User talk:Auron/Archive 20

User:Moon33goddess

Concerning User:Moon33goddess' block, I think it's a confused user, since, as I described at GWW:BUG#Buttons and text boxes not appearing, he/she edited his/her user name into the section where the text box for users to enter their user name to create a user feedback page is suppose to appear, but currently doesn't because of a bug. --Silver Edge 11:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: Wiki Editing and Reverts

Chain of Events

• Halloween Mausoleum
  
• Am I bugging you yet
  
• Yoshida Keiji Response
  

Thank you for taking the time to notify me of your point of view in this matter. I constantly strive to provide the best information to the Guild Wars Wiki. However it is important to note this is an 8 year old game and most of the knowledge is already present. The developers are not going to be adding anything new. This is why I ask many times, if the information I provide is currently present or unwanted. I apologize for having failed to meet your expectations.

I am sorry if I come off be adversarial toward the user Silver Edge but it is not my intention. You can either chalk it up to being a failed author of 2 novels, the fact that I don't want to place anyone in a position of being an elite editor, or my latest head meds the doctors gave me last week. I also realize the need for the wiki community to take action against the unsatisfactory dumping of random information and I don't want any wiki to become a waste site. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, "I don't see no p'ints about that user that's any better'n any other user.". That applies to this frog as well.

I regret any inconvenience that my actions or inactions may have caused the users of this wiki. We have already have enough problems dealing with vandals and bots to be distracted by our ego. I went to Alex for two very good reasons. He is one of a few active users on this wiki and was the very first user to correct my errors when I arrived here. So I have learned to trust his advice slighty more than this absent administration.

Thank you again for bringing these opinions to my attention, --Wendy Black 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm... not sure how to respond. I was just commenting on your paragraph about reversion rate studies on wikis, nothing more. -Auron 23:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Date Significance/Relevance?

You're a troll. :P Is the date of any particular significance or relevance, however? :) -- Lacky 11:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

no, i was just curious to see if it would work -Auron 17:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

World of Tanks

My favorite nation/branch is the U.S.A. but I do work on the other Factions when I've hit road block so to say (a.k.a. A Bad Tank). --Araenugeth 17:21, 05 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I know the feel :( I made the mistake of going up the german lines first, arty up to GwPanther and Tiger was my first heavy tank, but there were so many bad tanks at lower tiers. Pz38t, Pz38nA, urrrrgh. Pz4 managed to be alright, and I loved VK3601 to absolute death, but then the tiger was a disappointment :/

I've started favoring USA tanks now as well, recently got up to the t110e5 (and a few weeks ago I got the Object 268 while it was on sale). I'm loving both of those, but I'm kinda looking for another line to take all the way up. I'm considering going for t57, but I might want a med before a second heavy :? -Auron 22:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gold Trim Page

I assume what you did to the page will prevent the kids from toying with it? I am pretty poor at utilizing wiki editing tools. :( Gladiator Motoko (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It'll stop unregistered users from making any edits (to those pages) for a week. I'm still wary about labeling that guild as "cheaters," but since toolbox is apparently a big issue and it's even been reported on this wiki, I won't revert. If anything I'd ask you or someone knowledgable to make a slightly more neutral summary of the situation. Something like "based on screenshots taken of the match, certain skills dealing damage beyond their usual range indicates the guild potentially used toolbox to cheat" etc. The botting claim, although likely if they're already hacking, should also be substantiated by some kind of evidence and not tacked on willy nilly. -Auron 02:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the botting point - although the player who played their mesmer has a long history of botting. It's rather hard to substantiate anything without attaching videos and even then that is open for debate. I don't really know another term to list on the black square - As I think it is fair to distinguish in some way or another from the other guilds. I mean I could list it as "Active" and then give the guild name itself a black box with a note at the bottom of the gold trim page. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Banwave discussion on Joe's page

Good day. I would be really glad if you don't waste my time on anything surrounding the chatter dramas caused by Motoko. Him being rude towards ArenaNet doesn't mean he has the right for it to remain on their feedback pages. Thanks for monitoring the situation, though. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This wiki has no policy enabling users to censor others; in fact, it has policies that forbid such censorship. Kimmes is an adult, I'm sure he's heard adult language at some point in his life. It's not your place (or my place, or anyone else's) to go around with nanny filters to revert any comments to PG-13 rating. I reverted you as an administrative action, and you were reverted again by another user. Again, this is not a polite request; don't censor other people. -Auron 03:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As you wish, such events simply encourage me maintaining the alternate means of communication more often, as it doesn't please me seeing Joe's talk page turned into the court of appeals or flaming battleground (remember how Targetdrone's case of trying to expand the discussion of GvG ended up), especially if it's performed by a player with questionable reputation, who have allowed himself throwing insulting labels such as "the syncer" or "no one important to the community" upon myself, while discovering Joe's page through this in-game encounter in the first place. On the other side, I should be grateful to Ryan for the superbly-played concerned customer role I foreseen he might get involved into within the feedback setting I intended to put the surroundings for, so after all, there's nothing to be unsatisfied with. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Short version: you don't seem to grasp this wiki's policies. Being rude is not against the rules. Swearing is not against the rules. Every time any policy forbidding those was proposed, it was overwhelmingly opposed/shot down. Editing another user's post *is*, however, against the rules - which is why I reverted you, and gave you an admin warning not to do it again.

