User talk:Xeeron

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Wintersday[edit]

Have a Happy and a Merry!  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx, same to the team =) --Xeeron 20:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the arbcomm page is already too full...[edit]

ARBCOMM still has alternatives to work over with.

  • They could just strip her from sysophood regardless of what a RfR says due to "disruptive behavior".
  • They could declare that the RfR is inclusive of "Wyn's behavior" and that if it passes means we have to let her rage whenever she wants, as long as she doesn't misuse the admin tools.
  • They could just say it is a shame all of this is happening and people should talk next time.
  • They could make Wyn a "Janitorial task admin only" for a certain period of time (like, forever).

Weren't you a bureaucrat already in the past?--Fighterdoken 20:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was. But when I was an admin, I would have outright refused such a case. Why? There is just one thing that needs to be resolved here: Wyn's attidude. We can decide it is not so bad and live with it. We can ask her to change it. Or we can remove her sysop status. The former 2 dont need arbcom. The latter could be done by arbcom, but it would be preferable to use a reconfirmation, because it rather generally concerns the community as a whole. And I stated my opinion about "janitorial admins" already - I dont like the idea. --Xeeron 23:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
We already tried. Last RfR from Wyn was pretty much for this same problem and the outcome was that: a)she doesn't appear to be willing to change something she doesn't see as a problem; and b)the community still supported her regardless of that.
Chances are that if a new reconfirmation happends, she will still pass. Will you (or any user who has issues with her behavior, really) be willing to accept her and her random mood after that, considering that people still has problems with her even after the previous RfR?--Fighterdoken 23:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not so sure about the outcome of a reconfirmation for Wyn now, but if the larger part of the community would still trust her with the sysop tools, I and everyone else would have to accept that. --Xeeron 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

re: RfA[edit]

I'd be disappointed otherwise. I'm not exactly sure how this is going to go, but if it's clearly a fanclub RfA with no thought behind it, I'll withdraw myself six days from now. —Tanaric 23:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

hi[edit]

I have some things to send to you. Please. Not dealing with anything above, but a curiousity opinon. So may I, please? -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the setting to allow wiki mails. Alternatively, my email can still be found at http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki:List_of_bureaucrats&direction=prev&oldid=845733 --Xeeron 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent actions[edit]

