User talk:Horrible/Archive 2

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Lieutenant Langmar

Why did you tag that image for deletion? Chicken 1.jpg Magamdy 18:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to guess a miss-click with GWWT? I'm removing the deletion request. Feel free to let me know if you actually meant to tag that page for deletion ; ). G R E E N E R 15:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh. Yeah, it was a misclick. Ooops! Thrain | contribs 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding...

Spiders Gluttony :) I changed it to -2 while in a stance and explained why on the talk page. The image of it has come up a couple times on legacy and presearing boards (usually accompanied by "Omg! What shield is this! Me want!") and the german wiki page was found but nobody had the wiki-fu or time to add it. I'm glad someone did =D Durp da durp (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Image licensing template - screenshot

Hi. Out of interest, can you tell me precisely what method you use to upload the image File:Tyria continent fan upscale.jpg? e.g. was it using a dropdown, did you enter anything into the text box? It appears that the {{ArenaNet image|screenshot}} template has been applied twice, but I suspect a wiki-bug is occurring. -Chieftain Alex 18:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been happening a lot on my recent uploads, i'm pretty sure it's a bug with GWWT. horrible | contribs 21:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh as to your question - I have been selecting the anet image radio button, then hitting submit. I'm pretty sure GWWT is hooking in on the submit action to edit the summary, but I haven't really looked into it. horrible | contribs 21:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like if you double-click on the radio button it adds it to the textbox twice. Maybe that was it? (could disable the radio button after the first event unless you click on a different radio button). -Chieftain Alex 21:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, the culprit was me in 2013 and its been unnoticed since. -Chieftain Alex 22:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, glad you were able to track it down. horrible | contribs 22:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Kudos to you

I would just like to share that I noticed how many changes you are doing today for the purpose of tidying things up in various way. You're a machine! -arnosluismans (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! The wiki is fairly tidy already, but the lack of active editors over the past few years has definitely left a little bit of dust to collect. horrible | contribs 23:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Shadow Theft

The skill history page seems the same as the live version. Might be worth rewording the note? -Chieftain Alex 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops, was cleaning up orphaned pages; didn't realize we made skill histories for skills that haven't changed. For some reason the usage on Functionality doesn't show up for me. Fixed. horrible | contribs 21:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The table on "Functionality" links to the Skill page, not the history subpage. Same for the icons.
I have however updated the cache on Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Skill history/Assassin skill history/Critical Strikes to de-orphan it. -Chieftain Alex 21:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry; was talking about this section, for the unchanged skills. these link to the skill history subpages on the skill name. horrible | contribs 21:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

Ignore my feedback directed towards you on your policy suggestion. I'm an idiot. I scrolled down on my mobile, when I was reading it and somehow missed the bit about standby; which completely changes my point. Genuinely sorry for the misunderstanding. Not excusing the fact that I missed that in anyway, that's me reading too fast on my bloody phone; just came to say I apologise for it though. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 19:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I do have an additional question for you horrible; taking this project to heart and genuinely im onboard with having a more active sysop team, what do you think we can do to encourage more users to consider becoming sysops? I saw you put forward a whole bunch of people, of them many have declined - do you think their is anything the current GW1 wiki can do to encourage or make it easier for people to engage with the possibility of adminship? It's a genuine question and I get that it's hard to convey tone here, but really I'm curious on your take on this as i'm genuinley curious if you think their's something we could do to encourage more people to maybe want the role. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 19:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
No apologies needed, it's not exactly the cleanest draft anyway and is definitely hard to read in the best of circumstances. I just wanted to get some sort of comprise put up to move the conversation forward.
As to the sysop question, I'm not really sure. I agree we don't need all that many to keep the ship running smoothly, but I'm not really comfortable with the limited number I'm expecting us to have after the RFAs are complete. The issue of how to entice people to become sysops isn't one I have a good answer to. It's come up on gw2w as well, so I'm interested in watching to see if there's any good ideas put forward there. horrible | contribs 19:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, I would love to see new blood in the admin team; I'm just not sure what we could do to encourage those with the right skill set, to want to do it. Seems like a task that many people don't want...hopefully something interesting gets put forward on the GW2 Wiki debate, that we can utilise here. As I've been trying to think of how to attract people to the task, but i'm coming up blank. Anyway kind regards to you, and although it might have sounded trite over on the talk page and I know I may not have conveyed it well, but I do respect the amount of effort and how much you care about this wiki. Kind regards -- Salome User salome sig2.png 19:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

soul Taker

What's the relationship between the skill and the film and the anime series apart from the name ? - - Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 12:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess there isn't one. I had thought the phrase was relatively uncommon, looks like i'm wrong though. horrible | contribs 14:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

