Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 2008

User_talk:Entropy

moved from noticeboard

We all know the story of this spoof user name. It's a damn shame that a fine editor/sysop like Entropy doesn't feel that she can contribute to this wiki because of some one's idea of a joke. Is it possible to delete this account, enabling Entropy to come over if she wishes? --Snograt 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been given to understand that with server access it is possible (although there are, I've been told, a number of problems that can arise) to delete an account. In the interim however, Raptors has been asked to divulge the password to that account. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because Entropy has the user name on Guildwiki, doesn't mean he/she has the right to it here or on GWW. It's a first come, first serve basis. — ク Eloc 貢 20:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's on a first sock, first serve basis. --Edru/QQ 21:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So you think it's fine for a banned user to create a sockpuppet account, deliberately using a well known user name from the other wiki as another attempt at disruption? --Snograt 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you were talking to me, no. I was criticizing Raptors' socking and disagreeing with Eloc's argument. --Edru/QQ 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was aimed at eloc. Lord of all tyria 22:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Edru :) -Snograt 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

we got a bit off topic on the talk page there.. :p ^Teo^ 01:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Raptors made that account before he got banned and he's not banned over here. — ク Eloc 貢 08:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"not banned over here" pardon? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First off whether or not Entropy has the right to it is irrelevant, it's not like the name was taken accidentally or in good faith by another user, it was taken with the deliberate attempt to be malicious. Besides which, if nothing else, there's a level of common courtesy involved. *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not like he ever used the account to vandalise though. — ク Eloc 貢 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not that's true (and I actually have no idea having paid no attention to these matters as they transpired on GWW) even if the outcome wasn't malicious, the underlying intention certainly was. *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I already made this request over on GWW where the account was created, however it has been ignored. 58.110.142.135 08:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant... it hasn't been ignored over here... so... *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The easiest solution for this would be Raptors giving the account data to Entropy.. The more complex would be using the RenameUser extension to rename "Entropy" to something else.. (This could maybe also be done by hand as we don't need the extension itself) - The question with all that is: Why should we do this? Eloc is right when he says that Raptors was first who registered that account so nobody else can claim to use that account.. I still understand the situation that it was not fair to register an account with a well known name from GuildWiki... poke | talk 12:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we do it? The account as it stands is 1) a sockpuppet and 2) created in bad faith. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant because the admin there are the same as the admin here and the account was created there, not here. Why can't Entropy create an account and name it differently like I believe Anja has done on both wikis. All she needs is a statement saying it is her on her guild wiki talk page and a link to her account here. The raptors sock puppet has been banned so it can't be used to grief and Entropy only loses a name used on another issue... which is a privilege not reserved for anyone. The reason is simply to avoid the drama and issues created over wanted to keep a name created on another wiki. 58.110.142.135 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

she could name the account entropy just, not harder than so --Cursed Angel 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not a matter of who has a right to the user name; Entropy who used it first, Raptors who registered it first. If you ask me, the account was made as a sock puppet in the first place, so right off the bat, it's not worth defending anything along the lines of "he wasn't banned back then" or anything. Being a sock puppet account, there's absolutely no loss in deleting it completely from the database.

The REAL question is, do we want to go through the trouble of deleting it just so we can make one user feel more at home here? And the answer to that question is more based on how much work it is, rather then if it's the right thing or not. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 16:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Once Mr. Ingenious Raptors pokes his head in from a different IP or a different account, as he undoubtedly will, because he's just good like that, perhaps we can further try to get the password from him to give to Entropy. And in, for lack of a better term, the court of "law", it's Raptors's account to do what he wants with it because he made it first and has the rights to it, but in the court of common sense, Entropy deserves the account because that's what everyone knows her by and the Entropy sock account was created purely for malicious intent. Personally, I believe Raptors should simply give the password to Entropy in some way or another and let her come to this wiki under her normal username. Calor (t) 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aiiane, that does not change anything with the fact that we are not able to delete the account just with a click. And we should ask then: Why should we do that work especially for this issue? And under what circumstances will we do that again when someone other wants an account to be deleted? I'm not familar with the MediaWiki software to say how much work it is, or what exactly need to be done. But whatever it is, ANet will have to do it, so we should not simply accept this request. poke | talk 17:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Has Entropy even tried asking nicely for the account? So far all I've seen is "Screw you, Raptors." — ク Eloc 貢 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that raptors had spent the previous few months being a general twat to the world, I don't think entropy would have felt asking nicely would have got her anywhere. Lord of all tyria 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