You misunderstand. I waited to post until it was painfully obvious that nobody else was going to succeed in resolving the user dispute. Gordon's actions have been questionable for weeks now, and I waited for someone else to deal with the situation. When nobody did, I came in like I said I do - I put my foot down hard. I didn't post on his page to be his friend, I posted on his page to tell him to stop creating massive wikidrama, and I fully intend to back my words up with a ban if he continues like he always has with no regard to the drama he's created/creating. The post was his "notice," and I don't think anyone can say it was too early. I waited until I could wait no longer, then, realizing that it is my time to act, I acted. -Auron 05:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you 100%. 110% if that were possible. What he did was working on 2 guidelines started by others and on 2 projects (one in his user space) and forward an arbcom request handed to him. The wiki is full of redundant projects and guidelines with no consensus behind it. The only part where this borders "drama" is by the unconstructive and personal responses Gordon got (not saying all are, but several). And of course by the witch hunt going on right now.
So let me also be very clear and blunt: If you block Gordon or anyone else for the things he did (working on guidelines, proposing and discussing wiki-projects, starting a project in their userspace, forwarding a request), I will unblock that person and block you for abuse of sysop tools. There is a big difference between trolling and heated discussions.
PS: If you intended to stave off "drama" with your post at his talk page, you could not be further of from the goal. It is exactly that kind of confrontational, personal posts that take an issue from the domain of (heated policy) discussion to drama. --Xeeron 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Xeeron, I think you should reconsider your 'if Auron bans Gordon, I'll unban Gordon and block Auron' stance. At least one sysop, apart from Auron, agrees that such a ban would be warranted - "While the fact of banning another sysop, as mentioned by Auron, is not something I would relish, disruption and the OP of continued drama have always been blockable offenses, so Auron would be in the right" (Gares). While I'd be extremely hesitant to deal out a ban myself (i.e. I wouldn't do it), I wouldn't disagree if someone else did it - Gordon continuing in the way that Auron and Gares had considered disruptive would show that he just doesn't get it.
I don't think your stance would be approved by a consensus (Auron's already has some support, in any case), and would certainly not be an abuse of sysop tools that warrants blocking that sysop. It might even go against the current consensus of how unblocking should be carried out, and something like that isn't what's expected of our sysops. -- pling User Pling sig.png 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Brains. Regardless of how annoyed I am with this entire story, to have a sysop block an user and then another sysop just undo the block (and block the first sysop) feels much like GWW:1RR, only with sysop tools. That's not how contributors should behave, and definitely not how sysops should behave; discussing the matter and reaching a consensus (even if one in which one of the two originally involved sysops isn't happy) in order to solve conflicts is the responsability of contributors and the duty of sysops. Erasculio 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Shush Erasculio, this has the potential to generate delicious drama. Auron blocks Gordon, Xeeron bans Auron, Gares bans Xeeron, then Wyn bans everyone. So delicious. NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 19:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Leave me out of this.... I do not approve or support Auron's position. I believe that Gordon has acted well within his rights in most of the issues this involves, from requesting the block reviews, to opening the arb com for Lena. His attempt to propose a policy that would more regulate some of these things is also within his rights. If anyone is stirring up drama here it's Auron with his "stop now or I'll ban you" position. The fact that Auron has personal issues with the people involved, (he's the first one to claim Lena is behind every IP edit and also was most vocal about not lifting the permaban on User:Festooned Twinklepixie) leads me to believe he is not necessarily the most unbiased judge in the world of Gordon's actions. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with Brains and agree with Xeeron. I would support Xeeron on a block reversion or carry it out myself. —Tanaric 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
*cracks knuckles* So we, as the trusted members of the community, are hinting at a Ban War? Let's think about this, people.
My stance still stands. Brains pretty much hit it on the head (no pun intended). I'm all for someone wanting to improve the wiki. The User:Gordon Ecker/Block reviews bordered on rogue status, taking it upon himself to alter MooKitty's ban duration. Just the project alone caused enough drama that I don't even feel like reading it all.. As for Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Block appeals, it's a valiant effort. I had the same determination when doing GWW:NPA, but the Block Appeals project is in vain as there has been more than enough consensus to put it back on the shelf. Instead, staying obtuse to the opinions of others (I can recount if needed, but last I checked there were about eight admins/bcrats for disagreement in addition to regular users), it continues inviting more disruption. Honestly, I'd love it if Gordon just took a step back for the time being. As my statement said, I would not find any joy in banning another sysop. The only time I've seen it that even comes to mind is recently with Wyn.