His or her --> their

Thanks for updating all of those pages to be more inclusive! Greener (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

ip

Hard to argue against that. ;)

Nice catch. Steve1 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


:/

Ignoring the rest of the drama going on re: conspiratorial nonsense surrounding admins/bcrats, much of which is laughable if you knew any of the fucking nerds who are the admins and bcrats, I take particular umbrage with the constant bringing-up of Konig as some kind of proof that the system failed. The only way that could be proof of system failure is that we didn't act quickly enough.

That case went back years, from 2014 or so when I took admin action on GW2W. Santax and Konig had been banned (as the result of a revert war/antagonizing behavior almost exclusively from Konig) even earlier, in 2013. It had been going on so long by then that basically everyone on the wiki just assumed both parties were equally at fault, and very few people cared who "won" as long as one or both shut up about it and stopped fighting. You can find specific blocks in the logs, along with specific reasons for their application, both on this wiki and GW2W.

I had been approached off-wiki (in game, on IRC, and via GuildWarsGuru private message) by several people over the years that Konig had, effectively, chased away from the wiki. They didn't want to continue fighting, and every little change they made was scrutinized & reverted & deleted by Konig, usually without any way to convince him otherwise. And they tried - there are walls of text of people trying to talk to Konig. But he was an incredibly toxic person, and was simply not interested in compromise. He wanted to lord over "his" lore section and would fight vociferously to defend it. But, young, naive and stupid as I was, I figured Konig must be some kind of lore genius if he can keep the section as good as it is by himself. I was parading behind an elitist facade myself at the time, and saw him as kind of a kindred spirit - that was 100% my fault, and one of my greatest failures on the wikis.

So, while I was still relatively active and still in touch with guild wars people, I delved into the belly of the beast. I wanted to sort out the Konig/Santax battle once and for all. I started the whole thing off by making a public post on the admin noticeboard, where I explained my original intention to ban both - until I actually looked into the history of each user. To summarize public posts I've already made which you can read on their respective talk pages; Santax was not at fault. He was Konig's latest (at the time) victim in his bullying crusade undertaken to defend his lore fiefdom. Santax fought back, which led Pling to ban him, but he was clearly not the antagonist. So I pointed that out - I apologized to Santax for his mistreatment despite years of being a level-headed, dutiful, quality contributor. And I gave Konig a final (gw2w) warning - kind of a "fuck around and find out" situation.

But, again, Konig was incredibly arrogant and thought he was untouchable. He responded as if the ban was a joke - as if it was unwarranted, or some kind of personal attack on him, and not (as it was in reality) the result of years of his nasty anti-community behavior. After the GW2W ban was placed and the "final" warning given, response from the community was overwhelmingly positive - on the wiki, on IRC (discord is used now, but IRC was still around back then) and even via email. I even got an email from an ArenaNet staffer thanking me for looking into the situation and taking action! My decision was the right one, and I stand by it even years later. The wiki project is better off without him involved, and the wiki community is healthier without him involved. I even chanced a few searches through years of Discord chat logs (which I've mostly ignored, as I no longer play GW/GW2) and saw multiple instances of konig basically smearing my character by pretending like his ban was a rogue sysop action taken against the wishes of the wiki. In reality, the opposite is true. But I had no interest in acknowledging the toxic behavior of that self-absorbed lore guru I had once defended; I just let it lie.

I invite you to do what I did - walk the same path I undertook in 2014. Look through specific edits, from both Santax and Konig, stretching from GW2W to the early days of GWW. It's not an easy task; I completely understand if it's something you aren't willing to do. But without doing that, I fear you won't get the full scope of just how shitty Konig has acted - for years! - on a project that was mostly friendly and cooperative. You'll see warnings from admins, both in article talk pages and on user talk pages. You can find discussions between admins on the wiki, and agreements between admins of admin action taken. This wasn't some behind-closed-doors conspiracy; I don't think anyone involved even cared enough to make one.

So to summarize: "Discussed where? in private? literally what I've been complaining about. Read again."

