User talk:Pling/Pruning

Detrolling the wiki

As has been pointed out recently, this wiki is "run by the trolls". That might be an exaggeration, but it still highlights the severe problem this wiki has - from the day-to-day business to the drama-of-the-week, it seems trolls outnumber the proper contributors, whether that's to mainspace content or administration. They attempt to derail discussions, and sometimes succeed; they annoy the userbase, which is largely their goal; and the only way that most of the trolls progress the wiki is by progressing it into another 4chan /b/ spinoff.

Tanaric pointed out before he left that these trolls form the basis of community consensus and that's quite accurate. However, we are not a democracy - we don't allow people to have a significant say in things just because they form part of said "people". (Most of the time. My point is we shouldn't.) Arguably, we're more of a meritocracy than anything else. Therefore, these trolls, who have little to no merit in regards to the contributions they've made or will continue to make, should be excluded from this discussion (or indeed any other). That's a broad proposal, but I'm mainly hoping we judge comments on what the comments say, who has made the comment, and how it aligns with the goals of the wiki.

So, something needs to be done about these disruptive users. The obvious solution seems to be to block the lot of them (and of course keep in mind the above proposal). There are varying degrees of trolling, though, so these blocks need to be varied too.

For the users who are dedicated trolls, 90% troll/10% almost-useful, or trollish enough to disrupt the wiki, we give them (semi-)long-term blocks in the range of, say, 1—3 months starting 'now' with this being the final warning. Or longer, I don't mind. It'll show a pretty hard-line stance that we don't tolerate users with the first aim of disruption and lulz. These users would include the likes of User:Mafaraxas, User:Dark Chaos, User:Daññy, User:Frosty, User:NuclearVII, User:Karate Jesus, User:Armond, User:Chaos Messenger, User:Briar, User:Pika Fan, and User:TahiriVeila. There are some users who contribute usefully sometimes but still troll enough, and we get a grey area - User:Mini Me, User:Jette, User:Misery, and User:Auron are possibles here.

An even greyer area still are those users who don't contribute usefully for 95% of their time and have been berated at already but who aren't proper "trolls", like User:Unendingfear. I'm not sure what to do here, but if our goal is to prune the disruptive users, this should be looked into too.

Note: these aren't complete lists. Unfortunately, there are more people like this around. The feedback namespace is usually a good area to find these people. Also, the block lengths can be lengthened or shortened as necessary, obviously. I'm not out for the purpose of creating set and rigid rules - everything here is flexible, as long as it sends the correct message and protects the wiki from further harm.

For the users who feel like trolling on just an occasional basis, I propose quick, reactionary, short-term blocks of 1 day to start with then extending after repeats of similar behaviour if necessary. I think these should be used more often and regarded as less of a big-deal and more as a simple way of giving a forced, short absence and a message of "we don't accept that sort of behavior here". There's an air of trying to please everyone when handing out blocks, but I think sysops and bureaucrats need to be a lot more authoritative, even if their decision is not to block someone. That's not a complaint about how they act or otherwise already, as I can say I certainly felt that air when I was a sysop too. When a problem gets as big as this, it just needs a firmer and steadier hand. Also, I think non-sysops as well should allow sysops greater freedom with these kinds of blocks, since a lot of the air I mentioned comes from users complaining about small issues. One day away from the wiki is usually not something to make a fuss about. (He said, unconvincingly.)

P.S. props to Auron for coming up with most of the idea.

-- pling 00:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A firmer stance is needed on trolling, and I fully support this. "Hardline" trolls as mentioned above are needing this, as sysops seem to be getting dragged around on a leash by the user community whenever they dole out a block for disruption. The wiki may run on consensus, but that doesn't mean sysop discretion should be completely killed of. And in the case of blocks such as these, it seems to have happened. Though the proposal is harsh, this has turned into a huge problem.

I'm reminded of this post on PvX that helped eliminate a good portion of the trolling over there. Perhaps some of that (if it hasn't already) could be implemented into this as well. -- Wandering Traveler 00:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm not really a strict or authoritative sysop (as shown on linked AN discussion) but I support this idea very strongly. Part of the reason I'm not quick to block trolls is that I'm not sure if I'd have sysop consensus backing me up, so I suggest we reach one over this proposal and then act accordingly. — Why 01:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea very much- in fact, I was considering proposing a very similar course of action. elix Omni 01:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

These long bans may be an over-reaction. They may be necessary, but something a little less drastic might be sufficient. Consider removing the SysOp privileges of their ring-leader. --Max 2 01:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Theres...not really a ring leader. Its just a community of "trolls", per say. -- Wandering Traveler 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

hard stance butt to much of a cwoard to stay admin guy ... yes 127.0.0.1 01:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not quite their 'ring-leader', but definitely their chief enabler. He has banned the victims rather than the troll on more than one occasion. --Max 2 02:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, nice post. :) I basically agree 100% I don't think Briar is a troll, otherwise it's 100% with this. ^.^ However, I have been trying to help out a bit, and my user talk contributions have dropped to a minimum >.>--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 01:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My two cents:

In short: The troll issue has been bothering me for a long time. But lately it has really started to piss me off! Take that recent topic on AN for example. Filled with trolls. And the fifth reply starts to take the discussion to another direction already. This can be seen anywhere. Always on bigger topics the discussion is bound to take a step to something totally different. And many times, when the discussion should already be over, these guys just keep on going. They turn this place into a forum...

I don't know is it their idea to post here to only piss off others, since this is a very inconvenient place to have a forum :P

To what Pling said: I see no trouble of blocking the trolls. Most of them hardly ever contribute for documenting purposes on mainspace and even less on GWW namespace, which contains much more than just policies. Sure, some occasionally help to revert vandals, but i'm not sure should that really count as contributing...

Only thing i'm not sure is this one day block. Does one day change anything? Sure, the further incidents on the blocked user increase the following block. But starting with one day has no effect in my opinion. - J.P.Talk 01:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that if this is implemented, it'll be like giving these people a fresh start to say "hey, stop this crap, or this'll happen". They ignore this, the bans get increasingly longer. It'd be kinda bad, even to a known troll, to just dole out a 3 month or 1 year for something that just got implemented. -- Wandering Traveler 01:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with pling's sentiments and ideas as well. Some users make the wiki a less pleasant place to edit at, and it's a shame if that inhibits even one person from making a positive contribution. Any discussion of length becomes so heavy with mean-spirited sarcasm, rudeness, memes, and troll accusations to the point that I, and it sounds like others as well, often decide it's not worth weighing in on. Manifold 02:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

While I'm a "dabbler in politics" and used to be part of the "administration", and you have stated a preference to not have that input, here it is anyway. I would suggest rather than a 90/10, that the wiki develop and implement an 80/20 policy, excluding user page creation/maintenance, game suggestion submissions (but not comments on them) and guild page submissions. For too long, this wiki has been used as a forum, social network, or instant message board, between users, with a lot of the major offenders contributing nothing at all to mainspace. I don't believe we need to "start it now", I believe that prior contributions should be taken into account, as I don't believe that people who have little to no interest in contributing to mainspace, are suddenly going to start now, just so they can continue to troll/fill up RC with bs. Allowing 20% of a user's edits to be in Talk, User talk, and Feedback talk, should be more than adequate if they really are working toward the best interest of and the main purpose of GWW. My 2 cents. -- Wyn talk 02:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't agree with any strict number. Some people honestly don't know how to help in mainspace. They may not have the technical skills, screenshot skills, etc. Now, a greater enforcement of Anti-Spam spam rules could work. To be honest too, I'm just afraid of being banned for that, because where I help is mostly user/image space >.>--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 02:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Wyn, considering over 1/3 of your own contributions are in the talk spaces, I don't really see that idea working out too well for anyone. elix Omni 02:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand, this has been a long time coming, and I'll be keeping a careful eye on the general sysop reaction. I've honestly been wondering for a while now why I've not gotten 3-day/week bans for various little things over the course of the past two or three months. If and when the sysops look like they're going to go with this course of action, I'll basically have to post something along the lines of "pz @ talk pages" (and stick to it) or be banned.

On the other, implementing a 90/10 (or even 80/20 or 50/50) rule on a wiki for a very nearly dead game is pretty foolish. It's not like Gaile has just said "hey here's your new toys, have fun and keep us generally in the loop" and everyone was running around making articles and referencing GuildWiki while making sure not to copy from it (and the deletions associated with people who didn't understand that part of the bargain). I would argue that, for the majority of people, the wiki is more than a satisfactory website, with detailed descriptions for almost anything you might need to know. The one major area we don't cover is "which of these options is 2% better than the other" and advanced theorycrafting like that, but I don't think the wiki was ever intended to.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't think there's much to be done in the spirit of "working toward the best interest of and the main purpose of GWW", as Wyn so eloquently put it. I could, for example, take my (reasonably new!) discordway team and steamroll through every mission in the game, using the wiki for a reference and making sure the walkthroughs are accurate and helpful, but I honestly don't think there's that much to be improved. Even the guide to hard mode, while reasonably terrible by my opinion, is far from unuseable or unhelpful.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is that Pling's proposal means someone has to define what a "trolling" post is, and you know how well those kinds of definitions work. Or, heaven forbid, we have to rely on sysop discretion (which has also been working oh so well up to now). You know that any bans placed based on this idea is going to be disputed by not only the poster, but by all their buddies, and is going to just create a new batch of wiki drama. How many times has someone said.... I'M NOT TROLLING!!!? By working strictly on contrib counts by namespace, rather than content of those posts, it's cut and dried. If you want to adjust the numbers to fit better, that's fine, -- Wyn talk 03:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Even putting aside whether there's still significant work to be done, it's simply ludicrous to judge a contributor's worth on the sheer quantity of their edits. I would more highly value a user who writes a single perfect article from scratch with just one edit and then chats on fifty talk pages over a user who does nothing but correct typos and forgets to hit Show Preview. elix Omni 03:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that a hard and fast definition would be useful and desired, Wyn. I just disagree that edit counts by namespace is the way to go about it. In addition to the points Felix brought up, no one cares about Joe User who makes his user page, his character pages, and chats amiably with his friends on his guild talk page - and how much respect is he paying the wiki's best interest and main purpose?. It's only when the user starts trolling that bans are discussed (and rightfully so, in my opinion).

Y'know, in some ways PvX is easier to moderate, because the people who contest bans over things such as underage dancing bikini model videos, calling people autistic niggers, and the "nigger sprinkler" pictures are obviously trolls and not just missing the connection between their actions and trolling. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I very much agree with User:Unendingfear on the 'no hard-and-fast numbers thing'. If there's a numbers rule in place, I'd pretty much get auto-banned despite my want to be ABLE to contribute to the betterment of the wiki. 'I'm just too new to Guild Wars to be useful' is what such a policy would say to me. My characters aren't good enough to update things in outlying areas, I don't quite get how to write a new page on an upcoming event (which would be about the only time I could write a new page), and uh. Yes. I want to be helpful, but can't due to various reasons, but I'm also not causing troubles (that I know of!). So where would a numbers rule leave me? ‹Lady Chani› 03:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly if something like this were implemented, it would be one in a series of tools. Low ratio of mainspace to userspace edits would give you a correlation that raises a flag, so to speak, then the person with the power could look through your user talk (or whatever) to confirm/deny your "affiliation." Basically, it'd be tools/guidelines + discretion that win the day. MAFARAXAS 04:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reassuring, but I'm still not sure I like it. I can see how it's easier for the people in charge, but still. The idea of it makes me vastly uncomfortable. ‹Lady Chani› 04:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't think we should implement a strict and rigid "90/10" or "80/20" or whatever rule. I wouldn't be against it as a guideline, though. We could incorporate some of the bcrat voting qualifications into it (as in the "quality" edits are usually those outside User, ArenaNet, Guild, Feedback, and their respective Talks)
Regarding trolls: I've been for a stronger sysop stance against trolls for a while now. LtS comes to mind, along with the lack of action against him despite that he had been trolling GWW for over a year. (Though, action against him now would be moot.) --Riddle 06:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully support this proposal in it's original form and also fully oppose any kind of 90/10 rule (or any other ratio) based on edit counts within name spaces. Although it isn't always correct place to sort things out, plenty of editing discussions occur on user talk pages. Another example of such a rule failing would be someone like Gares, who when he was a sysop rarely stepped into the mainspace to edit and if you look over his recent contributions a vast majority of his edits are dealing with user disputes in the user talk space. I would contest that Gares is exactly the kind of person we do want around and making a rule then using discretion to ignore it is far stupider than not making a rule and using discretion to enforce it. I really hope the wiki as a whole mans up, even if it results in my own permanent ban. The failings of PvXwiki in terms of trolling have nothing to do with the unlimited power and bravosity of sysops, that is the only thing that stops it from imploding. Any problems relate from the sysops just not giving a fuck any more. Dear sysops, please be braver and stronger, if someone contests a ban when they were obviously trolling tell them to shut the fuck up. Misery 07:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add an addendum that if you change the rules I will just adjust my behaviour to fit within the scope of the new rules. It won't mean that I will stop trolling. This is not a threat, this is a realistic analysis of my own behaviour. Rule changes only stop the bad trolls who aren't a real problem anyway. What needs to be applied is something similar to what happened to Kaisha, a pragmatic net value consideration. Kaisha was (arguably) not intentionally a troll, she made valuable contributions, but as a whole it appears people felt her net effect on the wiki was negative. Is my net contribution negative or positive? I don't know, but my motives are my own. I honestly think arguing successfully and getting myself (and a bunch of other people) banned long term or permanently is one of the most positive things I could do for this wiki (causing an infinite loop where I should be unbanned for my massive positive contribution!). I figure this actually has a hell of a lot to do with me, at a minimum because of the effect of my presence on the overall environment. Misery 08:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But, if we were, when would we apply this pragmatic evaluation? Do we wait until they troll again and then evaluate, or do we evaluate now and, subsequently, block most of them?

