Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 7

Discussion

How about instead of yelling at users to not discuss topics on the main page (which you are doing by yelling at said users in said topic, hypocrisy?) you just move said discussion here? Takes about as much time and effort (if not less) to move some text. — Jon Lupen 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just remove it imo.. poke | talk 21:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Which takes yet even less effort... — Jon Lupen 21:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

or archive it and be done with it. -- riyen ♥ 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Noctarch

Why has User talk:Super Igor been protected although all "vandalism" already was prevented by banning the user connected to the user talk page? Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 18:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism, including senseless spam and trolling, was being done by people other than Igor, and since he's banned, he has no option to respond. -- Wyn talk 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since he is banned they do not have a reason to respond. I doubt the existence of consistent reasoning regarding page protection. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the spam on Igor's page occurred regardless if he responded or not. Titani Ertan 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Easy solution: get yourself banned and have people spam your talk page until it's protected. Removing tongue from cheek, it would set a bad precedent to protect user's talk pages, after all, they're there to contact the user.-- FreedomBound 18:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will ponder that solution since some people are too weak to believe in a user's will to not return. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you even want it protected? As Wyn said, if you don't want to respond, don't. Titani Ertan 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Preventive actions are always better than reactive actions. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 19:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Then let's protect every page. Titani Ertan 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

lol. – Emmett 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wuhy potect when u can infooooooooooooooooose? Infoooose every pag plz. 209.107.217.11 09:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Waiting Game

The talk page is filled with random chatter that has little to do with the actual article. Given how again people have forgotten that the wiki is not a forum, I would like to propose either locking the talk page for now (there's nothing else to add to the article until the quest opens, anyway) or, if that would still make the wiki break, archiving everything there and leaving a notice at the top of the page similar to the one that used to be on the Ursan Blessing's talk page. Erasculio 13:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I archived some of the talk anyway, just because it was getting too big. --RIDDLE 18:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I with either one, though like the second a bit more because of the crashes :P

@Riddle: You archived one topic here and one topic there, which is not good. It makes the archive all messed up! - J.P.Talk 18:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the archive might just explode.

FYI, I split the archive up because there were still active topics that didn't need to be archived. That, and we hadn't reached a consensus on this yet. Whatever, too late now. --RIDDLE 18:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing permabans

I'm currently compiling a list of permabans which I consider questionable, and would like some input, mainly from other sysops. Should we hold the discussions here, or in some other location, such as on my talk page or a dedicated page? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I volunteer my userpage. elix Omni 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is the best place to get attention from sysops, do it here. poke | talk 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really mind where it is done, but I will point out that if it is done on a talk page, you will get opinions from everyone and their uncle mixed in with the sysops. Misery 08:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You should probably dedicate a page for it in a sysop's userspace or something and protect it. Sysops can edit protected pages, can't they? - Mini Me talk 08:57, 16 November 2009

Yes they can. Although the page shouldn't be sysop only it should just be divided into 2 category's, one for sysop, and one for the rest of us. --Dominator Matrix 09:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What Dominator Matrix said. Other people will want input, but sysops may also want a place where they can discuss some things uncluttered. Talk pages are difficult to regulate, but if sysops discussed on a dedicated page with everyone else throwing their VERY IMPORTANT TWO CENTS in on the talk page it may be less of a clusterfuck. I don't really know what Gordon wants to discuss or if he wants a clusterfuck though, just pointing it out. Protection isn't really necessary if you aren't using a talk page, but anyone can edit any talk page. Misery 09:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is fine. Non-sysop users who haven't done their homework and therefore have no idea about a particular case can be easily ignored in such a scenario, but every once in awhile one might have some nice insight. We should keep it on a non-protected page. -Auron 09:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

