Guild Wars Wiki talk:List of administrators

Redirect

I updated this redirect to point to the definition of "Sysop". As I mentioned at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2007-06 bureaucrat election#Definition, the existing redirect resulted in a circular reference on Special:Listusers/Sysop, where anyone clicking on "Sysop" was redirected back to that same page, rather than to the definition / responsibilities of the title. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

No need to revert it, just pick a color that has a 'lighter tone' in your opinion. I took this color, since it gives the same amount of 'hardness' as the red has. There has to be an equilibrium IMO. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 03:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the blue to be honest. --Lemming 11:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you really want green, change the whole table to green imo. It's very easy on the eye now with so few colors. - anja 12:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not logical with blue-orange-red. Hence my change. But w/e. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 13:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hum. Maybe not :P - anja 13:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

o_O makes sense to me, the colours are all very gentle, including the red (it's really more of a pink). In fact when I first saw this table I thought "wow, what good use of colour". LordBiro 14:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol you mean because it isn't a traffic light it isn't logical? :P There is a key, how much more logic do you need! --Lemming 14:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dirigible pointed out that this wasn't intimidating enough, so please see my proposal. LordBiro 14:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaagh.. that's great! -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

surely the colours on lord biro's should be reversed though, with red being the for the most serious threat, otherwise it's just not 'logical'? ;P -- Salome 15:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

haha I like the DOOM version. --Lemming 16:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Implement?

Should we include this into any page (noticeboard, policy etc)? The topic on the noticeboard talk sort of said to link it on the policy page, but that was before the expandable table, so putting it on the noticeboard now without taking up too much space is feasible. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See the Noticeboard talk page; there was a proposal made by me but ignored :( poke | talk 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is already linked to by plenty of pages, I don't think this needs to be replicated anywhere. People who want to know can always follow the link. --Xeeron 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Classification

Could someone explain the thinking behind the semiactive and inactive groupings. It seems entirely unrelated to contribs. Backsword 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean, I mean ye they are relatively arbitrary groupings, but I would say they are pretty accurate. --Lemming 13:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Every admin is able to change his own "categorization" if he likes to, but I think the current one is rather good. It expresses easily which admins are expected to be online often and which not. poke | talk 14:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This raises an interesting thought, whilst on say a one week vacation do you change to inactive or have another status for temporarily afk. --Lemming 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I put them into those groups just off the top of my head when creating the first edition of it so I could see how the colours looked. I could be wrong on how active the last four are, but I don't think they are active enough to be blue. As Poke says, they can change their grouping whenever they want. Lemming - that would be semi-active I think, or you could leave it to active. I don't think a week's break is too much to be considered inactive. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but I think it would be useful to have it noted on there if you are not around for a week so people don't waste time contacting you during an emergency. --Lemming 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, semi-active (or a message on your userpage) would probably be best :) -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yes I do normally leave a message on my userpage, it was just an idea :p --Lemming 15:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this page should only be changed for longer absense or inactivity. If you are unavailable for a week or so, it won't be a problem ;) poke | talk 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly wonder how it was decided, since contribs wasn't the metric. Sidenote:The idea that they should change it themself has a tiny flaw:If they are inactive.... Backsword 11:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you know when you get inactive or when you get less time to do something.. poke | talk 11:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If they're inactive, and they don't change themselves from inactive to active, we don't have a problem. If they're active and they become inactive, then perhaps someone else can change it for them if, say, they don't contribute for a certain amount of time. If an admin on the list is in the wrong place, you won't get shot for changing it. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edit by Rezyk

I hardly disagree. This table is meant to list the administrators; when people want to see information about the bureaucrats, they should visit the policy page. It is really disturbing to add email and term for only 3 of about 20 administrators, especially as sysops are not required to add a email and the term does not apply to them.
In addition I also disagree with the move. I think this fits better with just Administrators instead of a "list of" name. poke | talk 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is much clearer, but is the email needed? As emailuser...Dominator Matrix 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks a little funny having an email column when there's already an "email" link. -- ab.er.rant 01:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also have to agree, while Bureaucrats are required to provide an e-mail it doesn't really fit for this page seeing as it already includes an e-mail link. This is especially true since those e-mail addresses already appear on this page. Also in regard to the move, I don't really see a need for the addition of "list of" to the name as Administrators was fine.