Auron will more than admit that he is an extreme hardass and, at times, lacks tact, there is no questioning that. He carries a bigger ban stick than I ever did. Is that a good thing? In some cases, yes, in others, a resounding no. I do believe that Auron will keep to his word and from the responses posted above, exchange one wikidrama for another. Hence my words that I wish Gordon would step away from anything with block/ban in the title for now and reflect on what is going on instead of this escalating.
I also do want to be an intermediary here in response to Wyn stating that Auron is too biased for this discussion, citing examples of Lena and User:Festooned Twinklepixie. I haven't reviewed everything and that may be possibly true, yet I have read the discussion on User:Festooned Twinklepixie's block review. Wyn, you admitted of that you were biased regarding that issue, yet continued to fight for the ban to be lifted. If Auron is biased against Gordon, what would be the difference?
Overall, from the most recent events I have witnessed, there is a growing lack of synergy with the admin team. The majority of us used to have each others' backs and were there to step in and help if needed. I've seen more admin drama lately than I think I ever have in my 5 years. If some people need to be demoted in order to re-establish this synergy, then so be it, because when GW2W goes full steam, we are going to have tons of vandals, tons of bitching, and loads to do. I realize that GW2 is about a year or more away, but we all know that doing something around here takes months, especially something as big as restructuring.
Let's stop bickering, fix this, keep this wiki under control, and keep planning for the future. That's it. — Gares 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe we should be even considering GW2W as an issue here, as there is a different admin team there and there will be a different set of policies. As for "having each other's backs..." that really hasn't been true for quite awhile now, remember, you've been "away". I don't really see it ever coming back. What I do see coming back that in my opinion is unfortunate, is the "good ole boys club". -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Gares, you say that Auron's "threat" (for lack of a better word) to trade drama for drama is a reason for Gordon to cease the block appeals. All things being equal, do you find Auron's drama preferable to Gordon's, or do you simply think it would be easier to stop Gordon than to stop Auron? I think preventing future drama is a higher priority than stopping the current one, especially since it's clearly not going anywhere. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 07:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Felix, the mistakes and disruption Gordon's good faith attempts have already caused their bit of drama. If you reread my 2nd paragraph, last sentence, I believe you will find your answer. "Hence my words that I wish Gordon would step away from anything with block/ban in the title for now and reflect on what is going on instead of this escalating." I never said for Gordon to cease. Just to hold off for now, take a step back, and see the disruption that the Block Reviews and his obtuse nature for his Block project has done up to this point. Perhaps then, he might take a different route to try and accomplish his goals. I also stated Auron was in the right in that users that cause continued disruption have and will continued to be banned. It is also within other admins' rights to talk it over, come to a consensus, and act (overturning the block). However, I'd rather see this "stand-off" diffused before it goes any further.
Wyn, most of the "returning" admins have worked together for a long time, but I don't think we have ever considering ourselves a "good ole boys club." We argue with each other (sometimes hard: builds section discussion on GWiki comes to mind), but we have worked well together in our roles. If you feel like some of us would have a bias towards others, I can assure you that, as far as I know, that is not the case. As for mentioning GW2W and the admin team, that is because the majority of the admins here are also admins on GW2W, but I didn't mention policy. Just for the fact that a) It is too early to discuss anything regarding it for GW2W and b) As always with a new wiki, some existing policies will be ported, others scrapped and rewritten, policies from other wikis might be ported, etc. We'll just have to work with all that when the time comes. But with improving sysop synergy, that can be worked on now, if it's feasible and enough people think it is needed.
I hope that clears a few things up. — Gares 14:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Although I have been relatively semi-active/inactive in my editing I generally check the wiki at least once or twice a day and have read most of what has recently been going on since before the block review first started. Anyway considering Gordon's Block reviews/block appeal proposal (or draft maybe) as well as the recent arbcom request he put forward have caused a huge amount of disruption & drama, add to that the fact that disruption is one of the reasons listed when blocking, whether Gordon is a sysop or not has no relevance on whether he is blocked or not. Personally I would prefer to see Gordon step back and evaluate what has been said during the block review as well as on the block appeal page than see him end up being blocked since as I mention below I believe he started with good intentions to improve rather than anything else.