*waits for one of lena's fail socks to show up* --adrin 09:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm looking at the ban list and wondering if vaulable users like Lena, Wafflez Lena, Jonnieboi Lena, or Igor are going to be brought up. That would, quite frankly, be a complete waste of discussion. -Auron 09:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Should these reviews be finalized by the bureaucrats, rather than the sysops? Perhaps something like a mass arbcomm? The format could be similar, bureaucrat discussion, "other" discussion. You could throw another level in there for sysops if you preferred. -- FreedomBound 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, I had just writen a very sarcasting reply to this subject, but let me just mirror Auron's comment instead: this would be a waste of time. Everyone on this wiki has better things to do than second guess one of the slowest things we have here. Erasculio 10:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm Gordon, but I think he is well aware that cases like Lena's and Igor's are probably well deserved, given there were ample warnings and blocks prior to getting perma'd, not to mention the amount of drama that had to be fomented in order to bring about the permablock. --RIDDLE 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There aren't cases of perma blocks of legitimate users (something other than User: 469 buy amitriptyline) that had not received ample warnings and blocks before the last ban. This wiki is incredibly slow to perma block someone. Erasculio 16:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think review in itself is a bad thing, however I would be interested to see who Gordon would wishes to discuss, as that might shortcut this whole topic. (I'm trying hard to think of any perma-blocked account though which should be unblocked and I'm failing miserably at it) -- Salome 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of going crazy and making such a hype just because someone wants some people to review something (something you all don't know actually), you should just wait for the things to come. If there is too much input by others we can always continue it elsewhere.. poke | talk 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a great sign that a sysop wants to disregard the discussion as "going crazy and making such a hype", I'm sure different opinions will receive plenty of respect. Erasculio 19:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for reviewing perma's -- Wyn talk 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem reviewing the permas either. (Though I am pretty curious who Gordon has in mind.) – Emmett 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the list is done and I've written up a FAQ. I've decided to use User:Gordon Ecker/Block reviews for the discussions. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The true problem is, Eras, is that many people will ignore valid comments that differ from their point of view, and claim Auron's idea of that individual's point being a case of "no idea about a particular case." 42 - talk 05:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm - discussion

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Erm

Okay... Your post is extremely unfounded, Pling

Since when was I blocked from wiki? Never. When did anyone say I was disallowed to post on the wiki? Never. Where in policy does it say "relatives, spouses, friends, and any known affiliates of a banned wiki user are not allowed to post on the wiki"? Nowhere.

The ACCOUNT I was using (JonnieBoi05) was permabanned because it was once his account before he relieved it to me and because of admins (Auron) who hate my brother for inadequent reasons; I was never, I repeat, ****NEVER**** banned myself.

Your logic and usage of words are severely flawed. And that is saying something coming from a 16 year old still in High School. Let me point out what I mean: "sockpuppet of User:Uchiha Lena, used to circumvent infinite blocks" (the ban reason given just now to the account). Now. Let me ellaborate a little. I ***DID THE RIGHT THING*** by coming to the admin noticeboard to be fair and let everyone know it was me who accidentally made an edit on the wiki with that account. I did not have to do so and, I am quite positive that 1 edit would have gone unnoticed literally forever.

If you even so much as looked at the contribution logs for the account you would have seen the account has NEVER been used to "circumvent" any blocks. Ever. The very few edits the account had were while Jon was NOT banned and/or suspended from the wiki. The account was made BEFORE my brother was banned. I am quite sure of this. So that completely nullifies your useage of the reason of "use to circumvent infinite blocks". -Jason --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.45.247 (talk).

Given how the IP above is also being used by the same user to circunvent a block, shouldn't it also be banned temporarily? Erasculio 14:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Read what I told to Pling. In short: no. I have never been banned from wiki. The account I used was an old account of my brother and the acount was banned, not me. -Jason 24.98.45.247 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jason, regardless of your ban's being right or wrong, the User:Lena account is obviously Lena's, belonging to a banned user. Banning it is the correct action. Your IP has not been banned, so I really don't know what you're going on about. If you want to talk about your User:Jonnieboi05 account's ban, you're going about it the wrong way. -- FreedomBound 15:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I am just rather annoyed that I tried to do the right thing and let people know "HEY! THAT WAS ME!" and not assume in bad faith that it was Jon trying to circumvent. And then guess what? The "Lena" account I accidentally posted on gets banned for no reason (Account used for circumventing? lol... Come on now... be for real) and then Pling telling me I "have no place on the wiki as a blocked user". -Jason 24.98.45.247 15:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool story bro. But hey! You know what? Lena was perma blocked! No matter what the reason is, but he was blocked! And he is still blocked! Suddenly, a JonnieBoi appears, and oh look! He is related to Lena! lulz. What would anyone in their right mind would think? "Dudes, it's Lena."

