Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 2010

PA

What do you guys do, or does anyone do anything when it comes to personal attacks on a talk page of which can be seen clearly? Ariyen 07:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Continue to discuss civilly. If the discussion can't (or shouldn't) continue, move on to something else. If it gets out of hand, people can be warned and blocked. -- pling 13:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the AN

Shouldn't we keep or have discussion moved from the Admin Noticeboard to here? Ariyen 01:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it clutters the noticeboard, and no if the discussion already stopped. poke | talk 08:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So I couldn't help but notice...

...How the candidates for deletion are beginning to pile up. And while I'm here, does anyone know why the images here aren't being sorted properly? Erasculio 13:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably because they were moved, and the categorisation hasn't caught up yet. Doing a null edit fixes it. pling 14:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

lags

Since you moved to your new database this site is always lagging. Didn't have that problem before. Ramei Arashi 06:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Kokuou and Lania Elderfire

→ moved from Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Kokuou and Lania Elderfire

Ehm, I don't think there's actually a problem here. They're just stating something they have observed, which actually seems in the best interest of the wiki. Ariyen, if people say something you do isn't right, that doesn't mean it's personal. --Naoroji 19:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is or not. I don't want people like that to troll me off this wiki, If you can't be positive, contribute to the content or participate; then don't insult (even in a nice way). That to me was an insult and it was better said off wiki (in an email). It was towards me and not content, more so it was(is) drama trying to stir. Ariyen 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No Ariyen, it was an entirely appropriate comment. It takes people a lot of time and effort to understand your writing style, and that detracts from wiki productivity. No one is going to troll you off the wiki because of your style (not while I'm around), but you can't reasonably expect people to ignore it. 20:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is here, because what I linked is in the wrong user talk space and disrespectful to that user. Ariyen 20:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you like it to be moved to your talk page instead? 20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how moving it to her talk page would help; the reason I actually put it on that page was because she can't call it a personal attack (which it isn't, but she can't tell the difference between constructive criticism and a PA) and archive it right away. I have no problem with her editing articles, coming up with designs, or uploading images, but when she tries to "fix" grammar on policy pages, it seriously hampers the productivity of the wiki. --★KOKUOU★ 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It's settled for now, if continues further then the portion dealing with me, yes. As of now, no. Ariyen 20:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Acutally, seeing Kotuou's response. Please, disregard what I said and move it to the proper talk page as it is discrediting from Kotuou (even though perhaps a personal attack as noted here) and it is on the wrong user talk page and discrediting to me. I see this as a bad disruption to the wiki and a problem as that was interrupting a discussion and did not pertain to the discussion at hand. Ariyen 22:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved. 22:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Ariyen 22:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins

This is directly related to the recent establishment of Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Practices and processes. I have wanted to do something about sysops here for a while, but waited for a (never to come) adminship policy first. Since that is off the table, we can get straight to the point. That point being: What admins do you want around here? I'll make 2 sections below, one for bureaucrats, one for sysops. --Xeeron 17:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

What I am looking for here is input on the topics of who do you want as bureaucrats here, and (possibly) how do you want bureaucrats selected? On the latter, I am kind of setting the precedent to "by discussion on the admin noticeboard talk page", but that does not mean that this is the way it has to be. So speak up if you have a different idea.

Who is currently bureacrat?

Currently, we have six bureaucrats, which were appointed in different ways (notably, none of these was ever discussed):

• ANet initially appointed bureaucrats by making all those accounts who where bureaucrats at GWW at that time bureaucrats. Out of these three, only I am still around.
• Later, LordBiro and Auron made Bureaucrats out of (some of) those who had been elected as bureaucrats over at GWW: That is the way Auron, Aberrant, Pling and Tanetris were appointed.
• Finally, Vili was made bureaucrats by Auron for being bureaucrat at Gwiki.

Out of the six, Pling can be counted as very active, Vili as inactive, while the rest of us are in between.

Discussion starters

Some of the points where I hope for clarification are:

• Should there be more/less bureaucrats? Does the number even matter?
• Should Inactive/semi-active people be bureaucrats?
• How should bureaucrats be chosen?
• Should anyone currently not bureaucrats become bureaucrat? Anyone who is bureaucrat be removed?

I'll make another section for sysops (with potentially more name specific and less general discusion) below. --Xeeron 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually count myself as very active, if not always visibly active. I'm on GW2W daily, even if I don't make any edits/blocks/deletions. But anyway. Since bureaucrats are essentially 'sysops+' here, I see no reason to directly limit their (our) number. I do think appointing bcrats should be held to an even higher standard than appointing sysops, which will naturally keep the number relatively low, but I don't think anything like 'there will always be 3 bureaucrats, no more, no less' (or any hard number) is necessary or useful. - Tanetris 17:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we "sysops+"? Not saying it should not be so (or should be so), just saying that we never really got to anything in the discussions on these issues. Oh and sorry for the activity thing, I was merely putting the limit cases down and imho, pling is the most active among us. --Xeeron 18:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We are so far. At least that's how I think most of us have been acting (even to the point that it's made it into PP: "Bureaucrats are sysops with additional tools"). Of course, the question of "should we be?" is open to discussion. My personal answer is a resounding yes: I've never liked how hobbled GWW bureaucrats become in terms of sysop powers, even if I do see the reason for it there because of the limit on number and function as ArbComm. I'd much prefer bcrats here to stay "sysops+" - Tanetris 18:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think at least 3 bureaucrats should be the minimum. It creates a tiebreaker in addition to general redundancy. I don't think there needs to be a limit, but 7 seems like a lot of bcrats. I'd advocate for bcrats to at least be semi-active. Not a whole lot of activity, but enough to be easily contacted. To expedite the selection process, I'll tentatively propose that the current bcrats and sysops decide new bureaucrats. It's a step removed from the general populace consensus (users have to become sysops), but the selection committee is essentially composed of trusted users already. --JonTheMon 18:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Minimum: 1 active bureaucrat. No maximum: we want as many capable bureaucrats/sysops as possible; if they fit the requirements of "capability", there's no point in restricting them because of an arbitrary limit in numbers. I don't have a problem with semi- or in-active bureaucrats or sysops. I think the pool of bureaucrats is varied in a good way and there's lots of experience between them, so I'm happy with it. (That said, I'm not altogether comfortable with Vili's contribs on GWW and his more recent actions on GuildWiki, so that's the only person I would consider removing in future.) pling 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pling as per Vili, and I don't believe Vili would care anyway. There is one other bureaucrat about whom I have reservations, but it hasn't been an issue yet. 20:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very much in line with Felix. I would also like to encourage more comments here. Especially if there are people who disagree. The reason mainly being that I plan to implement changes if they get a lot of agreement here, so please comment if you disagree with something. --Xeeron 11:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As things stand, bureaucrats do not have any limitations as Guild Wars Wiki bureaucrats do. It could be feasible to rotate bureaucrats with sysops, unless a sysop specifically declines. The individuals in rotation would have to be active and accept being called upon to become a bureaucrat. This would remove the RfA process for determining bureaucrats.

In regards to the quantity, I would suggest five at any point in time. Why five? I would like to see more bureaucrats than three so there will be a more varied opinion in matters that require their attention, but I wouldn't want to see so many that their discussions will always be long and drawn out.

This paragraph actually applies to sysops as well as bureaucrats. I have seen almost everyone being active in some fashion across the wikis, however there are a few that have seemingly dropped off the face of the earth. One of these individuals I mention is Biro. I have no doubt Biro still has the capacity to perform his duties, but the two questions that I have to ask would be, will he return and, if he did, would he still want the position? — Gares 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pre-comment: I came to realise this is going to be a long comment. Sorry in advance. -To comply with Xeeron's need for more comments. Though I am not entirely sure if what I will write will be of any contribute. But I do hope the point comes over, even if it doesn't count. :P - So... on the point for the inactive bur/sys's... I guess it might be wise to temporarily have them removed from their position? I don't think that having them on the list will contribute to the reliability of the wiki, even if these people in question are in any way reliable, trustworthy, efficient, friendly, social, wise, informative or any other positive (or negative) reason or attribute they might have. Active or semi-active bur/sys's will and might remember the inactive ones in one extend or the other, giving the inactive bur/sys's a chance of returning to the wiki. We cannot say at this point when or in what way they will/might return, let alone know their reason (be it right away, or within days or a week) of their come back. The bur/sys have some sort of fatherly or motherly role to play over the wiki, guiding and advising the contributors of the wiki. Also trying to protect the atmosphere for both the wiki readers and those of the people of real life. We are all, except for a (few) bot controlled accounts, here for the same reason. To contribute and improve the wiki.

