Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 2

A nicer layout for this page..

User:Poke/sandbox/1 - what do you think? poke | talk 21:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One, change the {{No}} to {{No|red}} . Two, I prefer how it is right now. I'd rather not have it in seperate sections.--§ Eloc § 22:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer it the way it is now, although I do agree the pages needs a better layout. I'll do my thang on my sandbox, and see if I can do better. :) br12 ~ 22:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just realised I don't have a "thang" and my attempts were feeble at best. I'll leave you guys up to it... br12 ~ 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Poke's looks good, with Eloc's suggestion, but I'm so used to how it is now, so I don't care. Calor - talk 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep this page simple and compact. The bigger individual items get, the longer the page. --Xeeron 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's partly why I like this suggestion. Moves lengthy posts to the bottom, and bot issues to the top where they can be swiftly handled and then archived. - anja 23:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As bot issues normally only have the issue and a short "blocked" I think the space you need for a level3 heading is a lot bigger than a short section which includes all bot issues and which can be archived without having to look through all other complex things.. Also I think having the ability to use the "+" to add an issue is more easy than having to edit everything and then scroll to the end.. poke | talk 00:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We already had a discussion about the extra yes/no etc images, they're pointless and unnecessary, so even if we do change the page layout I don't want to see them included. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What about {{Resolved}}?--§ Eloc § 03:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the tick and cross make perfect sense. You can see at a glance which issues aren't yet resolved, even if that issue isn't at the top/bottom of the list. LordBiro 10:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You can also see at a glance from just looking at the word "blocked". It makes 2 changes necessary to indicate the exact same thing, and thus is redundant. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for redundancy in a minor case like this if it makes it easier to use. And in my opinion, it does. I would actually prefer to have only checkmarks before only text. - anja 11:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a useful alternative to typing "Blocked". Not everyone ends their paragraph with "blocked", or some other one-worded description of how an issue is resolved, i.e. "Warned". Some discussions that are not straightforward require some discussion and it can be difficult to determine if the discussion is ongoing or over. LordBiro 11:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not really care whether we use "blocked" or a green tick for resolves (though if I were a sysop, I would use blocked. Less code to type). However any icon for "not resolved" is redundant: If it does not have a green tick, it is not resolved. --Xeeron 17:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"{{yes}}" is shorter than "blocked", although poke was using "|y" added to the end of the bot report template which is even shorter. :P - BeX 17:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in terms of key clicks ... or my typing speed for that matter. Xeeron != able to use special characters blindly ;-) --Xeeron 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely - having to add a comment in one place, then find the other place where the template is, and edit a specific element of that, when adding a note already indicated it was resolved, is more trouble than should be necessary. Also, I'd much rather have an actual note than just a checkmark, because with just a checkmark there's no indication of how the issue was resolved other than investigating it yourself. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Special characters? {, } & | are considered special characters?--§ Eloc § 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If we cannot agree on the checkmark at this time, what do you think of the rest of the layout? The move from level three headings to plain text is one I would like implemented for the bots. Our current solution isn't that great, for me at least. Alot of scrolling and the anchor tags doesn't work anyway. It's just the edit section link that may be convenient, but seeing the design of the proposal, it should be easy to reach anyway. - anja 10:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the rest of the layout, although I do like the convenience of the edit section link. Perhaps use level 4 or 5 headings? They render almost exactly the same size and layout as regular text. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, it kinda reminds me of PvXWiki's Noticeboard and that confused me over there.--§ Eloc § 14:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am happy on using level headings for events. I think Aiiane makes a fair point, even though I don't entirely agree with it, and I'm happy to forget about icons for now. LordBiro 17:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Implement it already! (Which basically means I agree with the new layout, I DO like to have sections for the various items and personally I DO like the icons, but that is for later concern.) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the icons, but not the different sections. — ク Eloc 貢 19:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good that we agree on everything (oops, I'm violating Guild Wars Wiki:No Sarcasm :P) poke | talk 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A call to admins, and users, to be more assertive

There currently is, and has been for quite some time, a barrage of proposals, discussions, meta discussions about policy on this wiki. While some of the new proposals might be useful, I feel that in general, what is lacking are not additional policies, but more assertive behavior by sysops.