One thing though Poke, I don't quite understand your first sentence, do you mean that you disagree with those edits since that's what I get from the rest of your comment? That first comment sounds like you don't disagree with it, although maybe I'm just too tired at the moment :/ --Kakarot 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add Term for non-bureaucrats. Email address provides potentially useful info that the email link does not. It is not required info but I thought it matched Location and Time Zone well in both that respect and in differentiating the role of this page from simply being a prettified Special:Listadmins/sysop. "Administrators" is an appropriate enough name from the point of view of looking at this page and considering a title, but "List of administrators" adds missing clarity when looking at a link to this page from elsewhere. I don't care to argue these points any further than this and will revert them back myself if there is no other support for them (except for the move, which I can't undo because the old page was edited). --Rezyk 02:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"One thing though Poke, I don't quite understand your first sentence" - meh. I hate when I use a word of which I believe it is correct in that context and it is exactly the opposite xD poke | talk 10:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) why dont you separate it into two tables? I'd do it but I don't have time atm. - Bex 11:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The main problem I see is that the table is very wide now and not suitable for anyone on a resolution below 1280x1024 really. --Lemming 12:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not possible to use one show/hide link for two tables, Bex. And when people want to know email or term, they simply can click on "Bureaucrats" and get the table. And I don't think it would be that good to spread the email adresses through the whole wiki.. poke | talk 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I preferred the old version infinitely more; this edition looks crammed, yet full of space that won't be used by the other fourteen people. If you want the bureaucrats' details there, just expand that section -- it simply isn't needed or required for the sysops. The pagename is suitable for me, so I don't think it is necessary to move it back (although the shortcut will have to be modified). -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Said it before, but I think terms are best listed in the elections page. Backsword 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Move

So when this was moved, why wasn't the talk page moved with it? — ク Eloc 貢 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. See the page history. 2. Read above. 3. It was moved. 4. Read above. -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Read above. poke | talk 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This MediaWiki version automatically moves the talk page when you move the main page ... or at least it did last time I moved something, that was a Guild Page from the mainspace to guildspace. --Kakarot 02:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It does. Dominator Matrix 02:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oops. I must have gotten my talk pages mixed up. — ク Eloc 貢 18:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Three Admins inactive? Is that wise?

Galil, MisterPepe, Rainith - Ehhmmm? Is it wise to keep inactive Admins? (no i will not be running for atleast several years) --Silverleaf 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no harm done in keeping them. (But if you could not paste portions of table code like that, it'd be nice.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sysops are appointed for life, and as Aiiane said, as inactive ones they won't do anything harmful or bad, so there is no reason to "remove" them. poke | talk 20:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Table code?? And keeping inactive Sysops is ill adviced imo. Like inactive boardmembers and judges. --Silverleaf 20:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny that wikis aren't real life. Lord of all tyria 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, what harm does it do? You keep saying it's "ill adviced [sic]" and not actually saying why you think it is. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of manpower? A fresh breeze and more teamwork between you guy's. --Silverleaf 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no limit to the number of sysops. Galil, Pepe and Rainith are not occupying seats that could be used by anyone else. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If we wish to have more sysops, there is nothing preventing us from appointing more. Unlike bureaucrats, there are not a fixed number of sysop "seats". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not about the seats? It's about being INactive? --Silverleaf 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dot dot dot. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should an inactive sysop have their rights removed? Should we say all users must makes X edits per week or be banned? Lord of all tyria 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, a discussion of interest is at GWWT:ADMIN#Proposed Change to Sysop section -- Brains12 \ talk 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.... --Silverleaf 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple question, Silverleaf. What, specifically, harm does a sysop cause by being inactive, as opposed to not being a sysop? Aii 21:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Add active or semi-active there only. What use is an inactive Sysop? --Silverleaf 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What harm is an inactive sysop? What use they are is of little matter. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As much use as an inactive editor. And we have a lot of those, yet you aren't calling for their ability to edit to be removed. Lord of all tyria 21:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed Ranks ehjj :). No foreigners allowed? It's like keeping an unused fridge in your kitchen. --Silverleaf 21:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that unlike your kitchen, we don't have a limited amount of space, our refrigerators don't require power to run, and they never rust, smell, or leak. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think our sysops still "leak" in a way. "You seem to be leaking anti-freeze." --People of Antioch 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow Aiiane. Again you won my Vote with an unprovoked personal attack. Keep your friends. I don't care. Just asked a question. Again being dished by a bureaucrat. Seems like asking questions here from the "Status Quo" people gets you closed to banned. Ha ha ha ha ha. --Silverleaf 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You're fucking dumb. You haven't even come up with an argument that is relevant to a wiki, and you're complaining about the status quo, and bans? Honestly, if you can't take part in a debate, or argue your point in a manner approaching convincingly, stfu. Lord of all tyria 21:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'm puzzled as to what statement of mine Silverleaf believed to be a personal attack, that's not a justification for you to make what blatantly is one, Lord of all tyria. Please don't. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Please calm down you are violating GWW:NPA, we don't want this to turn into a flame fest guys :) --Shadowphoenix 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read what gets written in the edit conflict. Pretty sure I don't need two people telling me something I knew before I clicked save. One is fine. Lord of all tyria 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the answers improve even. Making statements about my kitchen and called Dumb even. Wow..I haven't read any good argument for keeping INactive Sysops either. Are all wiki "Guests"treated this way? Or only the ones that ask a question? --Silverleaf 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If you interpreted the "your" to mean that I was trying to imply anything about you as an individual, my apologies; I was simply referring to the same kitchen you were using for your analogy (as I was commenting on how the analogy doesn't really fit a wiki), not the actual real-life kitchen belonging to you. However, may I point out that you have not exactly been putting much thought into understanding the views of the people who are trying to answer your question, either? We've had to essentially repeat the same, fairly straightfoward, answer 3 or more times. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Please note that this issue has been raised before, and all the valid reasons for "speedy removal" of sysop status have been put down (which, on the other hand, has improved things like RFA's). In any case, if a user were to still feel that inactivity is a trait that we shouldn't accept on a sysop, they can start a Request for Reconfirmation.--Fighterdoken 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"I haven't read any good argument for keeping INactive Sysops either." - Well you were the one who came up with this in the first place, not we. poke | talk 21:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to a good argument for keeping inactive sysops, that's simple: it's quite possible that they could become active again and resume assisting in their sysop role. Thus, there is no net loss in keeping them, and there is a potential gain in keeping them, so overall it pays to keep them. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Horrified by the "talents" used to answer a "Question" from a guest. I feel offended indeed Aiiane. Seems i stepped on some toe's with my question. --Silverleaf 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? Sorry, you've truly lost me here. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