Another thing I should point is that the evaluation of Ariyen/Kaisha was a draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn out process. I'm inclined to believe that each case would be largely the same. Doing that for (potentially) 15 cases would be a nightmare. --Riddle 08:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about the details. Now, when it happens again, whenever, doesn't matter. I think I also said the sysops should be braver and tell people to shut the hell up. That should bypass the drawn out nature of the process. Misery 08:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The last line of Misery's first post is key. Sysops are the police - police don't let people out of prison because a bunch of other criminals complain (...okay, in theory they don't). Sysops need to be able to simply ignore the trolls, like most people did when Ariyen spammed their inboxes.

Like Misery, I also vehemently oppose any kind of 90/10 rule. Not only because they're ridiculous, but because they're a kind of stupid one-size-fits-all policy that simply won't work (as Misery pointed out, there are people who fail the 90/10 cutoff that are nothing but positive contributors). It's something that needs looking into, but it's a completely separate issue. I would urge users to keep the discussion about the original topic and not to try tie any unrelated rants into this issue. -Auron 09:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think Pling meant a strict 90%/10% rule, but meant it as "well this user's usefulness is being undone by his/her bad behavior, so a long-term block may be in order." It is illogical to block people for crossing an arbitrarily-set number of trolling attempts, It is far more logical to evaluate each person on their usefulness and base a block upon that. Koda Kumi 11:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see my idea is largely being considered a fail, which I can live with, however, I don't agree that sysop discretion is really any better. So far it has proven to be pretty much a fail in dealing with the troll issue on this wiki, and has lead to burn out of admins who have tried (yes, I'm talking about me and Tanaric, and even Anja in her own way) while the rest of the admin team just sit by and watch. It has also lead to the complete misuse of staff talk pages, as well as user talk pages in general. I simply think that if we were to implement some sort of numbers ratio (I really don't care what it is) as long as it indicates someone is making a solid effort to make positive contributions (even if they are simply fixing typos and forgetting to use show preview), rather than doing nothing but either harassing Anet staff, or trolling other users (or admins for doing their jobs), there would be at least some basis for comparison. Make it a guideline if people are too uncomfortable with it being a policy. Forget about past edits and start it now if that's what people wish, but at least the community would have at least an idea of what is expected of them here. Of course, sysop discretion would still be in place. As a guideline, they would (as would the community) have a chance to evaluate the edits being made, and not ban someone who has made a few really stellar edits and a lot of talk page stuff. I just see that over the past several months, there has not only been this idea to deal with trolls, but the discussion on how to deal with users who do nothing but post on every single topic on Regina's page (or otherwise misuse staff talk pages), and who have filled Linsey's page repeatedly to the breaking point with needless crap, as well, as multiple discussions and debates over how wiki talk pages should be used. I feel that this could address all of those issues with a single idea/guideline/policy, whatever. I don't want to see GWW turn into a police state like Conservapedia. I also fundamentally disagree with Auron's assessment that Sysops are the police. Sysops are the janitors. The community is suppose to be policing itself. -- Wyn talk 11:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@Koda: Yes, that is exactly what Pling was saying, but other people were suggesting strict percentage rules. It may interest Wynthyst to know that 59% of her edits are within the Arenanet, Feedback, User and Guild spaces. Now I realise a lot of those edits (especially in the guild and feedback space) are not personal in nature, but you would fail even a 50:50 rule. I'm sure it was not your intention to ban users such as yourself. Misery 11:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wyn: But that is not working. Decisions on who should be a sysop are being done by the community, and they are popularity contests instead of judgments on sysop capabilities. The admin noticeboard pages are usually full of bullshit that need no attention at all. During the last bureaucrat elections, there were 3 troll nominations, and all of them received votes. Can you really say this community is able to police itself? I think not.

Misery: Most of my edits are in the talk or feedback sections. Am I being a bad user because of that? Koda Kumi 11:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That was exactly my point, thank you for reading. Misery 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just my two cents as well. Trolling is definately an issue on the wiki, and a straight out ban of the worst offenders is, imo a very good idea. I also believe that a ratio or percentage system wouldn't work. This is largly because as the game adds and changes less and less over time, so will the amount of things users can contribute to the mainspace. A large part of the wiki, particuarly with sysops, is done on talk and user pages as well. I'm not a heavy contributer myself, due to my limited wiki-skills and the fact that everything I can do has been largely done. Unless there is new content (like the War In Kryta, which I helped out with) there will be a lot of users who cannot contribute fully. One more thing to take into account is how edits are counted. If a user creates a whole page to perfection in a single edit, that counts as 1 in his/her edit count. Another use could create a page through lots and lots of small edits, ending up with a page of a lesser standard and having 10+ in his/her edit count. How would that work with a ratio or percentage? Shadow Runner 13:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is not really on topic but a lot of people brought it up so I'd just like to say that I'm sick and tired of seeing people making up excuses like "everything's been done already" to justify their lack of main space edits. You would not believe how many Nightfall articles are stubbed, including but not limited to NPCs and quests. Please do some research before posting stuff like that. Some article stubs and Guild Wars Wiki:How to help are waiting for you. - Reanimated X 14:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What happens when we ask simple questions like why does this have a stub tag, but not this? Generally, we get told crap like "OMG, fail less", or have a sysop call us names, or ban us at random. So why should we bother? Has it happened to me? No. Have I seen it happen? Yep. And then we have the "constructive" trolls blatantly tell people to STFU, and no one bats an eye, then try to blame the victim. "Run by trolls", is an understatement. There are a lot of really vocal asshats around here but most people don't bother to contribute because we can't be arsed to have trolls and sysops treat us like dogshit. Ghosst • Talk •

I'll keep this short to reduce the amount of text the next person reading this section has to put up with: I think that having a X/Y rule would be a bad idea and would not work. And summarily banning all "trolls" now might work, but would be a bad idea as well. Imho, the solution is for some sysops (like myself) to stop being lazy and to step onto users talk page earlier. Sometimes, giving people a warning works. --Xeeron 15:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@Mis, please notice the use of the word should in my statement about the community policing itself. I understand, probably better than most that currently the system is not working, due largely to the high population of trolls that have been allowed to flourish on this site, where members of the community, like Tender Wolf, are victimized, and when they attempt to request help, they are told there is nothing that can be done (and yes, I was one of the ones that said it as an example of what those members of the admin team were saying). That is a failure of the sysop discretion that is touted so loudly by the admin team currently. While I know my original post here brought in the idea of using some sort of edit count/ratio as a basis to start with, it was never my intention that it should be a hard and fast rule followed blindly by anyone, most of all not the sysops that are elected by the community for their discretionary judgments. I do feel it's important, however, that every member of this community get a clearly stated "What's expected of you here" sort of guideline. While in some ways I agree that at this time, there isn't a super high volume of stuff to be done in mainspace, it has been pointed out AND proven that there are still some very large holes to be filled in (look back to what 42 came up with where there was virtually NO dialogue for the EoTN bounty givers) there are still a lot of things that can be done in mainspace, as well as many projects that still need completing, it simply takes people willing to spend some time. For those editors who have lesser wiki skills... well, BE BOLD. The best way to learn is to do, and on a wiki, there are few things that can be broken that would seriously impact performance that can't be fixed (and would be almost instantaneously given the number of RC lurkers here). -- Wyn talk 15:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Xeeron, people have told sysops not to be "lazy" for ages. It's also not just a matter of "laziness" (I don't think that's a major problem), but not being sure when to act or not knowing if the community will back them, or even if the other sysops will back them. Sure, more active sysops would be useful, but these trolls have festered even while we've had the highest amount we've had of available active sysops. Using the guillotine to cut the major trolls off, and then also having less "lazy" sysops would be better than just the latter, I think. -- pling 16:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sysops should act with the knowledge that they're there for a reason. Mob Rule is not always effective, and by "not always", I mean never. ··· Danny Pew Pew 16:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also to Xeeron: there's another way of putting it. Is this proposed situation any better than the current situation? This doesn't have to be the only thing we do, but it could be one step. -- pling 16:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Pling. It definitely would be a step in the right direction. That status quo really doesn't work right now. It used to, but it stopped working a while ago. --Lania Elderfire 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it is hugely off topic, so I will add that I feel the neutering of bureaucrats who are also sysops to keep them unbiased is detrimental for the wiki. There have been multiple cases of bureaucrats refusing to run because they feel they are needed as sysops and very often some of the sysops who are most willing to get elbow deep in user problems (e.g. Gares) end up being the best bureaucrat sysops and unable to continue to get their hands dirty. Seriously, if they are any kind of bureaucrat them banning a person now and again won't make them biased. Misery 17:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I don't know the full details, there was a case before where Defiant Elements blocked a vandal as bcrat and there was a huge controversy over that. I understand the principal of removing power from bcrats, but to me it doesn't make sense. I agree with Misery that a good bcrat banning someone who is clearly disruptive won't make them unbiased. --Lania Elderfire 17:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just chiming in to state that I agree with Pling/Auron's original proposal, Misery's post, to an extent Xeeron's post about some sysops needing to stop being lazy (because I know this applies to me), and a giant +1 to Why's post about worry about not having the sense of a united sysop front. (Why does this phrase keep cropping up in serious discussions?) – Emmett 20:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the original post and it's intention, this course of action should have happened a long time ago, back when the major troll issue first surfaced. I did some looking and it seems that it first started to become a major issue when PvX merged into wikia. Troublemakers migrated from there and others here started to follow suit. Presently, there has been enough leeway, for quite some time, to certain users that major bans should be an easy decision to make. Most say they don't care about being banned, but this is all some users have it seems like, so yeah, they would care and probably take the rules here seriously afterward. Sysops shouldn't be afraid to act and any consequences that come from their actions.There is no need to wait for some kind of consensus or worry about what the community is going to think. They voted you in your position for a reason, meaning they trust your decision making abilities, so don't worry about it. There will always be the "possie" of a banned user that will barrage your talk page. Take it with a grain of salt and, if your ban is legit, stand by it and others will stand by you too. The admin team has to work as a team and, yeah, most have gotten lazy just for the fact that there really isn't much to do anymore, except police talk pages and that can get boring. Also, a gang of trolls or circle-jerkers can burn out a admin. It's been seen. There's a pretty easy solution to that. Don't take it personally and respond and ban where needed. — Gares 13:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

some sub section

(sub section header, because this section is getting huge and I am not finding stuff anymore)

Re Pling above: Retroactive bannings are not good in my opinion. They are seen as unfair, and with some justification. And the sudden shift makes me uneasy. 5 days ago no sysop dared to ban one troll and suddenly we summarily ban a ton of them? Where is the middle path? In other words, instead of surprising all users with a huge ban hammer, clearly communicate what you want and take steps in the right direction. Not a huge jump, so people have a chance to adapt.

Regarding the "this has gone on for too long" litany that seems common as a supporting arguement for this stance, I got to ask: Why??? You are an admin, several others are admins, so if someone was so bad, why was he not banned? If the reason is that people feared losing support in the "beauty contest" of admin elections, a reassessment of why you want to be sysop is in order. Imo, it is not to win a popularity contest.

If I see something I consider to be against the policies here, I warn the person, if the warning is not headed, I ban the person. The reason is not getting more popular with other users, but some sense of duty. And if my sense of what is right and wrong is strongly out of line with the rest of the wiki community, you can always strip me of my sysop powers, and I'll simply walk off to one of the 10.000 other internet places that invite contributors. It is not like there is a big lot at stake for admins, except getting rid of a good bit of unpaid work.

So with that reasoning (and out of introspection), my idea was that the non-banning of bad trolls has to be due to admins not wanting to do the work. Which in turn suggests that there is a more straight forward and less risky solution: Admins spending more time issuing proper bans. --Xeeron 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to quickly point out that Pling resigned as a sysop some time ago. -- FreedomBound 19:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are retroactive blocks unfair (although I disagree these are just "retroactive")? The suggested blocks are taking into account past, recent, and likely future actions, which is essentially the way any block is treated. I also see the blocks as being preventative - these aren't trolls who have just trolled occasionally, they've been doing it a long time, have been blocked or warned before, and some continue to do it even on this page and related topics. They've had multiple chances to adapt.