When this wiki started, the community decided that we wanted to have less arbitrary power for sysops compared to guildwiki. The misleading term "janitorial" was coined for this. This term seems to have become a self-fulfilling prophicy. It was never intended that sysops are powerless here and looking at the policies currently active, they are not. GWW:NPA gives admins a tool to deal with most infractions, including the possibility to ban users. Currently the lengths of the ban is entirely up to admins. At the same time the arbitration committee has quite general powers to deal with all kinds of user disputes. Saying the admins here are "janitorial" as in having no power is wrong. Yet somehow the general mood moved from "sysops should not have as much arbitrary power" to "sysops are powerless and can do nothing" and since so many people feel this way, the sysops themselves seem to have started believing it. We do not have policies for everything, but what good are policies if they are not enforced? The amount of breaches of NPA that go unpunished (or even uncommented) is huge, just take a look at Izzy's talk pages. If people always see others get away with it, they will start becomming more aggressive, too. I am not asking sysops to go powercrazy, but current policy should be enforced and that includes banning people for violating it. Being a sysops is not a popularity contest and it is quite natural for a sysop to have complaints on the talk page (if someone is rightfully complaining, apologise, if they are not, point out why). Our sysops should stop trying to please everyone (never works) and start enforcing the policies that exits. Maybe then all the endless discussion about making new policies would stop.

Finally, this goes not only towards the sysops. From all the policy proposals, one might guess that there are user conflicts abound here. Yet have a look at Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/Requests: Requests this month - 0, requests last month - 0. In fact there have only been about 8 requests ever. Why is that? Is everyone totally happy here? Then maybe we should stop talking about all those policies. Or is it that people are not happy but not trusting the arbitration committee? Should we desolve that? If you have a problem, try using the procedures currently in place before calling for more. --Xeeron 13:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree a bit with the last paragraph. I see the lack of requests for Arbitration committees as (maybe) a sign that the inevitable user conflicts were solved between said users, without the need for external arbitration. That's how it should be, IMO - users should try to just talk and solve their problems among themselves, and if that fails, then ask for mediation by the committee. Erasculio 13:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is:

A) It's been generally agreed on that sysops only enforce policy that is clearly written, nothing more.

B) Becoming a sysop and staying one is a popularity contest. If you make someone unhappy he and his friends and sockpuppets will be voting against you.

C) Users do not think clearly. They twist and bend the ideas behind the policies by reading them word by word and quoting different parts according to what suits their current mood. Many users who claim to wanting the best for the wiki troll the policy discussions with their stupid and intentionally destructive and disturbing versions of the ideas behind the policies.

Solution. Elect me as a sysop and let me ban everyone I want and you'll notice that there'll be a lot less wiki drama. ;P (just kidding, just in case a wise ass is reading this) -- (gem / talk) 13:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

/voteforgem -elviondale (tahlk) 14:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused. Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship specifically states that sysops have 'janitorial tasks' as well as making sure users abide by the policies. But are you (Xeeron) making this post because of the stuff that happens on Izzy's talk page? Because as far as I can see (although I have not been as active lately), most of the issues (not on his talk pages) are resolved in a decent manner, either through users or sysops. Perhaps you can give me some more examples of where you think that we should be more assertive. As for Izzy's talk pages, yes, I do not read them anymore and hence are not in a position to assertively ban people for violating GWW:NPA. But I always check on GWW:NOTICE. And usually noteworthy stuff is posted there by other users.

Come to think of it, are you referring to the Sysops are granted reasonable discretion-part of GWW:ADMIN? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 14:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It states "cleanup tasks" not janitorial tasks, but that was not the part I was refering to and neither the "resonable discretion" one (though that comes closer). I am refering to the fact that we do have policies in place to deal with 95% of the problems that come up, therefore all the huge discussions about more policies are somewhat redundant. I am simply wondering why so many people seem to think that our current policies are not good enough. Take a look at Special:Contributions/77.96.223.11 (this is just a random example I picked). That user does repeatedly violate NPA in a quite drastic way and is banned for 3 days, 4 days after the first edit). Not exactly what I'd call a strong deterrent, but then, maybe I am wrong and the current system is working fine with the current level of assertiveness. However then all the discussions like User:Ereanor/GWW Report: More articles, less policies or User talk:Anja Astor/Adminship make even less sense to me. --Xeeron 15:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to pick, but janitorial as a job allows for a bit more freedom.. I mean they keep boilers up and running, service HVAC systems, etc. ^>^-elviondale (tahlk) 17:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Joking or not, Gem's last words are pretty considerable. The wiki doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to work right, and if that means having a few more bans than there should be, so be it.reanor 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

I wasa going to bring up the fact that despite the 'sky if falling' mood of certain pages, the wiki is running without actuall problems mostly, and non of the tings people claims need fixing has been serious enough to warrant ArbComm attention.

