Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 12

FYI Block evasions (suspected)

Shouldn't the block duration also be extended on the two IPs to match the duration of the account? Since once the block on either of the IPs has ended, the IP can be used to edit before the block on the account has ended, which would result in evading the block again. --Silver Edge 04:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What is: "Confirmed via CheckUser"? Yoshida Keiji talk 12:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=check+user -Auron 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL that animation is awesome (you could teach me how to do it). I am surprised, I wasn't aware such tool existed. I have read many corners (pages) of wiki in my attempt to fast learn/understand but I never saw a page describing it. After your direction, I went to see GWW:RfA but it is not even mentioned there. Yoshida Keiji talk 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you just call Auron a tool? Wouldn't be the first time ^_^ --snograt 15:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

Following on from GWW:NOTICE#Request to lock "Ask an account question":

I'm not sure that the support link should be in the sidebar under the "Support" heading, since that section is for wiki support rather than game support. It's important to distinguish between wiki and ANet/game, and I think having that link there conflates the two a bit. (It should also be called something other than "support", but I'm talking more about what the link is about than what it says.) pling 21:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Presence increase request

Usually I am very patient, and I also don't like to rat other people but...

Due to the late bad administration of the two known "shadowy" sysops Alex and Auron, I no longer feel any kind of confidence in letting only these two representing the board. I would like to see more presence of the others type of administrators of the enlightened type, the ones you don't need to turn on three different anti-bullshit programs before starting to read what they say. The corruption brought by these by hypocritically "twisting" policy, guidelines and common practice is causing too much deformation within the Community.

• It is ridiculous for the most verbal abusive user to place warnings on others who casually curse.
• And for what was worst having Auron trying to mistakenly tag me for w:Red Herring and/or w:Wikilawyering, because those concepts indicate the behavior of two sides with similar attitudes blaming each other, but we all know by this time only Alex and Auron are known to be daily-bad-mouthes. Because others swear every now and then, that does not make everybody to be the same.
• Several Alex reverts have had non-serious edit summaries, which he then claims to know how to use this feature...and for whats hipocritic, he then proceeds to tell others not do what he himself has been abusing all this long. And the worst part is the main reason of this message, Alex reverts clearly oppose previously formed consensus, which is not the expected behavior from an administrator. Administrators are supposed to "enforce" Community decisions and NOT break then himself.

It has come to a time when instead of letting things play at a normal pace, I feel the need to speed up my character and bring this issue to the surface. Because even after the decision to only document GW1 has been agreed upon, User:Konig Des Todes still continues to try to document GW2 content within the GWW which is of a disrupting nature.

• He already tried to kill Nicholas the Traveler.
• And now is writing about GW2 items in the GWW, then what's the GW2W for?

As I was saying above, both Alex and Auron being the most active among the other administrators is becoming worrisome for the utterly failed accusation and comparison made not long ago based on a bad example:

"It's what we call a red herring. When you're speeding down a highway and a cop pulls you over, he writes you a ticket for breaking traffic laws. If you try to counter it by saying "oh, but you were speeding too!" it doesn't actually change the fact that you were speeding, and you're still going to pay the ticket. If your interest is actually to get the "ticket" nullified, you'd do well to keep the discussion on your own actions and why they are or are not a violation of wiki policy - and not on what Alex does on unrelated wikis for the hell of it. Again, though, this doesn't mean "wikilawyer your heart out." A couple of links to prove your point will suffice, along with an actual explanation as to why your actions weren't against policy (at least the spirit, if not the letter)." If administrators here are represented in this example as cops: Well, both Auron and Alex are pretty much looking like those of the TV series w:The Shield, w:Vic Mackey and w:Shane Vendrell. Those who are supposed to project the purpose of the laws are the ones who turn up breaking them themselves, like telling others to watch Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks, but seen around "bashing others" which is ridiculous.

• User_talk:Yoshida_Keiji/Archive_4_(special)
• From Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Adminship#New_bureaucrat
• "I'm indifferent. The role of bcrat has expanded since I last held a seat years ago, but sysop still gives me more elbow room to bash people around with. Tanetris would be a fine choice for bcrat. -Auron 05:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC) "

The case of Konig documenting GW2 content in the GWW is getting annoying and regardless of formed consensus, no administrator had been seen taking any action, but this is because we are in need of some "real" administrators instead. I want to request a more balanced administration board based on the natural inclination: Constructive/Desctructive for a better balance and put in hold all the corruption seen as of late. After reading several talks across both wikis, I have found Konig displaying self-contradictory opinons and behavior as of Double personality by strongly opposing to strongly supportive and viceversa in matters like Spoilers (Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Guidelines#Guideline_against_spoiler_tags...) and the usage of {{gw2w}}... but without finding any statements literaly expressing his "change of mind".