It's very easy to say admins should spend more time issuing blocks. I believe sysops have been told to do so before, but it just gets harder to do when each block you issue is met with a barrage of other trolls, which I think has already been discussed. It doesn't get harder because you don't want to be unpopular.. it's because it can be stressful and annoying. See User_talk:JonTheMon#"Trolling", or even the response to your own issuing of a block at User_talk:Daññy#Ban. They're still trolling, and we're leaving them be. Your reply to that could be to get sysops to block them too - and that's what this proposal will do. I've tried rewording this multiple times, but it still isn't accurately showing what I want it to show, so disregard it. -- pling 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I must have missed something because I wouldn't agree to basing this decision on past infractions as well. Most of the users listed that were trolling, being dicks, using talk pages as chat rooms, etc. and caught doing so were blocked or warned at that time, so to say that you are being punished again for something you did in the past isn't very good practice imo. — Gares 13:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How is that different than how the Ariyen/Kaisha block was handled? She was blocked for individual actions and then blocked again, longer term for the sum of the past infractions. --Ceru talk contribs 13:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was in disagreement with that as well. Present actions and preventative measures were also a part of why Kaisha received the judgment that was passed. Past actions can be referenced as evidence to show that a user will or will not be prone to repeated behavior in the future, but to use past infractions as a separate entity to base further punishment is my disagreement. If that was the case, and Pling's statement of "The suggested blocks are taking into account past, recent, and likely future actions, which is essentially the way any block is treated." is correct, then why are these talks even going on? Why wasn't Misery blocked for his various past infractions when he confessed? Present or future really wouldn't even matter as the past shows plenty of trolling for the majority of users on the list. — Gares 14:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To err is human. Koda Kumi 15:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Past actions can be referenced as evidence to show that a user will or will not be prone to repeated behavior in the future" is essentially what I meant with "past" contributions - you need to see how a person has acted before and relate it to today and tomorrow. -- pling 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New Section

Hey now, I used to be a very friendly and useful user! Just look at my edits starting from ~ a year ago and back. What happened to change my habits? I went through puberty. I got tired of the majority of the GWW userbase, basically. Anyway, I'd like to think most of my "provocative" material has an underlying goal/point to it. Sort of like satire with political commentary. Or something. You'll probably argue that the wiki really doesn't need any of that, and you're probably right. Anyway, whatever happens, I'm sure I will maybe continue to drift around on here and maybe skirt the line of policy or something. Or not. I'll adapt, I'm sure. MAFARAXAS 03:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you folks are going to go through with something involving ratios of usertalk edits and mainspace edits (or whatever), it'd be handy to have Special:Editcount. If you do have something like it here, I couldn't find it. It looks like this. MAFARAXAS 03:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This wiki does not have edit count, for no reason in particular. Poke wrote a javascript tool that functions similarly, except it's slow and doesn't calculate ratios and totals. You can find it at the bottom of his Poke/GWWT page. elix Omni 03:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that wikis are "modular" in a sense? As in, if you asked whoever's actually in charge server-side, they could download the Editcount feature (from mediawiki/metawiki or wherever that sort of thing is stored) and install it on GWW without much hassle. MAFARAXAS 03:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right (I don't know for sure, though), but remember that everything needs to be compatible. Remember back when Gcardinal left us sitting at some ancient version of mediawiki so the rate function would work? Furthermore, the Gcardinal equivalent for us is (as I recall) the ArenaNet IT department, not, for example, Emily. (Though she's been involved with this sort of thing historically, I don't believe she does any of the actual coding, what with being busy with GW Live Team business.) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, editcount is easily available. It's just that for some reason no one ever cared enough to request it. If you dearly desire it, go bug Emily. elix Omni 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'd prefer the counter we have now = No installing hassel. People can request poke to update it = No hassel either. - J.P.Talk 03:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

my favorite part of this policy is that i was actually worth mentioning. ··· Danny Pew Pew

out of curiosity, will we be counting edits on sock accounts? this could be very pertinent to several users (and sysops). ··· Danny Pew Pew

Please don't continue discussing about technical MediaWiki things. Please stay on topic, or this will never end. poke | talk 07:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

90/10

There are arguments for and against basing <whatever action results from this idea> on "hard and fast" objective data like editcounts, which I won't rehash. However, I'd like to voice my concern that if such a method of judgment was chosen, it should not be combined with "retroactive" bans or other punishments, especially of the months-long bans potentially being considered for some certain cases. Yes, it's true that some users are undeniably trolls and almost always detrimental to the wiki in any post, and they knew what they were doing and would probably be deserving of such a sentence. However, for some of the less incorrigible folks out there, I feel that such a response would make the "warning" function of this idea pretty much bunk. (It also sucks to, hypothetically, come back from a break, miss a few-days old discussion or whatever, and find yourself banned.)

tl;dr since you guys finally decided to get all upset about trollan, but don't have any sort of comprehensive lists of who's a what sort of case (should subjective judgments be chosen), and I know my editcount breaks probably even a 50/50 rule - okay, I get it. You don't want contributors like me around, I guess; I'll "clean up my act" or leave for 4chan or whatever. No need for an inevitable and long, potentially arbitrary ban, though. (For those of you who'd say something like "well you had plenty of chances before this to improve", I'd counter that you never threatened punishment for noncompliance. I've never been banned here except accidentally. Tanetris understands this principle, if kickbans were bans.)

(Although I speak about myself, I am sure this also applies to some of my other troll brethren who are in a similar situation or share similar sentiments. I'm not so much a troublemaker as to make my own subsection and hijack Pling's discussion thingy.) Vili 点 04:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Flat wrong. Trolls won't take anyone seriously without a month long ban as a "hey, wake the fuck up" message. -Auron 06:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Since when do trolls take bans seriously? ··· Danny Pew Pew 14:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Since they log on at 7 in the morning, find they can't edit, fap once, and have nothing to do for the entire rest of the day. Then realize that's how life will be for a month. -Auron 00:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Another bullet, blocks reviewing and trolling

Another issue that needs to be resolved in order to put an end to this is the current problems admins face in regards of block reviewing by their peers. Let's face it, admins have also trolled/been trolled due to the this.

When we made explicit some time ago the need for admins to be granted "discretion" on their actions, the idea was that they could act within the spirit of the policies we discussed and agreed upon, including rulling over "disruptive" behavior. This led to several blocks that fell on a grey area, blocks other admins didn't agree with and that were reverted (some times without discussion, some times after a long debate; heck, some times explicitly breaking policies). And any time this happened, the final result was that trolls had more food to feed upon.

Admins have to be granted the right to decide on their own not only by the community, but also from their peers. Blocks cannot be reverted only because of disagreement of points of view, but only when there is a fundamental flaw in the reasons that led to it (ie. blocking the wrong target in a mass-block spree).

Trolls will just keep finding ways out if we keep this "anyone can review anything" attitude in regards to blocking decisions.--Fighterdoken 07:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This could be dealt with by encouraging sysops to talk *privately* regarding reverting blocks (and to do so *before* any further action is taken). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

GWW:BLOCK btw. elix Omni 15:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, i don't think we need "Yet another policy(tm)" for this. It's enough if sysops recognize that their peers are as able as them to judge situations and determine a certain course of action. Revertion should never be applied if the only reason for it is "i don't agree with your opinion".--Fighterdoken 17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopeless

As long as one of the chief trolls remains a SysOp, the situation will not improve significantly. All the talk about edit ratios is just a smoke screen for more arbitrary action. The lot of you are too much in love with the power to come down on people who disagree with you. Until you all take a good long look in the mirror and decide that the person there needs to tolerate polite dissent, the situation will continue to deteriorate. --Max 2 08:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide links where the sysops haven't tolerated polite dissent? --Riddle 08:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I don't really dabble in wiki politics much, but could you give en example of someone being blocked for "polite dissent"? --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I Can. --Master Briar 09:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I tolerate polite dissent. I do not tolerate idiocy or incompetency. What are you are doing now is polite dissent, and because you've obviously failed to notice, I'll point out that I'm tolerating it. What you did in the past often crossed the line of wiki disruption and NPA - indeed, ignoring the consensus of pretty much every other participant in a discussion by calling them all biased and then proceeding to go ahead with whatever you planned on doing originally was simply damaging to the wiki. The only block you've suffered was the result of you posting a list of personal attacks on other members of the wiki, a direct violation of policy. You can't bullshit your way out of a policy violation by calling it polite dissent, and because I've not blocked you for anything else, I fail to see that your case has any merit at all. Unless I'm somehow not tolerating polite dissent by leaving you unblocked to politely dissent some more? Oh, that doesn't make any sense. Damn.

Link, Briar? All I can remember is you trolling, being blocked for trolling, and then trying to claim you weren't trolling, convincing nobody in the process. -Auron 09:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thus sayeth the king troll. (And was that an implicit block threat? It could be taken that way.) You are quite good at provoking people until they cross the 'line', often by calling them idiots and incompetent, when it is your own ignorance and incompetence that is the root of the problem. You often characterize descent as disruption and take the opinion of the 'in-crowd' as consensus because you happen to agree with it. You are the tap root of the problem. --Max 2 10:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry who did i talk to besides you? You blocked me. I couldnt talk to anyone but you. Remember? And that was polite dissent. You however, Are the god of GWW, so you do what you want, say what you want, and get away with whatever you want. I was nothing less than perfectly cordial and it got me blocked. --Master Briar 09:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Disregard my last post please, This page is not about me or the bullshit block placed on me most recently. Continue on with the discussion. This is neither the time nor place for my own personal quams with you auron. Please dont drag me into it with you because im gullible and will fall for it. --Master Briar 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"I'm arguing because you started an argument with me -Briar"

Gee, I wonder why you attract so many trolls :P On a more serious note, Max has a point. Who is to decide what is idiotic and incompetent? I know it is not me... Koda Kumi 11:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just pick someone. Seriously. Pick me, pick Auron, pick Briar, pick Mtew, pick Pling. It doesn't even matter. A wiki of a certain shape will come out, but at least the shape will be defined. Misery 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Detrolling the wiki (2)

Let's keep all "let's have a numbers/numbers ratio!" (because it clearly isn't going to get a consensus behind it) and "omg Auron is biased/the king of trolls!" (because we're discussing trolling at large, not individuals (yet)) discussion above this line, and get back to discussing Pling's original idea.

---

So why don't we go with pling's original suggestion, long-temp blocking notorious trolls and then taking quick and reactionary steps towards keeping the others in line? It's a good idea and I haven't really read any major arguments to oppose it yet (apart from some people claiming it won't work, which we don't know until we try it). — Why 12:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, and we can't say anarchy won't work until we try it. -Cursed Angel 13:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can rule out 90/10 or variations thereof. I'm also disregarding Mtew's conspiracies about Auron. That leaves the solution posted at the very top, so let's focus on that. Of course, if someone has another feasible idea, please post it, preferably in a new section. Otherwise, I'd like to know if my proposals are agreed upon. -- pling 15:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I agree on every point. Was thinking this was another GWW:shut up and edit or whatever. ^^ -Cursed Angel 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit offended with your complete "let's just throw away this idea" attitude. While I admit my initial post did not convey the proper intention behind the idea, I feel it's more than just a throw away concept in some form. And CA... STFU, because I can guarantee you are on the short list. -- Wyn talk 15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Weren't you claiming just two edits ago that telling someone to shut the fuck up was trolling? Please try to keep it civil, especially when someone is supporting something that may very well end up in them facing bans. Misery 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was trolling, I said it was inappropriate. And yes, saying it to CA was probably inappropriate in this discussion, but I don't really believe he feels threatened by the original proposal in any way. -- Wyn talk 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. I'm not even on the list. -Cursed Angel 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't throwing your idea away, the comments and arguments are just going against it. -- pling 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocks seem to be the popular idea at the moment. I am still worried that they are being over used. As I said before, clean up the SysOp list, run with that a while and access the result of that after a while (a month?) first. And no consperacy is involved, just giving a major troll SysOp privileges is a bad idea. --Max 2 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Max, this is not the appropriate place for your "complaints". Nor is it up to anyone but the community to clean up the sysop list. If you feel a Auron is not fit to continue to be a sysop, add your name to the reconfirmation request here, but leave it out of this discussion. -- Wyn talk 16:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Users are discussing this for numerous reasons. Just because a user posts something you don't think is completely relevant to the subject doesn't mean you need to berate them. Stop being a troll, Wyn. ··· Danny Pew Pew 16:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

For all those who feel the sysops are a problem send a request for reconfirmation in the appropriate pages. If you think you can do a better job then nominate yourself or someone you think who can do it better. Many people think there are too much banning here but I think the opposite. Most sysops are very conservative with their bans. I would have expected Auron of all people to be laying down the ban hammer like there is no tomorrow but that's not happening. Whatever people think, being a sysop isn't easy and just banning people willynilly is just going to cause more problems. But at the same time banning people who have already been banned several times shouldn't come as a surprise, and maybe a "strike" rule wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm not saying 3 strikes, you're out, but some kind of variation on that. Some people also have been banned so many times, it doesn't bother them at all and just continue with their behavior. --Lania Elderfire 16:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wyn, Lania: Take a look before criticizing. You will find I've already been there and done that. It has been treated as a joke. My opinion is that the SysOps are major contributors to this problem. They form a clique that supports itself, suppresses dissent, and encourages disrespect. As I said, this problem will persist until there is real tolerance for dissent among the SysOps. Encouraging the use of bans will only make the problem worse. --Max 2 18:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dissent isn't the same as trolling. Raising legitimate concerns and problems are welcome here. The operative word here is "legitimate". Most of the "concerns" that have been raised recently are nothing more than baiting attempts to get a rise out of someone and recruiting friends and acquaintances into a troll-fest. The reconfirmation for Auron is treated as a joke because all of that was started with a user that constantly attempts to bait him and others and gets surprised when he bites back. --Lania Elderfire 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is all going rather off-topic again. -- pling 18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lania: Dissent is pretty much the opposit of trolling. Discouraging dissent and promoting disrespect encourages trolling. I have to disagree that raising legitimate concers is encouraged. Rather than discuss an issue, you get 'you're wrong; nobody cares about that; STFU;' and so on... And, of course, the ones that will start an RfR will be the ones who are the most abused, so calling it a joke because of that shows a blatent disregard for the underlying issue.