Many bur/sys's will require more control and direction/guidance, in some way. Too little bur/sys's will have the same impact and need of more control and direction/guidance. With a good community base, see the wiki helpers for example, the need for bur/sys's will be less. As they will help in whatever they way they can as well. This comes to my point that I agree with Gares on having at least five bureaucrats. Guaranteeing the variety of opinions, but at the same time not having too many of them. (As contributors will also have an opinion or say in the matter.)

The point of sysop has a nearly same function, yet a more important role as in keeping the wiki from spam and vandalism, thus keeping the readers safe from harm. Too many is risky, having a few can again be risky. As we all know, there only has to be one pissed off scripter (or however you call these, be it 'hacker', 'developer of malicious software' and so onwards) who could set off an attack that will require immediate attention. Damage will be done, but how much or critical the damage could be lessened with the right resources at the right people. (I'm not aware to what protection this wiki currently has, or in what way it'll react to any attempts of ill intend.)

The people who will be bur or sys? I have no idea, I have paid no attention to this matter. Didn't even knew (till the moment I was interested in the discussion) that some of you guys are actually bur or sys's. I have little experience in this matter on how the actual election progress goes on the GWW or GW2W. I have only experienced one moment, that would have required people to be elected by the community and/or (in this case) bur/sys. This would only happen if there was an actual need for a bur or sys. To the last question of the four: I have again, not paid attention to who would be fit to fulfil these roles. I support the means of a wiki, as it helps (in my case) me out a lot on my adventures throughout the game. Knowing that I will not get stuck on any part, and fulfilling the need of devouring information (and the lore). I would support anything, as long as the quality would not suffer and the people will not be unsatisfied. (As long as both/all sides understand it, that is.)... With that I'm rounding it up, typed way too much. ge4ce 12:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a system in which bureaucrats are "sysops+" (sysops who can merge accounts and manage user rights), in an unlimited number (who cares, it's not like someone could ban all other bureaucrats and sysops).

Regarding the method of choosing bureaucrats... In one of the adminship policy proposals, someone states basically the following:

• On GW1W, people have a lot of work to choose a bureaucrat.
• On GW1W, bureaucrats do next to nothing.
• Therefore, on GW1W it would be better if bureaucrats did more stuff, so let's make them leaders of the wiki (if someone skipped the above and just jumped to the nice bullet points, this isn't my opinion, just more or less what someone else said).

I agree with the first two points there, but my conclusion is the opposite one: if we are going to have bureaucrats who are basically sysops with one or two extra tools, having all the wiki circus which exists in GW1W for the bureaucrat elections doesn't make sense. I would rather have something far simpler, such as only sysops becoming bureaucrats and the matter being decided based on discussion (or maybe even the rotation system Gares mentioned above) instead of having wiki events through those elections from GW1W. Erasculio 11:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I mirror Erasc in this - if bcrats are going to be sysops+, which I have no problems with, the method for picking bureaucrats needs to be No Big Deal. Even a rotation makes me wary - what purpose would it solve? Simply having a pool of bureaucrats to give their opinion on matters should work. I'm trusting that the arbcomm system won't return (at least in its old form), so I'm not really sure what the need is for maximum number or any kind of arbitrary time-based promotion/demotion. -Auron 13:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that too. I'd prefer discussion-based appointment of sysops->bureaucrats over rotation. pling 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. 15:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. --Kyoshi (Talk) 15:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If a set limit of bureaucrats is not used, what would be the purpose of not promoting every sysop? Wouldn't it be more efficient to give everyone all available tools? Unless it is stated that so many opinions would possibly slow down the discussion of an important matter, there are no negatives.

As for any ideas for choosing, I don't really care as long it is a viable option to where we can throw out the voting system entirely. — Gares 17:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some users we trust to have sysop tools, but not everyone in that pool is necessarily trusted enough to manage user rights (especially if deciding who will become a sysop or not is a matter of interpreting a discussion in order to find a consensus). Erasculio 18:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"If a set limit of bureaucrats is not used, what would be the purpose of not promoting every sysop" The same reason we don't promote every non-vandal user to sysop, despite there being no limit on the number of sysops. - Tanetris 18:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's reaching, since user->sysop is a leap and sysop->bureaucrat is a step at the most, but I just wanted to put that point out there. Without a limit, though unlikely, every sysop could very well have bureaucrat powers.

Eras, I'm not too worried about trusting with bureaucrat tools, because if I distrusted a user, it would be before they were even made into an admin. — Gares 19:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what roles bureaucrats play. If they're going to appoint/recall sysops with discretion (whether on its own or in addition to community input, the latter being most likely), bureaucrat appointment would be need to be 'stricter' than giving all sysops the tools. pling 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion started completely the wrong way, with already talking about specifics about numbers and activities. The actual important thing however completely was skipped first. Before talking about who should be a bcrat, we should first say what exactly bureaucrats are supposed to be.

If it's really going to be "sysop+", which I would really welcome, then I agree with those above, that bcratship should be an "extension" to normal adminship, so only sysops can get it, but obviously not every sysop gets it. poke | talk 18:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Poke: So far I haven't seen any objections (Xeeron questioned, but didn't express objection or support) to bcrats being "sysops+", and a handful in moderate to strong support. I think it's fair to proceed with discussing "sysop+" bcrats unless/until someone objects. Like I said way back near the top, the question of "should we be?" is open, and I gave my reasons why my answer is yes. If anyone wants to chime in with a no, they're free to, as always.

Gares: I agree that it's not as large of a difference from sysop to bcrat as there is from user to sysop (just to throw some numbers around, on GWW, there are 18 active and semi-active admins (counting current bcrats, not counting Wikichu) out of 357 current active users (according to Special:Statistics). That's about 5%, without even getting into the tiny fraction of a percentage of total registered users. Of the 25 current admins there (including inactive, still excluding Wikichu), 11 have been bcrats (44%). There are probably a couple more that could make bcrat if they ran, too.) That said, there is a difference from sysop to bcrat, and I believe that we should hold attaining bcratship to a somewhat higher standard than sysophood, which will most likely limit bcrats to some percentage of sysops (perhaps 50%, perhaps less, perhaps more). That being said, even if all sysops wind up being bcrats because the only people who meet the standard for sysop also meet the standard for bcrat... Again, assuming bcrats are sysops+, I see no problem with that. I see no reason to place any artificial limits of more than one or less than all, as the only difference it can possibly produce different from letting things settle out naturally is to either have perfectly good bcrat candidates limited to being sysops, not as good bcrat candidates winding up bcrat, or, in the case of making all sysops bcrats automatically, someone who would be a perfectly good sysop not being promoted just because they wouldn't make as good of a bcrat. None of those situations seem desirable. - Tanetris 19:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the above

Since the discussion seems to have slowed down, I'll try to summarize what was said in a few points:

• Bureaucrats should be able to use normal sysop tools (strong support)
• Vili no longer bureaucrat (some support)
• No common ground on number of bureaucrats
• Chose bureaucrats by a very simple method (strong support)
• Chose bureaucrats from the pool of sysops (some support) --Xeeron 16:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sysops

Second topic for admins. Basically, sysops fall into either of 2 categories: Grandfathered by Anet, or grandfathered by a bureaucrat.