¥oshida Keiji(talk) 10:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually... submitted a complaint against Konig? Like posted on the noticeboard or anything? I just browsed through the issue archives, and the most recent thing with Konig's name on it is *him* reporting another user in 2010. Another section in the vandal archive is him reporting a vandal bot, also in 2010. If Konig is such an issue, why haven't you even reported him on the noticeboard?

In the section titled "Before posting an issue here, consider the following," several pieces of advice are listed:

• Do not post issues regarding content disputes. Try making a request for comments instead.
• Mediation requests between users should only be made if a resolution could not be reached between users.

In addition to failing to post the issue on the noticeboard at all, these two "please do before" options are completely relevant to your case. You have an issue with his approach to content, and yet have not posted on his talk page discussing it (I just went through his recent archives and did a Search for your sig, and found nothing). In addition to not having discussed it directly with the user, you haven't submitted your issue as a request for comment, either. You have not followed *any* of the steps that this wiki lays out for you to help solve your issue. You haven't called for community input, you haven't called for sysop input, nor have you talked to the user directly on his page, with all of your issues clearly stated. After this triple-layer failure to follow procedure on your part, it's... the sysops' fault the issue wasn't taken care of? The same sysops who have a noticeboard you didn't post anything on?

And it's not just that. It's not that the sysops are at fault because they aren't psychic and able to know what users might post to the noticeboard but haven't (because following procedure is for other people, right?), it's that these two sysops in particular, Chieftain Alex and myself, are "shadowy." No evidence is linked to support the claim, but yet you make the claim like it's something everyone knows. You call for more "enlightened" sysops, ones you don't have to "turn on three different anti-bullshit programs before starting to read what they say." But guess what? That's precisely what I represent. I am the sysop you don't have to turn on anti-bullshit programs to read what I say. I have always been that sysop. I have never settled for bullshit, and have always called things as I've seen them. In fact, that's why I've been reconfirmed several times, on this wiki and on GW2W, with comments that always read something like "can be a little hard to get along with, but this person never gets bogged down by bullshit." Because I don't. I never have, and I don't plan to. If you're looking for the single least bullshitty sysop on this wiki, I am right here, and I have not gone anywhere.

I don't abide bullshit, which is why I'm having distinct trouble with your post here. You start off by attacking the character of the two active sysops (not even their actions, or their posts, but their character) by saying they are "the two known "shadowy" sysops". This is a personal attack (one called Poisoning the Well, link below), which is against policy. To follow it up, you post outright lies and fabrication in "defense" of your claim. Naturally, you don't link to any evidence; because reality does not support your claims.

"It is ridiculous for the most verbal abusive user to place warnings on others who casually curse. "

I have never, at any point in my sysop career, issued any kind of a warning for cursing. I have personally defended every user's right to swear, and publicly voiced my opposition to such policy suggestions as Guild Wars Wiki:No profanity. This is not only a blatant lie, but one I find offensive because of what I've done to keep this wiki free of unnecessary censorship - a battle I continue fighting even on GW2W.

"And for what was worst having Auron trying to mistakenly tag me for w:Red Herring and/or w:Wikilawyering..."

Yes, I linked to your posts to Alex that were both completely off-topic and trying to argue the minutia of the letter of the law to defend unacceptable behavior. That's precisely what Red Herring and Wikilawyering both mean.

"because those concepts indicate the behavior of two sides with similar attitudes blaming each other"

Er... no, that has literally nothing to do with red herrings or wikilawyering. Christ, you even *linked* to the articles about each; how did you fail to read them? From the top of the Wikipedia article: "A red herring is a figurative expression referring to a logical fallacy in which a clue or piece of information is or is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual question." That's precisely what your overly verbose posts to Alex included; a whole lot of waffle to draw attention away from the actual arguments. That's precisely what prompted my calling it a red herring. Red herrings have nothing to do with "similar attitudes blaming each other." Nothing at all. From the page on W:Wikilawyering,

1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

1 holds no relevance to your case, but #2-4 outline precisely what you were doing in your walls of text to Alex. Ignoring the spirit of the policy in an attempt to defend unacceptable behavior/inappropriate actions with the letter of the policy. You linked to this, ironically enough, in an attempt to wiki-lawyer. It might have done you some good to read it through first, so you could at least tell you were shooting your own argument in the foot.