Pling: If the topic is how to discourage trolls, this is on topic. If the issue is getting agreement to block more people, then you are correct. --Max 2 18:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As pling has said, this needs to stop. This same complaint have been discussed at length by Defiant Elements on your talk page. --Lania Elderfire 18:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lania: Hmm. Pling is right and I missed his point. You are try to turn this into an ad homium issue. DE stated his opinion and did not see my point of view. Since the discussion there was going no where and other problems interviend, I dropped the topic. I suggest you do the same. The issue here is discouraging trolls. --Max 2 19:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

since apparently no one felt like answering this the first time around:

out of curiosity, will we be counting edits on sock accounts? this could be very pertinent to several users (and sysops). ··· Danny Pew Pew

also, what happens to users who came to the wiki to more or less use the wiki simply for Feedback? given that ANet agreed to and has used the Feedback namespace, it would make sense that users using that namespace for the purpose of Feedback wouldn't be affected, unless you guys are taking this up with ArenaNet reps before implementation. ··· Danny Pew Pew

What's your point here? As long as people use the feedback namespace without causing disruption there's no problem is there? — Why 13:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've heard, this would largely be based on talk/non-talk contributions. Otherwise you get into a rather grey area of what constitutes a troll post and what doesn't, which would be an entirely different issue. ··· Danny Pew Pew

My two cents on your original question would be that if a user wants to contribute on a sock, or socks, good for them, but it shouldn't count towards their contributions (which doesn't seem like it will matter anyway). If they want to make useful edits, they can make it on their main account. So far as where Feedback should count, or if it should, it should probably be excluded all together (i.e. be neither negative or positive in the balance); the Feedback space is a unique animal in that it has very little to do with documenting the game, the primary purpose of the wiki. -- FreedomBound 14:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you're saying I could make a sock account, troll all I wanted, and not have this account affected? ··· Danny Pew Pew

(Edit conflict) also, we're not doing ratios. I suggest we stop going offtopic and start discussing pling's idea. Any thoughts on that, danny? — Why 14:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No, I was referring to the 90/10 (substitute your own numbers as needed) rule. Trolling on sockpuppets is a very different matter, and should be dealt with the normal way (assuming trolls were to start actually being banned), i.e. ban the controller of the account, where it is identifiable. -- FreedomBound 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

my bad, I'd received a different impression from Auron. in that case, my thoughts are: what would happen to misery and auron? and why is my name on the board up there? i'm flattered and all, but excluding the first month or so I had an account here, the only real "trolling" i do around here is telling people to stop being dumb on Regina's page. (you could consider my RfR vote on Auron's RfA page disruptive, but that would be a bit of a stretch.) ··· Danny Pew Pew 14:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of standing sysops who have used sock accounts to troll in the past, couldn't this present a large problem? ··· Danny Pew Pew

Only if we implement retroactively. Which I believe we're not. elix Omni 15:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Auron's socking a while back led to Auron being blocked, so main accounts are not unaffected by disruptive sockpuppetry. "Retroactively" is a hazy term - most of this is based on what people have done, so of course past events will have some importance. The points to focus on are how recent those events were, whether they're still happening now, and whether they're likely to continue. -- pling 15:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to make users aware of a change in policy and give people the option of shaping up, leaving, or getting forcibly removed? That's what PvX did, or, rather, attempted to do. Certainly, GWW would have the sysop backbone necessary to actually enact such a measure. ··· Danny Pew Pew

It is people who should be judged, not accounts. There is no reason not to include sockpuppets when checking on disruptive users. Koda Kumi 17:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Really

I come here like, for 2 minutes every week, and I am on the list. It is a true honour. PS. I only looked here because it was linked on pvx. --Frosty 15:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A funny fact is that Briar is actually pretty serious with what he does, but gets into retarded fights due to his splendid argumentation skills. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 18:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

<3 --Master Briar 21:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Rofl

Why be so strict? This wiki is boring enough already. At least those trolls make me check on it every now and then to see what kind of random crap they can come up with. Most of the "trolling" stays on their talk pages so it isn't all that disruptive. Oh and why you call it trolling? QQing, whining, flaming, vandalizing or being silly is not trolling. --Myotheraccount 18:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, just ban PvX members :/

That's pretty much what Pling's list of users reflects.....

Honestly, I think you guys just need to grow a sense of humor and a pair of balls. Some things are funny and not intended to be trolling. You let those slide. Some things are intended to hurt. Ban the shit out of those guys.

What happened to common sense? Karate Jesus 18:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Word. But then this site ill become too boring. People from PvX are funny. :3 --Myotheraccount 18:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

PvX people can be funny on PvX. Here it's all srsbsns. Hell, Danny got banned for joking about being a sock on Mis's talk page. There's a thin line of idiocy you have to walk. Karate Jesus 18:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Danny got banned for joking about being a sock on Mis's talk page."

I honestly don't get it when sysops start banning people for things they say on their talk page or their friend's talk page. I mean for christ's sake it's their personal space where sysops shouldnt intervene at all unless ofcourse there some sort of fight. :o Also rofl @ srsbsns on teh interwabz. :3 --Myotheraccount 18:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a venue for people to show off their sense of humor. Manifold 18:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Rule number (...) Don't feed the trolls. Reaper of Scythes** 19:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I hate getting into this part but for the record, the user space is NOT personal space. It is still considered community space by the wiki. Stuff like that needs to stay off the wiki and just take it elsewhere, myspace, facebook, twitter, MSN... i don't care where just take it somewhere else. If the wiki is boring for you, then quit. --Lania Elderfire 19:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So cold and uncaring! >: Screw yew power hungry ego narbs who believe in srsbsns on teh interweb. --Myotheraccount 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What'd I tell you? My first 2 points still stand. Balls+humor in the sysop role would cure this place. Karate Jesus 19:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And frankly, so would banning trolls. zzz. – Emmett 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Which was what I said originally. Ups... Karate Jesus 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@humor. I don't have an issue with things that are v. obvious jokes, but bad trolling that people attempt to pass off as a joke is just dumb. – Emmett 19:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. That's where I'd assume common sense comes in. It tends to be rather obvious when someone is doing something masked as a joke to intentionally anger another user (i.e. the "Thrown under a bus" stuff). Karate Jesus 19:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@Lania, have you ever even read USER? I know policy means jack shit on GWW's and bans are meted out upon the whim of the admin, but GWW's own policy on userpages states that the user can do whatever the hell he wants with it as long as it doesn't violate copyright restrictions, NPA, or affect the mainspace. I think the admin's should re-read their own policies when it comes to telling users what they can and cannot do in the userspace :< --TahiriVeila 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Your talk page should generally be treated like any other talk page on the wiki." elix Omni 19:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC);;

Quoting things out of context has always been an excellent tool used by ideologues for millenia in order to distort the true intent of a price of writing for their own purposes. If you would read the entire paragraph "Your talk page should generally be treated like any other talk page on the wiki. Do not remove any comments, including your own. You may amend your comments to correct typos, but if you wish to change your comment significantly, strike out the portions that you are changing (use ). Comments constituting personal abuse may be removed as per Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks." that particularly portion of the page simply refers to the fact that you should not remove any comments from a talk page or use a talk page to attack people. Fuck this is fun guys.--TahiriVeila 19:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason this discussion is still taking place? It's not at all related to Pling's idea anymore (which is the only thing on this page that needs discussion). Do we need a subpage for people to post their random useless discussions and still feel good about how they're "discussing potential new policy" or however people are justifying it to themselves? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

idrc, I hardly use GWW anymore considering the info on guildwiki is usually more detailed and reliable. I just think it's loltastic that admins have embarked on a vendetta to eliminate anyone from the wiki who doesn't contribute primarily to the mainspace (5 years in and there's still shittons of new content to document, right guys?) when they don't detract anything from the wiki :< --TahiriVeila 19:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"idrc, I hardly use GWW anymore considering the info on guildwiki is usually more detailed and reliable." QFT. Also, the site downtime has been frustrating lately (and, of course, the bitching :D) Karate Jesus 19:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@KJ, I don't know some of those users, but if you look, there are at least 5 I know that are not PvXers, so don't assume that it is solely against that group. It is just a list of the usual suspects, for the most part. So there was no reason for this section in the first place.

@Jake, if "idrc" is true, why continue to post? If you don't understand our user policy, don't care, and prefer GWiki over GWWiki, then feel free to migrate over there and post away. It's a pretty logical course of action. — Gares 12:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you're wrong. Almost all of them are PvX users. User:Mafaraxas, User:Dark Chaos, User:Daññy, User:Frosty, User:NuclearVII, User:Karate Jesus, User:Armond, User:Chaos Messenger, User:Briar, User:Pika Fan, User:TahiriVeila, User:Misery, and User:Auron are all PvX users. I think that leaves only one that isn't. Karate Jesus 18:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Briar was here first =_=--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 18:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So were Misery and Auron, but Auron founded the site and Misery is an admin there. Oh, and Briar posted under IPs for about 6 months on PvX before joining here (if CU is correct). Karate Jesus 18:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh, ok.--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 18:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

These people are on the list because they're prolific trolls (or most of them are). They happen to contribute to PvX, also. That, however, is not why they are on the list, so it is irrelevant. -- pling 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are reaching, KJ, trying to make PvXers some sort of martyrs regarding this proposal. An argument could be made though in that, Misery would actually be a GWWikier since he's a bureaucrat here and that trumps the admin role, Auron would actually be considered a GuildWikier since he started off there, then moved to PvX and GWW, and I would technically be a PvXer since my contribs state that I started there for a year before I did on GWWiki. Believe what you think, but it doesn't change the fact that most on that list are the major trollish element on this wiki.

Finally, you seem to be singling out Pling in regards to the list. "props to Auron for coming up with most of the idea." means it was your PvX founder that helped to create the proposal and the list, meaning he also had a hand in adding himself and those other PvXers on that list. — Gares 19:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"trying to make PvXers some sort of martyrs regarding this proposal".

Martyrs? No, we're all trolls. We know that. I'm just stating the obvious. However, I'm sure there are trolls who don't use PvX around here....many in fact.... And I wasn't intentionally targeting Pling. It's just his page, his edit, and his list. So, that's what I called it. Karate Jesus 19:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

4 PvX users down like 10 more to go. Gj administrators! keep it up!!! 208.100.1.46 20:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This entire page says it all

This entire page pretty much says it all about this wiki. It has very quickly been overrun by the trolls the idea is hoping to deal with, and even after all the talk about sysops stepping up their game, this is happening. See now why it's destined to fail? -- Wyn talk 21:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see it to be honest. Who wants to be banned? Very few people. They're probably just trying not to be. It can still succeed, and as Pling I think... said, private communication will help.--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 21:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the reasoning behind this decision (when it is made) should be public, and open to public input. What does need to happen, though, is that things irrelevant to making said decision need to be ignored. But this largely ties into another issue that I'll bring up in a different section. is for Raine, etc. 21:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wyn, three blocks of trolls have already been made today alone. That is progress. elix Omni 21:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It says quite a bit about the wiki, but not in the way you interpreted it in my opinion. That and irrelevant discussion is different from trolling in my book, but I think that's been covered somewhere else in a similar manner.

At the original issue buried somewhere up there, since I'm bothering to post, I might as well say that the idea is sound, but doesn't really need this much discussion. Apparently trolling is an issue, so just deal with it. If sysops need to use a little more discretion then go for it - I would prefer slightly shorter bans in most cases, but that really depends on how willing the sysop is to deal with a problem again. I think that the community has a certain amount of responsibility as well to just ignore trolling. If it's interfering with the purpose of the wiki then take care of it, but most issues only come up if you let them. Ideally, there would be room for a community and improving the wiki, but common sense seems to be in short supply here. --67.240.88.57 22:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Pling.

I discussed this on IRC, but I think it's related enough to this issue that it should be transcribed to the wiki.
First of all, we've got to agree that trolling can only be dealt with by discretion. Creating policies against "trolling", ultimately and inevitably, leads to either (a) trolls being allowed to wikilawyer or (b) discretion having to be applied, anyway, to overturn said wikilawyering. There are several reasons why this is the case, but I will not discuss that here since I don't believe that is necessary as long as we can all agree that discretion is, in fact, the only way to deal with trolling.
Now, with this in mind, I want to emphasize what I believe to be the true problem with the way this wiki is run. That is to say that I do not believe trolls trolling is the problem, but a symptom of it. The issue, as I see it, is failure of sysops to do what they believe would be best for wiki because they believe that others would not agree, "others" being not just the sysop front, but the community as a whole. In short, no one wants to be thrown under a bus, let alone for making a sincere effort to improve things. A few examples of this failure to act, off the top of my head:

• Why's statement near the top of this page.
• Pling's statement of similar sentiments in a subsequent section.
• The entire sysop team's failure to block User:Myotheraccount, who was clearly trolling.