For god's sake, it would be like saying "Please Mr horse-thief, may I have my horse back?" --Snograt 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But has anyone even tried even asking him? He's quite nice & would have probably done it before the personal attack from Entropy. — ク Eloc 貢 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that raptors is banned for 3 months...Lord of all tyria 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone has tried asking him nicely. He agreed to give Entropy the password, but, when he refused to actually do so. --Edru/QQ 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) For the record, yes, he was asked by at least two users, Tanetris' post on Raptors' talk page is essentially a plea for Raptors to comply. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just get Entropy to register Entr0py or something. It's really not that big of deal. — ク Eloc 貢 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So wait... you're saying that Entropy should have to suffer (how minor that suffering is is irrelevant) because of a malicious act on Raptors part. I'm honestly a bit confused why you've gone so far out of your way to support him in this regard, I'll say it again, it's not about the impact of the action, it's about having a little bit of common decency. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is also, in a sence, impersinating a decently important figure and one that some may go to in order to ask for help. I think impersonating someone is illegal, but none the less, it is quite obviously done with malicious intent. Shouldn't really be wondering what to do, should we. Also, forcing Entropy to go as Entr0py or Entroppy or any other variant pretty much tells the impersinator they won, even if you permibann the impersination account. The letter of the law shouldn't be irrelivant when held up to the spirit of the law, but it should be see through at least. ‽-(eronth) I give up 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's illegal to impersonate someone on the internet. — ク Eloc 貢 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating is impersonating, but the legallity might be impersination with destructive or diminuating intent, which would be harder to prove over the internet with people not even using their real names. I'm not sure if it's possible to (legally) impersonate someone by donning their username. Ignoring the legallity, it was malicious intent, which I see as quite arrogant/ignorant when stealing a username on purpose. ‽-(eronth) I give up 02:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally in the process of installing MediaWiki on a server I just got; one of the first things I plan to do there is test out exactly how tough it is to delete or rename an account. If I, someone who's never had even admin rights on a Wiki, can figure out how to delete or rename an account, then I think that will answer the question of "is it too much work for such a little thing".

All in all, if it's doable, and it makes one person better off, by extension the wiki as a whole, then I don't see why we shouldn't try to get something done. As it is, we need someone with access to the server to fiddle around with it for us; are we not even going to try to ask, just because it might be more work then it's worth? And for that matter, what does anyone really value it at? Will going through all this trouble for one good contributor really be such a setback as to not be worth the benefits? -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• (1) I apologize for "personally attacking" Raptors if that has offended anyone. That accomplishes nothing. I let my emotions get out of my control and posted in a moment of anger. I'm sorry.
• (2) I don't want people to go through such trouble just for me. What makes me so special that I deserve such a priviledge?
• (3) Eloc and Poke are 100% correct in that there is no real standing for taking such actions anyways. Please listen to them. You're going to be setting a very slippery slope of a precedent if you do this...
• (4) It is easy for me to choose another name. And in any case, this is not a major issue for me. There are far bigger things than a mere username issue which have kept me from contributing here or on GWW.

Entropy on GuildWiki, 24.6.147.36 08:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In the end though, my stance is, if it can be done, there's not much reason not to do it. At the very least, Raptor's sockpuppet accounts are taking up usernames for other people. Even if you decide to change your username, Entropy, Raptors still "owns" more usernames then he really should. I don't see how a sockpuppet could have any "right" to the name in the first place. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Entropy - we're making a big deal about this because it was stolen in bad faith on the other wiki, and on this wiki we're going to try to fix that. Don't worry about precedents; if anyone from GW or PvX get administrative privileges, they'll (generally) deal with things on a case-by-case basis. I'm not too familiar with GW anymore, but on PvX the only precedent we have set is that spam on a talk page is removed (and even then, not always, depending on the circumstances). In fact, we once had a precedent about what to do when an old version of a build was archived and updated, and that got changed. Armond 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I set the one precedent. I feel more important now. :P Lord Belar 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to give Entropy her account back as soon as I'm unbanned. I left a message on Dirigible's talk so hopefully this will be worked out soon, it was all a big misunderstanding and an honest mistake on my part. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Stealing entropy's username was an honest mistake? Lord Belar 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the phishing site. Except I suppose you could say stealing Entropy's username on here was, because he didn't know the database would be shared. But probably not. Calor (t) 17:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So...what? Are we going to reset every account name which we feel is in bad faith or otherwise "taking up usernames for other people"? That would be a bad idea. Sockpuppetry is one thing. But let's say someone made an account which was used solely for vandalism and had a legitimate, non-NPA-violating name. Would we go to the trouble of resetting that too?

