Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Issue archive 3

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.
The current version of this page can be found at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Admin noticeboard.

Odd ip-like contributions

Have you noticed several contributions by what appear to be (but are not) unregistered IPs? They are 10.28.100.31, -32, -33, and-34. Is this some odd quirk added by the latest wiki upgrade? One of them was a minor amendment to one of Vili's fascinating pages, and that's what caught my eye. Am I going senile? Er, seniler... — snograt 23:03, 25 October 2012 (PDT)

My ip is also being recorded as internal (10.28.100.34) Chieftain Alex 23:43, 25 October 2012 (PDT)

its a known bug.-

Zesbeer 00:19, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

But it's not the same. Before, they were 192.168.x.x, but now they've switched to the 10.x.x.x range (both are reserved for intranets). They did move the wiki to new hardware, so apparently we're behind a different switch that uses this different internal IP range. Still a serious problem, though. —Dr Ishmael

05:55, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

Request for arbitration

Between myself, Santax (talk • contribs • logs • block log) and Konig Des Todes (talk • contribs • logs • block log). I have spent the last hour and a half arguing with Konig over two incredibly petty content disputes, time I could have spent actually improving the wiki, levelling my character, or doing virtually anything else with my life. This is not the first time this has happened, but with this arbitration it will hopefully be the last. I'm extremely tired and don't have the energy to rehash all the arguments between us at this time, but I will make an incomplete list of the pages that they were on/about (note they are often locked up in edit summaries in revert wars), and there are also discussions on our talk pages about them. Fortunately I think Konig's conduct speaks for itself, making such an essay largely unnecessary:

N.B. the last few conflicts began after I politely asked him to leave my edits alone while I sought arbitration, on his talk page. If I was consistently making bad edits, surely someone other than Konig would have taken issue with them by now. But it only seems to be him reverting me, which would suggest to me either he feels extremely protective over pages he considers "his", or he has some sort of problem with me as a user. I am sad that it has come to this, but I feel as though it is stopping me from contributing what little time I have to the wiki - I honestly feel I spend more time justifying my edits to Konig (and nobody else, he is the only person who has trouble with my edits) than actually making edits.
The general process seems to be I make an edit, it gets reverted, this goes back and forth a few times in the edit summaries before I decide to make an edit on the talk page to discuss it. This results in a protracted debate, usually getting sidetracked to some irrelevant semantic issue ("what is the definition of a screenshot?" "The gravestones in Ebonhawke were documented wrongly so your point is invalid" - both of these actually happened), with any intermediary edits attempting to reach a compromise summarily reverted. It's interesting to note that these situations almost always (it might actually be always) end with Konig getting "his way" - he simply reverts until I get the point that I am not going to be able to contribute to a page, and then will debate every single issue on the talk page until he is the only person left with enough energy to argue about it - this is not how a consensus-based editing process should work. Notably, the one reversal of this situation, where Konig was the one who made the initial edits to {{Location infobox}}, resulted in him moving all the images to his desired location (because he has the permissions, and I do not), and deleting all the {{move}} tags on the pages due to be moved to File:{{PAGENAME}} screenshot.jpg. After a few back-and-forth reverts, we now sit at a messy truce on this particular issue where both sides have pages with move tags on, and no new pages have been moved, but ultimately the situation still currently sits in his favour, demonstrating that if this is the way that things are done (and I am not convinced it is), that door apparently does not swing both ways.
As stated above, Konig has been notified of my intention to make a request for arbitration on his talk page, and I invite him to make a statement in his defense here if he wishes. I apologise for the expense of time and effort involved in checking all of the above pages' recent edit histories and talk page entries, but I feel as though it is choosing between this and taking a long-term wikibreak, as I simply don't have the time or energy to fight tooth and nail with Konig on every edit I make. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:09, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

I'd like to make a few minor responses to Santax's claims. Firstly, Lornar's Pass and Eye of the North are hardly the same matter as this and have been dead issues - if they ever were - for months. Mad King Thorn similarly was never an issue brought up, nor was Cantha - if they were issues to Santax, he never presented these articles as issues to me. Elder Dragon and Sylvari never suffered from such issues outside the discussion on Talk:Elder Dragon, which is a different matter entirely, once more. Furthermore, Divinity's Reach was discussed and was treated differently than the other situations (in fact, the only articles of prevailing issue are those which range from File:Old Lion's Arch.jpg to Template:Area infobox - said issue being on the naming system for screenshots, which carried on to Santax's newer uploads, the other images linked - none of which suffered from reverts, despite Santax grouping all of these articles together). The situation of the Elona article was similarly a different matter, and discussed as well on my talk page - to which he has yet to respond to my first response about.

