hang out. Manifold 02:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Celestia, please stop pretending that the wiki needs improving...the wiki today is a very thorough documentation of the modern game. I'd even go so far as to say that 95% or more of all "improvements" to the wiki are essentially optional (skill animations, improved formatting, tactics pages, etc)" First off, all wikis need improving. It will never be complete, the best we can do is try to make it as complete as possible. And even if that was true, it does not give people the right to use the wiki as as a chat room/blog or continue to attack or disrupt each other. ~Celestia 02:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, the problem is precisely that.

This wiki was built around the idea that everyone can help develop it, even trolls or people who just comes to whine. As such, vocal people holds a lot more power than intended.

Two years ago it wasn't really a problem since we would count (succesful) trolls with the fingers of one hand, and they would end permabanned or quitting the wiki after too many blocks, so it wasn't a problem. Nowadays, on the other hand, the amount of users who only joined to complain about everything (because pro players have the holy right to tell Anet how to make their game), and the amount of people who only joined to disrupt valid discussions "for the lulz" has increased beyond what is healthy for a concensus-based community.

We gave admins the tools to act when we made clear that they could perform actions beyond policy based on their own critera (but subject to revision on a public log). Sadly, most admins choose to ignore that tool to prevent being harrased by the same trolls they would be trying to control.

Now, going back to your opening phrase, 208, i don't see how that "untouchable" statement can be held. This wiki doesn't block users based on how useful they are, just on how disruptive they become.--Fighterdoken 02:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your last statement is a direct contradiction to what at least one other sysop has expressed before regarding why people are blocked, as well as (in my opinion) how blocks are actually meted out currently...to paraphrase, the consideration of whether a block is appropriate, or its duration if it seems inevitable, have always been guided by "how useful" that contributor is. Someone else in this thread or elsewhere mentioned how sysops get more leeway because they are assumed to have more "acting in good faith credit", so to speak...and the same holds true for other non-sysop users who help out tremendously or are otherwise perceived as important. Their cases are considered twice, a privilege that the random_ip_001s don't usually get. Vili 点 02:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it was myself who said it. Either way, there is a difference between "checking twice on perceived good contributors" and "ignoring breaches from perceived good contributors". The only real privilegee i can remember for users who "are assumed to be acting on good faith" (yeah, even Auron falls on that most of the time) is that they are asked to comply with the rules first, and only are banned if they ignore the request (instead of straight banned). And this group of people doesn't only include well-know users, but any user with a clean historial (see 42 case, who stayed un-banned for quite a lot of time).--Fighterdoken 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since a single one day block is almost literally meaningless, I don't see why you seem to think Wyn isn't untouchable. Am I misinterpreting something? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just wanted to add briefly that I was unaware that the IP address used by Auron had been blocked (by himself no less), and ass such I now have no objections as to how things progressed or how checkuser was used. All other statements of mine stand as far as I am aware. Misery 02:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic... Tanaric seems to feel that sysops should be held to a higher standard than other users, which is rather contradictory to the premise that sysops are simply users who are granted tools that allow them to do primarily janitorial work. It's been said over and over that sysop comments carry no more weight in a discussion than anyone else, so why should we be restricted from commenting in any way that other users are not? -- Wyn talk 05:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well basically, responsibilities don't correspond to privileges. elix Omni 06:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you just don't want people actually caring about the fact that you did the exact same thing Auron's done, plus or minus a few dozen personal attacks. :/ -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 06:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe words and actions are two different things? (not in reference to your particular case) I.e. "sysops are held to a higher standard of conduct", but during a debate (such as this!), a sysop's opinions should be taken as equally valuable and consensus-forming to a non-sysop's, granted that they are both relevant. I also think you are warping the idea somewhat; "comments carry no more weight" ought not to mean "sysops should be able to sink to the same level". At least, I'd hope that you have not given up that ideal: holding all users' words to higher standards is preferable to giving it up as hopeless endeavor because the Internet...

ps Context, how successful the trolling/disruption was, and whether or not said sysop got away with it are very important. By which I mean to say neither Auron nor Wyn are paragons of ideal behavior... :p Vili 点 06:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm going to chime my two cents in a new, fresh indent because I want to feel special. Now, it seems to me that this has grown beyond what Auron has done (really, it feels like tanaric dealt with that) and more into a Auron Vs Wyn throwdown with a pinch of policy talk thrown in.

I want the address Wyn first: My advice to you right now would be to shut it. As rude as that may sound, not contributing to this discussion is probably the best thing you could do now. We all know you and Auron have a history (and not the kind that I can sexually insinuate), and we know you want him to be thrown under a bus. Might I remind you how he's received more than you did? You don't need to defend yourself as if your entire wiki-rep is on the line, legions users owe their pretty userpages to you. Your rep has only decreased in the eyes of a few, and they didn't have that high an opinion of you in the first place. Your contributions do not need to be displayed, in fact, when you do work your precious contributions into every sentence, you come of an annoying twit (which some might agree to be a good thing), when in reality you are no more than a gal who's overworked. Why do you think your Arbcomn is so stagnant? Yes, there's no one to carry it out, bcrats are lazy, yadda yadda, but mostly because, on an unconscious level, we don't want to burn you. You are valuable, perhaps more than the rest of us jackasses. But with every comment you make here, the respect you command lessens. Don't incriminate yourself by trying to defend yourself, that'd be sad (although funny).

