User talk:Kakarot/Archive 2009 Q1

Happy new Year

Happy New Year for ya :) --SilentStorm 00:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ARGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!! Silentstorm got everyone I was going to get too first! The git! Happy new year! -- Salome 01:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year! (: poke | talk 16:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to everyone XD --Kakarot 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, I just noticed that a while ago you fixed my userpage. I'd like to thank you :D I didn't know what was wrong. Zooey talk 15:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --Kakarot 18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

yo

Hey you dont know me but im jacob i likeyour pics you made --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Gontorath of istan (talk).

Question

Hi Kakarot,

I got a question.

How can i get bigger letters after a image? Becouse on my guild site, I wanted to place a masters reward icon in front of Recruiting. I used == Recruiting == but it don't work :(

Could you help me out?

And how can i whisper you?

Kind regards,

Alixmostwanted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alixmostwanted (talk • contribs) at 21:03, January 7, 2009 (UTC).

To put the image inside the header just put it after the == and before the words, for example on your guild page you have a heading labeled Recruitment, currently you have it set up as [[Image:Guild Elite Power Force Masters Reward.jpg]] == Recruitment ==, all you need to do is change it to == [[Image:Guild Elite Power Force Masters Reward.jpg]] Recruitment == for the image to appear inside the header. --Kakarot 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn Kakarot you where faster then me... I've already fixed your Guild Page for ya. Since Kakarot was faster I dont need to explain it anymore. --SilentStorm 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both :)

You're welcome :) --Kakarot 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ack ><

Sorry about tagging those, I completely forgot we can move images now. :\ -- Wandering Traveler 03:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just don't eat the images again. --138.89.217.3 03:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh no problem, gave me a chance to test image moving since I had some problems yesterday ... or rather this morning. --Kakarot 03:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, how do I put a favorite skill box?--Unendingfear 17:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Hope it's a good one =D — Jon Lupen 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Kakarot! poke | talk 02:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Again? Backsword 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Word on the street is it's your birthday, foo. Happy birthday :) calor (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I hope I'm not late! Happy birthday! :) -- Wandering Traveler 06:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday to you ^^ |Cyan LightHere!| 08:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

HBD. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 13:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday :D *gives a hug*, hope you're enjoying it ;). - Tulen elementti (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birth... oh wait it's me :P

Thanks everyone, funny thing is I also got a birthday present ingame since it was also one of my characters birthdays XD --Kakarot 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh! im almost a week too late :( Sorry for that and a belated happy birthday Kakarot :) Hope you had a great one. --SilentStorm 03:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Signatures

There is no requirement in GWW:SIGN that the username be represented. Only that it is linked to the proper userpage, and does not attempt to impersonate another user. -- Wyn 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

True but while not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents. --Kakarot 23:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a requirement, so you shouldn't tell users it is... "Hi Aba malatu can you change your signature so it reflects your registered username as required by our signature policy" -- Wyn 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The practice is common sense, and that's good enough. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Guess I should of just put suggested like I was originally going to then. --Kakarot 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should have. calor (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kakarot

Thanks for moving the jpg file to the appropriate places, I am quite confuse with the way things are organise here as it require some "scripting" which i have no idea how to before this. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Pumpkin pie (talk).

Not a problem, if you ever have a question about anything wiki-wise feel free to leave me a message :) --Kakarot 22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Image moving....

^_^ -- Wandering Traveler 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh I had just got finished typing my message when I got an ec and noticed you had already done it and notified him. --Kakarot 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I kinda cheated. I used two windows; moved the image and while that loaded typed the notice. two birds with one stone, I guess. :P -- Wandering Traveler 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A question about images

Sorry for the double section, but this isnt quite relevant to the above. I noticed you tag this image as a user image. The main thing about the image is that it links to nowhere in the userspace, rather to Arenanet talk:Art bugs. Since it does not particularly link to the userspace, does it need that tag? I don't see anything in GWW:IMAGE that covers this, so thats why I'm asking. I really hope this question makes sense though. Thanks. -- Wandering Traveler 22:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

err...can I poke you on this topic? Just want to make sure you saw it... -- Wandering Traveler 05:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that I hadn't completely missed this section, just when I saw it I was in a bit of a rush to go out so I was originally going to get to it when I got home but then completely forgot to do it.