Usernames are not a question of "rights" in any way. They are about who gets there first, plain and simple. I had a very, very long time to register on GWW, but I willingly and purposefully never did it. Now, on the one hand, I had honestly never seen true sockpuppetry of that kind, with someone "stealing" another user's account name on a different Wiki...obviously, when there was just GuildWiki such a thing had never happened. That caught me off guard and I could never have anticipated it. But on the other hand, I really didn't see any point to registering, as I wasn't going to contribute or otherwise make myself useful. If you had been in the same situation, what would you have done?

Sockpuppets are at the very best, benign, and at the worst, a nightmare. The only good thing that can come of an honest sock (we call them "shoepuppets" sometimes) is when you must circumvent some kind of technical problem or other extraordinary circumstance. However, that being said, I have to ask...is it really worth the trouble to go and reset all sockpuppet names because "they don't have a right to them"? In other words. Have you ever thought about this before? Or is it only because it's me and Raptors that are involved here - are you letting your personal bias guide your stance? (GuildWiki equivalent: would you reset all of Stabber's socks?)

Armond - Are you saying that if a username was "stolen" in good faith, you wouldn't be making a big deal of it? I can understand that there is a difference between reserving a sock just for malicious vandalism, and reserving a sock because of GWW:SIGN or something. Still, I don't follow the logic. There needs to be clear guidelines for what is a "good faith sock" and what is a "bad faith sock", and each of these needs to be treated equally. You either reset them all or touch none of them.

The thing that I mean with precedents is that this type of issue is not something covered in any policies, on any wiki. AGF, NPA, USER...none of these deal with socks of users on other wikis, and/or the porting over through database thing. I'm asking you to set a precedent. We can be hopeful and assume that something like this will never happen again, but from my personal experience, it has been getting more and more popular lately for people to do impersonation and sockpuppetry...who knows why. Because of this, we have to prepare for the potential threat by setting clear guidelines. (Sorry for sounding repetitive.) You can't just settle this on a case-by-case basis, because it is too fundamental a question. The decision is going to redefine user/admin/bcrat rights and roles, and change GWW:USER. It is a landmark case.

I don't want this important decision to be influenced by any sort of personal bias, love, hatred, assumption, Wikibaggage, et cetera for me or Raptors. That's all I'm saying. Entropy on GuildWiki, 24.6.147.36 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I almost Tl;Dr'd, then I saw it was you, Entropy. Then I saw my name in there. As it's 4:30 am, I'ma make a token attempt at making points and go to bed.

No, you don't go around resetting every username. That's ridiculous. Deal with it on a case by case basis - if it's stolen in an attempt to be malicious, treat it like any other vandalism, i.e. revert and, if necessary, ban.

We're only dealing with it now because it's a fresh wiki and we're deciding all sorts of other things, and so when the issue was brought up we felt we could deal with this as well. Yes, I would reset Stabber's socks if I could - though I don't know the technical limitations at this point if someone tried to use those accounts. On this wiki and GWW, the Entropy account has few (no?) contributions. With Stabber's socks, perhaps a simple ban would be better.

If someone gets to a name first and they take it without meaning harm, that's good faith. If they go in and take the name knowing that it's a well known name and with malicious intent, that's bad faith. If you wait shades of grey, I'll deal with it on a case by case basis - I'm not fool enough to try to codify every eventuality, especially when there will always be an extra set of circumstances or two to add on to those I did get.

You can deal with anything on a case by case basis, and ignore any precedent set at any point in time. Every instance can and will be different - suppose I, however I did it, managed to steal Tanaric's account (as an example). I now have, in my possession, what is quite possibly the most influential and trusted signature and history page watermark. Are we going to look to precedent to see what we did about little Joe Bob complaining that his wanted username, Little Joe Bob, was already taken, so he had to take Joe Bob the Little? In particular, the more influential an account, the more quickly a decision needs to be made - and yours is, quite honestly, rather influential. I also don't see how it's a landmark case - I'd say it's a unique case that we may finally be able to find a solution to.

Again, I feel that following precedents and policies to the letter and treating them as federal laws is a very foolish thing to do, as you can never plan for every eventuality and innocents will get caught in the middle. Ignoring precedent, ignoring emotion, ignoring how important the decision may be, what's the right thing to do? I'd say that's fairly obvious.