? = Request for more insight into a certain situation. Not an attack on anyone, anywhere. A possible return of INactive sysops is not a valid reason in my opinion. If i can still advice so. The hostile environment here is repulsive really. --Silverleaf 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone who was even thinking of "attacks" before you brought it up 13 comments ago. You seem to be misinterpreting what others are telling you, or not understanding it. You've been very unforthcoming with your reasoning regarding why inactive sysops shouldn't be allowed to remain, and very demanding with requests for others to provide their reasoning. You've simply dismissed well-reasoned explanations saying that you don't think they matter, but haven't bothered to back up your own statements. We've done our best to explain the reasons behind the decision, in as polite a manner as we could. What more do you want people to do, other than simply give in to your request when they disagree with it? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your argument for removing sysop status from inactive editors boils down to "they aren't helping the wiki". In that case, as I've said twice, why are you not calling for the removal of the editing rights of the many inactive users here? They aren't currently helping the wiki, yet have the ptential to do so in the future. As you've said that isn't a valid argument, can I expect you to call for a huge number of bannings? People's responses become increasingly hostile as your responses fail to add anything to your already paper-thin argument. Lord of all tyria 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are all right. Guess i misinterpret the Deletion Log for Inactive guild pages and Orphaned Images aswell. Asking a question is "demanding" and responding in a discussion is "dismissing"? Lost my appetite for "discussing" in an hostile attacking environment like this. And i cannot state being horrified to the treatment of being called "Dumb"?????? I thank you all for this insight and for contributing to this "conversation". --Silverleaf 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Lord was asked to refrain from such comments, but at the same time I think you need to calm down a bit. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? You are so used to the tone of voice used that you find it less offensive and non-hostile? --Silverleaf 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't find it "less offensive and non-hostile", which is the reason why Lord was asked to refrain from such comments. But that has been dealt with, so continuing to go on about it is sidetracking everyone from actually discussing the topic that you brought up in the first place. If you're interested in discussing the topic, can we please actually discuss it, rather than going on and on about something which is now past and dealt with, and focus on the actual discussion? You're sabotaging your own discussion by jumping at every opportunity to accuse others of attacking you. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Guild pages and images that are not used add to server strain, so the potential gain by having them is pretty low. With regards to guilds, the wiki is here to document the game, and if a guild no longer exists, its no longer part of the game. On the other hand, sysop rights doesn't have much impact on the server. You've asked for the rights, which have been "earned" by certain users to be taken away, that sounds about as hostile as me saying your argument is near non-existant. I'll apologise for insulting you, since it was entirely unnecessary, and maybe you can stop playing the victim? Lord of all tyria 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost reads as an apology covered by another "opinion" about me. Are we so used to impolite encounters in-game and here on wiki that it is considered standard? I asked if it was wise. The potential gain by having them is pretty low too. They can alway's return to Active status if they have time again. That keeps their "life time" rights intact. --Silverleaf 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there was a long discussion about this issue already referenced, and in the end, I came to agree that there is no harm in leaving them as is. My original reason for bringing it up was that "we have enough sysops" was being used as a reason to oppose RfA's, which is a really invalid reason to not give someone who wishes to help in the ever ongoing job of maintaining order, and all the other fun clean up jobs that the wiki requires, access to the tools to do so. I would also like to point out in regards to the Guild pages, there is an active policy change proposal that would change the way inactive guild pages are handled, and would eliminate any further deletion of those pages.-- Wynthyst 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you all for this insight and for contributing to this "conversation". --Silverleaf 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for helping to start it. As Readem said below, it's been rather pointless. You won't improve the situation if you keep trying to insinuate ulterior motive with your frequent interjections of "conversation". -- ab.er.rant 08:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think 3 Inactive admins isn't a good ratio, you can always nominate other users for Sysop so that it would be sort of like replacing them in a way at GWW:RFA. — ク Eloc 貢 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Eloc is right, if you have a candidate in mind, then why not? --People of Antioch 01:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, another pointless discussion :/. --Readem 01:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is so moot it hurts. --Lemming 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasxas256