To echo Gares last statement, "I'm all for someone wanting to improve the wiki" and while Gordon most likely had the best intentions at the start of his recent block related ideas, considering the amount of opposition to said ideas; particularly the appeal side; he should of stepped back and evaluated on whether what he was trying to do was right for this wiki; that's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight however. Personally I think permabans take far too long on this wiki, I could name quite a few users whom I had thought would end up getting perma'ed (sp?) a while before they actually did (or for some several blocks before) and although I am all for giving people chances, some of these users had an excessive number. I won't of course be naming any names since doing so would be pointless at this point.

Block appeals as an idea isn't necessarily bad and although perma bans are something I would be against allowing appeals; specifically considering the number of blocks/chances necessary prior to a perma even being considered; the idea in itself might not have been so poorly received had it been done differently and specifically mentioned whether or not it applied to perma blocks ... again the benefit of hindsight. Whether or not it would of received the same or less opposition is debatable depending on how it was done and at this point irrelevant since it wasn't.

Anyway I think I've said enough for now; since I still have a lot on my watchlist; I will stop for now. --Kakarot Talk 11:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First a couple of points: I never fully followed the block review page and in general, I don't think the blocking policy needs to be formalized. Now, as to blocking Gordon for disruption, I disagree with that. It is causing a lot of WoTs and some heated debate, but I don't think it's quite block-worthy (a bit close though). Gordon is persistent, but other users have the right to repeat "I disagree, and here's why" and a one-man crusade isn't gonna get policy changed, so no worries there. However, I do think that his initial "I'll unblock unless others stop me" was a tad aggressive. Overall, I think Gordon's wisest course of action here is to step back and let the conversation die down, but between AGF and the fact that other people are freaking out (not Gordon), I don't see him continuing as block-worthy. --JonTheMon 14:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
With regard to Gordon. I have said before, and I am happy to repeat it here: He should stop pushing for a policy/project that clearly gathering no support. But, and that is an important but, pushing for a policy chance, in what is clearly a serious attempt by him and no joke page, editing policy drafts and setting up projects is not disruption. Even if consensus is clearly against the change. This wiki, and guildwiki before, have had their share of policy proposals, including heated discussions and those without much support. The time honored way to deal with the later is for a handful of people to post "I disagree, because ..." on the talk page to prevent it from being implemented, and then to forget about the page. Easy, simple, no drama. Using the accusation of "disruption" to silence someone arguing with you about administration of the wiki, especially when backed up by an open threat to ban someone is very close to censorship. Too close to censorship for my liking.
With regard to the two blocks. From the above I gather that both the threathened initial block of Gordon, as well as a following block on Auron do face disagreement. So with that known, I would now probably not block Auron, but stick to unblocking Gordon. --Xeeron 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
To be quite honest, there are very, very few instances where I would undo a block done to me by another sysop. In fact, before this instance, I would have said none at all. However, you blocking me for blocking Gordon is exactly the wrong way to solve anything or even make a point. You blocking me does not prevent me from blocking others or using any of my other sysop tools. If your disagreement is with my use of sysop tools, you would need to open a reconfirmation (or convince a bureaucrat that my actions are so out of line that they warrant immediate loss of sysop tools). Blocking me would do nothing outside of create additional drama. I am glad you see that it is an unsupported idea, but I'm concerned it came up at all. Did you honestly think preventing me from editing would fix anything? You've been a sysop for quite a while now, so I have to ask you - what the fuck would your blocking me solve, and why did you even think it was an option?
Secondly, I'm actually quite pissed at what you accuse me of in your last post. Censorship? Silencing the opposing party over matters of wiki administration? Are you on drugs, Xeeron? I can't comprehend that argument at all. Just in case you forgot, I'm Auron. I'm one of the most "Row Row Fight the Powa" people on this wiki. Opposing arguments and differing viewpoints are what makes wikis work - disagreement and the following resolution almost always brings positive outcomes to the wiki (most often in secluded cases, but occasionally they set precedent for change across the entire wiki). And, because it's a wiki, the disagreement and resolution means more than a simple vote tally - discussion and consensus are what we use to reach our final goal. I know this and I fight for it. I've fought for it for years now. The benefit to the wiki is more important than any one person or any one case - if a person is causing drama, intentionally or not, it is our job as sysops to rectify that drama. As my earlier posts describe, I left that case alone for longer than a month. I let Gordon do whatever bullshit Gordon wanted to do. I opposed his ideas, because they were all detrimental to the wiki, but I let him continue spamming the wiki with useless ideas and suggestions, because it was too early for me to do anything else. Back then, I didn't even really consider it disruption. People are going to disagree, and heated debates aren't uncommon.
As time went on, however, there was no other word for what Gordon was doing. He wasn't trolling outright - I think he had good intentions. He was doing what he thought was right. His actions and his inability to realize consensus was overwhelmingly against his ideas were causing more and more disruption, and it was no longer being contained on his userspace page. As it spread, I had to call it what it was - wiki disruption. Raptors did it. Kougar did it. Shard did it. They all had their personal vendettas, and none of them were thinking of the wiki as a whole in their blind zeal to see their goal fulfilled. Gordon fits this like a glove - he forgot what was best for the wiki (or was simply never able to see it), and in his blind zeal to see his ideas implemented, caused more damage to the wiki than was acceptable.