"but we all know by this time only Alex and Auron are known to be daily-bad-mouthes."

And this point, on top of being completely wrong (because, again, I've never banned anyone for foul language and never will) is another logical fallacy called w:Poisoning the well. Because you have no actual argument to make (or in your case, the one you make is a complete fabrication), you attempt to cast the character of those involved into question. Quoting from that page, "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem" It is, again, a personal attack (argumentum ad hominem, in case you missed it) because it's focusing on the people instead of their arguments. In this case, however, it's additionally insulting because the "information" that is "pre-emptively presented" is provably untrue. Not only are you trying to discredit my character, you're trying to do so via literally inventing stories out of the blue that have no connection to reality whatsoever. That, my good friend, is setting off my bullshit-o-meter.

"Several Alex reverts have had non-serious edit summaries, which he then claims to know how to use this feature."

Uh... Yes, these are volunteers editing a wiki about a video game. A non-serious edit summary is completely acceptable. They've been done since the early days of GWiki, and have never been looked upon negatively nor have they been against any policies (spirit or letter!). Even the most noble of sysops and bureaucrats have the occasional chuckle or in-joke with friends via the edit summary. Unless you're hinting that every user that has ever used a non-serious edit summary "doesn't know" how to use edit summaries, I'm not really sure where this is even coming from.

"and for whats hipocritic, he then proceeds to tell others not do what he himself has been abusing all this long"

Erm... link? I don't remember Alex telling anyone not to ever have non-serious edit summaries. Not that I don't believe you or anything, but since you are willing to blatantly lie about my supposed censorship despite me fighting against it for years, I'd be more comforted with some actual proof of his wrongdoing.

"And the worst part is the main reason of this message, Alex reverts clearly oppose previously formed consensus, which is not the expected behavior from an administrator. Administrators are supposed to "enforce" Community decisions and NOT break then himself."

Having literally no idea what this is in reference to (and not being able to figure it out by reading your link, which doesn't seem to include any evidence of consensus-breaking), I again remind you that any sysop concerns can be raised via the request for reconfirmation pages with links to concerns and a concise summary of your issue with that sysop. If enough support (or dissent, depending on POV) grows, the sysop can be reconfirmed, and the community will be re-polled on their take of the sysop's behavior, with the new evidence in mind. Might I ask why you haven't posted even once on a reconfirmation page, despite apparently having such big beefs with the sysops?

"Because even after the decision to only document GW1 has been agreed upon, User:Konig Des Todes still continues to try to document GW2 content within the GWW which is of a disrupting nature."

This. Is. A. Content. Issue. There are already ways and means to bring up your content disputes; either directly to the user in question, or to the community at large via request for comment. You've done neither. If you were truly interested in having this issue resolved, why have you not followed any of the accepted methods of content conflict resolution that have worked on this wiki for 6+ years? And even more "worrisome," why have you tried to blame sysops for your failure to follow any of these methods when the sysops are expected to wait until users have tried to solve situations between themselves? Sysops are, in the end, here to police users; NOT content. We only police content as far as our protect tools can keep a page from being revert warred upon, and our block tool can prevent vandals from harming more pages. Since neither revert wars nor vandal sprees are the issue here, our sysop tools have nothing to do with your disagreement with Konig Des Todes.