I would argue that you need to do the reading. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of pages of text relating to the Konig/Santax situation. Nothing secret was discussed and decided entirely off-wiki, and no ban was placed with a reason akin to "lol private, you have to be part of our secret skype club to learn it ^^." This case was incredibly well-documented. Almost too well - as I'm sure you'll agree if you try to go through half the content I did.

Row row fight the powa and all that - fight for wiki change if you want it. But also realize that disagreement doesn't equal persecution. There's no secret sysop cabal who gets kickbacks from ANet and bans people for the hell of it and tyrannically lords over a video game wiki for the sake of internet points. It just kinda seems like a silly argument, especially when you try to paint people like me in the same brush as the rest of the sysops. I was basically a fucking outcast for most of my wiki career, trolling and intimidating and acting like an asshole - I didn't mesh with most users or even sysops, who (at the time) I openly called care bears. But now people come along and act like we're all buddy buddy and part of the same in-group... it's laughable.

I am genuinely interested in discussing the issue with you, I'm not just posting this to bash you while you're blocked. When you come back, I'd love to hear your take on it - and you can use the few days left on your ban to dig into the Konig/Santax thing a little deeper as well. I'm sure you'll find ample evidence that my actions were warranted. -Auron 10:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah konig...don't bother trying to do an edit on one of "his" pages, learned that pretty fast. And lol @ evil cabal. Justice (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the correction - I for some reason thought Konig's block by Greener in 2018 was the actual one, and had forgotten that you originally blocked him in 2014. Glad me being wrong about something you did is all it took to get my own personalized wall of text. Also, don't assign opinions to me, I've never subscribed to the "IRCabal" bullshit. I stated that most sysop discussions happen in private - this is something that the existing sysop/bcrat team for both gww and gw2w have stated, and you can see for yourself there's a private discussion channel in the gw2w discord specifically for such. horrible | contribs 14:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I see one for gw1w: maybe the gw2w is hidden since I'm not a sysop there. From the beginning of the gw1w channel though, nothing of value has been discussed and nothing whatsoever has been decided. I don't have an issue with an external form of communication when it's used for things like warning of vandal waves or asking for more input on a topic on the wiki (usually in the form of "hey go post on the wiki about it"). We used to use skype and MSN messenger back in the day, then IRC, now discord.
I have been out of the loop for years, so I don't know how much gets discussed on gw2w vs gw2w discord. I do remember having actual discussions being a huge pain on the wiki due to constant edit conflicts, layout not really benefiting multi-user discussions, etc. Would make sense to see discussions unfold on a platform more suited to having discussions. I faintly remember us actually implementing a proper chatroom functionality as a plugin for PvX wiki, because people were tired of edit conflicting each other over every topic. -Auron 22:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware, and I'm not generally opposed to "public" or pseudo-public (irc, open discord channels) replacements for talk pages. The channel I'm referencing isn't publicly visible, it's solely for sysop discussions. Ask one of the bcrats to confirm it exists, or feel free to delve into discord's internal api, since they only hide channel names / topics on the client-side. horrible | contribs 23:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Vanquisher

Mind if I help get these templates on pages? User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 21:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, in fact I'm glad someone else took interest in it! horrible | contribs 01:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Good because shortly after asking I went ahead and finished it. LoL. I'm at work and wasn't much going on. If there is anything else I can help with just let me know. I enjoy helping out on here. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 01:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It was me

Thank you for this I did that and didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Thank you fro keeping an eye out. (forgot to sign) User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 16:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Clashing Sea