Sysops, this is not directed at anyone in particular, but I want you to think about this for a second. When was the last time that you didn't take an action that you thought would be beneficial because you thought others would disagree?
This, as I see it, is the core of the issue. Sysops feel that they need explicit support in their actions - sometimes, even those that are clearly for the best interest of the wiki - and that they do not have it.
Why do they feel this way? Because it currently is the case. Again, no one wants to be thrown under a bus... but it happens. Regularly. I don't keep up with every sysop's actions, but I recall several bans being hotly contested when they were unarguably in-line. I've noticed that this happens especially frequently with Auron, but that is probably due to the fact that he is usually one of the first sysops to get his hands dirty when necessary. In fact, there was recently a mass overturning of bans! At this point, there is huge precedent for bus-underthrowing.
In order for sysops to be effective, especially in dealing with trolling, that needs to not be the case. Sysops either need to have the explicit support that they need OR it needs to be made explicit that they do not need explicit support in their actions.
The former, giving sysops the thumbs-up to exercise discretion and to be bold in it, is a difficult thing, but it is ideal. We, the community, have supported (or should have supported) every current sysop's RFA with sound reasoning and not with vote counts. What happened to our faith in ourselves, in each other? Has anything? Sysops. Community. Is not the fact that we have supported RFAs enough to demonstrate our faith in a sysop's judgment, even when questionable? If you think so, then perhaps we need to rethink our process for creating sysops, because they need - absolutely need - the assurance that we have faith in them in order to be as effective as possible. How can we bring this about? By creating policies, which are, essentially, a formal statement that the community has decided to support a certain course of action. The issue with that is that policies, when specific, leave loopholes and, when vague, require discretion anyway.
There is an alternative: instead of assuring them that they have as much support as they need, they can be assured that they don't need it at all. I'm sure that many of you thought, immediately upon reading that, that that would be much easier to bring about than mutual faith between users and sysops. If sysop decisions were more or less absolute, how much more would they be able to accomplish? Sysops, let me ask you directly: how much more would you be able to accomplish if you didn't have to second-, third-, and seventh-guess your potential actions? As it directly relates to this page: do you feel you'd be able to more-effectively deal with trolls? I'm not suggesting that we make sysops gods, but elevating them beyond the reach of troll-RFAs, troll-ban contesting, and trolling in general is something that would go far.
Adding to the support sysops have or cutting back on the support sysops need: either works. But as long as there's a gap between the two, things are going to fall through it, trolling being a major one of those things.
Whichever it is, at least one of those things need to happen if the wiki is to crawl out of its current state.
tl;dr: No. Fucking read it. is for Raine, etc. 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I can honestly say that I have 100% faith in our sysop team to do the right thing. Not that I'm a fangirl or something but they've been around a LONG time that I've interacted with many of them since the original guildwiki. When I came back to the wiki, it really felt the entire sysop team was "holding back" and being conservative with their blocks, and warnings. The incidents where a sysops and bcrats gets "thrown under the bus" occurs too often, and I do think that it has shaken their confidence in their actions. Defiant elements leaving, Tanaric rage quitting, and others resigning etc are all a product of the conservative stance that the sysops have taken lately IMO. GWW didn't need the ban hammers being thrown 24/7 in the past but I think as Raine said, more bold action is needed now. --Lania Elderfire 22:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that we elected the sysop team we have now to use the tools for the betterment of the wiki. If we elect them and then hound them at every corner for every bloody action they make, from blocking an obvious troll and getting steamrolled to participating in a discussion and getting accused of...something. Either we need to re-evaluate our sysop team (which, we don't. They're fine), or actually show some backbone and give the great middle finger to those that wikilawyer their way out of an obviously deserved block. -- Wandering Traveler 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that the way GWW:ADMIN#Sysops is worded shows that sysops need to think about how their decisions are regarded within the community consensus, not just whether it's 'the right thing to do'. If a discretionary action is opposed, it seems the sysop and those who disagree need to go 12 rounds about it. This could be partly why sysops are put off, or at least it's subtly underlying why. -- pling 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if sysops could be less butthurt when someone argues with them. But this is, again, straying from the topic. elix Omni 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

^ I definitely agree with that; however, this obviously isn't about reforming admins....it's about discarding reforming users. Karate Jesus 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with this. I only have one problem here, it seems that in some cases the punishments handed out feel too harsh, which intensifies contesting them. Permanent bans should be absolutely the last resort, and in the vast majority of cases we need to have some AGF in that the offending user might improve, particularly in first offense cases. Further offenses should warrant increasing suspensions, and only when it feels like "enough is enough" that permabans should be used. Basically, I feel like in some of the cases that I've seen and heard about here the permabans were not justified (in my opinion) and a long suspension should have been used instead. Suspend often, ban rarely. This way there will be less contesting, sock-puppetry and general dissent around bans. Rose Of Kali 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If your question above is to read: Did you ever hesitate, because you thought not every single person would be happy with your decision, the answer for me is: Never.

However, if it is meant to ask: Did you ever hesitate, because you thought there might be a reasonable number of people opposed to your action, then the answer is: Occasionally. And I think that is how it should be, since sysops need to take care that their actions stay close to the concensus here that determines how and when sysops should act. E.g one use of this long talk page is guilding sysops on how strictly the community expects them to use the ban feature. --Xeeron 00:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But the problem is, Xeeron, the sysops who aren't as inactive as you are bound in chains as to what they feel they can do. Tanaric came back and tried to do what he felt was necessary - blocking the trolls. He was immediately trolled off the wiki, again. This is not to say he was not out of line; he obviously was, yet his point was still valid. You say that sysops should think about community consensus before they act, and I agree - however, the current reality of the situation is sysops are paralyzed by it, because of the trolls. There is always a threat of reconfirmation for perfectly acceptable blocks, simply because the mass of trolls descends on the sysop every time they do anything and try to form a perverted "consensus" against whatever the sysop did. It happened to Wyn, it happened to Pling, it forced Karlos to leave the wiki and Tanaric to leave it twice, and it's happened to most of the rest of us thus far. That is the reality of our situation. The sysops are simply sitting on their hands because they're afraid to be crucified for performing perfectly acceptable blocks for trolling (and even when they manage to actually get a block off, people like Gordon turn around and try to second guess them).

That is Raine's point. -Auron 00:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, Auron that sysops seem to have no clear understanding of what trolling is in the first place. Thus they often fail to determine the severity of punishment the disruptive person recieves. That in turn leads to complaints from people who are close to the punished person. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify uncontrolled trolling that will turn this wiki into another pvx but sysops shouldn't get too carried away with their power. Thus far I'm getting an impression that the sysops are those sad people who use their power to play gods instead of helping the wiki and keep everyone happy.

I made an account today. Right from the start this wiki felt pretty cold and unwelcoming. After checking on RC I bumped into this page which is a nice read. But, my first comment was removed with "Boom?" as the reason and using an ":3" emote and a somewhat sarcastic remark in an informal section was enough to get tagged as a "troll" and banned without warning. By all means do purge all trollz in a great fire but careful nt to become the troll yourself and drive off people from this wiki. --217.44.189.13 00:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The sysops know what trolling is. Stop kidding yourself. -Auron 01:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Auron, here's a cool quote I found:

"santax; his post is full of bullshit, flawed logic and attempts to rouse a response. we call it a "troll post." the proper response is to read it, laugh, and ignore it. -Auron 00:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)"

So why do you insist on providing what, by your own words, is a troll post in the no trolling discussion?

Don't give us this crap about how you can't act because you'll get RfR'd; your first RfR was a "lynch mob", as Why put it; maybe you remember that? The trolls bitched and were ignored? Either way, you went with it (mostly because it was the white knight-ly thing to do, I guess, since you never gave a shit what the troll community thought of you) and passed with flying colors. What a nail-bitingly frightening experience! I can certainly understand why you're so hesitant to do things here. Your second RfR, at the bottom of that page, is... well, gee, it's from the same type of people. Looks to me like it's being summarily ignored. So much for that "perverted consensus" you claim.

The thing about sysops being trolled off the wiki is pretty crap too. Karlos wasn't forced to leave the wiki; you trolled him off because you decided he was no longer fit for leadership or whatever reasons you gave me. You, specifically - not even just "Auron helped a mass of other people troll him away", like you did with Wyn and Tanaric. It looks to me like "zomg teh trolls r gettin to us" is more like "zomg I wanted teh bads gone".

I also want to see how you justify "The sysops are simply sitting on their hands because they're afraid to be crucified for performing perfectly acceptable blocks for trolling (and even when they manage to actually get a block off, people like Gordon turn around and try to second guess them)." with three uncontested troll bans today.

This is not Raine's point, that the sysops are paralyzed by the troll community. I really don't see how you can think that, having passed seventh grade english. Raine's point is that the sysops are not as ballsy as you are, as apathetic as Pling is to me, or as bold as I was in trashing the toucher. This QQ about sysops being unable to act when you are all so clearly protected by the shield of apathy the sysop and bureaucrat team hold for trolls making large amounts of drama is bullshit. If you insist on talking about the drama trolls make when sysops act, at least tell it straight - no one wants to make the kind of decisions and bans that trigger large amounts of troll drama because having to wade through those huge discussions and call people stupid and point out their bad logic, all while maintaining a civil face, is stressful and depressing, but that's not the only factor (or, arguably, even the largest) that stops sysops from taking action, and it's certainly not as all-encompassing as you make it sound.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I only tl;dr'd the comments of others. An issue with absolute power is that if things run out of hands, there's nobody to stop it. It works better on GWW since there are RfR's and bcrats and that, but I still do fear for it. I don't mind being fast at blocking if someone gets to trolling, but I dislike when the admin tries to make an own definition of what counts as trolling. I can point out a couple of cases where Briar, and this time also Jake, have been banned with the reason "trolling", when they were on about regular argumenting (in the non-negative sense of the word, if that can be said about GWW) about a matter. Anyone in their right mind could point out that no troll ever, except for Misery (who has a fucking twisted humor, but is always on to a point), is subtle and patient enough to ever take into account that what they're saying might be interpreted as "disruptive" or "trolling". ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 13:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The accused moves to dismiss

Before I move on with this gigantic wall of text, I'd like to make a few disclaimers. I'm not part of the IRC cabal. I am not part of the PvX clique. I am an unbiased troll. I also haven't read the wall above, and I'll make my response to pling's original proposal only. I don't think I'll miss any imporant arguments, but if I do, do point them out so I can address them.

So, Pling's post.

"As has been pointed out recently, this wiki is "run by the trolls". That might be an exaggeration, but it still highlights the severe problem this wiki has - from the day-to-day business to the drama-of-the-week, it seems trolls outnumber the proper contributors, whether that's to mainspace content or administration."

I don't think that's true. The admin team alone numbers higher than the trolls you will name further on. I sincerely doubt how much we've "gotten out of hand". Could you provide a few instances in which trolls united to, say, drive off an user? Or maybe an instance in which trolls undermined policy discussion? When, in recent history, did we cause serious harm? If I am to be accused of these crimes, I'd like to see the evidence provided.

"They attempt to derail discussions, and sometimes succeed; they annoy the userbase, which is largely their goal; and the only way that most of the trolls progress the wiki is by progressing it into another 4chan /b/ spinoff."

And the moon landing never happened.

You know better than to wear tinfoil, brains. If we wanted 4chan, we'd be at 4chan. If we wanted to derail and demolish the wiki, we'd be successful (because we've so gotten out of hand and ARE LEGION LOL). We certainly try, but that's exactly my point: Our aim is never to harm the wiki in any fashion, we just want to have fun.

"Tanaric pointed out before he left that these trolls form the basis of community consensus and that's quite accurate."

I find it a little difficult to believe that we overwhen the rational, "normal" users. If we had, this page wouldn't have come into being in the first place.

"Therefore, these trolls, who have little to no merit in regards to the contributions they've made or will continue to make, should be excluded from this discussion (or indeed any other). That's a broad proposal, but I'm mainly hoping we judge comments on what the comments say, who has made the comment, and how it aligns with the goals of the wiki. "

So we're not allowed at our sentencing? How do you suppose we'll respect such a decision then?

"So, something needs to be done about these disruptive users.The obvious solution seems to be to block the lot of them (and of course keep in mind the above proposal). There are varying degrees of trolling, though, so these blocks need to be varied too. "

As I mentioned, I disagree. I have yet to hear any evidence suggesting that we're so out of control that we need to purged with fire.

"...show a pretty hard-line stance that we don't tolerate users with the first aim of disruption and lulz. These users would include the likes of User:Mafaraxas, User:Dark Chaos, User:Daññy, User:Frosty, User:NuclearVII, User:Karate Jesus, User:Armond, User:Chaos Messenger, User:Briar, User:Pika Fan, and User:TahiriVeila. "

I'm flattered. I'm also insulted, since my presence is called useless. That's very objective of you.

"There are some users who contribute usefully sometimes but still troll enough, and we get a grey area - User:Mini Me, User:Jette, User:Misery, and User:Auron are possibles here. "

You propose banning misery? For a month? Are you insane? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that'll look?

"Note: these aren't complete lists. Unfortunately, there are more people like this around. "

Nope, I think you got 'em all. Still, I'd like to hear more accusations thrown around now rather than after this proposal (inevitably) goes through.

"I'm not out for the purpose of creating set and rigid rules - everything here is flexible, as long as it sends the correct message and protects the wiki from further harm."

"FINAL WARNING BAN EVERY TROLL"

...

"I'm flexible."

Yeah, okay. Also, I'd like to congratulate your prose; how dire you paint the situation is inspiring, in a sense.

"For the users who feel like trolling on just an occasional basis, I propose quick, reactionary, short-term blocks of 1 day to start with then extending after repeats of similar behaviour if necessary."

We're not doing this already? If so, why did I get banned 5 times now?

"I think these should be used more often and regarded as less of a big-deal and more as a simple way of giving a forced, short absence and a message of "we don't accept that sort of behavior here". There's an air of trying to please everyone when handing out blocks, but I think sysops and bureaucrats need to be a lot more authoritative, even if their decision is not to block someone. "

Eh, getting blocked is a big deal now. When Mafaraxas gets two week ban, that sends a message, I'm not sure why you want to step up the defcon level...

"When a problem gets as big as this, it just needs a firmer and steadier hand."

...Oh, I see. The wiki is beset on all sides by malicious users, vandals, vile trolls and despicable NPA violations. Your exaggerations do not lend strength to your arguments.

"Also, I think non-sysops as well should allow sysops greater freedom with these kinds of blocks, since a lot of the air I mentioned comes from users complaining about small issues. One day away from the wiki is usually not something to make a fuss about. (He said, unconvincingly.)"

Indeed, that was unconvincing. The people, when they do complain, do so because they believe that's the right thing to do. Sysops can have all the power and discretion they want/need/crave, but you'll do little by asking users to silence their objections.

"P.S. props to Auron for coming up with most of the idea."

This does have Auron written all over it. The title, for one thing. Pruning? Cleaning out the trolls? Is this some sort of "Final Proposal" to create a "master userbase"? I know I'm just a troll, but what you propose is little different than fascism.