It's easy to write it off as an attempt at censorship. It's easy to claim that Auron is biased and Auron hates Gordon and therefore anything Auron does to Gordon is easily reverted and blah blah. However, welcome to reality. I don't block people to censor their arguments. When was the last time I blocked Salome, even though I've disagreed with pretty much everything he's ever said? When was the last time I blocked Wynthyst? When was the last time I blocked ShadowFog, FelixOmni, Mgrinshpon, Backsword, or even you in order to censor your comments? Oh, right, never. None of those people have tried to singlehandedly overturn year-old blocks or ignore 10+ people's arguments against their policy proposals. None of these people have created subpages in their userspace with the sole intent of second-guessing sysops. None of these people were disrupting the wiki enough to warrant a block; and though I disagree with quite a few of them more heatedly than I've ever disagreed with Gordon, not one of them has been blocked (or even given a serious warning). Please don't insult me by waving the "censorship" flag. I'll call it what it is - an insane accusation, without proof, motive or even a history of such actions.
To further counter the baseless claims of censorship, I have no need to censor Gordon's arguments. They defeated themselves. He had so much opposition on all of those pages that I wasn't scared of his ideas going through. I've been in arguments before where bad ideas are on the brink of being pushed through (or, in some cases, actually do), and even in those cases, I haven't taken someone aside and doled out bans or warnings because I disagreed with them.
After all of this, you're going to actually claim that I'm trying to censor someone's arguments simply because I disagree with them? I'm trying to ban someone to silence their opinion? I expected better judgment from you, Xeeron. I am sorely disappointed. There is a difference between you and I, however - I'm just going to let the insane arguments you put forth speak for themselves. I don't need to red herring. I don't need to claim censorship or bias or any of that. I can simply point at your argument, point at reality, and laugh because they are so far apart it isn't even an argument anymore. -Auron 07:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
For someone who wants to "let the insane arguments you put forth speak for themselves" (lovely rhetoric, btw), you sure put up a long wall of text. So here is my, somewhat shorter, reply:
I am glad that you realise that "Blocking me would do nothing outside of create additional drama". I hope you also realise that you blocking Gordon would be exactly the same. To quote a little more: "what the fuck would your blocking meGordon solve, and why did you even think it was an option?". If nothing else, I hope that my first reply above and the responses it generated made clear that your threat to block Gordon was quite simply the wrong way to deal with the situation.
You might not call it censorship to silence someone who puts forth unpopular ideas - I do. And silencing Gordon is exactly what you with your ill-conceived blocking threat, and many others, with aggressive talk page posts, almost did. That you compare him to Raptors and imply his actions are a "personal vendetta" shows that you have lost all sense of proportion here.
As a side note: If you love words like red herring, reread what I wrote and then reread your sentence: "It's easy to claim that Auron is biased and Auron hates Gordon and therefore anything Auron does to Gordon is easily reverted and blah blah." Did I claim any of that? No. Did you imply I did to easily refute an point I didn't make? Yes. Welcome to cheap rhetoric 101. Not good enough here. If you want to have a rhetoric sparing match, we can do that for a post or two, till I tire. I rather suggest a serious discussion though. For that, you should read the first part of your own post and substitute "Gordon" for "me". And then answer to it. --Xeeron 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. Gordon's policy proposal was creating unnecessary drama. Whether you like it or not, or wish to deny it, the fact still remains as is.
  2. Sysops have the right to intervene to prevent drama from continuing. Although blocking Gordon would be a "overkill" measure in my book, it is justified.
  3. You may or may not be right about the censorship part, but censorship is not necessarily an evil deed as you have painted it to be. I am also not sure why you are contradicting yourself here by attempting to censor Auron's viewpoint on the matter. Tip: Sysops censor vandalism, trolling and negative drama-causing content. It is only natural, right and necessary for censorship to exist anywhere.
It's one thing to put forth unpopular ideas, and another to continually put forth the same unpopular ideas even though community consensus has been reached. It's basically reviving a failed policy proposal numerous times without new and solid mitigating arguments. Pika Fan 10:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, you had the intention of banning me because of my sysop action - blocking Gordon. I had the intention of blocking Gordon because of edits - you know, the thing you block people to stop? Yeah, those. My blocking Gordon would have stopped the wiki disruption. You blocking me would have stopped nothing, let alone what you were trying to punish (the block placement). Sysops can still place blocks and delete pages and all that while blocked - which is the difference here. If your issue was with my sysop tool use, you were going about it the wrong way. My issue was with his edits, and after friendly warnings, an entire fucking Reconfirmation, and an unfriendly warning all failed, a block was going to stop his edits. You blocking me would not have stopped me blocking people, which is why your block would have been meaningless. You tried to turn my own logic back on me, except that did two things - firstly, it was a red herring. It has nothing to do with Gordon's case. Secondly, you still didn't refute the actual argument, yet here I am providing additional details so even you can see the difference between your blocking me and my blocking Gordon.
You're siding with him on this issue, which is fine - except you're ignoring all of the stuff I'm bringing up. He got reconfirmed, Xeeron - and not by trolls or bandwagoners. That is a sign that people have an issue with how he's doing things. He retained sysop powers, unfortunately, but regardless of the outcome, the fact that a recon had to be undertaken should have sent a message.