According to the admin template, we currently have 4 active sysops and 16 inactive sysops. Similar to the section above, I am looking for answers to the following:

• Should we chose sysops by discussing them here?
• Do we need more sysops, yes/no?
• Do you have any proposals for new sysops, or anyone who should not be sysop? --Xeeron 17:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about sysops

I think sysop selection should occur on a separate page, somewhere (could be sub-page of admin noticeboard, could be it's own policy/project). I do think there should be some sort of formal nomination/candidacy process, to establish who is serious and intentional about being a sysop. As to the quantity, it'll vary based on the community size and activity. Right now, we probably have too many sysops, but as it grows we'll need to add more. --JonTheMon 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think discussion is the best route to choose sysops, but not here. Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Sysop selection, maybe. More active sysops would be useful, as always. For now, if a user wanted to become a sysop or wanted someone else to be, starting a discussion on the separate page (whatever it's called) would be good. I don't think it has to be any more "formal" than that. Also, if a current sysop wishes to 'renew' his sysophood (i.e. get a more recent consensus), he can do it in the same way. pling 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

^ +1 for discussion on a separate page. I believe current sysops should be required to undergo a new reconfirmation for this site. While this is still some of the same crowd from GWW, it's only fair and common courtesy. With the current number of sysops, two questions still remain from my bureaucrat post above regarding inactive sysops. Will they come back and would they even want the responsibility of sysop again should they return? I am not suggesting removing all inactive, but to contact them (email), ask, and base a decision upon a response (should one be given). This would cull the ranks and give us a more detailed picture of what we will need in the future, in terms of extra admins. I agree with Jon that we will need the excess number of sysops in the future, but for right now, I do not believe we need to open new adminship requests unless it is an exceptional user. Presently, the current active admin and bcrat staff handle our responsibilities with ease. — Gares 15:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)-

This is actually something I would rather not do right now. While this wiki is more active now due to more GW2 news, the community is still very small, mostly based on people from GW1W and GuildWiki (which is a bit expected, since ArenaNet is not linking this wiki from any of their websites yet). I would rather wait to decide on how sysops should be chosen, and to reconfirm the current sysops, when the community here is bigger, and has less influence from the GW1 wikis. I don't think we need more sysops than we currently have (despite how the list of candidates for deletion is rather big right now : P), nor that we should remove the sysop tools from any of the current ones; at least not yet. Erasculio 11:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition to (or instead of) the reconfirmation thing, we need to manually weed out inactives. Some of them will be back when they pick up the game, but some will not. I propose we weed down the list on GW2 release based on who is active by then and who isn't. The reconfirmation idea has merits, but with a great influx of new users, trying to ask them who they support and who they don't is an exercise in futility; they won't know enough to make a fair judge of a sysop's character that early in the wiki's life. At best it will be a popularity contest. -Auron 11:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio has a good point above that currenly the community is very small (so picking sysops might be premature), yet Auron is also right that, once the community gets bigger, those new people wont know a whole lot about how to pick sysops (making it hard to pick sysops at an early time after the game goes live). I guess everyone agrees that we have enough sysops right now, but it is very likely that we will need more once the game is live. The question then being, do we have enough, even for the first busy months, so that recruiting additional sysops can be postphoned till a time when the new people have settled in and can make informed statements about who to pick? --Xeeron 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It'd be great if ANet linked to the wiki before game release...would kind of make that influx of users a bit less overwhelming.

It definitely seems like the sysops/bcrats are doing just fine at the moment, though 4 active admins would probably have some trouble once the aforementioned influx happens. I would support Auron's idea of checking up on the inactive admins and seeing how many of them plan to come back at game release, or at all, and seeing where to go from there concerning recruitment of new sysops. --Kyoshi (Talk) 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, 8 active admins. --Kyoshi (Talk) 16:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ArenaNet has asked us before (like a year ago) whether we want a link on their website GWW, but we said no. We can tell them we're 'ready' now. pling 16:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up. 16:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I misremembered anyway. pling 16:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing I want to implement is a three-strike rule for admins and bureaucrats. Whether we want to believe it or not, other users look to us as to how to act appropriately and we do have a greater impact on the community than a regular user. An admin getting one ban could happen, but an admin getting three? If that happens, it is time to let that person go. If an admin is not trusted to act appropriately, they should not be trusted to have sysop tools at their disposal. — Gares 17:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If something like this is implemented, should ban history from GW1W carry over to GW2W or would everyone start with a clean slate? I can see that there is only a couple of sysops that could be affected potentially if bans carried over. In principal, I do agree that something like a 3strike rule may be beneficial, but at the same time it seems that sysops generally don't get blocks even if their actions sometimes cross the line. But then again, with potentially many new sysops being put in place closer to the release of GW2, this clause might make it more easier to control inexperienced sysops that consistently cross the line. --Lania 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like an arbitrary-number-of-strikes system that looks at the number and not the severity of events. I think removal of sysop tools is looking too far ahead into the uncertain future. Besides, Auron was banned once yet was reconfirmed just recently, so a strike system based on bans seems pointless. pling 19:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Auron is the only sysop now to have bans against him, I can understand the example. I did review his block status in my part of the decision and they did not cost him the reconfirmation. But my suggestion is not based solely on Auron, it is sysops in general. I do not believe durations to have any merit in regards to any user. However, actions do speak for a person's character, pattern of behavior, and, in an admin's case, eventually raises the question whether or not a person is fit for adminship.

In regards to your uncertainty future concern, we have already created boundaries to deter certain behavior and disciple users that cross those boundaries, should it be in the present or future of this wiki. Would it not be safe to say, then, that a boundary just for admins is so out of the question? — Gares 23:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The actions are what should be assessed when determining if they're fit for adminship, not the number of strikes or bans they have, which is what I was objecting to. Even if bans are based on actions, the actions themselves are more important.

Those boundaries are tried and tested, and not just here. The future isn't uncertain with this because we've had numerous examples of these boundaries being crossed, so we know how to deal with them; they're borne out of practice, as the name suggests. The same can't be said for sysop-only boundaries. pling 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have said above, I agree that the actions are what is important and I agree that we have had numerous examples of these type of issues being crossed. I've skimmed some admin block logs on GWW and GWiki this morning (because it was less boring than work). It cannot be denied that we've had admins in the past that skirted out of situations that would result in a block if it was a regular user, and admins that have violated NPA (some consistently), trolled, circumvented blocks, been disruptive, and stirred up drama. This type of conduct is unbecoming of an admin. Particularly because we are supposed to be setting the bar. If it is shown that we do it, it only causes users to want to practice that type of behavior even more. "If he/she can do it, why can't I?" That is why I feel that we should be subject to a stricter standard.

A three-strike ruling, given different severities for actions, would probably not be the most ideal course of action. The only other option I can think of atm would be to have a formal discussion on whether or not to strip a sysop of their position should the need arise. — Gares 14:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In many ways I agree with Gares... I think the sysops definitely sets the tone for user behavior. PvX might be an odd example but... many of the prominent trolls gained sysop position there, and that entire wiki became little more than a troll drama-fest. I'd have to dig around for specific examples but I remember cases where users were complaining that they should be allowed to troll since the sysops do it too. Also if such a formal discussion takes place, it probably should be invisible to the rest of the regular user base. --Lania 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "a stricter standard", but I agree with "the same standard as everyone else" - i.e. if a user gets blocked for <x>, a sysop doing <x> should also get blocked. (Well, I suppose it is "stricter" in a way, as <x> could lead to desysoption.) If admins are getting away with disruptive behaviour, this is more a problem of other admins not dealing with this properly than it is a problem with 'the system'. If bureaucrats here are going to be "sysops+", they can help to ensure disruptive sysops are blocked in the same way disruptive users are.