Now, as for the whole "let's ban everyone who's a troll" mantra... lawl. Please do that, the lulz would be massive. I (and by I, I mean me and my 20+ sock accounts) would have a field day if that policy is even considered. At this point, the best thing for anyone who wants us trolls to stop is to simply ignore us (I don't feel unease saying that, most people can't ignore anything), not outlaw the entire prospect of trolling and hope it goes away. That'll just make us harder (to stop).

Yes, sysops are held to a higher standard. That's for a good fucking reason: they are given very powerful tools, and the community's trust in their ability to use those tools wisely diminishes severely when that sysop goes haywire. That's why we have so few sysops, compared to the rest of the userbase. The comment clause is simply there to prevent sysops from acting like self-centered brats, which would shake our trust. So basically, ditto Entropy.

I agree with both Xeeron and Tanaric that sysops seem to be above the law. That's partially because sysops are the community's most highly trusted individuals, and the community is the law. Now, both Auron and Wyn broke that trust (i.e. violated policy) and both of them got lolbanned. Hmm, how is that being "above the law"? Yes Armond, you're right in the sense that Wyn's ban was hilariously short, but that's to be expected when the community blocks a sysop for the first time. Now, I want you to consider the hypothetical situation in which Wyn called me a fag. See where I'm going with this?

I don't think anything else needs to be said; the community's reaction to this whole debacle is proof enough to conclude that sysops aren't fully above the law. On a final note, I want to say that if a sysop feels as if he/she should troll, doing it from a sock (preferably a proxy sock) would be the best way to go.

Oh, and obligatory penis penis anus penis lol. Thanks! NuVII 15:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Errr...okay. Well after all that being said, I would say I agree with Xeeron and Tanaric and to a degree Pling in what has been said above. I would also agree that Sysops should be held to a higher standard than regular users. We might not get any extra weight to our opinions but to a degree we are representative of the wiki community and the trust that they have shown in us. Acting like asshats isn't a great way forward on that front. I also dont think that Sysops should be seen to be above any of the policies of the wiki, although we are given greater latitude to some degree due in part to the amount of contentious issues our role brings us into. As for Auron's block, I honestly dont have any input on the issue. I was just seeking resolution. (which I thought had already happened on IRC due to the lack of chat on the page, I truly wasn't expecting the above wall of text)-- Salome 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sysops should be held to a higher standard than regular users" -- So will that also include being banned for "acting like Douchebags"? ...b/c several regular users have already been banned for that and will continue to be banned for it down the road. Yet when sysops act like douchebags by picking arbitrary/subjective positions on talk, notes, & trivia reverts, it's just considered "part of the job". Do they actually believe in parity here and has anyone actually realized the implications yet? Just trying to apply a no-double-standards policy would frankly hit many of the current sysops like a ton of bricks and greatly reduce the incentives of all candidates from taking the job in the first place. So holding "to a higher standard" would probably fly over about as well as a lead kite. --ilr 17:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ILR, Sysops are given a certain extra degree of good faith in their edits than other users. This is due to the role demanding that sysops make judgements on a semi continual basis on if an edit is vandalism or not. I personally don't think we do pick arbitrary stance's on these issues, instead the community debates the validity of the edit and we progress from there. You seem to be implying that sysops act like "douchbags" all the time, but personally I don't see evidence of that. Their is the occasional instance of behaviour unbecoming of a sysop but on the whole, I don't think any of the sysop team exploits their position to act like a douche. -- Salome 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I want to add that we shouldn't expect someone's behaviour to change just because they became flagged as a sysop. I have pretty much always been a douche, people knew that when they passed my RfA, so I personally would be quite surprised if people wanted to remove my sysop status because I am a douche. That is actually where some of the perceived double standards come from. A douche being a douche is nothing new, it was factored in when they passed their RfA, but if someone who was not a douche becomes a douche, perhaps the net value of them being a sysop becomes negative. Misery 18:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem we face is that people don't seem to want sysops to be above policy, but sysops are at their most efficient when the only policy they need (not necessarily want) to respect is the "don't piss off the bcrats so much that they demote you" policy (aka GWW:DICK). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been completely out of the loop from the GWW wiki community and I don't know the complete history of what's been happening. That said, I agree with Armond that sysops should have a certain level of immunity to certain policies. The wiki isn't a democracy and it doesn't work well as one so why should everyone be treated at the same level as if it were a democracy. However, abuse of power should be curbed, ie. using sysop privileges to bully someone... and yet what constitutes as bullying is subjective. Sysops also aren't like people who are elected to public office like senators, they are in essence the police and shouldn't have to play politics to not get banned or punished by the community. On the other hand, like the police, they need to exercise good judgment and should be "fired" if they do something that's completely unacceptable as per wiki policy, but shouldn't be punished for "rough handling" a known and repeat offender. We also know that good cops, and law enforcement agents generally have rights and privileges that regular citizens don't, and to a certain extent many have to act outside the law to effectively protect the community. --Lania Elderfire 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm...it's not so much that sysops ought to be above the law, but rather this: "if a policy gets in the way of improving the wiki, then ignore the policy (and ideally amend it later)". Sometimes it's called the "spirit of the law vs. word of the law" - the intent of all good policies is to help the wiki progress, so if a policy is impeding progress there must be something wrong with it. (Either that or it can be justifiably "broken" by saying it is more important to benefit the wiki than to follow the policies, since rules are not created just for the sake of having rules to follow.) Also, for that matter, this does not apply solely to sysops (they just happen to encounter more such problem situations) - all users should be expected to act in such a way. Yes, it's generally safest to do things via the proper and sanctioned methods, but sometimes it is simply not possible or inconvenient. A basic example would be breaking 1RR to fight vandalism. Vili 点 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree. The main part I disagree with is the part that "all users should be expected to act in such a way." There has been way too many cases where the general user did something that they thought was helpful to the wiki but was instead damaging and broke policy(mostly unwittingly) in doing so. I think sysops should in general uphold the "spirit of the law" since they have a lot more experience than the general user and have less of a likelihood in damaging something in the process. What's good for the wiki sometimes isn't clear cut like it is in RL and RL common sense in many cases fail on the wiki, which I think some users find frustrating. In any case, I don't think general users should be encouraged to break policy for the good of the wiki since many don't have much experience with it... Then again most of the time when a user breaks policy it's because they didn't know it was against it^_^;; not like you can make every user read the policy pages before "helping" :-P lol... And instituting some kind of online test certification policy before they can edit pages is, well probably a bad thing to do ^-^ --Lania Elderfire 20:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's more what I was trying to say, Vili. Maybe I should work more on that fear of bringing up the spirit of the law on gww than I have lately. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs more faggots thrown under buses. --Frosty 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A related policy draft has been made at Guild Wars Wiki:Sockpuppets. -- pling 15:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Defining Trolling