"As I was saying above, both Alex and Auron being the most active among the other administrators is becoming worrisome for the utterly failed accusation and comparison made not long ago based on a bad example"

My comments were based on impartial observation of your interaction with other users. They were completely accurate then, and they remain accurate now. Your inability to understand basic concepts like "red herring" despite linking to a page with its definition clearly displayed at the top, your blatant lies and falsifications when you have no argument with merit, your ignorance of sysop duties despite attempting to claim that sysops aren't doing their jobs, your repeated personal attacks on various users despite that being a policy violation, and your complete disinterest in actually coming to any kind of a resolution with Konig (as evidenced by your failure to follow any of the accepted channels for content disputes, and indeed attempting to claim that it's the sysops' responsibility despite it being no such thing) all lead me to the same conclusion.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what sysops do, yet you claim they aren't doing their jobs. You don't know what policies say or mean, yet you still attempt to wiki-lawyer with them ad nauseam (despite breaking them). You don't know how to solve issues yourself, exert zero effort trying to do so, yet still act offended and befuddled when nothing gets done. You lie and invent complete bullshit when you run out of arguments that are flimsy to begin with. But worst of all, you pretend that you're doing good for the wiki. You pretend that Konig is some Evil Mastermind with his tendrils all throughout the wiki. You pretend that Alex and I are corrupt government politicians, paid off by the Troll Union to let them run rampant and bring local housing prices down. And you pretend that you're the Light in the Darkness. The Holy Avenger. The One Who can Bring an End to All Evils on a Small Video Game Wiki about a Video Game that Came Out 8 Years Ago. It's completely insane.

You can do what you want. You can vote on reconfirmations, you can attempt to get a new bureaucrat elected. Nobody is going to take you seriously because you are completely disconnected from reality, and your post here proved it better than I ever could. -Auron 13:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Yoshida - If you would like to post a list of specific incidents (links to the edits, articles, talk pages, etc...) where you feel there have been rules broken, along with links to the specific rules that are broken, they will be looked into. Content disputes are not generally Sysop/BC issues unless the dispute gets out of hand.

@ Auron - WOT is TL;DR, sorry if you've already stated what I said.

--Rainith (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

omg offended etc. Yeah, I've brought up reconfirmations twice now, Yoshida didn't seem keen on them the last time either. -Auron 17:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Looked at Alex's contribs. Not seeing these terrible reverts.

Looked at the "previously formed consensus" link. Doesn't seem like any sort of clear consensus so much as a question with a vague "maybe, kinda depends" answer.

Looked at Konig's contribs... Is this about the Vekk article? Are we having walls of text over how/whether to document the fact that a random piece of equipment in GW2 is named after a GW1 character? From what I can see of this, this seems more like people with strong opinions skirting around the edges of edit warring than one person being the "evil rule-breaking perpetrator". In that case, at least Konig responded on the talk page. I note that you did not.

Looked at Auron's contribs and logs. Not seeing anything particularly out of line.

Looked at Auron's WoT. It's long, and I skimmed parts, but it mostly seems reasonable and relevant.

Looked at Rainith's reply. It's nice to see Rainith, and his request for specific incidents saves me the trouble.

Looked at Auron edit-conflicting me. Nothing of worth.

So yeah, without more to go on, I don't see where there is an admin issue at the moment. - Tanetris (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This cuddly-cute discussion made me look at the list of admins. Would it be possible to get an update? Thanks! Steve1 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tanetris: I lol’d.

Rainith: Hiya! Good to see you’re still alive!

Auron: God. Did I just read all that? You’re overdoing it. Really. I’m not used to WOTs anymore… :(

Yoshida: If quote stuff from somewhere, or refer to something, it helps a lot if you link to it. Otherwise we see either random out-of-context quotes that cannot be trusted anyway, or just get your personal interpretation of what happened. Neither is appropriate for discussing these kinds of things.

That being said. Yeah, I kind of agree with what Auron said. If you have issues with a user, you should try to talk to them and solve the problem on your own. If you can’t solve it, ask for admins to help you. You cannot expect admins to magically figure out your personal problems, which you apparently never mentioned anywhere else (?), and solve them.

Content issues have to be solved by the community; administrators have no further say there. So bring it up somewhere, and point people to it. Issues with users, as said, should be handled on your own first. If that doesn’t lead anywhere, ask for help. And finally, issues with administrators should be brought up on their talk pages first so they can react to it, or try to explain their behavior (if there even was such a thing), or otherwise you are free to start a RFC for them.

Steve1: Not exactly sure what kind of update you want. Our admin list is more or less current. If you think there should be more administrators, feel free to start a request for adminship. It’s not in our hands, but in yours. poke | talk 02:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that aforementioned list is a bit dated. I didn't do a very thorough check, but as an example: JonTheMon seems less than active. And maybe Rainith and Tanetris sterted to be active again. Some other "semi-active" sysops seem very much inactive to me.