What happens when you sock your way out of a perma block? Yep! You get perma blocked!

I don't know why you're still able to actually post, as if you would really wanted to contribute to the wiki, you would have done so already, instead of QQing here. So stop screwing up more, I'm not convinced. Titani Ertan 15:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid, Titani. This is why: "I don't know why you're still able to actually post, as if you would really wanted to contribute to the wiki". Check the logs from JonnieBoi05. I was actively and positively posting on the wiki nearly everyday for quite a while before the account was shut down for unjustified reasons (and before you or anyone else says "the account was Jon's it was completely justified"- no. No it was not. It was my account and had been for a very long time and was no longer a "sock" the moment he relieved it to me). I even went so far as to create my own user page. :\ -Jason 24.98.45.247 16:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. NuVII 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pro-tip: If you're trying to establish yourself as a new and different member, refrain from doing anything that will bring back the past. --RIDDLE 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ariyen (discussion)

Last I checked, impersonating yourself isn't a crime. Just a thought. John Lupen 14:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this impersonation? JonLupen 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

if you are John Lupen, no. if you are not John Lupen, yes. --neyira = ? 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

the latter. poke | talk 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) User:John Lupen is me, JonLupen is not. — Jon Lupen 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like poke used his new toy.... -- FreedomBound 20:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of impersonation, it'd be excellent if you'd wiki-mail me the password for that account so I can lock it down. — Jon Lupen 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So if this is impersonation, why is registering a name (128 176 178 20) that is almost identical to another (128.176.178.20) which is actually shared by multiple people not considered impersonation? JonLupen 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever think of the fact that user:128.176.178.20 could be user:128 176 178 20's ip? — Jon Lupen 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

yes and no it was and sometimes will be it is the ip of my study computer 128.176.178.20 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Because User:128 176 178 20 is a unique user name as opposed to an IP address. Thus is belongs to a single person, and the contributions it makes are all attributed to that one person. -- Wyn talk 20:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

@128: So it's an IP of a computer that you, yourself, own, and not a public one? — Jon Lupen 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

not own but only i have access to this wiki (got it blocked everywhere else hehe) :P 128.176.178.20 20:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. It's like taking User:Ryuu Togo and User:Ryuu Desu - Ryuu Togo did not impersonate Desu, though the names were alike. On the other hand, I can make an account called p0ke and vandalize the wiki like hell. The former isn't impersonations, while the latter is and should be taken steps against. So far, User:128 blah hasn't made any troubles or disrupted the wiki, so I don't see the problem here. Titani Ertan 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, Jon. We don't disallow people to only use numbers in their name, even if that makes their name look like an IP. Don't see a problem here.

Titani, so P0ke was you? :o poke | talk 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a p0ke? olol. Titani Ertan 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that user:128 176 178 20 signs as 128.176.178.20 which is a valid IP (user:128.176.178.20) that has been contributed under. So if both are not the same person, it's technically impersonation, which is what I believe Ariyen is getting at. — Jon Lupen 21:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ryuu Togo and Ryuu Desu are pretty clearly different (eg. entirely different words) as opposed to the minor difference of spaces instead of periods (for example would Jon.Lupen be considered impersonation? I'm betting so). It's just as easy to confuse 128 176 178 20/128.176.178.20 as it is to confuse JonLupen/Jon.Lupen/Jon Lupen etc, not really seeing why one's allowed and the other isn't. (Also, pretty sure the identical sig is a problem even if the username isn't.) JonLupen 21:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What I was getting at is that if they are one in the same person, it shouldn't matter. What does it matter if I personally am contributing under user:John Lupen or user:Jon Lupen if they are both my account being used my only me personally? We do have a problem if they are two separate entities, which is what I was trying to sort out. — Jon Lupen 21:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that he is the only person in the world that could ever use that IP. JonLupen 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ey gus are you frogetting areyien? 128.176.178.20 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just look at User talk:Unendingfear, and you'll clearly see they are the same. If you want to research, the typing patterns will most likely be the same, too. I'm sure that if we must, we can always ask User:128... to change his signature, to reflect that he's not the IP.

I don't feel that "impersonations" should be taken seriously unless it leads to a breach of policy or trolling or anything else of that kind.