Yes, discussion to determine a sysop's status would be better than strikes. pling 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see a very simple system for sysops, without any rules or standards. A simple page for discussion, where anyone can up with something like “Hey, I think user X should be sysop because bla bla bla”, then the community is able to discuss this as a whole and come up with a decision. I the same way when a user has a problem with a sysop he can simply start a discussion as well, without any formalities or anything else. Just plain discussion where everyone is able to discuss. poke | talk 18:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A strike system would prevent unscrupulous sysops from wikilawyering or rationalizing their way out of a transgression. 63.232.208.113 18:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't turn this into an RFA. I think the sysops and bureaucrats should appoint a possible new sysop and then have the community elaborate as to why this is a good or bad choice. Neutral can be left out altogether. Disregarding status, a disruptive user is a disruptive user, sysops and bureaucrats no less. That's what I feel anyway. - Infinite - talk 19:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with poke that sysops should be chosen in a discussion, not a vote. Given the current PP setup, I'd also like to see a sysop discussion page (for discussion about unclear cases, maybe this can be the admin notice board talk page) and potentially another one for bureaucrats. --Xeeron 20:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Even now in GW1W, sysop appointment isn't really by vote, but rather by the reasons people give, and by the discussion in the talk page. But to make things seem even less of a vote, probably just get rid of the support/neutral/oppose sections and just have it be pure discussion. As far as nominating goes, I think the nominator should contact the nominee first before actually nominating someone for "sysop discussion" since some people probably don't want to be nominated for the sysop position. --Lania 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nominations shouldn't be made by users as they please. That would get messy because everyone is free to nominate at any time. You could counteract this easily by opening and closing the nominations page when positions are not needed to be filled, which would be my idea. - Infinite - talk 22:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe nominations should be restricted to be handed out by sysops and bcrats? I wouldn't be opposed to your idea either. --Lania 22:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree with infinite, having people nominate others at arbitrary times would be incredibly messy. But then I don't want there to be a nomination-fest once the gates are open either. I would have no problems once the wiki gets up and running at greater capacity if the sysops get together and nominate people themselves. Then we could discuss based on their recommendations. After all, they are the ones who know the "job" better than anyone. But I would like to see the current set of sysops be discussed as well. I do not think that they should be grandfatherred into sysop-hood on this wiki just because they were part of another. Obviously the ones that are around now are doing a great job (though I have little to complain about or compare to). Once the wiki gets more people (either though linking to gw sites or release of game), then I think the floor should open on whatever sysops are remaining. In regards to the "remaining" bit, I thin kthe list should be currently examined as suggested, and trim the so called fat. Venom20 22:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor snag with that idea: We always need good sysops (and, by the same token, we never need poor sysops), so positions will never be closed and positions will never be open. - Tanetris 22:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The nominations solely appointed to sysops and bureaucrats was my idea for a while now, because of the drama I was linked to on several GWW RFAs. But I can be lenient enough to a window of nominations and only proper discussions to back up/turn down nominated users. As I said before; neutrality does not add towards anything so it should be left out of any of said discussions. Also, we don't need an infinite amount of sysops, that is overkill. (I have yet to read Venom's comment, a second.)

EDIT: I am with Venom on this. - Infinite - talk 22:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how restricting nominations to administrators helps at all.. It's not as if we are overflowed with RfAs on GWW, so it makes no real sense to not allow normal users to nominate people. And often that's the better way anyway, because administrators might not be able to see the sysop potential in every single user directly, so a hint by the community is fine.

And it's common sense to ask, or at least inform the user in question when you nominate him.. And there is no reason why the user in question couldn't add a simple “I don't want, thanks” comment to that discussion and close it like that.. It's really a non-issue. poke | talk 22:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There will of course be many people interested when "the doors are opened", but as Poke said, it's not really an issue if there's a few RFA-equivalents going on at the same time. Manifold 22:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On that subject, wasn't the original guildwiki running on user-nominations? If i remember correctly, there really wasn't that many "joke" nominations where a user nominated a troll or an obviously bad candidate... though there were some. Even on GWW I remember Gares nominating freedombound once but he declined, so there is some way of at least nominating somone-else on GWW too, and yet I don't remember any flood of Rfa's either --Lania 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mehh, I was linked some pretty bad cases of RFA in the past, though. I suppose a general RFA I can live with, as long as it's backed by a proper discussion, not support,neutral,opject. As I said, neutral is not contributing anything to such decisions and should therefore be left out. I don't know the general activity frames of the current sysops/bureaucrats but I proposed a window to have oversight at the start. I can imagine there might be quite a few, if not too many, nominations at these stages. Nothing we cannot handle, I trust. (I just feel so helpless with my current internet connection myself, I think that causes my objections at the moment. Need to trust you guys more. :P) - Infinite - talk 22:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"we don't need an infinite amount of sysops" Yes and no. Take any given arbitrary number of sysops (and there really is no way to set a finite number on sysops that doesn't come down to being arbitrary). Say 22, the number of sysops (not counting bcrats) on GWW currently. Assume that, somehow, we have 22 active, excellent sysops, and the community starts to notice that there's another user who would make a great sysop. Is there any good from not letting that user become a sysop until one of the current sysops steps down? Looking at it from the other side, still saying the magic number is 22, let's say we have only 10 active sysops (which we do if you count bcrats), and no good candidates. Should we recruit the 12 closest to acceptable anyway, or does that do more harm than good?

Like I said, we always need good sysops and never need poor ones. Trust me when I say that, holding to those standards, there will never be a huge amount, but an artificial limit is simply not useful. - Tanetris 23:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so. I'm just very appalled by how RFA can run out of hand on GWW and that's where my slightly negative comments rise from. I'll trust you people on your words as you all have been more active in the system. :) - Infinite - talk 23:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) In response to someone or other: we had an issue on GuildWiki where Warwick got nominated by her dumb friends 6 times. Other than that, no problems come to mind- we don't take non-serious nominations seriously. 23:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would actually like a system in which sysops (and sysops+) can nominate anyone, but users can only nominate themselves. So if people want someone to be a sysop, they would have to either convince the user in question (and it doesn't really makes sense to me to bother with a discussion about a possible sysop who does not want the position) or a sysop in order to get a nomination. Erasculio 23:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Infinite, I don't really get your objections to support/oppose/neutral system. It's a simple way to state where you stand. I really don't get what you have against neutral votes. In general, those votes are from people who have an opinion about the candidate, but can't come to a yea/nay decision, and often have very good insight into a user. Often times a neutral vote will bring out many of the pros and cons of a user that supports/opposes don't. --JonTheMon 00:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio: And where exactly is the point in starting a discussion about the candidate's ability with a sysop, just so the sysop starts a second discussion on a different page by nominating that candidate? Instead the user could just nominate the candidate himself and make that discussion once while targetting every community member in that discussion... poke | talk 00:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Jon: All those opinions can be expressed in a dedicated discussion as well.. Currently RfAs are quite one-sided. Discussion doesn't happen very often and the only reason why users refer to others “vote” is by either supporting or opposing that user's vote. By using just a discussion however I think that the actual reasonings if a user should become a sysop get a lot more clear, and other users are always able to directly refer to another's comment. I believe that a plain discussion will open up more relevant information that decides about the user's ability of being an sysop. poke | talk 00:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To poke's question: it would block some joke nominations. As seen on the joke nominations for bureaucrat elections at GW1W, even those candidates who are obviously joking still get attention from users. Making a sysop to be required to make some screening on a candidate prevents to some degree the entire community to be called to discuss a joke nomination. Besides, as also seen at the GW1W bureaucrats elections, sometimes it's not so simple for an user to say "no, thanks" to a nomination made by someone else - a nomination made for an user who does not want to become a sysop but simply is not around to refuse the nomination would make the community waste its own time in a pointless discussion. Liming nominations to the candidate himself and to sysops could prevent such things from happening, as long as sysops asked the user in question if he was willing to be a sysop before beginning the full community discussion. At the same time, it would prevent a situation in which only the active sysops and their friends become nominated for an adminship position, as could happen if only admins were allowed to nominate people. Erasculio 00:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

@Poke: Except discussion can easily be sidetracked, the people that post the most text can easily disguise a good point by surrounding it with walls, and more often than not they become endless repetitions of the same topics again and again. The support/oppose/neutral system, which is of course in addition to discussions, ensures that everyone can get their say and it will be seen. 00:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I oppose to s/n/o system is because if you can be neutral about it, the positive argumentations weigh up with the negative argumentations to an extent that the user is left undecided. If you then cover neutral in the sense of "I don't know the guy." then the opinion is exclaimed over lack of knowledge about the nominated contributor (which can be countered by doing some research). Neutral doesn't add explicit details to a discussions that can't be covered beforehand. And when the positive weighs up to the negative to become a 50/50 reasoning, you basically should oppose. - Infinite - talk 00:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio: In case of joke nominations (or inactivity), which happen very rarely anyway, it would be very easy if a bureaucrat would simply close it. Especially if we are going to have sysop+ brats with more activity, I don't think joke nominations will ever be an issue. And even if, there is still no difference, where the discussion takes place. Being it on a sysop's talk page first (where the nominating user is trying to convince the sysop) or being it directly at the appropriate location, there is really no difference, except that we will have split up discussions about essentially the same things and redundant restrictions on the process itself.