moved to Talk:Clashing Seas

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

moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Inactive Clean-up#Finishing up
No Horrible, thats not the question - as has already been explained to you repeatedly. We have never had a requirement for activity and as said, retroactive applicability flies in the face of reason and natural justice. It has already been clearly stated therefore that any vote based solely on "inactivity", is likely to be rendered moot, unless their is some further issue with the sysop. So as it stands alas the vast majority of voting, would be considered moot as its based on a requirement that does not yet currently exist in any format. Your continuned push to get people to lose admin status, is worrying. You wanted admins to be more active, they now are. Yet you still somehow wish to push for admin-status to be removed on the remaining sysops... despite their still not being a requirement for activity.
It should be further noted, that RFA's have never been direct tallies, votes are taken within the context of the wiki... as that stands we are currently debating a new form of wiki admin, that of standby admins... which is slowly being hashed out, as that takes user engagement. Considering the low footfall, this is sadly moving at a slow pace. Frankly though this wiki does not step to the sound of your drum Horrible, I as a user would be more comfortable with this process being sorted when we actually have a policy to move over into and sysop role requirements are actually clarified.
Finally and in full frankness, considering what I said above, I really dont think any of the sysops should or would fail their current RFA anyway. The vast majority of nay votes are moot on the grounds of lack of retroactive application and the voting system isnt a direct tally. The remaining admins have all returned and engaged with the wiki... so literally your search for admin engagement has been a success. My oppinion would be now lets focus on getting a proper hashed out policy and we can move forward from there. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 00:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't talking to you. You clearly have missed the point, and are in no hurry to find it. horrible | contribs 02:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I also couldn't give two shits how the RFAs finalize at this point. I've stated my opinions, I just want them over with. horrible | contribs 02:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Who you're talking to and who you're not is somewhat beside the point, as its a talk page. As is your personal want for the RFA's to be "over with". This is a collective wiki, not a place for a single user to continually attempt to grandstand. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 03:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
No RFA in the history of the wiki has been left to fester for this long before. And it seems to me that you're taking up all of the grandstanding time yourself. horrible | contribs 03:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
RFA's previous to the current ones, all took place during periods of much higher general wiki activity, they didnt result in a redrafting of the admin position and weren't based around retroactive changes to user expectations. So their are a few reason's why this is taking somewhat longer than normal. As for grandstanding, I've only ever attempted to engage with the debate Horrible. You're the one who continues to make statements and then say things like "Wasn't talking to you", when you dont get the response you want. I'm just suggesting its not the best way to encourage debate. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 03:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Refusing to bicker with you round and round until the end of time seems to be the exact opposite of grandstanding. I've already laid out my position, you seem to be the only one looking to rehash the exact same topic on every talk page you come across. horrible | contribs 03:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining to me why you have moved my response to this talk page without consultation. It was a direct reply to your comment, which you have left there... I choose which talk pages I post on, not you horrible. I'm not interested in a revert war, but i will be reverting the changes to the relevant talk page. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 04:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It was not related to that section of the talk page. Your reply is nearly identical to all of the walls of text you have been writing for the past 3 months, and has no relation to my question to poke & tan.
I asked them on the talk page specifically because I wanted the topic and its reply to be public. Feel free to move it to a new section on that talk page instead, but it does not belong where you put it. horrible | contribs 04:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It belongs there because its a direct response to your post Horrible. You do not get to dictate who responds to you on talk pages and you dont get to move responces about the place, just because you're not happy with who responded to your comment. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 04:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Fine, go ahead and keep spewing walls of text whenever you get an email notification. It doesn't matter. horrible | contribs 04:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Maintenance"

Maybe suggest an alternative rather than, as Salome so eloquently put, repeating your own initial stance:

"[Username]'s feedback above is not representative of the initial consensus that infinite reached in her proposal and is more just a reflection of [Username] repeating [their] intital stance. This isnt how consensus works [Username]."

horrible | contribs 00:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I also love how I effectively give up and just point out a difference of opinion and a time-based flaw, and then people then respond.
Seriously. I should just set a reminder and ping everyone weekly telling them to participate. What a fucking disgrace. horrible | contribs 01:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

On Admins

Hey Horrible. This is pretty much aside from the policy discussions and such so I wanted to address you directly. You can correct me if I've gotten the wrong idea, but it seems like you're coming at things from the angle that admins should 'earn their keep'.

So I just want to make sure you understand... There are zero benefits to being an admin. None. We don't get paid. We barely even get thanked (if we do, it's usually by each other). Every single person on the admin roster (and 95% of the people who have ever been there) are there solely because they care about the project and would rather have the tools to help prevent it from burning down than not have those tools when they're needed. That's it. You're railing against a bunch of volunteers who aren't costing anyone anything or getting anything. Which would be fine if any of them were actually doing harm to the wiki, but they aren't. Benchwarming isn't harmful. Even if you don't accept that our bench space is unlimited, you must certainly see that at the very least there is more bench space than we'll ever be able to fill again.