Again, we can always ask similar users who are suspected of impersonations to change their signature. Titani Ertan 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Per my talk page: The problem with signing as an IP comes from the fact that it's a public computer. Should any other person use it and contribute to the wiki under that IP, than the user name in question comes under the grounds of impersonation.

As to user:JonLupen, I would very much appreciate it if whoever is running that account hands over the password in the near future. I'm not keen on the idea of someone being able to masquerade about as me. — Jon Lupen 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So far, it hasn't. When it will, we can always request a signature change, and I'm sure it won't be a problem. Questions? Titani Ertan 21:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

check pls. --neyira = ? 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Even if he changes his sig to "9001 centimetres abcdefg", the potential for confusion is still there (seeing as, y'know, the usernames are almost identical). And I'll send the pw once this is sorted. (Or I may get banned, idk) JonLupen 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:JonLupen has been perma'd for impersonation. Also, 128, please take the periods out of your signature. That should eliminate this issue. -- Wyn talk 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

men are talking, go away wyn. --neyira = ? 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

128 seemed to quit for some reason. So this was rather pointless. :/

edit: What? Neyira.... Titani Ertan 21:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Misogyny much Neyira? — Jon Lupen 21:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

He's trolling, ignore him and don't ping everyone's watchlists for no good reason.

Just so I don't ping watchlists for no good reason, I'll contribute my opinion. What 128 is doing is not impersination per se; there is no on he's impersonating, so I find the discussion quite pointless. Also, I find Ariyen's accusation quite ironic, but that might be just me. --NuVII 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) ah the shower did well and thanks to the only one that was helpful in a freindly way : User:Misery and not so much bu a little thanks to the one helpful in an unfrindly way: User:Wynthyst i hope everyone's fine now =P wheres unending 'master of them cranes' fear though? q.q 127.0.0.1 23:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

id add User:Neyira seems to be created for pure trollin 127.0.0.1 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (EC) how dose any of that have to do with User:Ariyen? this conversation needs to take place somewhere else imho or it needs to be show how it relates to User:Ariyen.- Zesbeer 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

cant we use the new wiki program to check if Ariyen = neyirA ? 127.0.0.1 00:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

neyirA is NOT Ariyen. And I'm sorry you feel I was unhelpful 127/128. -- Wyn talk 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No no, he said you were helpful but not friendly. elix Omni 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly my fault, most people look unfriendly relative to me. Misery 07:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@ wyn and everyone continuing this stuff thats off topic for one wyn you get super defensive when we go off topic on Lindsey page how is this page any different please stay on topic.- Zesbeer 11:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@Zes, are you kidding me? This topic has stayed relative to the topic it was intended to address since I made it. While it is tangential to the main issue, this topic has still stayed on topic. — Jon Lupen 16:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

can someone arcive the page

dont know if i am allowed to archive the page but someone plz do- Zesbeer 06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Lacky 07:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Exact user page copy

User:Anti Ajacied has copied my entire user page, without editing it. That includes leaving my name on it... He was recently blocked but that must be expired by now. I asked him to remove but he's not doing it..sooooo im posting it here. First time I do something with admind noticeboard so I hope im doing it right lol :) -- Magamdy 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope not right but it might work from here. They should have this page on their watch list too. Drogo Boffin 16:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

:( -- Magamdy 16:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I added it to the Noticeboard properly with a link to this section on the talk page to ensure that they see it and give it the proper consideration. Drogo Boffin 16:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It matters because? Titani Ertan 16:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It matters because it bothers Magamdy and he deserves to have his name removed from another users page. Drogo Boffin 16:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ye what he said lol :) o and tnx for putting it on page itself :P -- Magamdy 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

NP Drogo Boffin 16:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved, Anti Ajacied removed everything :) -- Magamdy 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just noticed that. Drogo Boffin 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In relation to talkpage harassment by User:Ariyen

If it was harrassment, it'd been stated by original user. I do want to report on harrassment of Pika Fan, when I asked him to leave me alone. here. This is harassment when one does not leave the other alone, out of being requested to do so. I only stand that the original report is done out of use for drama by Accuser As per here and here (referring to users as cows). So I ask for the removal of this (In relation to talkpage harassment by User:Ariyen) to keep from escalating drama and hope that the Admins and keep an eye out for those who 'encourage' more drama. I respectfully thank you. -- riyen ♥ 09:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares. I would like you to stop feuding with Pika Fan, though, as that is getting rather old. I'm about to ban you both for acting 12. -Auron 09:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My side is over. What's done is done. -- riyen ♥ 09:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NPA (1)