Armond 09:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Something I wanted to post before I forgot. The reason an influential and well-known account is more important to deal with than a random one is because the influential and well known one can be used to do more things - more people will listen to you because, in my example, "it's bloody Tanaric", system permissions are generally higher, posts are inherently assumed logical or correct, et cetera. A random account doesn't have the permissions (social or electronic) to do nearly as much, and it's therefore much more important to keep them in the right hands. Armond 09:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"following precedents and policies to the letter and treating them as federal laws" - That's not what I am advocating, though if you were using exaggeration then forgive me missing it. I am mostly concerned with equality of opportunity. If Joe Bob wanted that account name and you wouldn't give it to him "because it is not important or influential", that would be a problem. Everybody who wants to have an account name reset, should have the opportunity for that...no matter the number of contribs or importance or whatnot. (Whether they actually get it is an unrelated matter.) On a Wiki - despite the truth of what you say about influence - all users should be held to the same rules, and you should try to keep exceptions to a minimum. We do this by making policies and guidelines purposefully vague, to be interpreted by the good discretion of sysops/bcrats. Entropy on GuildWiki, 24.6.147.36 03:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what my tired brain was trying to say was "if they have a legitimate claim to the account, it should be theirs." Now, that doesn't deal with two people both having legitimate claims to the same account... but let's not go there just yet. Armond 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If little Billy Bob comes to the wiki and his name is taken, it's not like we'll go and fix it for him. But if Billy Bob happens to be a very well known user on another wiki, or maybe he's well-known on another forum, or so on, then we have a reason to do something about it. If someone makes an account named "Izzy Cartwright", we're not going to go "oh well, Izzy didn't get the name fast enough, tough luck"... Same goes for anyone else. And you might not think yourself that important Entropy, but as far as GuildWiki goes, you're pretty damn close. Hell, I knew who you were before I knew who Izzy was, and before I even knew you either. That's back before you became an admin, no less (back when you had your signature on half the pages on the wiki). -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 04:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is, if it was taken by someone simply liking the name Entropy and had never even HEARD of our Entropy, then it would be fine if they had it (Izzy Cartwright is a pretty specific name though, so not a very good example). However, it was NOT created by some user oblivious to Entropy's renown, it was created with malicious intent in order to use that name. Therefor, there is no reason at all to not free it up, or at least to force Raptors to give up the password so Entropy can just use the account --Gimmethegepgun 04:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How, pray tell, do you plan on forcing Raptors to sign that over? Considering this involves but 2 users, lets just back out of the discussion and let them handle it. Raptors registered the name before Gwiki Entropy did, hence Raptors has rights to that name. If Raptors wants to be a nice guy, he can give it to Entropy. If not, that's his choice, though arguably one that not many people would agree with. Needless to say, this isn't an issue that requires the consensus nor input of this wiki's users. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's true; in the end, it's up to Raptors if he wants to give up the password. But at the same time, it is the business of some of the users here to an extent; like we've all mentioned before, the name itself has a bit of power behind it, and if Entropy isn't the one using the name Entropy, then it should be banned so that nobody else can. If it had been a normal user who had accidentally taken the name, perhaps this wouldn't be such a problem, but being that it's a sockpuppet anyway, it is a special case (even if it's not one that needs this much attention). -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 05:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Raptors does not have the right to that name, because it is a sockpuppet, which are not allowed by policies on the wiki --Gimmethegepgun 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not disallowed either. - anja 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should work on an effective sockpuppet policy, and expect this (and situations like this) to get fixed in the process. For starters, something like "NO SOCKPUPPETS", and expand it from there. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gimmethegepgun, there are no policys. — ク Eloc 貢 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but there are. You see, that account was created on GWW and therefore is subject to their policies. Since the account is shared between both of them, the one here must follow the ones that apply to account usage over there --Gimmethegepgun 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, no GWW's policies does not apply here. Secondly, GWW does not have a policy on sockpuppets afaik. - anja 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

True, they do not apply here, but since our accounts are exact duplicates with the ones on GWW, we here still have to follow ones such as, say, GWW:SIGN, since our signature settings here apply to our signature over there --Gimmethegepgun 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are not active there, you don't need to follow any rules.. poke | talk 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, pretty much. — ク Eloc 貢 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"I think what my tired brain was trying to say was "if they have a legitimate claim to the account, it should be theirs." Now, that doesn't deal with two people both having legitimate claims to the same account... but let's not go there just yet. Armond 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)"