I don't need more admins, you seem to mistake me with YK - but don't worry, that's a mistake easily made! ;-P Steve1 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, I think it depends on the definition of “active” and “semi-active”, but I guess you are right for some of them. But I also know that quite a few of them are “active” in the sense that they regularly check their talk page or watchlist for stuff that happened. poke | talk 13:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As an example for myself, I check my watchlist and (now that it isn't spammed with bot signups) recent changes everyday. But I don't take any action if I don't see anything that needs to be done. I no longer really add or update articles as I don't play the game anymore. I consider that more of a semi-active role than an active one. --Rainith (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I check watchlist daily, and occasionally poke my nose around RC and see what's what, but rarely take action unless it's either something quick (e.g. banning a bot), or important (e.g. a call for admin response), or directly relevant to me (e.g. posting on my talk page). I'm fairly satisfied with "semiactive" as an accurate descriptor. - Tanetris (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@auron: humour; "Konig is some Evil Mastermind" - probably true

@topic: we've got more than enough users capable of reviewing the few remaining edits on a wiki for a game over eight years old. the spambot problem is gone. the days when the userbase was large enough for constant bitter disputes is long gone - and easily solved with a whack-a-mole/'bash' solution although everyone would be displeased by that option >.> nothing will likely revive the drop in general activity, but thats ok. -Chieftain Alex 23:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"He already tried to kill Nicholas the Traveler. " Alas, my assassination attempt failed. *twirls mustache*

"Because even after the decision to only document GW1 has been agreed upon, User:Konig Des Todes still continues to try to document GW2 content within the GWW which is of a disrupting nature." "And now is writing about GW2 items in the GWW, then what's the GW2W for?" - y'see, the discussion was about lore in the main articles. What I provided afterwards was small trivia tidbits. Even then, I wouldn't call 2 people's comments versus 1 person's comment a consensus.

And about me documenting GW2 info... the only recent thing I've done in this regards was the Vekk article, which was my attempt to compromise over the use of using a tag that links to an utterly unhelpful article - someone added the tag, I removed and added the only relevant part in GW2 in replacement as a compromise.

As to "without finding any statements literally expressing his "change of mind"" Didn't know I had to document the alteration of my views on every matter - even though in this situation, there was no change of mind. You see, the spoiler discussion was about reducing the number of spoiler tags whereas the GW2 info on this wiki's discussion was about either lore in the main articles or minor bits to be placed in trivia when viable and could prove of interest to reader (two different discussions, no true consensus in either - one had lack of comments, the other had no ending agreement as you yourself state while linking something that doesn't support what you did (go with one side of the dispute)).

"Konig is some Evil Mastermind" NEIN! I've been found out! *flutters cape and twirls mustache before fleeing*. Konig 00:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I'd like to add that despite both discussions about GW2 info being on GWW reaching no consensus, you had went and removed notes on dozens of articles, enacting as if there was a consensus. Konig 01:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Mixed content problem

The articles where the main text has been modified, not the trivia section presents four problems:

1.- Confusion: Imagine a GW1 player searching with F10 an article and finds out mixed lore content which there is nowhere to be found because it is from GW2. This generates misunderstandings. You can't expect everybody to use the talk pages, they will just return to the game and mention it at the alliance chat (from where I find many reasons to edit the wiki.)

2.- Selfishness: Konig has been removing information regarding "Mysterious/Uncertain" features. By taking these game elements away and replacing the lore concepts with GW2 data. Konig ends up ripping off a part of the game from everybody else who just started (yes, I keep recruiting new players even as of 2013 August), haven't finished the game yet or did not bought GW2 either. What's Mysterious about GW1 shouldn't be removed because the intrigue is motivation for players to continue advancing through the campaigns. And because Konig doesn't consider other people's game, this is an example of selfishness, not "quality improvement", as he calls it.

3.- Consistency across the wiki: During the whole 2012, I haven't seen anybody else besides me going into a spree of articles overhauling as I did for Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Mission articles. During each of these overhauls I have also been modifying all other pages linked from it so that the entire wiki is in harmony with each and all articles. I don't want to imagine my next overhauls being halted because the related pages to any target article has GW2 content mixed with GW1 content. If these mixes continue to spread, it will be much harder to upkeep the wiki. Specially because the GW2 content, instead of being placed on a separate section, its been incorporated to the main text.