Anyway as to your question, the way I see it any image that is prefixed by User <username> is a user image and thus should be tagged with {{user image}}; and {{screenshot}} if applicable}}. When it comes to images uploaded for bug reports as the above was it is still preferable to upload it under the users name to prevent conflicting image names which also prevents a previous reported bug which has yet to be fixed from having it's image changed making it less likely to be fixed. In conclusion I have always tagged these type of images as user images and now if required; thanks to the addition of image moving; move them to the appropriate name. Hopefully that answers your question and also sorry for the late response :) --Kakarot 15:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmk, makes sense to me. And no worries. ^^ -- Wandering Traveler 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

New galleries

Add the {{image needed}} tag if you aren't uploading the images. -- Wyn 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol I knew I had forgotten something but couldn't quite place my finger on what, thanks for adding them. --Kakarot 02:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat ?

Heads up. I nominated you for bureaucrat Here . --Dominator Matrix 06:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but at this time I'm going to have to respectfully decline. --Kakarot 14:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

KAKAROOTT!!! 98.226.112.109 19:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are...

... a copy-cat, huh? poke | talk 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh yeah, I originally copied it for the same reason you made it; because I preferred the original way RC looked like before the update; and since I got it from you I figured that any changes you make that don't appear to change the actual look would be css improvements/fixes so I should copy those too. Hope you don't mind :P --Kakarot 23:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't, it's just funny when people copy changes without actually knowing what will happen :P Maybe some time I'll do a fake edit that crashes everybody XD poke | talk 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL yeah well I at least look at what is being changed prior to actually saving just in case :P However with this change I wasn't completely 100% sure what it did since looking at the RCs source code; the way that I usually use to see what a css related change is affecting; didn't show that particular code. --Kakarot 23:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing that image name for me. I didn't even notice that it was named wrong. --Michael 20:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --Kakarot 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

GDeldrimor Bowl

The link on my page WAS NOT the only link to 'GDeldrimor Bowl'. 'Game link:Explorable 100' also linked to it, and I have no idea how to fix the redirects in that hame space. If I could have changed the 'Game link' link I would have and would not have put the link on my page. Wyn did fix it, and also fixed the table I was building. If you really want to be helpful, check out the other broken links from the 'Game link' name space.      mtew 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Game link:Explorable 100 never linked to that page: see history. poke | talk 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that I made a mistake. I must have imagined the entry on the broken links page. Apology.      mtew 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ty + Question

Heylo, you just posted on my talk page with some little help details. Thanks for that. It was a stupid mistake of mine.. But I have a question for ya. Does this Show Preview stack up in your browser cache? It seems to me that when I use it a lot Wiki goes nuts. My navigation bar ( the left one ) is gone or the page style sheet seems affected by my own changes. Quite a odd bug it seems. If you want me to make a report of it just say so on my page. Thanks again for the help! -- Cobra 22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page :) --Kakarot 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what the problem is. not ending divs aint that good for the wiki. Although I still have problems with moving tabs ( the top ones User page etc ) and missing Navigation bars. Ill figure it out. -- Cobra 22:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Test images

I want to keep all the test images, if you don't mind :) poke | talk 14:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops sorry, was just going through my maintenance list and noticed they weren't linked so did what I usually do. --Kakarot 14:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Thankyou for fixing the wiki page after what this person(66.36.243.180) did to it. It was very immature of them to do that so Thanks for helping out. 再见 =D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrari353 (talk • contribs) at 00:01, March 6, 2009 (UTC).