Secondly, "I politely asked him to leave my edits alone while I sought arbitration, on his talk page" This never occurred - that is, the mention of "seeking arbitration" - he merely stated on my talk page to discuss rather than revert (in response to my first reversion of his file name changing tagging, even), while, might I add, reverting my changes too. And repeatedly so after I worked to create a consistency in file naming (one which can be easily seen by looking through Category:Screenshots - that is, the lack of "screenshot" in the file name) some time after the initial issue. That is to say, not once but twice did he revert my edits while telling me not to revert edits but to instead discuss as to avoid revert wars (make of that what you will). I'd also like to comment on "The general process seems to be I make an edit, it gets reverted, this goes back and forth a few times in the edit summaries before I decide to make an edit on the talk page to discuss it." As mentioned - there is no "back and forth" - He edited, I reverted and made similar edits elsewhere, he reverted and posted on my talk page where I then responded, left alone for weeks, then without a response, resumed what I was doing previously - only to be reverted sometime later, once more, with a comment on my talk page telling me not to revert at the same time.

Merely making this comment so that this report isn't one-sided. I am and have been merely trying to keep a consistent naming system in the files, altering related articles and temples where need be. Outside that, it was merely a difference of opinion - and in those which lasted more than one or two reverts (usually the second being more of a compromise rewriting - such as with Lornar's Pass, Divinity's Reach, and Elona) were settled on their respective article talk pages (often without me being the only one disagreeing with Santax, such as the Dominion of Winds and Elder Dragon situations). Konig/talk 20:35, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

So, I haven't come to any conclusions yet, but here are some of my thoughts on articles, templates, files, and move tags. On the articles, while it does take time, I think it's mostly being done fine, with editing, reverting, discussing (like Sylvari). One thing that might be an issue is that if you're reverting someone a lot, you might want to start a discussion before reverting. As for the template edits, well, I'm very leery of those in general, but in this case I think the edits to Area infobox are backed up by Dr. Ish. But even then, it's a template discussion. Which kinda leads into files and renaming them; those are somewhat dictated by the template, so that's part of the former. Now as to the actual move tags themselves, I feel it's poor form to straight-up remove them when there's no real strong consensus. There's no big deal with having them for the duration of a discussion. Now, to the conflict itself, I think it suffers a bit from lack of outside input, not just admins. This wiki is more than just the two of you, so bring in other people sooner into disputes between the two of you. --JonTheMon 06:37, 29 October 2012 (PDT)

Can we start getting bans on Santax and Konig the next time one party reverts the other? The talk page negotiations have failed and revert wars continue. It's about time to let other parties get a say before any more changes are made.--Relyk 10:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Santax for his statement that he did indeed revert Konig simply because it was Konig. At this time I don't personally feel that Konig quite deserves a block, but if any other admin thinks he does, I will trust their judgment. —Dr Ishmael

13:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll just say that if someone thinks I should be blocked from attempting to keep speculation and falsification of information off of the wiki (subjectively or objectively), then go right ahead. I'll hold no ill will. Konig/talk 16:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the information itself, I'm talking about your conflict with Santax. You both need to chill out.--Relyk 01:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Could not open socket" - Account creation error

Hey guys, I seem not to be able to create an account, with three different browsers (I even tried IE o.O) I get the above error message. Cheers --188.97.151.253 21:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC) (hopefully BelleroPhone in future)

It's a known bug. I'll poke our Anet tech support about it. —Dr Ishmael

21:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned in the above bug report, I can confirm it's fixed now. --BelleroPhone 06:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Jumping Puzzles > "SteamSpur Mountains" is incorrect

Some user edited Sparkfly Fen and Mount Maelstrom into its own category, "SteamSpur Mountains". This is incorrect, as both these maps are considered to be of the Tarnished Coast within Maguuma Jungle. A simple undo will suffice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.247.168.91 (talk • contribs) at 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC).

Already un-done. -- ab.er.rant

00:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

How's this guy still not suspended?