But I don't see much more that SysOps need to do, people are warned and or blocked for NPA vios now and then; and that is about what you can do. Most violators are not regulars, so it's not like a longer block would do anytrhing. (Should they be regualrs, and it's ongoing behaviour that is the issue, it's more of an ArbComm thing, and as noted...)

'Izzyspace' is a bit of a sepcial case too, not having the same population as the rest of the wiki. Many of them are just pop in from some forum, and continues acting acording to the culture on that forum. Which means NPA vios are often expect of them, if they want the respect of their peers. (Why they desire the respect of that group is beyond me, but...) Hench mthe feeling seems to be that they should get a warning first. And, as I noted above, they often go back to their forums then, it's all there is time for anyway, and a block would make no difference.

I get the feeling that Corrran is not the SysOp that have had enough of 'Izzyspace'. The tone there is pretty off putting. So it goes unmonitored for the most time, with only the worst cases brought to attention. Would probably be wise if some SysOp made it their project to keep an eye on it.

Backsword 18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The language of Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks is pretty clear that blocks are a last resort, if people think the policy is too lenient, they can propose that it be made stricter. Could you cite some specific instances of unenforced policy? -- Gordon Ecker 00:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User comments

Is it really needed to allow people to comment on requests for admin support here? If it is a place to contact administrators, shouldn't be enough with making the report, and leave to admins to decide without having people showing support for either side of the argument? I could understand allowing other users to add appropiate information (such as "this also happends over here" or "this may be not his fault as seen over there", but i don't see how the whole "this X fails/this X rulz" can help... even worse, i think if support for a certain point of view is good enough, it may turn the decision towards a side (right or wrongly) before having revised the facts.--Fighterdoken 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The noticeboard has become a place for chat and discussion, not a noticeboard for admins to be told of situations. br12 • 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The way our current system is working, users feedback is crucial when making administrative decisions. This may not be the best place for it, but it has to have a place.reanor 15:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Some times the usrr comments are useful. I say no for any unnecessary regulation. -- (gem / talk) 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gem said it all. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Calor - talk 19:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have no problem with relevant comments, pointless ones like, "I agree" just cause admins to read the page unnecessarily. I assume we all have it on our watch lists. --Lemming 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides my own user page, it was one of my firsts to be watched. -elviondale (tahlk) 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Pointless" comments are inevitable. Just leave them be, cuz you don't know if they aren't so "pointless" for someone else.reanor 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of lines is fine, still readable. If it gets too long or too sidetracked, we can always move it to this talk page instead. -- ab.er.rant 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Isn't it about time for an archive? The page is getting too long.reanor 04:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pshh.. this is nothing -elviondale (tahlk) 05:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the page, not the talkpage.reanor 06:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

/doh -elviondale (tahlk) 06:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to archive it anytime yourself as long as you leave current issues on the page which haven't been dealt with yet. — ク Eloc 貢 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New layout

As I don't really post too much here (I mostly watch it to keep informed), I don't really care too much about the answer, but doesn't this new Current/Resolved layout add 2x the work? Now instead of simply writing "blocked ~~~~", that same string is written and the incident report moved to a different heading (which requires multiple page clicks or wading through the sometimes 40kb+ page that the master 'edit' tab will bring you too? -elviondale (tahlk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer poke's version. I just added the resolved issues section because keeping resolved issues in the current issues section was inaccurate. -- Gordon Ecker 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the headings to Spam bots and anonymous vandalism and Other issues. -- Gordon Ecker 02:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I liked the old version. It was simple. — ク Eloc 貢 02:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, it was. I'm contemplating working on a new parameters in my sandbox for the IP template to add a "resolved" and "blocked" note and icon. Calor — talk 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have some sort of discussion before you changed it Gordon? Last I checked, Poke had a discussion to change it but it kind of didn't pass. — ク Eloc 貢 02:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've switched back to the old formatting and renamed the heading to Current and recently resolved issues. -- Gordon Ecker 03:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I liked Gordon's version. Perhaps if you want to work moving resolved issues around you could move them more quickly into the archive. Give them 24 hours on the page and then archive? --Aspectacle 03:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Check again, Eloc. What Gordon did was the part of Poke's proposal that was approved. What they didn't like was the "resolved" icon and that stuff. Do it again Gordon.reanor 03:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just put it back. Ale_Jrb (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean the discussion at the top of this page? It didn't seem to me like any conclusion was come too. — ク Eloc 貢 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just read it and you'll see.reanor 01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fuckyoufagots