But all you're doing is promoting natural selection. Bad trolls may be purged by this little crusade. I certainly won't yield. I got 20+ sock accounts ready to jump into fray and spread the PENIS PENIS PENIS LOL posts. If you want to stop people from trolling, then perhaps your efforts would be better off spent trying to teach people not to be trollbait. Failure lies at the ends of both courses, but at least that way you don't generate this much drama in one day.

Also, O mighty enforces of centimeters, if you decide to ban me, please get Gares to do it. Wanks! NuVII 23:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ilu. k? <3 --Master Briar 23:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

i have to agree with this.- Zesbeer 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You said it yourself. You're a troll, you're not here to either document the game or help build a community about documenting the game, you're here to troll and disrupt the wiki. You have no right to freedom of speech here (I think this applies, you have no right to a "trial". You're here to take way more than you're here to give, and you're a negative presence on the wiki. Your willingness to spam the wiki with sock accounts because you can't get your way just proves that. That's all there is to it. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

santax; his post is full of bullshit, flawed logic and attempts to rouse a response. we call it a "troll post." the proper response is to read it, laugh, and ignore it. -Auron 00:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ok auron ill be sure to do that next time i see you post.- Zesbeer 00:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)That's my point, he's clearly a troll, he has no interest in contributing positively, so why has nobody blocked him yet? --Santax (talk · contribs) 00:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. We can't without being reconfirmed. -Auron 01:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken your opinions into consideration. -- pling 23:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why you take the opinion of the most obvious troll in consideration. Koda Kumi 12:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's because he isn't dumb and butthurt like you. Nuclear had a some good point and pointed out flaws in Pling's suggestion. --Myotheraccount 21:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to the proposals

There's been a lot of side-discussions with this, and although a lot of it's useful to discuss and some good points are being raised, we still need to be a little pragmatic. Overhauls of the systems can seem to be nice ideas, but they rarely ever actually happen, and it'd take time to attempt to carry them out.

Anyway, in the discussions, it got a little murky as to whether or not people agreed that the proposals should be carried out. Some supported, some weren't sure it'd work, but I'm not sure if anyone explicitly opposed its implementation, so please say so clearly here if you do, preferably without going off into another tangent. If I missed something already here, please direct me to it. I'd also like clarification if you do agree with the proposal. It might be best to be concise, and keep this section focused.

As I said somewhere above, this isn't the only step towards solving the problem, but it can be one step, so the other side-discussions can continue and hopefully get somewhere as well. -- pling 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with the proposal. elix Omni 23:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. -- Wandering Traveler 23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree --Lania Elderfire 23:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Manifold 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposition. --Riddle 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it (and my name's listed :D) Karate Jesus 23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposed. You are not addressing the basic issue. At best, this is a band-aid and is likely to make the problem worse. --Max 2 00:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong support. – Emmett 00:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Banning all the accounts will encourage random proxying. Users hiding behind proxies are more likely to troll/vandalize in a more serious way than users with their accounts. 98.248.90.248 00:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree.-- Pyron Sy 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with longer suspensions, not sure about permabans. Rose Of Kali 00:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the proposal. --Rainith 01:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I support this, as per the section above. --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with proposal. -Auron 09:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Pling's proposal. Reaper of Scythes** 14:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, who really cares? I think one thing that you're forgetting is the role of the sysop. The admin on a wiki isn't supposed to be anything more than a glorified janitor. Trying to be more is begging for trouble. On that note bring on the blocks, there're much better places on the web to gain information and entertainment :)--TahiriVeila 00:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

^ Truth. --217.44.189.13 00:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo Answers is fun to troll. Ask Y!A what you should do if wiki sysops are banning trolls. I'm going to ask if me making this post will add me to Pling's list. ~Shard 03:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what all the agree/disagree statements above are about, but in case they are about Pling's initial post, I'll repeat: Strong disagree with counting good contributions, disagree with banning everyone on the list there. --Xeeron 09:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"These users would include the likes of - Pling"

It is not a definitive list of users who are going to get the banhammer. There are far more people who are likely to get axed. However, it would not be wise to find out if you are one of them, Shard. Koda Kumi 12:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mtew: a band-aid on a bleeding cut is pretty useful. As I've said many times, this isn't the only solution being discussed, but it is one.

98.248.90.248: see the "Risk/Reward?" section below, specifically the comments by Rainith and Gares, two sysops who would be enforcing this.

Xeeron: yes, this is about the original proposal. That doesn't include 90/10 or anything like that. I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with the blocks - your comment in the first section didn't really show that Pika Fan stopped contributing because of your warning. His reply to your warning didn't show he 'reformed'; he's just become less active, and I don't think that's directly because of your warning. If he had continued contributing and shown he had listened to it, I might think otherwise. Also, see my comment and questions that I replied to you with (in the first section towards the end, below your comment).

Since I think Mtew's and 98's problems have been addressed already on the page, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus in agreement. Does a list need to be created as to who will get the longer-term blocks? -- pling 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just make a clear page where users can vote if they agree or disagree. This whole page is a mess. -- Cyan 16:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Like this? User talk:Pling/Pruning/Voting. Reaper of Scythes** 16:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. No voting on the people to be blocked... I was thinking more about admins compiling the list, or something. -- pling 17:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pling, he's not talking about voting to ban people. He's talking about voting agree/disagree with the proposal.--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 17:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

^ Yeah. Reaper of Scythes** 17:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this section already shows the degree of agreement and disagreement in concise form, with arguments and discussion being available on the page. Why vote? :/ -- pling 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

More organized. "Just make a clear page where users can vote if they agree or disagree. This whole page is a mess. -- Cyan 16:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)" --/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really convince me. I'd rather not have any voting. -- pling 17:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

K :P It WAS just a suggestion--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 17:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's what he thought about it.

Now, back to the real issue. - J.P.Talk 17:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok then go further with the whole mess. This is just not clear for people who might step in later. -- Cyan 18:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be foolish and counter-productive to make this a democratic decision. Koda Kumi 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, we all know what will happen. *Waves* -- Cyan 21:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Too lazy to argue against it so I stay neutral. It doesnt matter if people disagree because once a sysop is butthurt he is butthurt and no ice can relieve the pain. This plan will be carried out and probably cause allot of drama and even more trolling but at least sysops will let their rage out. :O Still the best way to deal with a troll is to laugh and ignore. Trust me, I know. --Myotheraccount 21:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

clarification of the proposals

I think it's worth clarifying what exactly everyone is agreeing/disagreeing to; at least for my sake. In pling's original post, as far as I can tell, there were two proposals:

• Ban "notorious" trolls for a long-ish time as a last warning. "Notorious" trolls were originally to be gauged based on ratios of userspace to mainspace edits.
• From now on, reactively ban "casual" trolls for a day or two to discourage trolling.

The consensus has been against the first proposal (at least the "ratios" part), which honestly doesn't leave very much of a policy (or whatever you'll call it) to be agreed to. If you're using some other measure to declare someone a "notorious" troll it should be worth mentioning (even if it's discretion or what-have-you). If there's anything else that was implicitly agreed on in the middle, it'd be nice to mention it here (concisely). MAFARAXAS 00:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

bump. MAFARAXAS 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We will determine whether or not someone is a troll by determining whether or not someone is a troll. Misery 14:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a question

Why do we care what users do in the userspace? It doesn't really affect anything does it (I'm assuming GWW isn't running into any kind of storage problems)? I'm all for banning the shit out of anyone who gets out of line in the main or feedback spaces, but who really gives a damn if people goof off in their userspaces? This whole argument about "trolls" who really don't do anything but userspace circlejerk appears to just be an excuse to dramawhore since said trolls don't mess with the flow of the wiki in the mainspace. If I'm mistaken and trolls really are a problem in the mainspace then ban them to high noon, but I'm really having a hard time seeing why users like myself who contribute small amounts to the mainspace, do not detract from it, and goof off in the userspace are a problem.--TahiriVeila 01:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The userspace isn't your personal playground. Other people like to use it too. elix Omni 01:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

How does my goofing around in the userspace in any conceivable way prevent you from using the userspace? That's weak logic =\ --TahiriVeila 01:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ostensibly, it is because the trolls are acting in userspace and driving away those that might actually have something useful to contribute to the wiki. -- FreedomBound 01:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems highly improbably that any potential user with even a minor interest in contributing to the wiki would be driven away by userspace nonsense as long as said nonsense isn't NPA or a pointless argument such as this one. DRAMA like this drives people away, goofing off doesn't.--TahiriVeila 01:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --217.44.189.13 01:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

^ and you contribute almost nothing even remotely useful. See the multiple "is not a forum" posts in above sections. – Emmett 01:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

More weak logic, I contribute little and detract nothing from the mainspace so I should be driven away? For what plausible reason?--TahiriVeila 01:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) ::Powerhungry staff that likes to play god does that too. Even more often than trolls, actually. Also, how would someone's talk page drive off users? o.o; --217.44.189.13 01:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, because there are no negative aspects of trolling on communities. Good one. Even if the negatives are hypothetically limited, no positive + any negative is still a negative. – Emmett 01:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are avoiding tahiri's question. --217.44.189.13 01:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize right now but I can't tell if you are purposefully redefining the connotation of the word troll or if you're truly ignorant to what it means. I'm not talking about trolling. A troll is someone who deliberately antagonizes other users in order to attain a sense of power and control. Troll are distinctly different from users who goof around and makes jokes with their friends (users like myself, misery, frosty, maf, and danny). The GWW sysops seem intent on lumping the two groups together for reasons I cannot understands. Trolls should be taken care of, users who make jokes with their friends and have a good time through the userspace should not be attacked as they have been on this wiki.--TahiriVeila 01:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The question's already been answered. He just didn't like the answer. elix Omni 01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No, I am not. You and him just seem to have the too-narrow view that this discussion is focused around what users bring to the mainspace, and that is simply not true. – Emmett 01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Resetting the indent. What I'm trying to understand is why the admins want to get rid of anyone who isn't contributing massive amounts to the mainspace, even if they aren't detracting for it. The whole purpose of a wiki is so that anyone can contribute, in whatever manner and amount they wish. The sysops seem to wish to enforce a draconian order over a community that is by its very nature designed to be disorderly. And I can't figure out why they want to eliminate these users because they have not provided a logical reason as to why they wish to eliminate users who are a net positive to the mainspace.--TahiriVeila 01:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Only a handful of people proposed a 90/10 policy; not a single sysop proposed it. Besides, that's not what we're even talking about now. We're talking about disruptive trolling on mainspaces and on userspaces. Not casual conversation and goofing off on userspaces which is harmless as long as it doesn't violate policy and Anet's code of conduct. When I say GWW isn't facebook, myspace, twitter, MSN etc... all that spammy BS with sexual connotations, hateful, vile, or just racist shit just don't belong here.--Lania Elderfire 01:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The people who "joke around with friends on user pages" rarely keep it exclusively there. It's also discouraging to leave a message on someone's talk page about a wiki-related matter knowing that 5 of their friends are going to derail the subject before the person even sees the message. Manifold 02:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@Emmett: I'd like to add briefly that trolling can actually be beneficial. In some cases trolling a problem user off the wiki has been beneficial in a circumstance where sysops could not reasonably be expected to act. Circle jerking can also be useful as it raises morale and can lead to higher productivity in the future or retaining contributors who contribute when new content arrives. The positives of trolling are not non-existent, they are small. Misery 08:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Why do we care what users do in the userspace?"

Because it requires attention. If we leave people to do what ever they want in user space without any intervention at all, we would soon have a spam fest of 4chan proportions, including many hurt egos (leading to people leaving), stuff that would get Anet up our back (copyright, explicit pictures, the like), and all that would, without any sliver of doubt, also spill over onto the user talk pages of people who want nothing to do with it (driving those away).

For all those reasons, we need to monitor that stuff. And it is a waste of everyone's time to read inane trolling, taking away from good editing and driving sysops into resignation. --Xeeron 09:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

How about drawing a reasonable yet clear line between where and how the "trolls" are allowed to have fun with eachother? I can understand how clearly insulting personal attacks, copyrighted content, and excessive excessively excessive spam in the RC could be prohibited, but free discussion should be just fine - it really doesn't harm anybody. It'd also seem to me that in these cases regarding sexuality, racism and cursing, nobody has been offended, but what people do is get shocked on behalf of others. You can't say that because someone else might get offended by it! To me sexuality is also just something dumb of Jewish descent which then has influenced Christian and Muslim culture. Iirc, Platon sure knew how to appreciate a nice young boy. Dumb culture we live in, I say :> ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 11:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"How about drawing a reasonable yet clear line between where and how the "trolls" are allowed to have fun with each other" NOT ON GWW. Take your "fun" to 4chan, or IM, or anywhere else. Is that a clear enough line for you Chaos? YOUR TYPE OF FUN IS NOT WANTED HERE I think this is being made abundantly clear over and over and over by people telling you to stop, by sysops banning you, by people reporting bad conduct on the Admin Noticeboard. Quite simply, the community that is here to document the game on GWW is not interested in your type of fun. Your smart ass commentary, your continued disruption of the business of this wiki. (Please read you and your as meaning the trolls not any specific person). -- Wyn talk 20:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I just think you're really shitty at reading people, but okay :> I will now begin building a massive MSN network! o/ ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 20:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw, nearly everything you say offends me. elix Omni 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I have to agree with Felix on this one. - Reanimated X 07:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually try to be very friendly ;o but people get me wrong half the time and the other half they take me more seriously than what I am. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 07:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How many strikes does it take?