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki: Admin noticeboard

It's not exactly clear what your complaint was by the example you gave... a more direct link might shine more light on it... --ilr 22:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no NPA there, just the truth... Erasculio 22:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't talk about it on the noticeboard. NuVII 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Starting a section to insult me on Regina's feedback talk page is both a violation of NPA and just old-fashioned inappropriate. Karate Jesus 22:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, no NPA there (what did he call you?). And it's as appropriate as filling her talk page with nonsensical whining in a single morning. Erasculio 22:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed that for you kj, you could've just went on my talkpage and told me to shut up. -Cursed Angel 22:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments isn't going to win you any points, CA. -- FreedomBound 22:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, my bad. I forgot how hypocritical GWW is. Nvm. Back to PvX. Karate Jesus 23:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OMG, he's calling us hypocrites! Sound the NPA alarms! Erasculio 23:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm always surprised how much more I get trolled here than on PvX.....and admins tend to get trolled A LOT on PvX. Karate Jesus 23:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's never trolling when Era does it b/c Sysops (and their friends) are infallible. Complaint CLOSED and ready for archiving then K.J.? --ilr 23:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

^ pretty much. Karate Jesus 23:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is NPA complains being closed without anything being done familiar, il? Erasculio 23:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tbh, I think you just proved his point (albeit incriminating him at the same time.) Karate Jesus 23:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Not exactly... b/c in the case he cited, he would have needed to prove Slander which would have been a lot more difficult since I was critcizing his actions, not his person. Now that we can discuss this though KJ... It doesn't appear CA was involved in Overt PA'ing. Though he was disrupting the Talk Page and I would appreciate it if he'd remove that fake <h2></h2> header or find a different way of fabricating a fake header/section that didn't disrupt the talk page. --ilr 00:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Shut it, both of you. It wasn't okay when you were keeping this childish trade of insults on the noticeboard, and even on the talkpage it's pinging a lot of watchlists. Take it somewhere else and duke it out on each others' talk pages. This is a place to notify the admins, it is not a place to troll and countertroll each other. NuVII 00:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't think I would say this anytime soon, but I agree with Nuke. This is a place to get in touch with us, the admins, in instances where you think our attention is needed. Not to just bitch at one another incessantly. You have your own talk pages for that shite. Now unless anyone has any new evidence either way to add to this, I would suggest everyone just goes on about their business and leaves this page alone. I have however changed CA's post on reginas page slightly, to take off the heading which was a not a heading. This was because it was disruptive formatting and causing confusion in that particular discussion. That has now been rectified. -- Salome 00:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Surprise >.> Well, at least I know where the line is now. Karate Jesus 17:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

<<since I was critcizing his actions, not his person>>

Sometimes I wonder where the border lies. Is calling someone abnormal a violation of NPA? Or calling another person a dick? Koda Kumi 19:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Post it on the noticeboard itself if you think it's a violation. NuVII 19:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions and Linsey's talk page

When someone makes a suggestion on the Feedback space, usually a few people will comment on it (for example). When someone makes a suggestion on Linsey's talk page, everyone and their mothers will comment on it (example), bloating Linsey's page and etc.
I think it's time we began moving suggestions from Linsey's talk page to the feedback space. It would be time consuming given how creating a page in the feedback space isn't exactly just a matter of copy & paste, but I think it would help to keep Linsey's page in order.
Of course, if that were done people would complain about it, hence this comment here, instead of in the Feedback portal. Right now, there are 13 sections on Linsey's talk page that I think could be moved to the Feedback space (or that have been partially moved there). Erasculio 10:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Linsey has in her temp page that she's not allowed anymore to take suggestions. I support what Erasculio says and I think this would help Linsey answer the 'actual' questions, instead of suggestions. -- riyen ♥ 10:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