You're welcome :) --Kakarot 05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

poke

I just felt a need..... -- Wyn 05:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

your talk page is really great to kill boredom, *poke* ^^ - Y0_ich_halt 11:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh poke away whenever you want :) --Kakarot 15:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

poke | talk 15:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So good to see that my talk page used, only 19k and one month to archiving. *remembers that one quarter where it was nearing 85k* :P --Kakarot 15:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember a month with ~100kb... but that was some time ago, my talk page isn't that active for some reason (no this is not a request for comments or wubs <_<) poke | talk 16:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fun to have 200kb+ tlakpage without being an ANet employee. You should try it sometime. Vili 16:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That 100kb was before I decided to do a quarterly archive rather than every six months, that would of been Q1 + Q2 of 2008. But yes I have noticed that talk pages have been a bit slow lately; even yours although I've not had any questions for you for a while :P. @Vili, heh yeah but I doubt I'd be able to get to 200kb in three months. --Kakarot 16:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

May need editing

Peronaly, I prefer Breath of Fire over Fire Storm. Leo1993 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Searing Heat/Teinai's Heat. Vili 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Shatterstone and Glowing Ice, with Water Attunement on of course — Jon Lupen

That favourite skill box is a bit out dated as presently I don't even use Fire Storm. At the time I chose that I only had Prophecies on my account so I wasn't able to acquire Factions skills like Breath of Fire and Teinai's Heat. Also skills like Searing Heat weren't yet unlocked as at that time I hadn't really bought many skills. Lately I've started working on creating skill bars based more on skills in the game than what I've got unlocked although I'm still limited to what games the character has been to since I have yet to have a character visit all four games mainly due to being inactive in the game a few times for months as well as having very little time to actually play as much as I would like to. Probably should update it although I might have to have more than one since I now have more than one character like I did when I added that userbox. --Kakarot 04:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Same story for me. I often find myself short of time to play Guild Wars. I have bought all the skill unlock packs, and my guild has an ample supply of tomes that they give around to people that fills in my gaps for the most part. I was fortunate enough to get most of my characters mostly through campaigns in the past. I often find myself polaying only on my main and doing builds for other professions on heros though, but owning all the skill unlock packs helps GREATLY with that. — Jon Lupen 05:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was one of those people who just had to go out of their way and acquire every single skill in the game, no matter how bad it was... I even bought Otyugh's Cry, lol. So I always had lots of toys to play with. I just couldn't justify buying skill unlock packs, since either way I have to spend money, whether it's tomes or SoCs... :\ Vili 05:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For me while I will definitely capture all elite skills; for obvious reasons; I haven't decided whether I will get all normal skill as well for all characters as of yet although it would of course mean my heroes would have access to every skill if I did it on at least my main. As to skill unlock packs, I'm similar to Vili as at the moment I can't justify buying them since so far I've had very few tomes; mainly due to the fact I haven't spent as much time in hard mode as per the aforementioned inactivity/lack of play time; and also the fact that either way I'd still need to buy them for each character any way.

One thing I'm definitely looking forward to; something that may give me an incentive to make more time to play; is the upcoming April update and seeing what changes they make, particularly in storage since I have a habit of keeping stuff that I may or may not even use although I'm not as bad as some people I've read about. --Kakarot 14:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I bought the skill unlock packs because I use PvP characters that are often running various and vastly different builds quite as bit, as well as in PvE I'm often using heros of various professions and changing up their builds as well. There is no telling how useful it is to always have access to every skill ever made for PvP characters and heros, as well as being able to get any skill with tomes. I also can't wait for the April update. I myself use 4 PvP characters as storage characters on top of their normal PvP use, and all my other 10 characters are also loaded down with extra stuff. the backpack and belt pouch are occasionaly not enough space for loot and such, considering their two bags are often full with an armor set or two, story books, other weapons, ect. :P — Jon Lupen 17:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Shard's block

What edit of his constituted a personal attack? I would hate that any user be treated unfairly simply because of his past record, and I honestly can't find any personal attacks in his posts yesterday. Were you just banning him for the hell of it, or because some carebear reported him on the noticeboard without understanding himself what "personal attacks" means? -Auron 11:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The only edit that I could find that would remotely relate to an NPA is here, but I can't vouch for the validity of that statement. I'd rather leave the ban as it stands, he needs to cool off. (124.178.32.14 11:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

That's nice, but cool off from what? If he hasn't violated any policies, he obviously doesn't need it. -Auron 11:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe a breach of Guild Wars Wiki:No Sarcasm and/or Guild Wars Wiki:Sedition constitutes grounds for a block.