Yeah, that is more in line of what I meant too. Not something like "If little Billy Bob comes to the wiki and his name is taken, it's not like we'll go and fix it for him." ...which leads to all sorts of problems with AGF and truthiness and stuff. "What do you mean, you don't know me? I'm X from _____" Obviously, Izzy is an extreme example, but that's valid too - impersonating ANet staff is a whole different issue than conflicting username claims. 24.6.147.36 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't really beat an ArenaNet staff member to registering an account. It's impossible unless you personally were on the IT team who sets up GW(2)W. They add in all of the usernames of the staff members before making this public. — ク Eloc 貢 04:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why that was merely an example. "Impersonating" an Admin is a closer example; people using lower-case L's to replace upper-case i's get banned right off the bat for impersonation, we just don't have rules for what happens when you impersonate someone from a different site or Wiki. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 07:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

The wiki has been out for quite some time, this idea has been circulating for quite some time, and this discussion has reached 32 kb. Has Raptors conceded the password to Entropy or not? -- Armond Warblade 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go and ask Entropy myself; Raptors is unbanned currently, right? He mentioned above that he would give the password as soon as he was unbanned, and that happened a few days later from what I could see, so in theory, Entropy should have the password by now... -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 07:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Raptors if I ever see him online. — ク Eloc 貢 02:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't, let's put our lack of policies in good use and fix it the wrong way (is what most of us want).reanor 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you care if it is what Entropy wants? - anja 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter? She doesn't have to use it, but most of us would like her to have the option open. Lord Belar 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Entropy says she's got nothing from Raptors as of yet, so apparently he hasn't sent anything (yet). Chances are he might have forgotten to send it; I can't imagine the task of sending someone an account password would be hard to forget, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Does anyone want to ask him (nicely, might I add)? Or does he keep tabs on this discussion? -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Raptors undoubtedly has tabs on everything. And it wouldn't be surprising if he forgot, as this sorta fell by the wayside for a short time. Antone have a way of contacting Raptors? Calor (t) 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't force the issue if Raptors is unwilling. Entropy on GuildWiki, 24.6.147.36 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here who has the ability to contact Raptors outside of GWW. I feel special for that :P — ク Eloc 貢 02:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not personally trying to force anything, here. But if Raptors gave you the password of his own free will, you'd take it right? He's already stated he would do this, and if he needs a reminder or two, I'm happy to bring it up. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My personal thought was that he had a chance to show good faith, and had plenty of time to act on it, and if he hasn't yet, I don't think he will. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, though. -- Armond Warblade 08:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'd take it, since it makes sense to entrust it to me or Raptors (we're the only two who actually have some semblance of a claim to the name)...Actually using it? Meh. I'm not anxiously waiting for Raptors. It would be nice, sure, but if he changed his mind then too bad for him. Moreso than me, really, as I'm not losing much...but he is not helping his PR. Entropy on GuildWiki, 24.6.147.36 11:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing Raptors has computer problems or something. He hasn't done anything in 2 weeks and I haven't seen him online recently. — ク Eloc 貢 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ermm.. yeah. His user page lets everyone know he doesn't have inet -elviondale (tahlk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Layout

Shouldn't this admin board look like the first one ;P --Dominator Matrix 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Later when it actually get's some sense. But now as we don't have an adminship policy yet, we don't need that. poke | talk 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats true and plus when you do change it, it will have the best features of the first one ;) --Dominator Matrix 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, even without an adminship policy, the page is being used for some vandal issues. I also don't see how a formatting restyle would be affected by an administrative policy. Doesn't bother me either way, but I'd just prefer the newer one (and maybe you can sneak in your |y resolved template :P) -- pling | ggggg 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Newer one imo. Calor 03:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

gogo? -- pling – ggggg 00:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

go. Lord Belar 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Seeing how Wynthyst added a new request in the same way as one would on GWW, it seems the latter is the more familiar. I took out the stuff that isn't needed or sorted out, such as the policy links etc and also the vandal template -- the only extra bit is the image. The {{IP}} template has now been moved to {{user}}, but you can use both. -- pling | ggggg 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

GuildWiki grandfathers

17:20, 30 August 2008 Auron (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Vili from (none) to sysop, bureaucrat ‎ (Grandfathering a guildwiki bureaucrat)

Where was that decided? It's a bit unfortunate in that if current practice of carrying over GWW bureaucracy to here is followed, Auron should be losing his Bcrat position. --84.128.205.247 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. It doesn't make much sense to follow GWW's bureaucrat patterns until this wiki is able to elect its own; I'd prefer the bureaucrats to stay that way (dirig, biro, etc) until further notice. We don't have any election system, nor are we bound by policy to follow any particular way of doing things. Because shuffling bureaucrats constantly serves no real purpose, I don't intend to keep doing it - until closed beta or thereabouts, when the wiki wakes up, we can set elections up.