??? I think that notice is proberly outdated. Anet employees could not take suggestions due to a license incompatibility, thus why we created the feeback namespace and moved their talk pages there, which has a compatible license for the use of suggestions. -- Salome 10:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the reason why their talk pages were moved to the feedback namespace so that any suggestions made on their talk pages could be easily moved to the suggestion side of the feedback portal without having to worry about different licensing? So more or less what Eras is suggesting. --Kakarot 11:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved one topic, while it was still early (and was an obvious suggestion), so I would fully support this. ETA: I don't think they should be moved to the user's talk page, though, isn't that a licensing issue (since Linsey's talkpage is in the feedback space)? -- FreedomBound 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Temp page is Linsey's old talk page, the one outside the Feedback space, which is why it has a note about not being able to accept suggestions. Moving suggestions from her talk page is somewhat problematic given how we can't just move to someone's talk page thanks to the license issues, as Freedom Bound mentioned above, and of course there's all the drama that comes from moving a suggestion. Those two reasons are why I haven't proposed this earlier, but with the way things are (there's basically a nest of bees around Linsey's page waiting to jump on anything that is writen there), I think it's worth the trouble of creating Feedback pages for those users. Erasculio 15:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that I think the feedback pages have to be created by the user (that's how they accept the license, right?). What about (immediately) marking the topic as to be archived if the OP doesn't have a feedback page, moving it the user's feedback talk page if they do have one? -- FreedomBound 15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

^^ I have been asking people who post suggestions to create the appropriate space in the Game suggestion area for it and move the discussion there. In most cases, this has been sufficient to get it done. There are those few, however that don't feel it will get any attention if it is anywhere but Linsey's page directly. At this point, those few need to start falling under admin discretion. The major problem with Linsey's page is not suggestions, it's the fact that the community feel it's the perfect discussion board. Rather than just posting their questions for Linsey and getting her response (since she hasn't been responding) the rest of the community respond and create wall of text discussions. This is where the bloat really comes from. -- Wyn talk 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Freedom: I have the feeling people accept the Feedback license the moment they add something to Linsey's page, given how it's in the feedback space, too. So we would be allowed to move content from Linsey's talk page to an user's Feedback page, but not from, say, this page to a feedback page.

Wyn, I agree. It bothers me that we have users who just register to bloat the "Linsey Forum" or the "Regina Forum", without doing anything else for the wiki. However, I don't believe the wall of texts are going to be addressed anytime soon, as there's little to stop it other than banning people, and I doubt very much that would happen. Erasculio 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Erasculio, so, as it stands, Linsey's page gets locked when it hits 300k (it's at 286k atm). I am however uncomfortable with discussion being moved from Linsey's talk page to user talk pages as it then eliminates that discussion from Linsey's responses due to the licensing differences. If a user has a feedback space set up, those discussions should be moved to the talk page of the Feedback:User/Username page if there isn't already a specific suggestion created. That way at least, Linsey would be able to read and comment based on the entire discussion if she chooses. -- Wyn talk 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think we should move suggestions from Linsey's page to an user's talk page. However, I don't think we should only move a suggestion if the creator has a feedback page up; I think we could create one for those users who don't have a feedback page, and then move the suggestion there. It's more work, but that way we would be able of removing all suggestions from Linsey's page. Erasculio 15:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine if they are a registered user, however, if they aren't they have to create an account first. As I said, so far in most situations where I've requested it be moved, the OP has complied. -- Wyn talk 16:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Given how this idea faced no opposition, and given how Linsey's page is currently locked, I would suggest keeping her page locked until it's completely emptied (which would make taking care of it easier) and then begin moving newly made suggestions to the Feedback page of their authors. Erasculio 22:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Should the ones that remain be parceled out? It's doubtful that Linsey will have time to answer them any time soon. -- FreedomBound 22:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the page is locked only sysops would be capable of moving the suggestions currently there, and they're probably busy with stuff. I don't think it's a bad thing that Linsey's talk page would be locked for a long time; given how she is incredibly busy and the talk page is meant to talk to her, if she cannot talk right now, it better stay locked, then. Erasculio 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to move all the stuff and then unlock it, just move the things that should be moved, but keep it locked until the few topics on the page that should get answered are answered. (Can Linsey answer them when the page is locked, by the way?) -- FreedomBound 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. poke | talk 13:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving of Blood drinker page

The move is, sorry was, a minor one, all links that I could find using the what links here special page were fixed, and this was done to bring the page into normal capitalization standards already in use (that was what I largely based my "consensus" on) on a huge (probably upwards of 95-96%) amount of pages.