4.- Spoilers without the proper tag.

Finally I still recommend that those articles with mixed content should be reverted to their state prior GW2 "confirmations" and hopefully if possible a policy to stop all this crazyness. ¥oshida Keiji(talk) 03:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

--> GWW:CP? This is still a content issue, not an admin one. There is no clear consensus on what to do, and both parties are acting like there is and it's whatever they're already doing. More discussion is obviously required. Admins aren't going to just ban people you disagree with, no matter how shadowy we may be. -Auron 04:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I can understand how can people react after something had been said to anybody and your first reply has many comments that are not brought from a calm mind, as in current state, not permanent. The last part of this reply is an example of it. I never asked anybody to be banned. Replying your first response and collect the links is very anal, and you end up saying I'm disconnected from reality, but then your replies don't sound so "on earth" either, because clearly I am not talking about banning people or for worst... "putting sysops down" as in "demotions". My talk (did you read the title?) is about asking other administrator's watch, and that's why I will not post any Request for Confirmation. I do recognise Alex has helped me widely to learn Wiki-Fu and that's why I do not want to "put anybody under the ground". That is only "your" confusion. And as I said on the original comment, I am very patient and I don't mind waiting, but the counterpart (Konig) keeps mixing GW2 content in the GWW, and that is what made me speed up. ¥oshida Keiji(talk) 04:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Admins don't settle content disputes. Work it out amongst yourselves and with the rest of the community. That's it, the end, there is no further reason to post on the Admin Noticeboard. Come see us if someone is actually breaking rules and/or going against consensus. - Tanetris (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe any of what you listed above constitutes actual rules that have been broken, which as has been stated means there is nothing that needs to be done on the administrative side. Again, I'll ask you to list actual rules that have been broken and give examples.

• link to rule - page or edit where said rule was broken <--- as an example of an excellent way you could put it.

--Rainith (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I know this isn't the place to discuss such things but I am quite curious what these "Mysterious/Uncertain" things I've removed that GW2 clarifies. Because the only things I added from GW2 onto this wiki are on Abaddon, Dhuum, Giganticus Lupicus - in the last being an alteration of a trivia note which I had since re-altered due to an interview - and full names of NPCs (e.g., Captain Greywind's first name) or burial places found out in GW2. And in the cases of the two gods' articles, only done so because - at the time, at least - GW2W didn't nor wouldn't have such articles (and even then, all that Abaddon's article got was the line about unique magic to different groups). So I'm honestly confused as to what Yoshida's vendetta against me is all about, given how little I've actually been editing this wiki as of late (and is mainly so because people always have some sort of problem - some of which unprovoked like this one seemingly is!). Konig 22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Rollback request

I only request rollback to not have to copy paste over something some one makes a mistake on, like here. Rodan (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Undo button not adequate? -77.97.208.117 12:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not for someone that messes with a page twice for things already there in a different manner. Check history. Rodan (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There are other methods instead of "copy paste". You can restore a past version of the page or undo several consecutive edits. --Silver Edge 02:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We've never given out rollback, I don't even think it's a usergroup on this wiki. Not a bad idea per se, just... not the most necessary thing, either. Plenty of ways to revert without copy and pasting. Can wait for feedback from bcrats anyway, they might decide it's a good idea. -Auron 10:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We do not, at present, have a rollback usergroup to give. It would therefore require a GWW:TECH request to create such a group. I wouldn't be opposed to giving such rights to users who have a history of fighting vandalism and no history of edit warring though (I'd need to take a closer look at your contribs to make sure you fit the latter criteria, due care and all that, but that bridge can be burned if/when it happens) - Tanetris (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Should I make a request there or would that be ideal for a bcrat? It might be beneficial for Guild Wars 2 wiki. Something that may be brought to attention? See what they think as apparently these two wikis are linked? Rodan (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Account creation disabled AbuseFilter

Is there no method to allow more than one username exception in the Account creation disabled AbuseFilter? It has been attempted twice and didn't work both times. First time [1] [2] and second time [3] [4]. --Silver Edge 00:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I just figured I did it wrong, I wasn't aware that there were previous attempts. Interesting. -Auron 02:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I tried again. I think it worked, b/c I managed to create an account called "GWW account creation test 2" successfully. (about to block it..) -Chieftain Alex 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)