The reasoning seems to be that if Shard was banned for X last time, and he starts to do X again after coming back from block, then naturally another ban is in order. The problem is determining what exactly X is. It's not direct NPA violation, and AGF does not exactly apply. What then, is left? Discretionary block? Vili 11:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What good are you doing the wiki if you're just going to use it to see how far you can push its policies? (Terra Xin 12:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Most of it came from his FAQ and this page, while not per se an exact personal attack considering his past history of attacking ArenaNet staff anyway he can, it looks to me that he is back to doing what he has been blocked for 6 times prior. While I understand that he is frustrated that doesn't mean he needs to include personal attacks or even borderline personal attacks. To quote Jon Lupen in regards to the FAQ, "it's dripping with "Anet sucks at their jobs" and other such libel." which I'd somewhat agree it is.

As to the Lingo page, calling people failures as he does in the "Fail" description or the "Moron, Retard, Dumbass, Idiot, etc." description (generalizing it to a company employee or sysop rather than a specific name doesn't negate the fact you are referring to the person). I actually didn't block him immediately after reading the noticeboard nor after reading through all his contrbs since returning from the previous block but went further back to compare them to past instances for which he had been blocked for.

If you feel the block is unwarranted and that what he did; creating a page calling people (however indirectly) idiots, morons, failures, etc., as well as spreading libel about other users and overall continuing the whole ANet sucks campaign he has been on; doesn't breach the policy please explain so I can better understand your position and the policy for use in this case and future cases. --Kakarot 13:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

To shed some light on this end from another arguement, you could argue for either side on whether or not Shard's comments constitute libel, but whether they do or not, that still doesn't change the main idea behind my comment, only what I term someone else's comments. — Jon Lupen 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to question the Wiki Elite's definitions of Personal Attacks even though I'm pretty sure atleast a couple of those Elite have already used them against me (but that's not my complaint, unlike some of you, I don't need a policy to protect me from criticism) ... I'd just like Clarification on why something that is obviously considered indirect attacks or "borderline", somehow carries Twice the duration(12 weeks) of Punishment? This has all the markings of Pre-emptive Punishment and I'm just wondering how soon before its utilized against the rest of us who are simply "annoying" or "contribute even less than Shard". I'm not questioning any of this, I just want to know what the "TimeFrame for Sterility" looks like so I can plan my time better. Thank you! --ilr 22:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Block length depends on previous Blocks. If people have been blocked many times and still dont get it, the Block length rises each time. --SilentStorm 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait... Ilr, what was it about Shard's block that you thought constituted as having traits similar to Pre-emptive Punishment? Kakarot explained that he looked through all past actions of the offender as well as the current ones. He also explained that a breach of policy was made - he didn't say that shard was almost about to breach policy as constitution for the ban. I also disagree with the admin being elite - they are elected by us, if they abuse their roles then we can take it away from them. Because I don't see anyone taking the stand against Kakarot, it's only natural to assume that he's done the right thing... Or was there a hint of underlining that you really wanted to get at? (Terra Xin 01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Since this has already started, I would like to add my agreement that the block was unwarranted. While his FAQ and humor page push the limit, they don't directly attack anyone, they are simply parodies. They were also confined to his own userspace. I believe we should allow people the right to vent some of their frustrations in their own userspace, where people make a conscious choice to read it or not, rather than in community space where it's in your face. There are worse rants in userspace than this that don't get a 3 month block. I would like you to reconsider. -- Wyn 01:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the block should not have been based off of what was said on his userspace, to me edits like this and this should warrent at least something... -- Wandering Traveler 02:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing in either of those WT that warrant a block or violate policy. I think talking to him about the questionable entries in his userspace would have been better, and would have reaped positive results. -- Wyn 02:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Shard asked me to mention, that if you felt that section on his userspace was THAT bad, he said he would have removed it without argument if something had been said first. As much as some of you don't like him and couldn't wait to race to that block/ban button, at least get him when he actually does somethiong wrong. I agree with Wyn, and thank her for being one of the few not biased in her opinion on this matter.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