(moved from the noticeboard)

User created for vandalism.--Pyron Sy 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And the comments on the page. Calor — talk 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He says we are sad for playing this game and we have no life whatsoever. Yet he registers a user, and vandalises his own user page. Something doesn't quite add up there. -- br12 • (talk) • 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is just my biased opinion..but if he/she (anyone, for that matter) goes through the time and effort to vandalize a page on a (semi) obscure wiki for a game that he/she (supposedly) doesn't play, doesn't that mean he/she has just a little too much time on their hands? Suggesting that they, ermmm...have little life outside of online. Calor — talk 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned, and is it vandalism if it's your own userpage? — ク Eloc 貢 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

so he cant write whatever he want on his userpage? --Cursed Angel 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Falls under the "Material patently offensive to others" part of GWW:USER. And given that the user's ID itself is patently offensive/bigoted I think warning is of little use. A perma-ban of the ID looks like the only viable remedy to me. --Valshia 20:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other names that people registered which aren't of the best variery. See Special:Listusers for them. There are like 2 on the first 50. — ク Eloc 貢 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Permaban o.O Please be reasonable. This user has performed one edit, to his/her user page. It might be offensive/whatever, but it's one edit. - anja 20:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yah, he obviously wont help anything, but start to consider banning when he acctually vandilize anything outside his userpage. --Cursed Angel 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well of course they will ban him if it's outside of his userspace. — ク Eloc 貢 20:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You may consider it a harsh solution, but it is not an unreasonable one. I simply have little patience with outright bigotry and with those who play the "bigotry, what bigotry?" game. By all means wait to see if he makes further edits. But the fact remains that with his/her ID, the mere existence of the userpage is a violation of GWW:USER. The only way around that is to abandon the ID and register a different one. --Valshia 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please for the love of anything, everything and everyone, consider applying the discretion that so much of the community seems to want admins to have and just block the ridiculous username..? Wikipedia has a policy for usernames... community consensus here is that too many policies are bad, and that admins should use common sense. They sum it up as Offensive usernames are likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible. and can be blocked on sight. This might, just, possibly, maybe fit into this category? Ohhhhh, my... =/ Ale_Jrb (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While I don't mind people swearing in text, I agree we should do something about usernames like this, because no good can come from allowing them. Allowing such names simply allows a user to essentially permanently vandalise the wiki (the history of main space pages in particular) using their user name. --Aspectacle 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

this is funny imo. --Readem 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(IR) I would like to remind everyone that "sysop's discretion" does not mean "doing what the community tells them to do", but rather that the sysops are allowed to do whatever they decide, based on our policies, and we are expected to accept their decisions (within reason). It does fall to the sysops to decide what to do in cases like this one, not to any other member of the community. We may point to them what we see as policy breaches, but the decision to act or not (and how to act) belongs to the sysops. Erasculio 23:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just call it treason and then chop off his head? — ク Eloc 貢 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

woot. That should be a standard arbcomm-handed-out punishment -elviondale (tahlk) 03:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's treason against the GWW community. — ク Eloc 貢 04:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we consider adopting w:Wikipedia:Username policy in part or in whole? I can see that certain parts of it is quite relevant, such as the offensive usernames being discussed here and potentially promotional users like "User:I am selling gold" or "User:Play WoW instead". In particular, I find this proposal interesting. -- ab.er.rant 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be a nice idea actually. — ク Eloc 貢 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It would. I'm brainstorming it in my head..

• No profane usernames — Something like this is blatant profanity. If the profanity is speculative, leave a note on the talk page, and suggest making a less profane account. If the "offender" refuses, drop the argument. Avoid a Ryudo or Problem.'\
• No slander, libel, violating policies, or something that discourages any GW activity — "Play Wow", "sell GW gold", "Yankees suck", etc...self-explanatory.