Last edit was July 1st, move to inactive? (since it is almost september) --Shadowphoenix

Aye seems reasonable. --Lemming 17:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Gares' was longer ago than that. If you want to be accurate with these, get them all, please. -Auron 17:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No he was not *cough* :D poke | talk 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SP said edit, not log change :P -Auron 17:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

damn, you won ^^ poke | talk 18:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting excited

That in less than 2 hours UTC and the time in the UK will be the SAME AGAIN! :D :D :D :D .... no seriously!! --Lemming 23:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I was tricked by my computer... I always look at it's clock to determine if it is time to go to bed... Well, it automatically disables DST when it's time, so I missed one hour.. good night! xD poke | talk 01:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow what was I on 9 months ago... o.0 --Lemming 00:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but... CanI have some? Backsword 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Tonight it happens again.--Wysth 12:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikichu

Is there any real need for Wikichu to be on this list. I mean, yes, it has sysop powers, but do we want to be listing bots as well? -- Lacky 01:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a sysop on a page that lists sysops... what reasoning do you have to remove it? :/ – Emmett 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust Wikichu with my life. elix Omni 03:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh*...never mind...not going to try to explain what I have already said. -- Lacky 06:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all bots have sysops abilities. --RIDDLE 07:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think his point is this; many people use this page as a place to find someone to ask for help (for anything, not just sysop tasks). Wikichu would obviously not be a great candidate to have listed in that scenario. And even if people were to require the services of Wikichu, his talk page wouldn't be the place to go - they'd have to request bot action (or go specifically to poke and make a case there, too).

That said, who cares? This page matches the system generated sysop list and the scenario described above is rare, so there's not a whole lot to be gained from striking the bot from the list. -Auron 07:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a separate section for bots with sysop privileges. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually doubt we will have another sysop bot in the future that legitimates such a section. And I think the (sysop bot) and the semi-active status does enough so that the scenario Auron explained won't happen. And btw. I never got an email to Wikichu's mail address when every other sysop got an email about something ^^ poke | talk 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original question, yes, there's a need to be list Wikichu because it's a list of administrators, not a list of very-likely-to-be-humans administrators ;) It's already labeled "sysop bot" so Auron's scenario is going to be highly unlikely. -- ab.er.rant 23:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Bureaucrats

How come the Bureaucrats are shown here as well when they have their own list? -- Lacky 12:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Because technically they are also administrators, and having a complete list is good. The list of bureaucrats is just more detailed and focussed on the bcrat thing. poke | talk 12:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for the info Poke. -- Lacky 12:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reducing clutter

We've always avoided pruning admin lists, since "sysop 4 lyf" and all that was taken for granted... but this list is simply too big to be useful. I know it's color coded, but at this point, any red names have been gone for years and aren't coming back. We expected most to return for GW2, and only a few did; fewer still continued to play. I propose we take a note from GWiki's book - demote all the completely inactive names, leave a message on their talk page saying if they return they can request sysop back again, and keep the list looking clean. -Auron 16:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

sounds good to me. Lazy option: We could just remove them from the table and pretend that the user rights list is clean. -Chieftain Alex 16:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The list of administrators should be removed or updated

Remove the list and just name the last remaining administrators here on the Wiki. --Corporation (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The list gives far more detailed information than the two separate and obscure lists: Bureaucrats and Sysops.

Is there something about the list which is causing confusion or problems? G R E E N E R 16:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Colors

I feel like standby should have a different color that isn't yellow. Anyone have thoughts? - Tanetris (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have always considered flipping the colours if the standby policy was implemented, but changing the yellow to a nice shade of green to highlight the present/active status more so than the standby one (as is currently the case). Alternatively a grey/neutral tone is always an option. - Infinite - talk 11:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel like standby should be a muted greyish color like the current active color (or more muted, like #acd), and make active something more vibrant, like #4af. horrible | contribs 14:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Link text doesn’t work well on that #4AF and is barely readable. I’ve tried two colors from GWW:COLORS now (to fit with our existing schemes). What do you think? poke | talk 16:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters. But since you asked: A nice strong green for actives, and either blue or grey for stand-byes. Steve1 (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I vote for black background with black text for maximum obfuscation. :P --Rainith (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)