@Vili...wait...you're basing that on REJECTED policies?? On rules that were not passed and therefore do not exist? You guys are just pulling nothing out of the air now to ban him, aren't you?--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's on his own userspace, I dont see the problem with it. The only people who are going to be going to that page are people who either like reading what he posts or trollers of recent changes. Lots of wiki users have negative things about guild wars and anet. It seems like he's being singled out because he's shard. He has warrented blocks in the past, but this time I agree with ilr that it seems a little pre-emptive. --adrin 02:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"what was it about Shard's block that you thought constituted as having traits similar to Pre-emptive Punishment?" -- Pardon me for squeezing this in here, but I was asked a question. To Terr: read the discussion between Vili and I on Shard's page...So far the worst he's been accused of is being UNFUNNY (but I disagree, I laughed at greater than 60% of the material) Meanwhile This exponential increase in punishment for smaller and smaller infractions is by it's own very nature, thought policing or intended as pre-emptive behavioral adjustment. It's also the natural trend for any group of authorities who get lazier and lazier about "keeping order". To each their own, if they want to make things more convenient for themselves and Anet endorses it, then more power to them. All I wanted to know is WHEN it's going to start applying to the rest of us "nuisances" and Critics so we can plan our own departures better. --ilr 22:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

halp halp, im being oppressed Vili 22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That would imply that we actually have "rights" on teh Intarwebs.
Mah Mouth != Ur w0rdz --ilr 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Having just come off my first NPA block, I have a couple things to note:

1. While the rule does make sense, its implementation is subject to personal interpretation by the individual administrators.  There needs to be a way to assure that there is some consensus that the block is the correct way to handle the situation. 
2. The truth of the 'attack' and its phrasing are important.  If the target's actions match the attribution, it may still be a 'personal attack', but the truth of the matter reduces the issue from 'libel' to something less.  The difference between 'is' and 'acts like' may also pull a statement back across the NPA rule's line.  Also, the target may not be generally guilty of the attribution but is acting that way in regard to the attacker. 
3. The openness of the attack should also be considered.  While the whole idea of a WIKI is to share, the exposure of a particular page varies a great deal.  Main space pages are far more exposed than a diary two sub-levels down in a user name space.  If something shows up as a minor edit in the users own area, the fact that the reviewer is being (puritanical is not quite the right word, but has most of the connotation I want here while zelous does not have quite enough zap in terms of 'bussy body' and 'minding other's business' connotations) should restrain their action.
4. The penalty is excessive.  Throwing a block into a situation that is cooling down can reheat the issue enormously.  In Shard's case, the six week block showed way too strong an element of 'I don't like what he is saying so let's shut him up' to be really fair.  This round absolutely reeks of the same sentiment. 
   
   In my opinion, anything more than a 24 hour block for non-DESTRUCTIVE actions should have been discussed.  The accuser in this was anonymous and their motivation may have been far less than pure; it could have been a troll from a corporate competitor trying to stir up PR issues for commercial advantage.

mtew 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have some quotes I'd like to share. Let play "Did Shard say this?"

1. "This time we cater to the failures and mistakes of ArenaNet's evidently lazy programmers"

2. "and even though we'd both rather stab some very half-assed developers in the face for their shitty work"

3. "ArenaNet lies through their teeth about the circumstances"

4. "Your balancers need to stay off the fucking drugs"

5. "removed from the guru thread by incompetent mods who would rather enjoy the taste of ANet's flaccid penis in their mouth than see ANet answer for their failures"