Obviously room for improvement and expansion, but that would be the basis, in my mind. Calor — talk 19:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre

Does anyone else find it strange that this page is not intended for user disputes, and then it says afterwards to post on RFC? o_O lol.. - BeX 04:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, never though about it. — ク Eloc 貢 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC works for disputes between users about article content. -- Gordon Ecker 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's just poorly worded. ;P - BeX 06:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. -- Gordon Ecker 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A revival of Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Policy Cleanup is needed? :D -- ab.er.rant 07:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait... this isn't a policy, lol. Just fix the wording with what you think won't be confusing then :) -- ab.er.rant 07:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not everything has to be a freaking policy.reanor 08:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism template

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

Could we make a template such as {{vandalism}}? — ク Eloc 貢 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And then? poke | talk 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a preset message for vandalism. Sort of like the ones on Wikipedia. — ク Eloc 貢 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Like the welcome template? You know where this predefined messages end.. poke | talk 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously I can't think of a good way to say "Stop vandalizing GWW" without saying "Stop vandalizng GWW". — ク Eloc 貢 01:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He may not realise he is doing damage (the chances are slim admittedly) still it doesn't hurt to be polite as well as blunt is my point. --Lemming 01:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, should we look through here for a template saying to users not to vandalize GWW? — ク Eloc 貢 06:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just look on user templates. I have seen several users with warning templates that follow GWW:AGF, so maybe we could just ninja one of them.--Fighterdoken 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has templates for everything. Looking through, I saw one that is like "Warning, you're close to violating the 3 revert rule" — ク Eloc 貢 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved this conversation to the talk page as it is more suitably placed here. --Lemming 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I use my own template if I see a potential vandal, but I suggest that if you wish to use a template for notifying users of vandalism, you either create your own template or simply write it out every time. Not mass-using a templates takes away the "bot"-like feature of it, which some vandals see as pointless and sometimes ignore it. -- Brains12 • Talk • 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right, vandals don't know they are vandalizing so we need a template to let them know and to ask them to stop it. lol.reanor 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You should assume good faith, it may be a legitimate new user unsure of the interface and just seeing what they can do without any sort of direction. Don't always assume the worst. --Lemming 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I only use my template if their edits are clearly vandalism - replacing content with swear words, link spam etc. -- Brains12 • Talk • 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with your template brains :) I was just disagreeing with Ereanor's sarcasm. --Lemming 18:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok :P-- Brains12 • Talk • 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone notices it's a template and ignores it for that reason, chances are they won't stop anyway, I would think.

Anyway, just do it like you're supposed to do Welcome messages. Subst: templates. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What Welcome template? --Gimmethegepgun 20:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't quite mean a Welcome template here, kinda meant like this one. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

? I'm talking about vandalism template, not welcome. — ク Eloc 貢 04:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the last few posts. Anyways, welcome for vandals, lol. :P Lord Belar 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Welcome template would be more effective in making them go away than a vandalism template would. It sure frightened me! (and numerous other long-time GW contributors that vowed to never go on this wiki again, partly because of that template) --Gimmethegepgun 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset the friggin' indent already): A userspace template for common messages could always be used as a Subst: template, I don't think too many people are going to get pissed off just because your welcomes and warnings a look alike. I personally don't understand the issue with welcome templates, I mean in the one case I saw, he was getting multiple templates posted to his page (mainly because he got so ticked about the first one)... if you're new to a Wiki, I don't see how you could get offended by someone saying "welcome to the Wiki". You can't expect them to know you from whatever other Wikis you've been on... -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If we have to dredge up ryudo again, he got annoyed because he had been here since almost the start of the wiki. Then got a patronising welcome template put on his page however many months later. Lord of all tyria 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll make some templates in my userspace. — ク Eloc 貢 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. See here. — ク Eloc 貢 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need these templates? How are they helpful? In my opinion, if one is not willing to spend at least 30 seconds typing out a message, one should not be tossing out warnings to other users. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Imo shut the fuck up on peoples talk pages and forget these templates. You might be interested in what we just accepted as policy at GuildWiki: Quietly Deal With Vandals. -- (gem / talk) 07:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with having a template for vandals, having different levels of warnings would likely just encourage vandals to aspire to the next level because they know they are getting the attention. If people think that any kind of warning would be helpful, i.e. just a friendly request, then I think a template is the best way to go about it. If people think vandals should just be quietly blocked, then obviously a template is counter to this. Vandals likely shouldn't get the time of someone to hold their hand and explain why vandalism is wrong, but just reminding them they aren't being helpful with vandalism and welcoming them to edit constructively could be beneficial. My main concerns are templates encouraging vandals, or people senselessly using the template on any talk page of someone they disagree with. 122.104.231.105 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but I've prepared for that. See User:Eloc Jcg/Templates/Warnings/Level 4im. If they are obviously major vandals and there's no doubt in your mind that their sole purpose is here to vandalize, then use User:Eloc Jcg/Templates/Warnings/Level 4im. — ク Eloc 貢 06:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone is here purely to vandalise, do you honestly think they will care about a warning? Lord of all tyria 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I already said that, but you know, you can't stop vandals just as you can't keep Eloc from making templates.reanor 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! this is how is done User:Ereanor/Vandal template.reanor 16:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that one. :P Lord Belar 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ereanor, I absolutely worship you now :p Calor (t) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Short note