It didn't. He kept doing what he was doing that got him reconfirmed, except he didn't bother keeping it in his userspace anymore. That was where my warning came in. Remember Karlos? The whole "I'm the only one who knows how to do things?" I was having those flashbacks all over again, especially when Gordon responded to my post. Karlos was barraged with friendly "hey, we used to be cool, but what happened to you?" messages. Gordon got a number of those as well. Then Gordon got a reconfirmation. Why is that? Do people get "hey, is everything okay?" messages and reconfirmations when they're doing everything right? No, they get them when stuff is fucked up. I'm sorry you feel like ignoring all of this and pretending that Gordon is arguing without creating drama. I'm also sorry that you're unable to see that, while his arguments haven't benefited the wiki at all, his drama has hurt it.
Your accusations of censorship are still insane. They are still without merit, motive, or a history of similar action on my part. You can talk about rhetoric all you want, but you haven't countered a single one of my points - you have merely skirted them. Gordon was being disruptive. You cannot deny this without ignoring reality. Sysops have the right and power to do what they need to do deal with disruption (within reason, obviously - a block for disruption, following numerous warnings and a reconfirmation, is nowhere near outside a sysop's bounds). You disagree with my intention to block Gordon, which is fine - you need to discuss it first (sort of like what I did with Gordon) before placing the banhammer or reverting sysop actions. You know, the whole discussion to reach consensus thing? You were planning to ignore it entirely in your actions, fuck the consequences. Sysops can act how they see fit - they are trusted not to act in haste or anger, or in bias or in acts of friendship. You ignored all evidence of Gordon's unabated drama-mongering and, in essence, had your knife at my throat, when I'm the one who's been following protocol here. Step the fuck back and look at this case from a neutral POV. You are free to disagree with me. You are not free to, without discussion, revert my bans without getting an earful from me, and on top of that, ban me without so much as a warning. You are acting with your feelings instead of your intellect here, and I am deeply sorry you cannot see it happening. As soon as you feel you can discuss the issue without bringing up insane claims of censorship and stick to the issue (Gordon's disruption), you know where to find me. -Auron 12:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the best we can get out of this is agreeing to disagree.
  • You say blocking a sysop does not stop that sysop's use of sysop tools. I disagree. Every sysop that is blocked and still has his senses with him would not further use sysop tools. And sysops without their senses can always unblock themselves to continue editing. So the effect of a block on editing and use of sysop tools is the same.
  • You say this has nothing to do with Gordon's case. Need I even answer that? I obviously disagree.
  • You say Gordon was disruptive and your proof is ... that you say so. I disagree.
  • You say my words are insane and your proof is ... well, there is no hint of a proof in your post, only more accusations. I also disagree.
  • You say that you posting (to Gordon) "don't do X or I'll ban you" is discussing, while me posting "don't do Y or I'll ban you" (to you) is not. I disagree once more. Oh and you claim to know what I was planning not to do ... except, you don't.
  • "You're siding with him on this issue" - You obviously didn't read what I said about his initiative before [1]. Don't even try to turn this into "Xeeron tries to help Gordon push for unbans". Wiki's have edit histories to prove you wrong.
The one big question I still want to have answered from you is: Do you seriously think that blocking Gordon would have reduced the level of drama on the wiki? --Xeeron 17:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The one big question I'd have answered (from all involved) is: since when is minimizing or preventing "drama" a responsibility or goal for the sysop team? —Tanaric 17:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that sysops act to minimize or prevent disruption. While there are both "positive" and "negative" forms of drama, I am referring to the latter(although I apologize for not making this clearer), and I am sure that everyone else is using "drama" in that context. Pika Fan 18:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's been shown that some of the sysops have a completely different view of what constitutes "disruption", as well, as very different views on how to minimize it. Pling's recent ban of me to "stop disruption" over a discussion that had been over for hours pretty much proves that some are willing to go to extreme lengths that actually create much more drama than the said "disruption" created in the first place. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me the only difference between positive drama and negative drama is whether you agree or disagree with the argument in question. This is not a good benchmark for sysop discretion. —Tanaric 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive?----X treme 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving an active discussion is not a good idea and my talk page is not that full yet. --Xeeron 17:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly to anyone here I agree with both Xeeron and Tanaric's stance on this issue. Gordon's policy proposal is not a breach of our guidelines and the resultant drama is due to many user's inability to remain calm, collected and mature about an issue. It is not however Gordon's fault if other's choose to generate drama based upon a perfectly valid, all be it unpopular, policy proposal, thus I will also state that any ban of Gordon on this issue, will be lifted immediately (by myself or another like minded sysop). Disruption as intended in our guidelines, is not about one person's wish to change policies through our already established methods. To use one's sysop powers in such a manner is censorship, plain and simple and that is NOT what we as a sysop team should be doing. I do not agree with Gordon's most recent proposal although I do think he has a noble intent and as a user I feel he should drop the issue, however as a sysop, I have no issue with it whatsoever, as this is NOT AN ADMIN ISSUE. That being said however I do not think a resulting ban war is in anyway beneficial to the wiki either. Thus as an ADMIN I would suggest that Auron back's down here as from what I can see, it would be his actions which could be seen as a breach of our admin policy, not Gordons. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 19:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: Also to agree with Tanaric's point above, the sysop's team main focus should not be preventing drama. It should be upholding the wiki's policies as they are stated both in writing and in spirit. I am fully agreed with him, that this is a very slippery slope for us to get on. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 19:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