I know you and Salome have been butting heads pretty hard. You perceive that he hasn't done anything to prove to you that he cares about the wiki, you take that as proof that he therefore doesn't, and you therefore ascribe to him other undefined-but-presumably-selfish motives. That makes you come off extremely hostile and dismissive (moreso than your everyday communication), he's been meeting that with no small measure of indignation, and I think his go-to lawyerish communication style isn't really one that meshes well with yours even in the best case. Both of you (but you especially) have at various points failed pretty hard at assuming good faith of the other. But regardless I can assure you (again) that he too is only here because he cares about the well-being of the wiki. If he didn't, there'd be no point. There's nothing to gain for any of us besides making sure a wiki that we've all put hard work into over the years doesn't fall into disarray. - Tanetris (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, you've got the wrong idea. Inactive admins are unsightly. Think of it more like spring cleaning. Sure you used to use that Stairmaster all the time, but why keep it around if all it's done is sit in your basement for the last four years?
It's time to move on. Accept that things have changed, and that the people you consider friends and colleagues have already moved on with their lives.
There's no benefit to holding on to the delusion that things can ever go back to how they were, or even stay as they are now. There's still plenty to be done on the wiki, why not work on it instead? horrible | contribs 13:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah.
That's absurd. It ain't the Stairmaster; it's the fire extinguisher. - Tanetris (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
And how many stand-by fire extinguishers do you keep in your home? horrible | contribs 18:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
One for each floor is generally the rule of thumb. - Tanetris (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
And now that your home is no longer plagued with constant fires, what do you do with your stockpile of fire extinguishers? It's been years since you've needed to use one for more than a knocked-over candle, and you have far more extinguishers than number of floors. Sure, keeping the extras on hand might not be actively harmful, but they're unused, and you don't see any likely use in their future. I suppose you could go around every so often making sure they're still in-date, making sure to tossing out the expired ones - but I can see how that sounds like too much maintenance (who wants to waste time checking in on fire extinguishers, right?). Maybe it's better to just donate the ones you don't need, and then buy new ones in the unlikely event you need more. horrible | contribs 19:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Except we have an infinite number of floors and a handful of extinguishers, and no store sells them. - Tanetris (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Well apparently you and I are living in very different houses. horrible | contribs 19:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Call the fire brigade! We must be on the verge of the abyss! Get as many able bodies to help out! Save children and women first. Call 911! OMGOMGOMG.
Sorry horrible, it's your talkpage ... Steve1 (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Better to have and not need than to need and not have. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 20:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
That's some bad logic. I take it your house is wall-to-wall fire extinguishers. horrible | contribs 20:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
edit conflict :(
https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Adminship/Inactive_Clean-up&diff=next&oldid=2661195
According to poke, things seemed rather chilled the past years.
Tan should've thought about that when Horrible started his "purge" and some of the sysops actually responded rather quickly with a "np, take away my powers". Should've asked them to stick around as stand-by admins or some such and not revoke their powers. Steve1 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
That is absurd and you are being overly dramatic. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 20:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Can we try to keep discussions remotely constructive without random slippery slopes and sarcasm? The actual situation that we have is 1 admin (Greener) who is willing to commit to regularly checking in on the wiki, aside from occasional bouts of unavailability; 4 (Rainith, Salome, Poke, and myself) who are willing to commit to semi-regularly checking in on the wiki, our assorted schedules allowing; 3 (Aiiane, Indochine, and Xeeron(?)) who have expressed willingness to be on-call as standby to fill in when needed, and 1 (Auron) who we are attempting to pleasantly ignore that he kinda-sorta resigned. We're talking about a grand total of up to 9 people, not 30.
(Actually I'm not sure Xeeron has specifically said he's willing to be a standby admin, I'm just kinda assuming by him showing up when pinged and not specifically saying otherwise. As for Auron, I'm hoping to use the standby admins policy to lure him into staying. In both cases (and Aii and Indo as well), I intend to ask them if/when we get the policy passed.) - Tanetris (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the implication here seems to be that you're just going to ignore the RFAs entirely if these sysops want to stay on? Most of the ones still remaining come no where close to the community support outlined in GWW:RFA. horrible | contribs 00:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The implication is, as I've said and then quoted myself saying to you repeatedly already, "for the sake of both the sysops to decide if they are willing to do that and the sake of the community to determine if these sysops fit the redefined criteria" - Tanetris (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
But we already know the willingness of most sysops, including you and Poke. Your outright refusal to even consider compromising on my activity proposal shows that you're not willing to take on additional work - so why would that change if that work takes the form of the sysop tasks that Greener and previously Alex did? horrible | contribs 17:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
First off, in every instance I've used that quote from the original to now it has been in reference to the willingness of the sysops up for reconfirmation to be standby admins and the community's determination whether those sysops are suitable standby admins, so you're not even responding to what I said.
But to respond to what you're saying anyway, a quote comes to mind about the man who says "meet me in the middle," then takes a step back and says "meet me in the middle."
The compromise was where we desysopped (and de-bcrated in one case) the assorted admins who were unresponsive, and writing it into (proposed) policy that future unresponsive admins will be similarly removed, despite the previous understanding that sysops were sysops until they either fucked up or resigned. Which is fine because it does no harm to the wiki, and in fact does a(n albeit minor) good in terms of security practice.
Where I am not willing to compromise is adding burden that does no good for the wiki. Literally the only goal I have ever pursued on here is the good of the wiki, simple as that. Don't care about having a position of 'power' here (which I assure, 90% of my authority here comes from being an old hand who writes persuasively with the bcrat role being more a side-effect than anything), don't care about your personal crusade, just care about the good of the wiki. If I thought it would be good for the wiki, I'd kick the entire admin team including myself and leave things in the hands of AbuseFilter.