Felix: RfAs don't require discussion at all, all that matters is the content of the votes. And the effect you described for discussions also happens in a similar way with RfAs: The number of votes does the same. But as RfAs are not evaluated based on numbers, I believe every bcrat is capable of following such a discussion and making a decision as well. poke | talk 00:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point in making bureaucrats work harder to do the same job. 00:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A very easy way to deal with the (minor) problem of joke nominations is to require each candidate to agree to the nomination before discussion is started. At the same time, that would stop people wasting their time discussing a candidate that is already going to decline. --Xeeron 12:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Scythe

no offense Cyan, but i dont take kindly to insults, also, ive dropped it, and explained a few things on your talk page. — Scythe 22:54, 19 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly call that explaining. ShadowRunner 22:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You explained a few things. The only thing I see is how you insult me on my language. -- Cyan 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"ive dropped it, and explained a few things on your talk page". If you've dropped it, Scythe, drop it. - Tanetris 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

umm... i thought i did? — Scythe 23:07, 19 Sep 2010 (UTC)

The CAJOS section

At the CAJOS section, it was mentioned, "we don't just delete comments left on a talkpage" - why? In GW1W there's the policy that we never remove comments from talk pages, but I'm not sure we have to follow that here. Following the idea behind the Guild Wars 2 Wiki: Practices and processes, instead of having a situation in which we never remove comments from talk pages, or in which any comment may be removed from talk pages, I think the best would be an in between. People from GW1W are familiar with a situation in which a new user creates an user page, receives a "welcome to the wiki!" template on his talk page and then proceed to remove it, only to be admonished about how he's breaking the rules and etc. IMO, that's a very hostile way of greeting a new user, marking his very first contact with the community a matter of policies and etc. Is there any real problem in allowing users to remove that kind of comment from their talk pages? We may explain to users that important content should not be deleted (such as warnings about improper behavior and important wiki subjects) if they try to remove them, but otherwise, I think people should be free to remove things like a "welcome to the wiki!" message or a "First!" kind of comment. Erasculio 22:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"First" basically qualifies as trolling anyway. You have a point. --Kyoshi (Talk) 22:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) the problem with something like this is that, they'd still be bombarded by policy. It'd just be "hey! you can delete that welcome now, if you want. Just never remove anything else without archiving." vs. "hey, dont delete stuff, k?". The former would be far more confusing, and allow for a great deal of possible wikilawering from people who repeatedly breach the 'policy'. Meanwhile the latter is more of a "hey, cut this shit out". Not really sure what better between the two, though. @ Kyoshi, although, a 'first' isnt trolling in my mind, just harmless talk page spam (aka the norm), its not something that "needs" to stay on a talk page (eg how neil has his spam archive, for the like). — Scythe 22:48, 27 Sep 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that every page has a history, so only sysops can actually delete things. Archives are nice because they let you find what you're looking for a bit quicker, but honestly, the whole forced archive situation on GWW was unnecessary. 22:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put this on the RfC page, using remove vs. delete. Also, I feel "forced archiving" is a positive aspect, as it prevents rv. warring from happening (for the most part, anyway). Plus, with an archive, page histories will (hopefully) not exceed 1 page each (because 1000edit long histories aren't fun). — Scythe 22:57, 27 Sep 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Scythe: I think the ideal situation would be to simply not say anything to an user who removes something he's allowed to remove. So someone who deletes a "welcome to the wiki!" message wouldn't really receive a "ok, you can delete that, but not important stuff" messages, rather would hopefully be left alone.

I think the forced archive thing doesn't really work when people think they may archive anything in order to stop a discussion they don't like. It's not incredibly uncommon to see someone receiving even a mild admonishment and then instantly archiving the discussion, as a way to force it to die. While there has never been a policy about that kind of behavior, I think it illustrates well how a system of absolutes ("never remove contents from talk pages", "always archive content you want to remove" and etc) doesn't really work. Erasculio 22:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, archiving only saves any space if you use move-page archival rather than copy-paste, and almost no one on GWW ever did. So it really was just organization. 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @ Era: really? I've never seen a user archive to 'kill' a conversation (frankly thats rather odd...) I do think, however that new users should be guided to not remove content from talk pages, in some way/shape/form. — Scythe 23:09, 27 Sep 2010 (UTC)

@ Felix, I used the move page method, so I just have that perspective. — Scythe 23:09, 27 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen archives nearly every complaint brought to her talk page immediately. We had a user like that on GuildWiki, too- she has over 50 archive pages. 23:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

thats just excessive, and unreasonable. — Scythe 23:18, 27 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Just ban him.--Emmisary 01:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted him, and warned him yet again, this is getting old, fast. He doesn't get it, despite what is it now, three users telling him to stop it. — Scythe 1:11, 28 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm rather curious what went wrong with him... back in 08' he was just a normal, "hey! these are my characters and wiki is my bragging space for them," user. Now in 10' hes this anti-social person on some no-talk-page crusade? What went wrong. — Scythe 1:20, 28 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Or... just ignore him for now? you guys are blowing this situation up to incredible proportions. When he deletes everything again, don't revert immediately. Just let it simmer and see what happens. He's not even much of contributor, and at the moment, what does having his talk page being empty harm? Wait till admins act, and leave it alone. --Lania 02:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this has already been brought to the attention of the admins, so let them deal with it. Continuous reverting will just assist to fuel him/her. Venom20 02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more it seems as though this guy, and this guy are actually the same person,... D: --Naoroji 09:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I also speculated that, but only the admins know the real truth.... (enter x-files music) Venom20 12:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, venom, i am that IP, i fixed your page, ike was on skype with me trying to fix it, i deleted a line of code it was fixed -the background, he re add your background. if all you said on my talk was "welcome ect." then nothing NOTHING would have happend. The fact you said to use 1337 or leet was the tipping point. I can say what i want and i wanted to say elite. If i didn't i would have put something else .. clearly. All the people QQing over something which means absolutly NOTHING is just absurd. I contribute as much as Izzy and if you are all QQing over some annonymous non contributer just clearing his wiki talk page .. then something is wrong. If you all must carry this on, take this to somewhere less "populated" as there is NO reason to blow this into the "big wiki takedown" or whatever you think it is. kthnxbye --CAJOS talk 13:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Me being Ike, I admit. I didn't want to piss him off before even being a random contributor. I am with Eras, deleting something this trivial should be allowed. A stern warning is something else, but it shouldn't have come to that in the first place. - Infinite - talk 14:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It is common practice to not delete information on the talk page, but to archive it. I was merely informing the new user (being CAJOS) on common practices (in regards to the deletion comments). As I have already made mention to on his/her talk page, the critique of sentence structure was meant to be light. Unfortunately I made an error in judgement in regards to that (again, meant in a light manner). Once it was reverted, I was not about to enter a revert war and advised the admins on the situation. I tried to wash my hands of it at that point. In regards to more general topics. I don't think anything should be deleted from a talk page. The reason for this is simple (IMO). The items being straight deleted would be at the discretion of the user. Problem is that these lines will vary from person to person. Also, a user doesn't own the talk page. It is still a public page. I had more, but I got distracted and forgot where I was going with this.... Venom20 14:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I love how this user, who has not disrupted or vandalized the wiki in any way, except for removing a message that could be taken offensively to one's person is now target of a system that seemed to be okay with it (no actions from any other admin before pling). There are users who did much worse and to the wiki directly and are still left untouched. Equally so, the topic of his actions was brought up and to my information we should at least reach consensus on Erasculio's topic before taking action? (Clearly this would not be a point had he, let's say, vandalised user pages or the main space.) - Infinite - talk 15:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it never should have been escalated to this point. You could say that the only reason he became disruptive was because of the insistence that nothing should be deleted. Remember, we don't have policies here, and his deletion of inconsequential talk page messages wasn't disrupting anything that was necessary for the functioning of this wiki. This does not mean that I disagree with pling's block since he turned into a disruptive force by posting troll links, and engaging in multiple edit warring. I also still agree with infinite that the welcome message could be construed as offensive. That said, CAJOS should also exercise restraint, not cause any more disruptions, and just walk away from the situation once your block expires. --Lania 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of everything that can go wrong with greeting new users, with berating new users, and with not properly explaining PP. The first 2 are common, so I wont go into it, but a word on the last: PP implies that one should never go to a user page and say "dont do this or that". That only works if there is a policy to point to that explains the detail. With PP, the sentence needs to be "don't do this or that because X and do Y and Z instead". The detailed explanation is no longer on any policy page, meaning that all users have to be very detailed in educating new users just what the PP around here are. --Xeeron 15:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting messages like "First" or "Welcome" or things that are degenetory, regardless of intention should be allowed to be removed, because it's not a nice thing to archive and users do not want to worry their heads over archiving random crap. - Infinite - talk 15:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What Xeeron said. The burden is on the community to teach new users how things work, and that requires the community not being ignorant themselves. Every time someone tries to quote a policy and say "you can't revert more than once," you're just confusing people unnecessarily because you don't know what you're talking about.