You talk about a 90/10 or 80/20, and I ask, Why allow so many posts? Something like this "White Mantle sucks!" shouldn't be given 10 tries to get a 80/20 or a 90/10. It's no more than three strikes and ur out guys. I like a strike system. Something small would get one strike, and something like the one above could get two or three. Or we could work it like the dishonor system in game, where the worse it is, the more points you get, and after a certain number you get punished. After a long period(anywhere from a month to a year) you points go away. But they would disappear gradually. --Bold Baby Undies 02:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The 90/10 and 80/20 are not talking about number of posts, but of ratio of post in mainspace as opposed to talk pages. -- Wyn talk 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Risk/Reward?

I'm not positive if thats the right term for my question on this matter, But have you considered the fact that, Assuming this plan does go into action (and it most likely will), the sysop team will have its hands full for months on end blocking various socks and Proxied IP addresses? Like full to overflowing? If your going to so "Purge the trolls in our holy fire of New Rule" then your going to have a hell of a time doing so. Are you prepared to see 70%-90% of RC Jam-packed with "(x) blocked (x) with an expiry time of (x) for the next couple years? Because 9/10 trolls have proxies set up so blocking them would do nothing more than force them to log out to troll. Just wondering if that has been taken into consideration here because I've been yelled at and I've seen others blocked for spamming a talk page. And I'm not quite sure why spamming RC with talk page is bad, But spamming RC with block-log, is not.

Edit:And User creation. Because as you can tell by clicking on RC, Its already starting. --Master Briar 02:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

onoz, the Cabal of Trolls has moved into action in response to this direct affront to their cause! MAFARAXAS 02:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Im trolling but its okay cuz im trolling a troll" Lol. --Master Briar 02:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

...what? so any post that isn't in an entirely serious tone is now trolling? MAFARAXAS 13:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"It will be hard to do and it may not work" is rarely a good reason not to attempt something you feel is worth doing. --Rainith 02:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If everybody in the entire world had that attitude we would still be in the stone ages... or extinct. --Lania Elderfire 03:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind me but "hey guys, why bother blocking trolls when they can proxy" just looks really dumb on this page. Even to come from you, Briar, who usually make dumb posts. -Cursed Angel 08:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

++ for Rainith and Lania's posts. Trolls and vandals have always felt the need to keep on trying to circumvent blocks and create socks. It's nothing new and has been dealt with in the past, so this is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. — Gares 14:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I said it before, and I'll say it again: permanent block encourages sock-puppetry and more trolling "in revenge" so to speak, while a week or more suspension (depending on severity and previous offenses, of course), does so to a much smaller degree, if at all. I feel like some of the actions taken against some users here was too harsh in the form of permabans, and many of them did come back as socks (Kaisha comes to mind, and her project is now abandoned, while it had the potential to be a large improvement to the wiki). Rose Of Kali 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but no one has mentioned permabanning as a solution to this issue. — Gares 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Permabanning was not mentioned because it is not an option at all. Koda Kumi 15:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Permabanning is always an option. Maybe you don't remember super igor. -Cursed Angel 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Then there is confusion with the "ban the trolls!" being thrown around here. I'm not sure anymore what this proposal is at this point, things were proposed, rejected, modified, and it's about time to re-summarize its current state. Rose Of Kali 15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Things were discussed, but I think the original proposal still stands, as you can see in the Opposition section above, which was aimed at the original proposal. Permablocks are always options in individual circumstances of the extreme, but that's not being proposed here at all. -- pling 15:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For some, a month long ban is synonymous with a perma ban. Wanks! NuVII 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rose, I agree. See User_talk:Pling/Pruning#clarification of the proposals. The second original proposal is what I was under the impression is happening now, and since we're not doing ratios to decide "useful" contributors, it's not exactly clear what and how things are being decided, and who's going to be "punished". MAFARAXAS 16:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Derp, we're going to be punished. Tbh, this page should just be called "User talk:Pling/Pruning PvX Users and A Few Others". Karate Jesus 16:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Herp, did you not see Gares' comment in your pvx section?

Mafaraxas, as Misery said, we "punish" the trolls who are here to troll and have trolled too often. That cannot be determined by viewing editing ratios. -- pling 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Misery was being ironic and didn't actually say anything; look again. And I'm the one that used the term punish ;o MAFARAXAS 19:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me....? (Off-topic)

or do pages like this cause more drama than trolling? This kind of wiki-lawyering seems to be the real cause of a lot of the problems to this site. Seriously, it's gotten so bad, that common sense should just be implemented as policy for the sysop role. We elected them, so let them do their fucking jobs proficiently. Hopefully, they're not all incapable of reasoning and can differentiate between a situation that requires admin intervention and one that doesn't, right?

tl;dr this page is retarded, half of it is drama-whoring/wiki-lawyering, and let admins do their goddamn jobs - namely, deciding when a user has or hasn't gone too far. Karate Jesus 16:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the more you care and drama about a problem, the bigger it becomes. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

^--Master Briar 20:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Truth. --Myotheraccount 22:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the "Goal" of all of this

Ok first off I would just like to say I am not looking to derail discussions, or whatever you call it, I am simply entruiged by the utopia you are generally aiming for. I would also like to note in my defense (since obviously somebody will say that I am only saying this because I am a troll...) that I have zero interest in GWW Drama and in all honesty wouldn't care what any of the out comes are, seeing as I only come here to mingle with people who don't look on PvX as much (namely Misery <3).
It seems that the goal behind this is to create an almost expressionless community in which absolutely everybody who contributes to the wiki has to do it by updating the mainspace. In essence what I see is a goal to make GWW like a Library, just an info dump with no talking whatsoever. In a perfect world it's a beautiful dream, a place where administrators are not needed because everybody simply edites the mainspace in peace and harmony, all for the good of documentation. Well I have a sad fact for you, the internet is not a place where people only come for information, it is a place where people come to talk, relate, and even have fun with eachother. This community is lucky enough to actually be thriving, considering it is about a game that is about 5 years old. On this wiki, there is a little bit called Talk Pages, I am sure you've seen them before, they are wonderful places where sad people get to communicate with eachother through the means of typing. Some people use this in different ways, some like to joke, have fun, usually with their friends. Others like to throw in a logical (and usually pointless) statement to make sure the talking stays on topic. And ofcourse, some people like to simply push people's buttons or as I like to say, Troll. Now I'll get to my point, I believe this whole "goal" is getting mixed up with the first of three types of contributions (talk page wise), I am only here because my name was put on a list as people who are derogatory to the wiki, I was amazed.
I have no problem with the staff here getting tough with people who simply want to create drama, there is no problem with that, but from what I can see, either the real goal here is to simply get rid of those who use this wiki to keep in touch with friends, or have some fun. Or the general team behind the idea is massively misunderstanding what a troll really is, I can only hope it is an accidental form of the later.
I hope you enjoyed a taste of slightly unbiased reality.
Oh an a quick PS. MSN =/= wiki discussions, because you can't have a log of multiple discussions over multiple time periods in one place on MSN. --Frosty 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"I have no problem with the staff here getting tough with people who simply want to create drama"

This page has created more drama than anything else lately. Look how many bans there have been in the last 3 days because of this page. 208.100.1.46 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not just because of this page, (most of) those users have had an history of disruptive behaviour. Reaper of Scythes** 21:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the mere fact that this discussion is happening has given the admin team the backbone needed to start banning the disruptive users. Looking at how many people with a history of trolling have already been banned since this discussion started, I'd say this page has served its intended purpose.-- Pyron Sy 21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Its only drama because bunches o' people are deciding to make it drama. If the wiki could actually discuss things civilly without having to break off into side tangents every five sentences, then...well, drama wouldn't happen. -- Wandering Traveler 23:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's just like asking the admins not to use sock accounts, or to stop being rude and disruptive themselves. A friend has a saying "More power than pubity" and this whole thing screams of it. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 00:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The compiling of the list.

Sysop Discussion

As it will be the sysops who are going to enforce this, this section is for sysops to decide which users are going to be blocked long-term. If other users want to have a discussion about this, make another section. I realise there is no absolute consensus for this, but there is to say the least a pretty overwhelming support for the plan.

For future reference, the current revision is [1]. I'm largely OK with the list as pling compiled it. I'm not sure about Mini Me and Armond, as I think both are in previously mentioned "gray area" so I would suggest at the very least to ban them for a significantly shorter period of time than the others. I've got a bigger issue with Auron's name being on our list. It's true, he trolls, has socked, et cetera, which is bad. However, he is one of the if not the single most effective sysop at dealing with trolls. There's no way his net contribution to this wiki is anywhere near negative. I'm strongly in favor of removing his name from there altogether. — Why 00:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Auron is a funny case, since he fights fire with fire. It's useful, but ultimately kinda against the spirit of this proposal. So, I'd say he should stay on the list in some form. --JonTheMon 13:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree to a degree with jon on this one, also the removal of Auron's name from the list would then also show favouritism to a standing sysop, which would in turn add weight to much of the criticism seen above. That being said however, I also agree that Auron's net contribution to the wiki is a positive one. Thus I am not in favour of him receiving a blanket ban. I think he falls into a grey area as said before and as such, those trolls who's net input is greater than the impact of their trolling, i think need further debate. -- Salome 00:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As it doesn't look like anyone is going to bring up new arguments against the blocking of the non-gray-area trolls I'll be doing that shortly, so that we can move on discussing what is to be done against Auron, Mini Me, Armond and Misery. — Why 11:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Okay, nevermind me. Auron did it. — Why 11:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Other Discussion

Assuming that the idea is moving forward then I agree with Why, though I don't really see a dire need for The List. So far several of the users on it have been blocked recently anyway, and if that trend continues then it should be fairly easy to see if any of them will stop doing whatever the definition of trolling is here. A retroactive list just feels kind of lame. I think that Xeeron worded a similar argument earlier but more coherently. If the issue is, as Auron has expressed, a lack of support, and that is a result of the rfr and election stuff (which quite frankly do suck) then changing that would be more effective than this page. As a nobody here I don't really expect to have much weight given to my point of view, and I suppose that I have not had the same perspective on what happens on the wiki as a more invested user, but overall I think that fewer policies and more trust would benefit the wiki. --67.240.88.57 01:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fully agreed with the IP. If we can get back to the time when discretion > policy wording and lawyering, then a good portion of the problem will already be solved. -- Wandering Traveler 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Spirit of the Law vs Letter of the Law etc etc. --Frosty 08:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Misery? He is a v strong troll but everyone's too chicken shit to ban him. MAFARAXAS 02:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He also is a bcrat, and sysops blocking bcrats kinda fucks the whole balance of power, etc. Plus having 2 bcrats is :/. I suspect these are the reasons why he is not on the list. --Riddle 02:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, feels good to be above the law. But I've consented to (and supported) the process so I'm pretty sure if admin consensus is to block me that they should block me. The list as it currently stands was compiled unilaterally by Pling, I can only assume that my absence means that Pling has decided that he doesn't feel I need to be blocked, or at least not on the list of "long term" blocks. Misery 07:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently winning a popularity contest election draws attention away from you. On a more serious note, a position of power gets you friends even if you are a big douche, even on a wiki. 82.217.189.101 09:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm on the list with them now? I thought I was semi-gray area, no? -Cursed Angel 13:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

moved from above, RE: Why Then perhaps it should also be agreed to hold the sysops to the same standards of behavior. You agree Auron has trolled, if Auron, or any sysop, does so again, apply the same standards that you're talking about applying to the rest of the user base. It would reduce the accusations of the ruling clique and would show that unacceptable behavior is equally unacceptable from everyone, even if you happen to have additional responsibilities. --Ceru talk contribs 13:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Why's assertion that Auron is one of the most effective at dealing with trolls. By his own admission, he waits until it is obvious that all the other sysops have failed to act, and only then does he deal with the problem. That doesn't make him more effective, it just makes him the last resort. In order to solve that problem, it is not necessary to keep him around (when you know, he knows, and everyone else knows he's a troll), it is necessary for the other sysops to step in and take care of the issue before it gets to that point (or, really, the point where a non-sysop has to create a "pruning" page). The other stuff he takes care of, deletions and whatnot, are also not anything that any other sysop (or some new ones), could easily handle. -- FreedomBound 14:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was in a grey area? - Mini Me talk 14:36, 15 April 2010

I also disagree what Why says about Auron. Fighting fire with fire, while could be effective, shouldn't be an option. Clearly for the reason Jon said. - J.P.Talk 14:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How come I'm not on the cool list? I r disappoint. =/ --Myotheraccount 15:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would post something give input here. But knowing Auron it would immediatly be removed and I would be banned. No matter what I said. --Master Briar 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to GuildWars Wiki! Happy editing. Ghosst • Talk • 16:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Misery: I'm still not sure if you should be blocked, hence my leaving you out. I hadn't decided either way, but adding you in would show that I agree more than leaving you out would show I disagree.

CA: I explicitly said in my first post that the list there was not a complete one in any way. In the course of the discussion, I noticed I left you out. -- pling 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Come on, bro, I'm done trolling due to all these retards doing it wrong. I'm barely even active. -Cursed Angel 20:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are done trolling, how about taking the time to read GWW:NPA then? Hint: Calling someone or a group of people "retards" does qualify. --Xeeron 22:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I really think that the bans shouldn't be retroactive, but that rather everyone should get a clean start. That's my opinion. - Reanimated X 16:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Contributions

Out of curiosity, has any actually reviewed the contributions of the users listed? It looks like User:Daññy, User:Pika Fan, and User:Mini Me all have at least a relatively high number of actually useful edits, and the first two particularly don't appear to be even that active. Certainly, there are a number of names on there whose contribs are almost strictly User_talk, but the selection of users, especially compared to a number of other users not listed, appears to be rather abstract. 74.63.89.210 20:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

you call trolling useful edits? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.24.206.125 (talk) at 05:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Read again. - Mini Me talk 10:19, 17 April 2010

You seem to think this is based on the actual merit of users. Your very wrong. This is based on users Reputations. Plain and simple. --Master Briar 11:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that not a single sysop took the time to respond to this worries me quite a bit. Wiki sysops have an almost impressive history of using "official" means to get rid of anyone they don't particularly like or agree with - especially on the WP. The fact that two of this wikis most infamous trolls are, in fact, in positions of merit should be summation enough. Certainly, I can't help but agree that the results here are in the overall betterment of the community, but the method is, put simply, a poor show.