(I don't think that would be good for the wiki though, for the record) - Tanetris (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you fucking joking? The sysops that were removed (so far) all willingly stepped down - or were unavailable for comment. On what planet is following the letter of the RFA policy a fucking compromise? Refusing to do that would have been an abuse of power.
I'm saying meet me in the middle - and you haven't moved at all. The quote is a good one, but it's not applicable here. horrible | contribs 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me spell out what I did to compromise: My version of the activity policy was my attempt to design what I proposed - what I felt got some positive, if lukewarm feedback - while still listening to and incorporating the points brought up in response to it - I also specifically solicited feedback, and wanted people to suggest changes to the things that they thought were unfair or unneeded. I got fuck all in response. horrible | contribs 19:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
"following the letter of the RFA policy" Except it wasn't, you know it wasn't, you were explicitly told it wasn't and that you were given a pass on it in the name of not giving you a hard time.
Not getting feedback that you like is not the same as not getting feedback. - Tanetris (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. I'm not talking about my initial fuck-up regarding the community consensus required for reconfirmation - i've admitted that was a fuck up, and you and poke both chose to overlook it and let all of the RFAs continue. I'm specifically referring to resolving RFAs: "Candidate withdrawal (for any or no reason) automatically fails the RFA... [or] The RFA has been active for roughly one week". I'm perfectly happy to give you leeway when it comes to the duration of these RFAs, and the policies in general - but nothing in GWW:RFA comes close to giving bcrats the power to outright ignore RFAs.
  2. I didn't get feedback. I got a response from alex restating his original points (which he and salome chose to argue about), and a question of usefulness from Aiiane (that I responded to). No one else responded. The responses this past week are, for the most part, just you and poke just re-asking Aiiane's question in a rhetorical manner, and not contributing to the discussion horrible | contribs 19:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually Tanetris, you know what? I didn't even fuck up. see the "enough user support" section of GWW:RFA: "The level of required support [for reconfirmation] starts at the amount of support given for sysophood during the latest RFA (direct opposition to either is not counted), and this requirement gradually descends over time to a minimum of one user supporting after one year." The only thing I missed would be adding a single line to the existing RFA pages. The only ones here breaking policy would be you and poke (which, again, I'm not a wiki-lawyer so I'm not concerned about). horrible | contribs 19:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually yes you did fuck up. You have a right as a user to REQUEST an RFA by putting a vote forward with reason. It's then up to the BC's at their discretion to commence an RFA, which may reduce to 1 request (but its still at BC discretion). You instead jumped that completely and just started the RFA's along with Alex, thus bypassing initial BC Discretion, far over the line of what you should have done. Poke and Tane allowed it to go agead, so as to not give you a hard time. So it's probably for the best that you're not concerned. Furthermore, were dealing with fractional voting numbers here (the most active RFA out of the 5 left, has a whole 10 votes) and you pushing for RFA's based on retroactive changes (that are against all notions of fairness or principals of ethics)... and the majority of those votes were cast before we have a finite updated policy on Sysop expectation. So yeh horrioble, just like on gw2 wiki and on the discord, people have compromised with you, but as ever... if you dont get everything you want, you generate drama. It's just tiring at this point. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 20:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
"It's then up to the BC's at their discretion to commence an RFA" this is absolutely false - the discretion mentioned does not extend to the threshold; they only determine when it is reached. The threshold itself has been 1 for many years, on every RFA. In addition, reconfirmations do not require a reason - your assumption that "my reason" is regarding retroactive change is both false and unnecessary. As for me generating "drama" - you don't have to participate. you're welcome to return to whatever it is that has occupied your time for the last 9 years. horrible | contribs 20:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
If you're going to wikilawyer, probably best to read the whole sentence: "Whenever this threshold is reached (as judged by a bureaucrat, not simple tallies), a bureaucrat will give notice to the sysop that they must be successfully reconfirmed within two weeks or lose their sysop status.", but then as you said, youre not a wiki lawyer so you shouldn't be that bothered. As for the rest of your commentary, yes thats the kind of drama-causing snidery that I was talking about Horrible. Maybe stop it and stop throwing your toys out of the pram and engage with users. You've been fed back by repeated users that they dont like your "activity" proposal. You said you wanted feedback, you got it. Making this kind of drama about it, is as I said, tiring and frankly unhelpful. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 20:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
As I've stated before, simply saying "this sucks and I hate it (paraphrased)" is not feedback. The rest of that quoted sentence doesn't show any further failure on my part? - I can see how (1) no bcrat officially recognized that 1 === 1 and (2) the notice was given by a sysop, rather than a bcrat might be a violation of the letter of the law, but they certainly do not violate the spirit of it (as shown by both poke and tan allowing the actions). Also I'm sorry you're so tired. Maybe take a nap? horrible | contribs 21:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Tane and poke have said why they overlooked your misinterpretation of wiki policy, you can assume what you like... but it doesnt really change the fact that you've bluntly been told by the people who made the decision, that they just didnt want to give you a hard time at that juncture. Reading any further form of endorsement into what they did, as you acting in the "spirit" of anything, is just a reach on your part. As for what you deem as feedback, again thats up to you... none of us here are obligated to provide you feedback. If uses wish to respond "this is crap for many reasons and I dont see the point engaging in finding a solution for a problem that doesnt exist..." then that IS feedback. You liking it or not, is somewhat by the by. As for your closing comment, again i said your drama is tiring, not that im tired. Context and detail are important Horrible. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 21:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see you're falling back to the tried-and-true tactic of repeating the same comment, while ignoring what I said. It'll work eventually, keep it up! horrible | contribs 21:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
It's the lack of awareness of the irony in your response, that I find most impressive. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 21:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Your inability to detect said awareness does not imply the lack of it. You've continually said you want to debate [with me], and then repeat the same arguments over and over. I've repeatedly said I do not want to debate [with you], and then repeat the same points over and over again. There is a distinct difference between the two. horrible | contribs 21:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