In short, if you don't know PP, don't try to enforce it; you will just end up making a mess. If your goal is to be helpful to the wiki, take the first step and learn what PP is trying to accomplish before talking about it. -Auron 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My action was not based on his initial removal of content (the stuff that triggered this discussion). That discussion can continue, preferably on another page. However, quick-archiving (an issue separate to this discussion) has in practice been reverted and regarded as a no-no. This edit under his IP, personal attacks 1, 2, and 3, and this disruptive link are also Bad Things. I would have left him alone as Felix seemed to distract him (even if I found the discussion distasteful, but that's my personal opinion), but the troll link was the last straw. Taking all this into account, I came to the conclusion that his new-editor status was no longer a valid excuse to cross the line even further, and blocked him. I included "edit warring" in the log reason because removing content under contention isn't recommended but it wasn't the only or a major reason; it's one part of the larger package.

Oh, because of edit conflicts this comment might now be out of place, but here it is. pling 15:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. The edit under his IP I already brushed off because it was not offensive in any way. (Granted I know the user.) and everything else escalated from us jumping on his hide for not knowing you couldn't delete things. Cajos was not at fault and his reactions were not irrational. The system was at fault but we refused to accept that. - Infinite - talk 15:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What system was at fault? The one that says "don't edit war" and "don't personally attack people?" The misguided users who attempted to teach him policy without understanding it themselves were at fault. There is nothing even on the policy page about archiving, so why did it come up? -Auron 16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To furtherly specify: the system change in regards to users' perspectives is at fault. As seen below, trying to enforce PP is exactly what is at fault. The system is correct, contributors just haven't all caught on, which is what I meant. - Infinite - talk 16:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"In short, if you don't know PP, don't try to enforce it" Corollary: If you're trying to "enforce" PP, you don't know it.

Aside from Xeeron, I'm disappointed in literally everyone involved. This should've been over before it started, and about 5 more times along the way. - Tanetris 15:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more there... --Lania 17:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

irc

← moved to Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal#irc

Talk:Professions reveal

The Talk:Professions reveal page (and also Talk:Profession to a lesser degree) has not been used to discuss its respective article for quite some time now; instead, it's filled with speculation and game chat that has little to do with the wiki. This issue has been pointed at the page itself and a notice has been added there, with no significant result. I would like to propose locking that talk page until Arena Net releases content relevant to its subject.
(And while I'm here, the list of candidates for deletion is rather big right now. Could some admin please delete some of the items which have been there for more than 3 days?) Erasculio 11:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This is something we have to decide as a wiki - do we want to take a more wikipedia-esque approach and disallow (or at least sternly frown upon) discussion unrelated to the improvement of the article? Do we only want to disallow it when the page gets stupidly big and full of useless discussion? GWiki and GWW were both pretty small wikis 3-4 years ago, so letting a few people comment randomly was fine (and in most places, it still is). But we do have a serious problem that already cropped up on GWW - people treating wiki talk pages like a forum. People whose only contributions to the wiki are forum-like posts on article talk pages. Part of this is due to ANet's misguided dreams that the wiki would be a place to touch base, but we all saw how well that worked out.

Do we want to just let admins lock pages that are getting spammed too much? Professions reveal is the big one right now, but there are many on GWW that fit the bill (aside from staff pages, which is a whole separate can of worms). I'm in favor of letting a sysop temp protect just to reduce the amount of useless discussion. A couple people saying "hey this is neat" is harmless, but 50000 people trolling each other and posting dumb shit to the exclusion of all meaningful conversation about the page isn't as harmless. -Auron 14:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Trolling is an issue that should be handled anyway, and I'm surprised, Auron, that you wouldn't have already done something about it if you'd seen it by now. (Or have you? I admit I haven't looked very hard, but your comment makes it sound as if you haven't.)

The talk pages are for discussion, and if something is wrong with the page or when new information is released, what then? Would you consider it feasible for users to come to the admin noticeboard every time they need to discuss something on a locked talk page? If there's disagreement between more than two users, should it still be managed among user talks? It just seems like it would make things messy, and that heading off any off-topic conversation on talk pages would be more productive to getting people to actually realize they shouldn't discuss there and less obstructive to the useful conversation happening on that page. Active prevention as opposed to some easy fix that could stand to actually make things difficult to work on in the long run. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I would actually expect an admin to lock that page until the time comes in which we actually have more content to add to its mainspace page. No one has been talking about the content of the article for quite some time now, so I guess the article is currently fine as it is, with the information we have been given. Locking it now, and only until there's new information, would hopefully stop the profession speculation for a while and get across the point that the wiki is not a forum. Erasculio 21:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Kyoshi is right. A locked page will make it very difficult to add new information once it does come out (because we all know there will be some dispute). Until an admin unlocks the page, people will have to either not discuss improvements (like that will happen) or discuss them on user pages, which creates fragmented discussion on the page from a fragmented group of people. Sure, you can move the discussions on to the page after it's unlocked, but we don't need every topic started with a "→ moved from User talk:..." wasting space on the page and user pages, mucking up the archive process. I would go with immediately archiving speculative topics on speculation magnet pages such as Professions reveal, but I don't know how well that will go over either. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 22:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't remove speculation or tell anyone who starts a new "speculation" to read the notice and take it else where, like a forum on a fan site, etc. That should solve things better than having to lock a page and dealing with the speculation. Isn't prevention the key? Locking won't solve anything, but have it be created else where. We have the note, so use it to our advantage as we don't want to have them use the talk to their advantage as a forum. Ariyen 23:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Kyoshi - idk if you're joking or not about heading discussion off to teach people they aren't supposed to be posting walls of useless text. I'd be quite amused to see you try, though. Do that for a few weeks and you'll have quite a new view on how reality works, and a respect for the limitless supply of retards that wikis seem to pump out.

Either way, your post ignores quite a bit of our posts. Firstly, edits can still be made to the page if the talk page is locked. If users disagree about a certain point, they can use their talk pages. If an obvious edit war is going on, sysops can protect the article page and unprotect the talk page and the discussion can continue there. Secondly, the lock isn't permanent - it's to prevent meaningless chatter in the months-long downtime between reveals. When a reveal hits, it will be unlocked immediately so discussion of the new content can begin. Once a few weeks pass and discussion of the page's contents dies down, it gets relocked. The goal isn't to prevent all posts, it's just to prevent the useless ones.

Assuming that users will "learn" to not post on talk pages isn't in line with our evidence so far. They assume it's a forum because we let it be a forum, and for most pages, it's alright. The problem arises on pages like professions reveal - the amount of useless bullshit on that page far outstrips any usefulness the page would have as a discussion tool for the one or two changes every few weeks/months the article requires.