crazy[edit]

Actually I was using that as an ironic or sarcastic term of endearment, referring to how certain individuals who shall not be named think you totally overreacted to that "revelation". Rest assured that you are not the only person who was disappoint (though I can't claim that my jaw dropped, so to speak). Vili 点 User talk:Vili 02:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

When I read your post, it was not entirely clear to me how that "crazy" was meant (irony is fiendishly difficult to pull off on the internet). Thanks for clarifying. --Xeeron 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that my response was not that nothing should be done about this, but rather that anything done should not purely target Wynthyst, that would be a witch hunt. The problem is much wider than Wynthyst trolling Lacky once and laughing about it later. If you want to tackle that problem, it needs to be tackled as a whole, not with just a knee-jerk punishment for Wyn. Misery 02:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that the problem is not a one-off action by Wyn, or by Auron. It is rather an attitude that has been slowly creeping into the wiki. An attitude of being more lenient with some users, of looking the other way when trolling is done by certain people, and, most damaging, the apparant feeling by a certain "in" circle that they are not bound by rules that work for the rest. --Xeeron 17:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This kind of thing has gone on since I first had an account. A few more people is involved now, that's about the only difference. Misery 18:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
When I started editing on GW, I never saw anything like that. And I don't remember it either from the first days of GWW. But in any case, whether my memory is right or wrong is not the crucial point here. The problem is that it is here right now, and that we need to do something to change it. --Xeeron 00:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm a newfag, it was there when I started. Changing culture is very difficult and I wish you luck, but the one piece of advice I will give you is that trying to shut down the IRC channel will solve nothing, it will shift, either to another channel, another server, or another medium. I remember a time when there was a php chatroom which was populated almost purely to co-ordinate trolling on GWW. Sysops were only marginally involved. Misery 00:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The IRC chat is off wiki. If people do all sorts of crap there, I am not happy about it, but it is not something that falls withhin the policy framework of this wiki. However, stuff that happens on-wiki does. One thing all this has turned my attention on is sockpuppets. They have legitimate uses, but I think the malign uses outweight the benefitial ones by a far now. And it is reasonably simple to preserve the benefits while stopping the trollish ones. Maybe I'll have a shot at a draft about it. --Xeeron 23:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me know if you draft that. There are a bunch of things we could use at the moment such as the right to disappear. Ariyen was bad enough at being someone else that everyone knew anyway and decided to start reappearing while she was still banned, but I would like to see future incarnations of the same event go a lot better, without everyone calling them out the moment it became obvious. I suspect part of the reason for the original policy would have been the lack of checkuser meaning that any sock policy would have been impossible to enforce. Misery 07:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
See Guild Wars Wiki:Sockpuppets. I thought about adding a clause about "privately" declaring a puppet by asking the bureaucrats, but I could not come around a solution on how to deal with the possibility of admins blocking that puppet. It looks like in such a case all sysops would need to be informed. So I left it out for now, it looks like a very rare case, that would be more connected to a possible right to disappear policy. --Xeeron 14:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Chocolate Bunny[edit]

The Fury dropped one for me in Foundry. Quite strange.--User Oneshot O.JPGneshot 22:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

even imortal demons from the depths of hell like bunnys <3--Neil2250 , Render Lord User Neil2250 sig icon5.jpg 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I actually laughed. Props, and Thanks! NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 01:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Guide to PvE[edit]

What the fuck is the idea of removing the strategy section?

There are several sections on tactics giving detailed instructions about moment to moment and day to day activities. The strategy section is not particularly about 'fast leveling'. It's about having an over-all plan and things that might be important to those plans.

If you have a problem with the section, discuss it before you yank it.