<reset indent> 8 admins is more than enough for a wiki with this amount of activity. I also agree that there isn't really a need for a tiebreaker. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 22:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's still more than GW2W has, and that place is objectively far more active than we are. Plus, my original plan was to add more sysops back in from the pool of active contributors, but given how far off the rails things have gone I don't see why anyone should have remembered that. horrible | contribs 00:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Only one more and with all but one of them being on daily. With the activity on here being what it is. With mostly all of what 5 actual users most of the activity, 1 checking in daily and the rest periodically should be just fine. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 00:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Lost in the sea of conflicts, bearing a soapbox

Hey, I have been trying to stay fully up to date with the current state of things, but I seem to be coming up short. This is entirely my own fault for life being a thing. Discussions are happening all over the place (with varying time stamps and dates) and it's very clear that a core difference exists between yourself and a large portion of the community (especially the current admins). I'm not here to pile onto that. What I *am* here for is to ask you if you might concisely but passionately expand on your overall stance regarding matters. Not specifically in relation to existing discussions, but overall, taking into account any changes in perspective you may have experienced as the discussions unfolded. That you care a great deal is a given, but what specifically do you (currently) care/worry about? I have a feeling it will translate well to your talking points for potential changes and behaviourisms on GWW, but it's very difficult to get a clear read on your ideals when scavenging through the large discussions. I want to know what *you* feel without looking to argue with you nor retort in any way. I also want to stress other users to not hijack this section simply to further engage in conflict with you, only to splinter what is obviously a large dispute and fundamental disagreement in parts even more. You are of course under zero obligation to take the time and effort for this, though I have a hunch that it might shed light on things that may currently go unnoticed (at least by me). Plus I personally don't enjoy watching anyone speak up about something they are passionate about, only to appear to be talking to a (bunch of) wall(s) from their perspective. I am a sucker through empathy. - Infinite - talk 02:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