I would appreciate if reporters could make a short note about why they are reporting, for example "gibber bot", "Vandalism of <link>" etc. It makes things a lot faster and smoother, at least for me :) - anja 12:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

delete a page and need some help understanding wiki

I tried to create a guild page but I messed up and created the page War Band Iron legion i would appreciate it if someone would delete the page and instuct me on how to create a guild page (just the Guild:Guild Name part)

Someone already moved your guild page, so it is at the correct place now. For future reference, the fastest way to create the page is to enter :Guild:Nameofguild in the search box, hit GO and then follow the "create page" link. Once the page is created, it is a good idea to copy&paste the example template from Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Guilds. --Xeeron 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just editing the URL above in your browser to point to the page "Guild:Name of Guild" is faster - plus, you get a CreateBox that automatically fills in the template for you. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But, but, but I have to move my mouse pointer further! Nah, Aiiane is right, that way is indeed faster, however you need to know which part of the address line exactly to edit and which part to leave intact, which might be a problem for some new wiki users. --Xeeron 13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Or just hit F10 and click on your guild name ingame. — ク Eloc 貢 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

+ button

Perhaps add __NEWSECTIONLINK__ at the top to make it easier to add a new issue? (If we do, remember not to put anything in the Subject/Headline field, but put the level 3 heading in the main field below) -- Brains12 \ Talk 00:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe poke could come up with a createbox for it? -- ab.er.rant 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

CreateBox can only create new articles, not subsections. :/ — Galil 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Calor 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a proposal by someone with a new design where normal topics were level2 headers and you could simply use the new section link. poke | talk 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Gibber

← moved to GWW:NOTICE

Admin information

Tried a little something in my sandbox - User:Brains12/Sandbox/Admins. I prefer the first style myself. -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of having ways of contact and which timezone thus showing primary operating times. --Lemming 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it and I think it's very useful. :) - Bex 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye, very. Calor 01:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas on where to implement it (and which design you like best)? -- Brains12 \ Talk 02:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the top one (the wider one might cause probs for users with lower res). It might be good as an inclusion off the admin policy, if not here. - Bex 02:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. I like the top one more too. Calor 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First one is a winner! Second one is wider than my window... Maximized browser windows ftl! — Galil 02:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) Yeah, I thought the noticeboard would be a good place as that's where you'd normally go to contact an admin, but it's packed as it is and I wouldn't want it to detract people from reading the introduction text, or make them post their issues on an admin's talk instead of the actual noticeboard. Or did you mean the talk page? -- Brains12 \ Talk 02:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah not the talk page, but you are right. Maybe link it in lieu of the sysop list link. - Bex 02:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye I also like the talk page best. Perhaps put it here --Lemming 02:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tried a test of how it'll look on the main noticeboard - [1] -- Brains12 \ Talk 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to reduce the size of the ToC a bit and put the box in on the right below the archives list? Calor 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The TOC depends on the list it is listing... so if people write massive topic headers that is what you get. --Lemming 03:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yeah, but it'll go off the page or clash with the TOC for different resolutions. And Lemming, you can set a width for the TOC to stay the same regardless of header length.-- Brains12 \ Talk 03:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

lies :p --Lemming 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) link not include. :P Like I said before, maybe inclusion on admin policy though. - Bex 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, a link on the noticeboard would have no problems imo. An inclusion on the policy would be good too. -- Brains12 \ Talk 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, toss it on the admin policy page. This rocks, good going! —Tanaric 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being dense, but it doesn't seem clear what the color coding stands for in the latter part of the admins list, if anything. Someone care to point out what I may have missed? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I can guess it is to do with most recent activity, perhaps a key would be in order. --Lemming 12:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I implemented Brains box into my layout from the discussion at the top of this page. Maybe we can restart the discussion about a new layout. See my sandbox. poke | talk 15:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks cool, but the TOC becomes useless with the long header titles. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just realised it won't because the {{IP}}s aren't headers. That looks fine then imo. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the Admin information to this page. Feel free, to add/modify information :) poke | talk 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)