I think most of you are already familiar with Relyk (talk • contribs • logs • block log), and if not then have a quick look at his history of comments and edit summaries. You won't have to go far to see that this guy has serious ownership issues and is openly hostile to just about everyone. I just want to know if you plan on doing anything about this user or whether you consider this acceptable. Hold Me Closer, Necromancer 08:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think your opinion equals wiki policy when it doesn't. Maybe you should read the policy pages before you go around like a white knight fighting invisible evil-doers. 24.216.239.40 09:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Which opinion/policy are you referring to? I'm referring to Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Practices and processes#Personal conduct in case there was any question about it. Hold Me Closer, Necromancer 09:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about wiki standards that you refuse to meet. Just because you want specific information on a specific location, with a specific path on how to reach it does not mean the wiki needs to store that information. You're holding yourself above others and YOU are the problem here. 24.216.239.40 09:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, which standards are you referring to (link please)? In fact, I confess I do want useful information on the wiki. Not sure what the nature of the objection is. Hold Me Closer, Necromancer 09:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you thought Relyk was hostile... well, I hope you don't meet the really hostile ones. I think this is just a simple issue and suggest that discussion should stay at User talk:Hold Me Closer, Necromancer#The camp. When you want third-party opinion on a content dispute, try Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for comment first. -- ab.er.rant

10:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Relyk, when reverting people, use edit summaries that are useful and not inflammatory, even if you do explain on the reverted user's talk page - "zzz" isn't helpful. When your revert is reverted, don't revert again - continue the discussion instead. This is standard revert war stuff.

24.216: if a user thinks a particular addition would be useful, that user is perfectly entitled to add that content and justify its presence should someone disagree. Our "policy" system, if you want to call it that, is simply an unfinished documentation of current practice. Practice is defined by consensus; consensus can only be determined when users create/discuss content. Consensus limits the practices and processes page, not the other way round. pling

16:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

tbh it's the same as leaving it blank and I wasn't going to continue to revert after my second reversion. But that's besides that point and I'll keep it in mind.--Relyk 03:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

@Pling policy is a guideline that has general consensus in itself so you're being kind of hypocritical. 24.216.239.40 17:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

But consensus changes - to see what the new consensus is, you have to edit/discuss. See the consensus cycle on the P&P page. If yesterday's consensus is forever what we follow, the wiki becomes stagnant. (If you want to continue this discussion, it might be better on my talk page.) pling

18:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

World

can this page get semi-protected? it seems to be a favorite for ip Vandals.- Zesbeer 04:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any outright vandalism made to that article since mid-November. Some people have tried to add unofficial information to the list of worlds, but that's generally not vandalism.

04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Google/goggle

What's with these googlennnn and gogglennnn user accounts I keep seeing being created? Spiders? — snograt 10:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that they're spam bots trying to pass for spiders, hoping that they won't be blocked because we'd lose traffic or something. Google doesn't need to create any wiki user accounts to index wiki pages. Google, much like myself, is all-seeing and all-knowing.

10:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I'm probably not understanding block logs - as they don't appear on there. Is Google all-sarcastic too? — snograt

10:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Google is all-all. Generally speaking we don't block any accounts unless they actually manage to make edits. The majority of them don't get past the spam filters.

10:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On further investigation, there are now fourteen of each, ranging from google/goggle0001 to 0014. They've been made at a general rate of one each per day. I foresee an incoming spam tsunami. Or not. — snograt

11:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter! We are stone! We shall resist all their assaults.

12:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We are Guild Warriors! — Mar

Master 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, I usually play a ranger or spellcaster type. :p 69.182.135.189 05:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

68.108.59.74

68.108.59.74 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

so he's still spamming chat links--Relyk 10:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it mtew reincarnated? — snograt

14:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Auron (reason is vandalism, but it's more for ignoring discussion and continuing despite opposition). Also, Tanetris doesn't like discussion on the noticeboard. Keep Tanetris pacified. It's in all our interests. pling

19:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

184.154.49.106 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

sockpuppet--Relyk 05:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

74.63.112.153 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) sockpuppet...--Relyk 09:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

wvw jp areas

the jp areas either need to be non battle areas or need to have a way for each player to turn off their battle readyness so they dont take damge from people just looking to pad their monthly tab score. im saying this because im trying to get the obsidian sanctum jp acheivement and have been killed by people from other servers not once not 5 time but over 152 time that ive counted, and im getting sick and tired of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Middlewilliam.8460 (talk • contribs).

The administrators of this wiki don't have any control over game design; we're just GW2 players like yourself. The proper place for game feedback is the official forum.

10:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

heads up

Great, the Wynthyst-hater has migrated from the Curse network. I have no clue what ticked him off so much, but he calls her "Empress Lemon" and hates her guts. And mine too, since I reverted everything he did on GuildWiki a few days ago. He seems pretty proficient at using proxies, unfortunately, so completely blocking him may be difficult. Just a heads-up to my fellow admins. —Dr Ishmael 13:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not ban the username and ipranges the person uses? DeadPhone

1. He gave up and left, you're responding to a 4-month-old topic. 2. He never registered an account. 3. He was using some kind of random-IP-spoofing proxy, which is impossible to range-block. —Dr Ishmael

05:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

1 Understood and appoligies. Just looked here for the first time and thought "What would I do if I had to deal with this", 2. registered or not it can be delt with. IE require registation, 3. Completely random can not be done with any computer. The ranges used do have a pattern. Granted pattern may not be obvious but its there. All proxies used have at least the first two octets that are similar. The third might be pseudo-random but that's where the pattern is. DeadPhone

Talk:War in Kryta

Target of repeated spam, might as well protect the page--Relyk ~ talk > 19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the IP range that was originating the Russian spam. —Dr Ishmael

19:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked capitalization redirects

Been repeatedly blocked when trying to create redirects for capitalization, has no other issue listed as why other than "not logged in". To me, that means you must not want help fixing issues. 69.183.17.105 01:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I’m sorry you were affected by this. It was an automated block trying to catch spam bots. Unfortunately the sometimes very long event name titles make it a bit difficult to make this perfect. I have adjusted the filter, so you should be able to create redirects now. If it still doesn’t work, please report back and I’ll investigate further. poke | talk 02:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It happened yet again, sort of. The wiki let me create a redirect page for capitalization, however, the actual page didn't yet exist, and I was trying to create it. But I am getting the same error when I try to save the page. See Collect griffon feathers for kailani's flying machine for the redirect page. 69.182.146.166 21:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Update of the above, the error is not "you are not logged in" as I had thought before. Apparently it is "Inappropriate new titles". 69.182.146.166 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made another small change to the filter, and went ahead and created the page with your edit (I gave you credit in the edit summary). For future reference, the easiest way to make sure you don't run into this filter when creating an event page is to use the event infobox template, though now stubbing should also work. Apologies again for the inconvenience. - Tanetris 14:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

requesting page delete

I request a page (possible two) be deleted due to not matching in-game spelling, [[Moriarty's hold]] (redirect page). Proper in-game spelling is Moriarity's Hold. I was the one that made the redirect page. 69.183.23.216 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You can tag a page for deletion with the {{delete}} tag--Relyk ~ talk > 01:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

a Forum

← moved to User talk:Knighthonor

File Deletion

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:New_Light_Scepter_Image_Proof.jpg

Can you delete this file since it serves no purpose anymore? I was using it in the initial stages of determining the correct image for a weapon. You can keep it if you want, but it's just taking up space. - Asrial 19:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way of tagging files for deletion is to type {{delete|Redundant image + ''link to file goes here''|speedy}}. (admins see these tags and nuke em later) -Chieftain Alex

19:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Where would I type this? On the discussion page for the file? - Asrial 20:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, on the actual file page, [http://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=File:New_Light_Scepter_Image_Proof.jpg&diff=514562 like this]. P.S. you can link to a file without showing it by putting a colon before the internal wikilink, e.g. [[:File:New Light Scepter Image Proof.jpg]]. -Chieftain Alex

21:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you! :) - Asrial 21:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Anomalys vs bugs

Why is it that adding an anomaly tag automatically puts pages in the "contains bugs" category when some are just anomalys (ie, the page on pine saplings, specifically the comment that I put in that pine is considered a soft wood, and in game gives hard wood logs) and not bugs? This seems to be a problem that needs to be fixed. 69.182.135.189 05:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Anomaly--Relyk ~ talk > 06:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question. Are you asking the OP to pose the question there instead? 75.37.20.148 06:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The admin noticeboard is not the place for a discussion like this that does not require admin involvement. —Dr Ishmael

06:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It would seem to me that this is an error, and it was my intent to notify the admin of a perceived error, which I thought this was the place for doing so. 69.182.146.166 21:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. For future reference, admins deal with things like vandals, banning, deletion, protection. Everything else can be dealt with by anyone else (including yourself if you're feeling bold). If you're not sure where to go to point something out or discuss, Help:WIKI and GW2W:CP are good places for general questions or requests. pling

21:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Issue archive 3

Contents