My inclination is to just say "what's the point" and keep being a dick until I get myself banned, but I'll give it some thought. horrible | contribs 02:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Please when reading this if you (the reader, not Infinite) come across something you think is presented as "a fact" or is "strongly worded" please mentally insert "I think that..." or "for the most part..." before it. This is all my opinions, and while I'm aware there are always exceptions, you're just being a dick so fuck off.
Anyway, with that out of the way, in no particular order:

Wiki Content

  • Revising the automated list of featured articles. We've had a significant number of edits in the last decade, and it's worth a look into adding articles that have significantly improved, and removing articles that have lost their luster and are in need of updates.
  • Clean-up of the projects & research sections on the community portal. The recent discussions on Talk:Mission, Talk:Vanquisher, Talk:Half ranged/Talk:Target, and others show that there're plenty of things to still be done. (Not even mentioning the standardization of maps, guides, and build/team articles which are all completely all over the place in terms of quality and accuracy)
  • We also really need to have a discussion about the scope of the wiki. Should we have build/running/profession guides and other subjective meta articles? How do we determine the correct way to do that?
One project I haven't mentioned here but I'd still like to work on would be adding a leaflet.js map with toggle-able, mission & quest routes, boss and npc locations, and much more. Though at this point I may do that as a project separate from the wiki, just to avoid having to deal with wiki fuckery.

Adminship

  • Sysop & Bcrat communication is non-fucking-existent. Stop having discussions in private when they concern the entire wiki. Despite communication featuring heavily in Tanetris's GW2W RFA, there has been no effort to improve communication on either wiki, let alone any implication that such an improvement is even up for consideration. You cannot have a functioning community where the people with the right of final decision in all discussions and the power to ban do not participate.
  • additionally, Sysops & Bcrats are not a part of the community. They do not make edits, they do not engage in discussions unless directly solicited, they do not talk with other users.
  • Inactive Sysops & the uselessness of "Standby" Status Keeping sysops on the roster because they may someday be useful, despite the fact that they're not currently makes no real sense to me. In the event we need sysops in the future, why not ask them at that point? Having a bunch of people with a standby status may sound good in theory, but I don't see ANY benefit to it compared to just sysoping people in accordance to future need. An activity policy, even the most lax one imaginable, would ensure that the sysops we have on the roster are continually willing to fulfill the role of sysop.

Wiki Policy

  • Policy articles are all over the place when it comes to being up to date. a good chunk of them don't recognize 2012 changes to GWW:ADMIN (which itself is out of date), and just in general a lot of the more nuanced policies are all over the place.
I'd also like to see the following added:
  • An activity policy of some sort. Whether it's the exact policy draft I proposed, or something as lenient as 'sysop has logged in once in the last 5 years' isn't nearly as important as just having one. The amount of time I've had to waste with Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship/Inactive_Clean-up just to clean up former admins who didn't even respond is upsetting, but not nearly as outright infuriating as the sysops who've said that such a clean-up was unnecessary.
  • An amendment to GWW:AGF to prevent wiki-lawyering. Arguing against something for the sole reason that a policy doesn't allow it seems to imply the policy needs to be changed, and this would improve things by limiting the restrictive power of some polices. Quite frankly, I'm surprised nothing like this was proposed in the past.

And honestly given how the admin team has reacted to this, I'm a lot more pissed off at them than I already was. Given how there's literally no recourse other than @'ing Stephane with a "wah wah admins mean :(" - what the fuck am I supposed to do? RFA them? What a fucking joke that'd be.
This would be the part where I bitch and moan about how no one else on the wiki does anything, but honestly whatever. I'm just going to get myself banned since I don't have the self control to quit willingly. horrible | contribs 04:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
If you need someone to talk to hit me up. None of this is worth the stress. User DrogoBoffin new sig.png Drogo Boffin 06:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
lmao. horrible | contribs 13:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)