I would like to see your lofty dreams come to fruition. I would prefer the page remain unlocked and available as a resource for anyone wishing to discuss the page. But telling the raging hordes that they can't circlejerk about unrevealed updates is a recipe for disaster. You stalked anet staff pages on GWW often enough to see how well our efforts worked there - a single sysop (Pling) policed them to the best of his ability, and when he was burnt out, the pages became reeking piles of shit with worthless section after worthless section. If you care to similarly police that professions reveal page, I urge you to go ahead - tell the people not to post stupid and useless discussion. You have the right - you are part of the community as much as me or any other sysop. If you think your plan is better than my plan, put your plan into action. If the page doesn't have to be protected, fantastic - you will have done a great service to the wiki and you get cookies and whatnot.

Just to show you the numbers, look at the (ridiculously big) archive - ignoring individual posts (which would be even more skewed in favor of the bullshit), out of 44 sections, only 4 or 5 are legitimately discussing the page, images on it, or changes to it. Some of those even devolve into "omg i want to see a mesmer profession!" and similar drivel. Notice that they follow the time schedule that I mentioned above - when updates hit, meaningful discussion happens. In the significant downtime between reveals, only dumb shit gets posted. Easy fix? Lock it during the period where no meaningful discussion happens and open it when it's in season. Again, if you can convince everyone to not post dumb shit at all, I will be eternally grateful - but I've been trying to do that for years now and I've all but given up. -Auron 12:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know entirely how locking pages worked, so excuse me on that point. However, what I was trying to get at is that locking will only prevent discussion while it's locked, and that it'll probably just move somewhere else anyway. Half the point of the PnP move on this wiki was to teach users how this wiki should (by our current consensus/practice) be run and interacted with; I'm not sure why we should do it differently here.

I do think, though, that perhaps by the time the whole page is out the locking won't be needed anyway. (It's pretty definite on this particular page what will need to be edited when a profession is revealed, and when all of them are revealed the talk page speculation will almost definitely slump.) Still, my main concern is that we're taking another step backwards with this shift toward understanding things on the wiki rather than blindly following; setting precedent and actively preventing. I definitely understand where you're coming from; staff feedback talks on GWW were a damn mess (not that the staff's inactivity did anything to help).

I'll gladly "police" the page as I'm available, and it seems like Ariyen is willing too, as she's already stopped (at least for the moment) one section that was gathering momentum. (Might as well archive it, I think, but I'll admit I don't know if there's some special method to doing that.) I think the best thing for this would be a cooperative effort so people don't all end up "burning out" in succession.

I'll be back for the cookies and whatnot, but you'd better share with other participants too. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If archiving obviously useless topics becomes common practice, akin to reverting vandalism, it would not be hard at all. Alternatively, would we just be allowed to strike entire sections? That would get attention, especially with a short comment afterward like "This is not a forum." –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 19:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Or triple <small> them? Either way probably makes it less appealing to continue the topic. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 19:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a partnership with a moderated forum? Maybe a banner at the top of potentially busy talk pages directing people to a specific, related forum topic. Helpfully direct people away rather than an unfriendly shutdown when people naturally end up talking here.

I think that semi-protecting a busy page to help control things like Auron suggests is fine but I think it also needs some polite redirecting to make it clear what we're doing and why. -- Aspectacle  20:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

People generally ignore banners alone. Instead of blocking a page, a speculation tag could be created ( {{Speculation}} or {{Archive}}, like {{Delete}} ) to allow the archiving of purely speculative sections after a reasonable time, regardless of activity in the discussion. As a result of speculation tags being set up, people may see that we will remove their speculation, hopefully deterring some of them (along with banners, which will show prospective speculators where their speculation will not be removed). –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You can do {{Speculation}} as {{Archive}} would be too confusing and miscounted for {{Archvied}}. That's just my opinion. 72.148.31.114 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you worried about archiving? Just delete the speculation discussions. People who are worried about losing their comments can just look at the page history, and we avoid filling the archives with useless content, thus keeping them useful. The wiki isn't really improved in any way by keeping those discussions archived. Erasculio 23:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I figured it would be easier to get a consensus on archiving. However, I did consider interpreting speculative posts on commonly "targeted" pages as trolling or vandalism, warranting removal. Really, it's a great solution that can be done by anyone with minimal effort. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 01:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, if we attempt to enforce a "no forum talk" policy here, we will fail. New users will not know that they could not do that, so most of the time of admins and experienced users would become telling new users how this wiki works. It would get extremely redundant for everyone involved. As to locking the talk page until new information is added, I disagree with this. We all know where the important discussions are, and how to find them amongst the spam, locking the page would only hurt our attempts at communicating necessary changes to pages. Eive 05:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Best I can think of is a "no excessive forum talk" "policy". Obviously it won't prevent new users from "violating", but that's what the active prevention I mentioned is for. It's far from ideal considering the amount of work that would probably be required, but I don't know that there's a more ideal solution. --ஸ Kyoshi 06:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

How about we just shorten it down to " No " "policy" , that shouldn't raise questions or concerns. --Neil • 08:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, unless you're suggesting that we completely stop regulating the content of talk pages. --ஸ Kyoshi 22:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember, We don't have policy. We have Processes and Procedures. I think that I agree with Sparky in that ""As a result of speculation tags being set up, people may see that we will remove their speculation, hopefully deterring some of them (along with banners, which will show prospective speculators where their speculation will not be removed)."" So, I also agree with having up a Speculation tag. Having some sort of rules for speculation won't help as according to some here - not that many pay attention to rules, but they would pay attention to a tag like a spoiler is used on certain sections... So, say if we use a Speculation tag on a section. they will see that their speculation is going to be deleted. we don't need a page locked or some sort of "rule". I feel this tag would be the best in being beneficial and can help situations. 72.148.31.114 23:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Remember, We don't have policy." That's precisely the "missing the point" I was referring to. Semantics and such in regards to the word "policy" when really we just mean "put this into practice". --ஸ Kyoshi 06:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think people are missing the whole point about forums and stuff. Forums are already on guru, etc. hence the note at the top of the page. This discussion has gone too far and too long. So, I'm going to try to sum this up as to what I feel may work and may not. We will always have discussions in professions reveal, etc. until such things are done. The thing we need to work on is a template like what Sparky has suggested. I Feel that'd best work to show these people that this is not really the ideal place for it. We can suggest to those individuals, if ip addresses, to create accounts and make their own assumptions there or take it to a forum on guru. I don't see that running off users, but to show that we are more into documenting actual content and not assumptions / speculations. As a few others have said, locking the page won't solve anything and prevents from actual content being notified or placed. After all if a page is locked, the admin has to be the one to edit. That's really not a good way to go. If people get hurt because we archive speculation or delete it (I prefer deletion myself), then they don't understand that a wiki is for actual documentation, not speculation. On most wikis, speculation is disputed until proven or removed and it's not suggested. 72.148.31.114 08:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Skimmed over this convo; tl:dr - Put up a tag that reads: "The wiki is not destined for speculation regarding Professions and their reveal. All speculation will get [removed/archived] without notice. You are free to speculate on one of the many fansites." No policy and no leaving in the dark. Also puts the meaning of Wiki back into GW2W. - Infinite - talk 11:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "tl;dr" is that you often ends up just stating old news. Erasculio 13:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Note: This is a page for discussing revisions to Professions reveal. If you would like to speculate upon or otherwise discuss upcoming profession reveals, there are several forums more suited to this purpose. " Totally reads that speculation gets removed. - Infinite - talk 16:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually Infinity, it doesn't "scream" out speculation gets removed. It's more like a temp for people wanting to post stuff like that there. I do like your wordings though and I feel they'd get across better and might be less apt for people to want to post a speculation. If not, the discussion can be easily shut down and then archived/deleted later. 72.148.31.114 17:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Page to discuss user right changes

Aquadrizzt's RFA made me remember that we discussed having a centralised page for this above. I put a rough first sketch out at "Guild Wars 2 Wiki:User rights changes" (note that I am not attached to the title or layout, if you have something better, change away).