If you answered "no" you win...however, you win nothing. These are from Auron's user space, his words being similar to Shard's in many ways (when I say this I mean mainly in regard to his personal user space, I know on other's pages Auron is very NPA savvy, where Shard isn not). Regardless of such, if Shard is going to be blocked for Anti-Anet "libel" as it has been called, EVERYONE who disagrees with Big Brother should be blocked as well. What bothers me the most is that people MAKE THE CHOICE to look at another person's personal user space, therefore any offense to their carebear sensibility is their own fault.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a point where you just leave small decisions to individual admins, Mtew. That's partly why the whole RfA process exists - to make sure the people you elect have common sense. Waiting for consensus before each block is silly and impractical. It would be too arbitrary to start saying "any blocks longer than such and such length should be discussed for such and such time before being carried out," since the specifics would just go back and forth and it would just be more trouble than it's worth. tl:dr for most of the rest of your post tbh, it's off-topic. social commentary is awesome, but we're here to discuss shard's block, not the meta-theory of blocking in general.

Back to the point, I want to unblock Shard, but am not going to do so until I hear from Kakarot (as he might have reasoning I hadn't thought of which might prevent the unblock from happening at all). I pretty much share Wyn's thoughts - he was toeing the line, but he hadn't crossed it. His actions didn't violate policy, so our reactions should be taken with that in mind. Maybe a warning, maybe a request to remove specific lines from his subpages - there are plenty of things that can be done before an outright block takes place.

Comments, Kakarot? -Auron 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I arguing with you about my block here? NO. 

I have an opinion on your competence as an admin, and would raise them if your RfA were re-opened, but I was not aware of your background at the time, so that should be dropped.  Dragging that into this discussion is a red herring and irrelevant.  Dragging that into this discussion shows how weak your arguments are.

Long blocks should be reviewed period.  A short block can be extended if there is sufficent concurance, but starting with a long block assumes that admins are god-like in there perspective, which is obviously not the case with everyone.

The 'social commentary' and 'meta-theory of blocking' provide a context that should be considered in any discussion of blocking, particularly with respect to huge blocks like the one imposed on Shard. 

In fact, I mostly agree with you in regard to Shard's Ban.  It is way to big for the infraction, especially considering that there is debate that it is in fact an infraction.      mtew 19:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick note about the block length: the current methodology is to increase the block length by a "magnitude" for every consecutive block / blocks for the same reason. So, his current block was just the next level up. --JonTheMon 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But should that promotion be automatic?  Up to a point, that makes sense, but it has gotten out of hand in this case and should be discussed first.      mtew 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

GW skills have Magnitudes too. And to keep things balanced, those magnitudes are usually subject to caps or diminishing returns at their extremes whenever the catalyst doesn't match those extremes. And this was definitely an extreme case with a tiny catalyst. So no, the "next level up" was definitely not balanced even if some of Shard's entries were UNFUNNY, aka: TOO SERIOUS & Raging --ilr 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, all blocks are already subject to review by the other admins, as any sysop is free to undo (or lengthen or shorten) another's block at any time. They don't even need to discuss it with the blocking sysop as Auron is here, though it's customary to do so as a matter of mutual respect, because the blocking sysop may have noticed something the other didn't, and because the wiki runs smoother without block-revert wars. So if you're calling for a review process for blocks, this is one of them right here. - Tanetris 20:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. However this instance is special in several ways. Particularly, it shows that the application of bans, as currently practiced, needs review. I can see that removing and reinstating blocks is a kind of edit war and a bad idea, but chopping a block back to a reasonable size while the discussion is in progress, (3 weeks in this case?) would do a lot to put the discussion back into a realistic perspective. mtew 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're the only one here that thinks the application of bans needs a review. Kakarot felt Shard's actions warranted a ban. I do not; however, given Shard's history and my respect for Kakarot, I am not going to wheel war with him, or even simply revert the block without him knowing in advance my intent and reasoning for doing so. He is in the right to place a block for any length. We trust our sysops to do that. In the vast majority of cases (most by far), the block lengths are kept. Very rarely, a sysop will have a bone to pick with a block length from another sysop, so they'll bring it up as Tane pointed out. This rare occurrence does not mean that the block application procedure needs a review - quite the contrary. Given the rarity of discrepancy, I'd say the current system works very well.