--Max 2 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your strategy section really isn't appropriate for the current tone of the article (not that your tips were really that good anyway). The tone of the article was more about combat in pve than questing or leveling. --JonTheMon 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
If the page was titled 'PvE Tactics', 'PvE Combat', or something like that, I'd cede you the point, but its a 'Guide', supposedly to all things PvE. It needs some longer range stuff, so I put some in. If the stuff was not all that great, improve on it, Don't just yank it!. --Max 2 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to yank that note when it first appeared but I controlled my self. Seriously, it was a bad set of tips that are already in different articles. The quest leveling tip is important for perma-pre which is already in the respective pages. And gather resource as in Alkar's potion? that's already in that quest page. --Lania ElderfireUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 03:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I might have been a bit fast in removing it, but it does not have a place in the article. It only targeted 2 very limited topics: Who is worried about gaining XP in PvE, no one but survivors & perma-pre and these have their own guides. And the number of quests where you can "gather resources" is what? 2 out of 2000? As Lania said above, that belongs on the respective quest pages. --Xeeron 10:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Lenia
It was not just a note, it was an entire sub-topic. I'm glad you resisted the impulse, but the fact that you had the impulse at all shows that you do not have the welfare of the wiki at heart. It would have been much better to have added or modified the content rather than destroy it.
Xeeron
Yes, more than a bit fast. There still needs to be a 'Strategy' sub-topic that deals with longer term goals. As for the information being in other places, that is great, but there should be links to those places!. As I said to Lenia, your basic impulse seems to be destructive rather than constructive, and that does not help the wiki.
--Max 2 12:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
What "longer term goals"? PvE is straight forward and any longer term impact can be messured by looking at your maxed titles and/or at the stuff in your inventory. Neither of which needs to be described in the article. And for me, there is a value in being consise. We can easily enlarge that article to 10mb by adding all tons of info that is vaguely related, but I'd not call that constructive. --Xeeron 23:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, bullshit. Perm-pre is a long term goal. Survivor is a long term goal. Understanding how the landscape changes as sequences of quests and missions are completed is long term, not day-to-day. Please remove your blinders and open your mind. --Max 2 02:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Perma pre (LDoA) and Survivor both have their own pages. He just mentioned this. --Kyoshi (Talk) User Kyoshi sig.png 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and there should be links to those pages in a 'Guide to PvE' at the minimum. A section on longer term activity is needed if only as a place to put such links. I think more than that minimum should be added. --Max 2 03:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Better. --Max 2 10:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I hate to be a bother but, why should character only PvE titles like LDoA or survivor be favored over other account-wide PvE titles like treasure hunter, wisdom, lucky/unlucky, and allegiance titles? Or every other character only PvE titles? What makes LDoA and survivor so special that it deserves a related article mention that I'm not aware of? Just because Max2 is a loud voice here? I would suggest to either remove the links, and add either a link just to the titles page or create a category for PvE only tiles and link it to that. Cause right now it seems like LDoA and survivor is more important for new characters to peruse over any other title. --Lania ElderfireUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 13:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I would say they are more important. Most people lose Survivor before they even know about title tracks. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Then again you can argue impact on PvE gameplay. Titles for PvE only skills have a significant impact on gameplay by allowing character to use overpowered skills. Or how about better salvage and lock pick retention with treasure hunter title? Everyone has a different metric to determine "what's" important to them, and for me Survivor and LDoA is a waste of time because it has no impact on PvE gameplay. --Lania ElderfireUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 14:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It has a huge impact on PvE gameplay. It just doesn't provide any tangible benefits. I would say to possibly remove the LDoA link because almost every new player will not want to get it off the bat. --JonTheMon 14:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What about a compromise section about PvE titles in general? Giving basic information about the affects some offer to PvE play, with a link to the titles page? We could argue the benefits or non benefits of each forever, and it will be different for each person. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 14:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I like that idea, it gives new people some info about titles and peruse it if it interests them. In reply to Jon, didn't I say that everyone has a different metric to determine what's important? I just have a preference for titles that provide actual benefits and impact PvE gameplay in that manner. --Lania ElderfireUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 14:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WiK[edit]

Want to test out an idea on you. As you now, I didn' like your idea becuase it would create a lot of piddly litle articles without enoug h content to justify their existance. However, latley, i've been thinkin we need to do something in line with what you suggested. One possibility is to combine enounter that form a storyline, such as Bauer's, in a single article, or all of the encounters if 8 is all that will exist. That would have the benefit that people who wants to follow a storyline would have all the material naturally follow. (we could do that with links too, ofc) Backsword 19:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If they all fit, putting them in one article per "storyline" is an worthwhile idea. Surely better than having them on different explorable area pages. --Xeeron 10:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 13:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks. For now, none of them has more than two encounters, but I expect more content. Backsword 13:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Those last two blocks of your's I've "extended". --JonTheMon 06:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

np. --Xeeron 09:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Election nom[edit]

Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2010-10 bureaucrat election/Xeeron. -- pling User Pling sig.png 20:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)