Seeing as there's no current policy against "trolling" and trolling is already pretty loosely defined, should we make an effort to define what bannable trolling is? Personally, I would hope that all of the admins here are smart enough to tell the difference between trolling that actually disrupts the wiki and trolling that's just innocent goofing around. However, I don't know if that's something we can expect anymore.

Also, the length of ban times increasing based on trolling seems a bit misled. I mean, getting a 3 month ban for saying something like "wtf?" is bit ridiculous. Shouldn't admins be given the right to ban for a few hours, a day, or longer based on the circumstances? Sure, some users are just trolls, but that's why we have arbitrations. If a user says "wtf?" and in context, it's worthy of a ban, then fine ban for a few hours. But when it accumulates, it begins to look like users are getting quarter-year bans for almost nothing. Karate Jesus 21:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to say this is already covered by sysop discretion. Misery 21:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the second sentence. Some admins appear to believe that harmful trolling is any bit of conversation that's off-topic, even if it's not intended to elicit emotional response or derail the conversation. Karate Jesus 21:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sysop discretion. And escalating bans is just personal style. --JonTheMon 21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not trusting the discretion of individual sysops is a separate issue and no reason to tie things down with policies and bureaucracy. Misery 21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Point made, then. Karate Jesus 21:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And by that, I mean your points. Not mine. Sysop discretion in the hands of good sysops :D Karate Jesus 21:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It cant just be left to discretion, all they have to say is "It falls under my discretion" and its an ok block/ban. I agree with KJ here something needs to be done. Drogo Boffin 21:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

But the same claim can turn issues around, like what happened just now, which leads to discussion of issues instead of continuation of questionable action. --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we cannot define "trolling" in a way that involves each and every posible variant while also excluding valid forms of critic. If we define "trolling", good trolls will just find a way to bypass it. If we extend the trolling definition high enough, we wouldn't be able to criticize, argue, or even debate about ideas without being "disruptive, and thus, troll-like". Discretion is the best we can do, since always admins can police between eachother (as long as they discuss things first instead of starting a revert-war), and they cover already a wide enough range of points of view as to not be able to become biased as a whole.--Fighterdoken 21:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

^ All of the above that stated sysop discretion. Sysops do give trolls some leeway or else 80% of the active users would be banned, but when a sysop thinks it's getting out of hand regardless, then it's time to take a break whether the troll(s) likes it or not. Warnings like "Knock it off" or "It's time to end this" are nice, but not really necessary since a user knows when they are trolling.

As for ban durations, it's been said in the past and probably will be said in the future, that they are at the sysops' discretion. Some use a suitable duration based on offense, use the +1 wiki method (usually for repeated offenses), or a mixture of the two. There's no way to set a concrete duration system as the level of trolldom varies case by case. — Gares 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree, definition of a troll is fluid at best, highly situational, and subject to bias. Attempting to define trolling won't work and trying to create a policy for it will be impossible. It should just be left at sysop discretion. Like Misery said, trust is a separate issue and has nothing to do with policy. --Lania Elderfire 22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)