Shortening Shard's block while discussion is taking place would do absolutely nothing, as he would still not be able to post until after the discussion ends. In fact, I'm confused as to what you think temporarily shortening his ban length would solve. This discussion isn't outside "a realistic perspective." Nobody has lost touch with reality. As I've explained, Kakarot was entitled to block Shard for however long he felt necessary - I felt it was a bit too long in this case, so I brought it up for discussion. Nothing here is out of the ordinary - nothing here requires changing to become more in-line with reality. As I said before, you might have ideas for the block policy in general, but please let them get shot down on another page - as I said already, this section is to discuss shard's block. Find somewhere else to post your ideas and theories and whatnot about blocking in general. -Auron 23:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave this at 'I disagree'. As for 'it's working well enough' or words to that affect, I stick my head in the proverbial lions mouth way more often than most people. Most people would not tempt the Powers That Be or PHBs. mtew 11:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sorry about the lateness of my reply real life kinda got in the way, that and I got a new toy; technologically speaking that is; that I got preoccupied with. Anyway I'll try to reply to as much as I can although I won't even try to indent to the specific comment I am referring to since that would be madness to try to read.

@Auron - Firstly feel free to unblock Shard or reduce the block length to what you feel is more appropriate since I now would have to agree that it is more of a borderline NPA; partly due to the indirectness of most of the comments; than an actual NPA and realize that maybe a warning or request to remove the sections/pages would of been more appropriate. While I do feel that sections such as the Fail definition on the Lingo page still get very close to a personal attack since it mentions specific names I agree that maybe the block wasn't entirely necessary.

@Jon Lupen - the libel I mentioned was actually not only referring to the FAQ but also the Lingo page as well specifically the White Wasabi section at the bottom since if I remember correctly that is the name of a player and although I can't say whether any of what is written is true or not I felt that that section was done with malicious intent to damages the users reputation.

@Wyn - Although this doesn't necessarily fit with this particular situation shouldn't a personal attack be treated the same regardless of whether it was in the user space, the main space or any other space? Although I do agree that people should be allowed to vent their frustration in their own userspace, as you mentioned previously; somewhere I can't remember; this can easily be done without personal attacks.

@Yasmin - Since when have I ever been known to not like Shard? I neither dislike nor like him as a person, I may not like the way he vents his frustration here on the wiki but would never block a person based on my like or dislike of them. When deciding whether to block or not to block, I try to be as neutral as possible and base it on the facts as well as the contributions of the user; in the case of a previously blocked user both the past and current to check for any type of pattern in their behavior.

@Mtew - As was already mentioned it would be impractical to discuss blocks longer than 24 hours or even anything until full consensus was reached and would cause more problems than improve things. In regard to your comment about "huge blocks like the one imposed on Shard", that one was medium length at best. As to the length of the block, as has already been mentioned blocks typically increase in interval when the person is being blocked for the same offense.

Anyway as it's late and I still have a rather large watchlist to go through that will be it for now, if I have missed anything or any questions or if what I wrote is unclear just make a note of what it is and I will get to it later. --Kakarot 05:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and while I agree that NPA should not be allowed anywhere, I would have rather seen some discussion with Shard regarding the offensive points to see if a more reasonable solution could have been achieved. Had his attitude been poor and changes not forthcoming, then a block of this magnitude would have been warranted. I just think that considering he abided by his previous bans without trying to create chaos, it points to the fact that while his is pissed off with ArenaNet he does not have the typical troll attitude and does have ability to act reasonably. -- Wyn 05:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't stating you 100% directly, Kakarot, but rather the community as a whole in regard to disliking Shard or using him as an example of blocks. He was pleased to read several responses saying "we don't dislike him" however. Back on subject...I was basis my statement off the manner in which he was blocked this time, it seemed judgemental in the fact that it was so preemeptive and there were some comments of countdowns to the next block that it appeared as some level of dislike to me.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 20:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for deleting all of those unnecessary images :D
-A Jack 1988

You're welcome :) --Kakarot 13:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)