This standard is in use on the page titles themselves, and within the text of the pages as well. I tried looking up how much "npc" usage there was throughout the wiki, but wasn't able to find that yet.

I could have handled this interaction between Ariyen and me better, and for my part, I apologize for any issues caused to anyone else over this. 42 - talk 08:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My casual searching found 2 pages which use the lowercase version (the page in question, and Horde of Darkness (npc)), and a large number (15+) which use the uppercase version. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

GWW:ULC also says "Uppercase characters should still be used when appropriate for other reasons (in acronyms, for example)". So it would be correct and consistent to use "NPC" rather than "npc". I think I did a similar move a couple of weeks ago. -- pling 10:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it is related to the post on Admin discussion page, posting response to Aiine's post and request here. I have tried talking, Aiine. It seems this particular issue is resolved, at least for now. 42 - talk 03:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Update pages

is there anyway that update pages can be protected as soon as they are created, or something like, or at least semi protect (if thats posible) to prevent random ips from vandalizing the page every time there an update? just a idea--BobbyT 04:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Emily is the one that creates it when she adds the update notes. Protection only happens in cases of mass vandalism. -- Wyn talk 04:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr 71's vandalism

"This is all about changes to Trivia. I don't see the harm. Please just leave them"- when it comes to the point that the person in question has constantly removed/reverted the trivia (1234), even after being asked to stop, isn't it a bit hard to just "leave them"? ~Celestia 04:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. Just leave them. -- Wyn talk 04:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that he's vandalising (it's obvious he isn't doing it in good faith), proxying, and reverting more than once? I don't think your response of "just leave them" answers Celestia's question of whether "a bit hard to just "leave them"". -- pling 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea, I believe, is to let the vandal get bored after no one reverts. Once he goes away, the pages can be fixed. elix Omni 17:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I get that idea... but blocking kinda helps stop the vandalism. -- pling 17:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

fasly assumes everyone gets bored also that shouldnt be an excuse for banning way too slow 127.0.0.1 17:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that while people may realise it's better to leave it till an admin blocks them, and then revert, some people don't. If you looked at the RC from the time he was 'attacking' you would see just how much reverting was going on. I had to ask on IRC for an admin to block (guess I could of just told the other party to wait for the block first), and then following that the four pages continued to be reverted (looking at logs he's targeting more trivia entries now). It was my third posting on the admin noticeboard (out of four vandal reports against the specific IP) when Rainith had to step in because of the "just leave them" comment. I think Rainith summed it up nicely on his/her talk page. Sure if it was once fine, but to proxy, and continue to revert after four/five/whatever-it-is-now blocks, and be left unhindered, is that's not just poor form? Also... cute. ~Celestia 06:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Whomever it is, does not seem to like trivia. Isn't it one of the jobs of the Admins to block vandalisms, when they see it? Not deny and go 'oh, it' s okay that one reverts four or five pages or so'? Sounds like someone whom watches their child misbehave and they do nothing about it. -- riyen ♥ 06:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible circumventing of block

User:24.98.24.92‎ and User:Temp account to upload proof screenshots. Delete after if needed. are clearly the same person. I also agree that this might be Lena/Waffelz. Stuff theyve done before. Drogo Boffin 18:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention also breaking 1RR on Costume. Drogo Boffin 19:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously me who made that account. You can confrim it via CheckUser (if this wikipedia has it). I stated on my talk page I was creating an account to upload the pictures. And how did I violate 1RR? I only ever reverted one time here? --24.98.24.92 02:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I reverted twice. This was the second revert. The first revert was for PmaN whom readded the section (which I later readded myself with a more accurate display of how the costumes work) and the second was for Shard who reverted my edit for "improper/non-English sentence structure"). It never crossed my mind that I was violating 1RR since they were both reverts on 2 entirely different scenarios. Sorry. --24.98.24.92 02:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a revert violation. -- Wyn talk 03:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is if you count the him/her reverting the same thing on both ip and User:Temp. Drogo Boffin 03:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you use a less annoying name next time you create an account for just uploading? Or just create an account you edit from to begin with.. poke | talk 14:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