There's a short list of things it's acceptable to edit out or redact. Blatant personal attacks with no other content, real life information/pictures, and anything illegal. The latter two will also often have revisions hidden/deleted by admins. But a preference of words? No, that's no grounds for editing another comment. You claim you wish for civility, but forcing another to speak as you do is the opposite of civil.

The particular user in question is A Problem. He thinks he's way better than he is, and he thinks he's way more important than he is. His behavior and his posts reflect that. But ANet understands it just as well as I do. They know who he is. And if they don't, all it takes is reading his post and they'll be familiar enough with him to pass judgment. Regardless, ANet made (actually, wiki staff did, harr) the Feedback section specifically so that people could talk to ANet and ANet could (legally) listen. Removing any post you disagree with or feel doesn't belong there isn't the job of random users. If ANet deems a post inappropriate, they can opt not to respond to it, they can archive it, they can request that user tone it down, and they can even request arbitration (in the past, one user actually got told not to post on any ANet staff pages or face a ban because of his incessant pestering). But we don't go around removing things at whim - not even sysops do that, and we've been patrolling ANet staff pages for years now. As I said before, Kimmes is an adult, and like any other adult, he can use his words to talk things out if needed. It's nobody's place to arbitrarily change words to other words in an attempt to make posts less offensive. The actually offensive part of the post is that Motoko thinks he's not worthy of a ban, and changing a swear word around doesn't make that part any less ridiculous. Pointless censorship at best.

That section blowing up is another matter - Greener stepping in and moving the overly-hostile childish banter to a separate page was a good move. Nothing added to that conversation after the original post was worth reading, and redirecting it was the best thing that could be done in that situation. Now that it's An Issue, further posts by those involved will be met with harsher punishments, since many of the things they posted most definitely violated wiki policy. But be mindful of the differences; what violates policy and what doesn't. Don't be too hasty to force everything to suit your worldview. This is a wiki, a collaborative effort that's spanned nearly a decade with thousands of contributors. You don't always know best, and especially when you're reverted, a better option than immediately reverting back is to ask yourself what you did wrong, and attempt to learn a little more about the community and its practices. If you aren't ready for that level of responsibility, private contact is the next best bet; at least you won't encounter dissenting opinions that way. -Auron 22:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You know, one of the main problems behind such as day-before-yesterday events is that they create unproductive environment by introducing materials totally unrelated to the position of the staff member the feedback page belongs to. How on Earth is Joe connected with processing administrative in-game actions and monitoring in-game behavior of certain users? Perhaps it didn't come to Motoko's mind, but Joe's field of responsibility lies within providing code support for potential improvements of the game, as well as discussing those with the other members of the team.

You're right that I may not be up-to-date on the current Wiki policies, since the last time I've looked into those occured somewhere in the middle of 2008, about six months before departing from the game for nearly 5 years, yet, even without the direct awareness of those, I still do believe I know how civilized communication should proceed in any place, be it here, on the other forum, or outside of the net. Unfortunately, most of behavioral stamps utilized by Motoko do not fall within that category, be it an in-game conversation, the forum posting or the participation in united efforts to enhance the game.

Personally, I have no idea what could be done about it, and believe that at some point in the future, it might become Joe's headache to cope with, however you mentioning Shard's case seems as one of the possible continuations of the story, since such hardly adequate behavior gets recognized at first, starts bothering thereafter and culminates with complete denial of the source of disturbance; that's not even related to if he actually broke any in-game rules, or not.

Though, as you already said, it is not my responsibility on this Wiki to explain these rather easy to comprehend things to certain users, so I'll simply let you deal with it accordingly. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the NPA policy is pretty clear in that rude, uncivil discussions are against guidelines. Comments should always be in regards to content, not in regards to the user. Profanity is also strongly discouraged and skirts the line as far as NPA goes. Shouldn't you be supporting NPA as a SYSOP? Maybe you could clarify your position further? 71.194.242.175 02:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you're incorrect. The policy is "no personal attacks," not "no uncivil discussions." There have been countless situations on this wiki where "uncivil" discussions were called for, and "rude" behavior quite warranted. Luckily, sysops are trusted to use discretion. It's pretty easy to tell when people are being dicks just to be dicks compared to being a dick to help the wiki project.

Profanity isn't strongly discouraged, either, and every policy that has attempted to implement nanny filters has been shot down. Profanity has not ever been punished. Plenty of great posts on this wiki, plenty of great songs and great speeches in real life have had swearing. Swears are a part of our language, and arbitrarily restricting ourselves and our language is pointless, not to mention intellectually and emotionally limiting. Guild Wars is rated T for teen, and if you think you can show me a teen that never swears, I've got a bridge to sell you. -Auron 12:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)