And... why would we not grandfather a GuildWiki bureaucrat? Is GW2W not a joint project, seeing as GWiki's decided not to make one of their own? GWW was formed from grandfathered sysops/bureaucrats that ANet trusted from their performance on GWiki. I see no need to stop doing that now, especially with someone as capable as Entropy. -Auron 10:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll just note that even if we did follow the promotions and demotions from GWW precisely (and to my knowledge there's no consensus on that. Biro's "re-synch" with current GWW bcrats was more a matter of replacing inactive people with active people than anything else), I'd repromote Auron as a grandfathered GuildWiki bcrat anyway. As for the grandfathering of Entropy and some other GuildWiki admins, I fully support it. The GuildWiki community is no less important than the GWW community for GW2W, and it always helps to have a few extra eyes around on such a quiet wiki to make sure no vandals start running amok. When GW2W eventually gets rolling along, I'm sure there'll be some sort of reconfirmation process for all the grandfathered admins based on whatever policy the community decides on for admin selection. - Tanetris 12:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in full support of syncing Gwiki and GW2W sysops/bureaucrats. Although, like with GWW, a reconfirmation process at some point or another would be nice. calor (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Syncing them every 3 months (i.e., demoting bcrats/possibly sysops) or just promoting people ("permanently" - until GW2W wakes up) who have served as bcrat? -Auron 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Promoting people who have served as bcrat. Like Tane, I'm also in support of grandfathering Gwiki admins if people want (as this is a Gwiki/GWW collaboration, more or less). calor (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of the premature discussion about GW2W bureaucrat selection procedures we had around here about 9 months ago. Might I suggest to, while we have no policy and almost no activity here, form at least some sort of consensus here before promoting and demoting people? --Xeeron 15:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

All sysops and bcrats from GuildWiki and GWW can be grandfathered here if they so choose. That's my suggestion anyway. No idea about demotion, since that's a quite rare thing (isn't it?). Vili 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable start, but I want to encourage bringing up the topic here (or on some other talk page) before promoting/demoting people. For one GW has an awefully long list of admins, a few of them being people I dont want to see anywhere near this wiki at all (Gravewit). On the other hand, GWW has quite a bit of turnover of admins due to the bureaucrat elections. Way back in december last year, we concluded that we did not want to impose GWWs admin structure on GW2W and therefore wanted to wait till this wiki picks up in activity till we decide on the admin team. That reasoning could have changed, but I dont think that single bureaucrats should unilaterally decide what to do. --Xeeron 10:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if "single bureaucrats unilaterally decide what to do". It's fine for now, at least. In fact, this discussion is turning into a policy discussion, and one that I don't think is necessary yet. Activity isn't high enough to decide such a thing.

In response to your points: Gravewit -- no bureaucrat will be dumb enough to promote him, and he'd never ask for promotion/edit a wiki anyway. I don't think it's a case of "all admins must be synced, regardless of other factors", so your Gravewit example isn't a problem. If there are other people who wouldn't make good admins here, I doubt they'd be promoted for that reason ("wouldn't make a good admin"). Likewise, if a "good" admin asks to be promoted, that's ok. I don't think the GWW bureaucrat-election-situation will be a problem here -- we don't need to sync them every three months, because one doesn't automatically become "bad" when their term is over (and we don't have an arbitration committee, which is one of the main reasons for the term lengths). And that's if they even ask to be promoted here, anyway. -- Pling \ talk 15:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Gravewit, a long time ago I was intending to remove sysop/bcrat powers from some of the users who would never be coming back, but I didn't have the appropriate tools at the time. So that is a moot point. Dunno if you have anyone like that from GWW. Vili 03:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We had such a discussion a while ago, but as sysops are appointed for life (on GWW) and there is really no harm in inactive people and it is much more likely that they will come back and help a bit again than come back and destroy something, there is no need to remove the rights from them. And if there is really a good reason, people are free to start requests for reconfirmation.. poke | talk 13:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the discussion that we had about the issue, and I finished it here. *shrugs* Different wiki is different. Vili 15:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not to forget that wiki is srs business :P poke | talk 16:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)