He has already created an account he edit(ed) from, Lena (talk • contribs • logs • block log). Erasculio 14:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser disagrees. Can we not create unnecessary drama? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser is not magical as some of you may think. 95% of this users edits were a disruption, weither it be reverts, argueing over an edit or the Temp username. Drogo Boffin 22:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not arguing that the edits weren't disruptive, I was specifically addressing Erasculio's comment. Specifically, I'd request that we keep this to discussion of the actual edits, as opposed to dredging up past history that doesn't need to be. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah my bad for the missunderstanding. Drogo Boffin 22:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought CheckUser's logs only went back to early November? -- FreedomBound 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Aiiane, this section is named "Possible circumventing of block" over its author's opinion that the IP in question may be Lena. Feel free to ignore that point, and to pretend that CheckUser cannot be deceived by something as simple as a proxy, but I would rather have a sysop who actually bans users circunventing blocks, especially when said users continue to disrupt the wiki. Erasculio 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to keep pretending that you actually have proof of socking, but I'd rather not have sysops ban people for things they haven't done. If you wish to create another section about disruption/1RR, be my guest, but until you can reasonably prove that those are Lena's socks, stop moaning about ban evasion. – Emmett 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this section, beginning from its title, about how the IP is Lena's sock? Why would I create a section to talk about the same thing?

As far as evidence goes, the fact the IP here has made most of its edits on Lena's guild page (which also happened to be one of the pages Lena and his socks edited the most), has also stubbornly insisted on editing a controversial page like Lena used to do, and used the same kind of arguments Lena did (edits summaries defending an edit based on screenshots, even using the same word - "screens" - to support his arguments, as seen here and here) is evidence enough, IMO.

Unless, of course, the price we have paid for CheckUser is losing the brains of our sysops and locking them in blocking only people who don't know how to use proxies, in which case please let me know so I may ask for the removal of that tool. Erasculio 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you simply should have posted that in the first place, instead of just tossing in off-the-cuff comments without supporting information. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

All I did was looking at user contributions for the IP and for Lena. I thought that was the first thing the sysops would do after being notified about how those two could be the same person, hence my surprise at how the evidence would have been ignored. Erasculio 02:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence is not immediately obvious unless the sysop in question was actually around during the Lena incident(s) and so would recognize it. The point of CheckUser wasn't that it is infallible or even really valuable in any way... but, unlike "he edits the same way, uses same vocabulary, bla bla", it is actually incriminating if successful. An example of such "evidence" being not very admissible would be Ariyen being accused of socking some months ago, and how that was received... Vili 点 02:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't know anything about the example you mentioned, but I see your point. I'm not against CheckUser, I think it can be useful once in a while...But I thought it would, by its own nature, be useless in this case. I may be wrong, but if Autoblock does what I think it does, it has automatically blocked any IP address used by Lena, given how he has been blocked. And if the IPs used by Lena have been blocked already, it means he would need to use a proxy in order to edit anything. Which means, if CheckUser were used on a currently active sock of Lena, it would have to give a negative result, as said sock would be unable to edit through any IP CheckUser would recognize as belonging to Lena. Is that how Autoblock works? Erasculio 02:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It lasts 24 hours. – Emmett 02:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then I was wrong. I apologize. Erasculio 02:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) There already is a section on the noticeboard of the same ip and user for 1rr. I didnt feel that two new sections about the same ip/user were necessary. My apology for doing it this way. I will start multiple sections from now on if that is the way it is suppesed to be. Can we now discuss the actual violation there is evidence of? Drogo Boffin 03:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong spot.

→ moved from GWW:AN

I would appreciate if Jette would not post his "contributions." in the Shadow form talk page he makes a comment with swearing and complaining about young people playing this game. If it is true that young people play this game-I am sure that they also read the wiki, and calling them vile names should not be allowed. I am not trying to start any kind of problem with him, I just don't want kids reading that. Roflmaomgz 20:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Swearing isn't against any of the wiki's rules, and most ISPs require users to be at least 13 to use the internet anyway. There's really nothing to be done, except asking Jette himself to use less four-letter words. ~Shard 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there isnt anything against policy or he would be warned/blocked. Just ask him nicely. Drogo Boffin 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Swearing itself is not against policy, but disrupting the wiki is. If the swearing/complaining is to that point (in the opinion of a sysop), they are within their rights to "officially" warn or block. —Tanaric 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)