To Pling and Auron - I'd give this a 4/10. Maybe a 5/10. 74.63.93.161 21:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure Auron's banned and Pling isn't a sysop. is for Raine, etc. 21:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Why this is going wrong

[2] - new users shouldn't be afraid of being persecuted by a witchhunt when they go to ask sysops simple questions. I think we should back off this whole idea for a few days - no discussion, no long-term troll bans (except nuke's socks and other immediately disruptive cases), etc. Just to let things cool down for a bit. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He may have just been being a smartass, and the guy is hardly "new". -- FreedomBound 02:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit I've not looked through his contributions, but putting a suggestion in the template namespace doesn't exactly scream "experienced". -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall exactly what the contents of the page were, but I think he just edited the wrong page. It happens. -- FreedomBound 02:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so I'm confused... He edited the wrong page (I assume created a feedback suggestion in the template namespace from reading the conversation), and the page got deleted, and that is a problem? Or the problem is that he (she?) started the conversation with, "I don't mean to be a troll..." which I read as sort of a "I don't mean to be a pest..." type of comment, and that is a problem that was caused by this page? --Rainith 03:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I could be dumb, but the way I read it was that he was afraid of being persecuted a la Nuke, KJ, etc, for asking a question that could, from a certain point of view, be taken as "why did you delete my page my page was awesome you're a bad sysop". -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon's recent frenzy of troll-blocking has probably struck awe and terror into the unwashed masses. elix Omni 03:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so... A good sysop like Jon saw the difference between a trolling attempt and a genuine question. I don't see the frenzy of troll blocking causing any problems with new people. --Lania Elderfire 03:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that I would never get an account here. Occasionally, I'll try to help improve articles and stuff, but the perception of GWW from the outside seems to be pretty true when it comes to drama and the corrupt admins. The last few blocks seemingly prove how poor the sysops' here truly are.

Drama for the sake of drama. I'd rather use Guru at this point. 208.100.1.46 03:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Click the link, Lania. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I did. I read his and Jon's comments. I guess my perception is a bit different? --Lania Elderfire 03:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so perhaps the perception needs to be controlled a little bit. However, the user asked a reasonable question, and got a response that answered his question. And for my last 2 bans, they weren't completely out of nowhere. I warned KJ, and Nuke, well, his ban was preventative since he stated his intentions. --JonTheMon 04:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you didn't handle the situation excellently, or that you (or anyone else) were out of line in banning anyone (except possibly Nuke, but that's on your talk). What I'm saying is that things are moving fast and furious, and the average wiki-user sees a crapton of bans for "trolling", including a 3-month ban, and they probably don't know the situation/history (ask that guy on your talk what nuke did to get a three month ban, I bet he won't have a clue) and are probably wondering what the admins consider trolling. They have a right to be a little unnerved, imo, and so they'll be treading very carefully.

I just really don't want this to turn into a full-fledged witch hunt, complete with paranoia from those not in the know, and this to me looked a bit like that paranoia/panic from someone not in the know (or at least a hint of such to come). Maybe I'm overreacting? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't even see a "frenzy of troll blocking" Jon's been going after unused usernames that have ip addresses in the neighborhood of our friendly trivia vandal for a few weeks now... That is mostly what he's been blocking, with the notable exceptions of Nuk and KJ... and I don't think blocking those two could conceivably be considered a frenzy.... Armond... I would just call you WRONG this round... -- Wyn talk 04:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Armond... I would start by asking the guy on Jon's talk page if he even KNEW that Jon had blocked a troll for 3 months before I start jumping at the kind of conclusions you are leaping to. -- Wyn talk 04:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

K, ignore me then. At least I got a chance to put voice to the whole witchhunt thing. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?

I believe most people will agree that the wiki is overpopulated by trolls, miscreants and hoodlums. Is that really a problem, though? Unlike 90% of game wikis out there, GWW is actually pretty well-maintained. Our articles are usually accurate, we have one for basically everything in the game, we continue to expand content when it's possible to do so and I daresay our mission of documenting the game is about 95% complete. There are still things left to do, but I don't think the presence of the odd troll is obstructing that. All the stupid crap that has been brought up by people here is largely moaning about "behind-the-scenes" stuff: people using their userpage as a facebook, trolls trolling trolls, people getting banned because they do dumb shit, etc. I'm not going to say that keeping certain users is a productive choice, and there are several people on the "hit list" that I wouldn't mind seeing impaled on a rusty flagpole, but I really don't see how any of this disrupts our actual goal. Every single policy we have allows for sysop/bureaucrat discretion to overrule the unwashed masses, including the sysop voting system, which explicitly states that a majority vote does not mean a bureaucrat is requires to promote them. The only place where a mass of trolls might overrule discretion is in the bureaucrat election scheme, but even then the number of legitimate voters considerably outnumbers the troll population. It has been brought up that certain trolls are in positions of authority, in which case I would urge them to resign in the name of slowing down this shitstorm. I think it's a much better alternative to banning a chunk of the community basically at random.

This entire suggestion reeks of poor experience in dealing with trolls, the correct response being to ignore them. User talk pages are not myspace: if you ask someone starting shit with you to leave and they don't do it, put it on the admin noticeboard. More importantly, even if we ban the current prominent "league" of trolls from the wiki, it won't prevent any of the spam or shitstorms from happening: people will still start stupid drama about policies and wikilawyering, people will still have terrible ideas, and people will still moan about ANet being bæd to them through the game update talk pages and skill talk pages. Overall, it will start a tidal wave of "bawww my friends got banned, mods are fascists" that will resonate across the site and cause more problems than it was intended to solve (here's a hint: this page is 165KiB).

tl;dr stop being bad and ban faggots when they're being faggots, not 6 weeks after they're done being faggots. If the people on this list are really as bad as you say, they'll continue being bad after this shitfest is over. –Jette 14:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree on first paragrath. Agree even more on second. You sir, did a good job pointing out teh failz. <3 --Myotheraccount 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell haven't you been banned, anyway? We wouldn't have to hold a kangaroo court if people were blocked for doing stupid crap like make a troll sock and wander around the wiki stirring up as much chaos as possible. –Jette 15:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

^_____________^ ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 16:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason that this page is 165kb, Jette, is because people like to skim the first few paragraphs, assume it's all drivel, and proceed to author their own 5,000 character walls of text that are all strikingly similar in content and tone. They usually include a witty little tl;dr line that essentially says "Change nothing but expect different results." Protip- a talk page is for discussion, not collecting monologues. elix Omni 17:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@Felix: There seems to be remarkably little response on this page that isn't an attempt to define what a trolling is or trolling, in and of itself. What does directly pertain to Pling's original proposal either has been shouted down (the 90/10 debate, Nuke's post and Auron's reparteé with several known trolls on this wiki - or whatever light you'd like to paint this melodrama in) or the discussion amounts to a "+1 for Pling".

Now not only would Jette's response merit consideration - since he was personally cited in the original proposal - but it seems to me that it does not reflect the above discourse in that it neither takes the ostentation personally nor decides to participate in the public defamation of other users, as prolific and apparently accepted as it is on this wiki, but (as I interpret it) proposes the SysOps utilize the tools they have when they're needed and not retrospectively, as this reinforcement style has proven counter-intuitive, at best. In another respect, I'd like to back Frosty in reiterating that attempting to quell evidence of human interaction in an online, collaborative project is an undertaking bound for failure, rather than accounting for human nature in administrative decision-making. tl;dr, I'm a verbose imbecile because I post with an IP. 141.165.170.122 01:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

IP speaking sweet reason, obaby. Maybe I should stop logging in too post too?--TahiriVeila 03:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder...

I wonder if this is a problem in other game wikis... 91.150.5.2 10:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole internet has the same problem, if you ask me. This isn't anything wiki-exclusive. - J.P.Talk 11:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The technical term for it is the Online disinhibition effect, but most people just refer to it as the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. A solution appears to be in sight, however. –Jette 13:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think someone will invent a monitor that lets you punch people through the internet. Then I'll end up having my monitors point toward each other and set the other one to that kid on youtube who doesn't like people calling him a homo. ~Shard 08:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol

All those are PvXers. --Shadowsin 00:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

that isnt true Novii 12:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot of them are. --Tesslina 20:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Scroll up and click "Tbh, just ban PvX members". KJ has more than covered this point. 141.165.170.111 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Afaik, only two aren't from pvx --dark chaos Saturday Night 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

It is easier to destroy than it is to create. This works both ways. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You yourself are proof of that, I suppose? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.144.13.114 (talk).

I am human so yes. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 22:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to rain on anyone's parades here, but discussion about this has been over for about half a month now, and I don't really see how you're bringing up anything that's new or relevant enough to start the discussion up again. — Why 20:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So I just logged in to see how GWW was doing

And I checked RC. Looks like this thing did a shit ton of good eh? --Master Briar 20:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad timing imo. poke | talk 20:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mhhmm. When isn't it? --Master Briar 20:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Uh.. yeah, it did. The wiki was quiet for a month and I loved not having to deal with trolling and stuff. Nice job basing your assessment off of a single incident. – Emmett 20:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Umad or something? O.o Guess I must be trolling. --Master Briar 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you're just making comments that don't make sense. Vandalism != trolling anyway, so the two incidents you're relating have nothing to do with each other. – Emmett 20:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say Emmett. Whatever you say. --Master Briar 20:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This page was not intended to deal with random or isolated cases of vandals/sockpuppets. -- pling 20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

.*Spills coffee* Oh pffft.Bit late for that ay? I’ve seen this page flare up at times in the past and have seen it at full blast, honestly. if you need to have intelligent convocation, try it within an isolated site, away from all the socks and shoes vandals, Honestly. starting this page here was a terrible.terrible.Terrible idea because, what more do you get when your trying to act humane? You get trolls and vandals throwing more and more shat at you for just being normal. In a nutshell: If you need mature convocations. Use MSN or email. Not the wiki itself… --Neil2250 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

<<mature convocations>>

You have no idea how hard I was laughing when I saw that. I also advise you to stay away from wiki politics and have some more fun. Koda Kumi 21:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well powerpoint fails D8, and k.--Neil2250 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too! ^__^

And yes, it's actually not challenging to the least to focus on an intelligent topic, it just requires experience in ignoring outside factors (people) and having a very delicate sense of the dynamic social situation (lol), to be constantly aware of what's happening in the conversation, which then again isn't the smallest of requirements. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 23:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

im sorry but...

the conversation(s) above are just, well too much for me to read though. They are relatively easy to follow when they are happening, but when the page is this long and its over, its just well... too much. So, im not sure if this has been mentioned already but here goes.

1) i think any ratio / percentage would be rather unfair (if descreting by namespace) because, well alot of my contribs are in talk pages. Most of my "mainspace" contribs are skill animations (which, after the last batch was-- albeit worthwhile to be-- "shot down" im fine-tuning my processes for the redoux.

2) A suggestion alot of the wiki trolling, I find is though images. A simple fix is to check the logs for uses, and to get a sense of the type of images uploaded.

3) I disagree that one-day bans are "ineffective", when why banned me for one day (granted i questioned it after) it truly helped better-acquaint me with the sheer drama i was unintentionally creating. just my two cents — Scythe 20:02, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

This ended ages ago. Your argument is invalid. ShadowRunner 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

time spent idle dosnt end things, also stop harassing me. — Scythe 20:09, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for coming across as brash or "harassing". However, this is a long dead source of drama (it was!), I've had a long day (not an excuse by the way) and you seem to be on some sort of crusade to create drama whether you realise it or not. ShadowRunner 20:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

by harassing i meant aggressively trying to prove me wrong / shun me out on pretty much every conversation i've had today. — Scythe 20:29, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

ohyeah that was so aggressive. I could feel the hostility! :< --ne shot.20:32, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

"you seem to be on some sort of crusade to create drama whether you realise it or not"

You are the fucking king of all drama llamas. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Scythe, honey, people were already banned thanks to this discussion (including Auron) and it's been resolved, there's no point in beating a dead horse. - Mini Me 20:38, 2 September, 2010 (UTC)

wasnt aware o.o. and if im king of drama ilama's what does that make some1 like auron? — Scythe 21:02, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we all take a couple of steps down the rage ladder. I see Pling and/or one-day bans on the horizon. — Raine Valen 21:25, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

my legitimate suggestion became troll fodder? wtf (am i really the troll here?) Take a good look Scythe-Ragers. — Scythe 21:43, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

No, your attitude is troll fodder. This is a prime example of feeding trolls (whether SR was trolling or not):

"time spent idle dosnt end things, also stop harassing me." — Scythe

You get too emotional too easily; this response is the purpose of trolling. This is why I suggested that you (and others) take some time to chill out. — Raine Valen 22:02, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trolling but I realise I came across as such and I apologise for it. ShadowRunner 22:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that the necromancer class had been added to Guild Wars Wiki in the last update. At least the devs are starting to shake things up. Misery 06:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I find Scythe's terrible attempts to stir up drama v hilarious. Srsly, stop being butthurt over Auron drama and gtfo. 98.248.90.248 07:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)