There are a few things which I would like to change compared to GWW's procedure:

1. The format should be talk page discussion. Basically voting is very uninformative and bound to become a popularity contest. If someone raises valid concerns, it will rather be in a discussion.
2. Right now, I don't see a need to have different procedures for sysop&bureaucrats and promotion/recall. Might be different once we grow bigger though.
3. Proposals should have to be made by a second party. That takes a lot of the (real or alleged) self-promotion out of the discussion. Similarly, the discussion should not boil down to the "candidate" having to defend him/her self against a barrage of questions from everyone else. Rather the other wiki users should discuss more among themselves.

So far I have no idea how to resolve any discussion yet, but my gut feeling says it should not be down to a single bureaucrat. Maybe we can have some yardstick of having convinced enough bureaucrats as an intermediary measure. The other thing would be establishing consensus (not about the candidate being able, but about the candidate having enough support) among the users and the bureaucrats acknowleding that. --Xeeron 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Similarly, the discussion should not boil down to the "candidate" having to defend him/her self against a barrage of questions from everyone else."

While I agree that it shouldn't simply be candidate vs The People, questioning a candidate is natural for those who don't really know the candidate. In a system where voting isn't used, admittedly it's less important, but it could still bring up good points people might not know enough of to discuss among themselves. --ஸ Kyoshi 22:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding point 3 above: I disagree, I fully welcome self-nominations and don't see a significant difference between someone being nominated and nominating themselves. I would like to see Q&A between the candidate and "everyone else" in addition to "everyone else" talking among themselves.

I don't mind having single bureaucrats decide something. There would presumably be community discussion on the page before the decision, and if bureaucrats subsequently disagree they can obviously discuss and alter conclusions if necessary. I wouldn't want to have anything more than etiquette leading bureaucrats to discuss decisions with each other. (In reality, I imagine bureaucrats would discuss anyway, but flexibility is nice, so let's not make that 'compulsory'.)

If the yardstick is comprised of numbers (which you indicated by saying "having convinced enough bureaucrats", then I disagree with it. The only yardstick should be the candidate's competency and perhaps comparison with current sysops. Also, consensus should be targeted towards judging the candidate's ability, not the amount of support. As has been said by others before, one person with a detailed and well-reasoned comment would be more useful than ten saying "I support this person".

By the way, I don't think this page should have to be used to carry out userrights changes. It should just be a process by which potential sysops can be brought to others' attention and/or bureaucrats can gauge community opinion. The page would be best as a tool, not a shackle. A kind of [[GW2W:RFC|RFC]] page, maybe, with a hint of NOTICE. pling 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Far as Bureacrats, If two out of 3 agree she should be a sysop. after the majority rules for it. Then okay. However, either way we should lay out the whys and why nots. which ever is more potent, then there's the "answer". I would like to take a page from Guildwiki. I like how they have the Pros and cons. I'd like to see that.. What's the pros on this candidate? what's the cons? which is more is helpful. If there's more cons than pros. That to me should not show a good sign. If there's more pros than cons, etc. And that be developed from the discussions. The last ones being the bureacrats having their words after all others had their inputs and this be a last point, about like if someone should even be on a wiki or not. However, All should participate in discussions, giving their pros and cons, etc. Just my thoughts. Oh, I don't think Admin Noticeboard talk should be the central page. I am for Xeeron's page that he created. Despite that I'd like a better name... Perhaps Sysop Procedures ? Ariyen 22:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO, this discussion is premature. I think one of the main points at Aqua's RFA is that we don't really need more sysops right now. Considering how the last discussion about this, a few sections above, didn't really reach any conclusion, I would rather wait until this community growths more before decicing how to choose the extra sysops that we don't need. Erasculio 23:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Ariyen: I disagree with the concept of two out of three (or any "this percentage needed to pass" mentality) on a wiki. Once it becomes a majority, it stops being consensus (inherently) and therefore is no longer how a wiki community should function. @Xeeron: I agree that the GWW versions of RFAs isn't really appropriate to determine something as important as a new sysop. (In my early wiki days, I actually wondered why voting on RFAs was used, because I couldn't figure out why a vote on some matters was acceptable when generally consensus was used.) I am going to remove myself from the argument of self nomination vs 2nd party nomination, as my opinion (having nominated myself for my RFA) is biased and unnecessary. In general, I think that if the community (admins and non admins) are in agreement that an applicant is suitable for the position of sysop, then you have an answer right there. As per the "candidate not having to defend him/herself against a barrage of questions," I think that wiki users should be able to ask questions but only to ask for clarification (i.e. my candidate statement was (at the time) decidedly vague, so it needed multiple clarifications, etc.) and not to accuse or belittle the person making the RFA in the first place. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Canditate answering questions": Obviously this should happen. But what happened at aquadrizzt's RFA (and what I also remember from past GWW RFAs) is that discussion between candidate and users swamps discussion between users and users. Which imho is the more important part of getting to a consensus there.
• "2/3" or "having single bureaucrats decide something": I think it should be best practice for bureaucrats not to sysop (and even less bureaucrat) someone unless they are pretty sure that the other bureaucrats agree with that decision. I don't want any formal vote required, but there needs to be communication between bureaucrats (and this can be as simple as each of them commenting positively on the talk page) to ensure that one bureaucrat does not mistakingly sysop someone that the others disagree with.
• "We don't need sysops": I am not losing any sleep over any lack of sysops either. But that should not be used against a potential capable candidate (more good sysops never hurt). And in any case, setting up a place for discussion is something that can be easily done while we have nothing more important to do. --Xeeron 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@Xeeron, as far as you number 2 statement. That's more so what'd I'd rather see. Not a voting tally, more so pros cons and what everyone thinks. For your first one, it should be more so users and candidates, not users and users.... the type users and users that don't benefit at all to the actual "rfa" ... Well, I feel that things like that should be removed as it's not necessarily a benefit, but how does one draw the line? Have some type of procedure that says that the talk should be Candidate and user only? Or have that as user page? How do we separate things such as that? Ariyen 04:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, wikipedia has separate subsections for questions to the candidate and discussion about the candidate. That could be one solution. --Xeeron 12:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If nothing else, self-nominations tell us that a candidate at least wants to be a sysop. That's an important, if obvious, qualification. 12:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen

I would like to ask an admin to permanently ban Ariyen.
Now, if this were GW1W, I would ask for an Arbcom. Since it isn't, we don't have arbcoms (and we shouldn't have), and that kind of thing is not limited to bureaucrats (which is another great thing), I'm just asking for any admin to ban her, and explaining why. My arguments are the following:

• Ariyen has 106 contributions to the mainspace. Now, the absolute number of contributions doesn't really matter that much, but the issue is that out of those, the great majority was subsequently reverted by someone else. Ariyen's contributions to the mainspace have not helped us in documenting GW2; quite the opposite, they have cost us someone else's time to be fixed. In this, her actions have been more similar to that of a vandal than to that of an asset to this wiki.
• Most of Ariyen's contributions have been at the talk space. There, she has often been at the center of drama, either by being reponsible for a problem, by blowing issues out of proportion (example regarding the long discussion about a single comma, and another example about archiving a section of a talk page) or by taking a stance and requiring other contributors a long time to dissuade her (example, example). In many of those, her comments have had a considerable amount of hostility, which is something she has been doing for quite some time and is still doing to this day.
• Ariyen is fiercely against any kind of criticism. Any kind of notice on her talk page will be quickly archived, with an accusation of personal attacks and trolling (example, example, example, example; this last one she actually reported at the noticeboard). As was quoted here, she believes she is right – she knows people tell her she's wrong, but she still believes she is right regardless. Her usual replies to criticism is that people are just making assumptions about her (multiple examples of that, but here's a recent one about the most recent issue).
• The way she writes doesn't really fit the English language. For someone whose contributions are mostly at the talk space, that's somewhat of a problem, but not a big one. However, not only is she not trying to improve the way she writes, but she also engages in long and heated discussions about the grammatical content of articles despite not following grammar herself, which often has bad outcomes (such as the comma discussion and the recent implied statement discussion).

Ariyen is not really an asset in documenting GW2. Her contributions to the wiki have more often than not caused more problems than solutions, and she's adamantly set on the idea that everything she is doing is right, while any critic is just a troll. Between those issues, I don't see any way for her to become a valuable contributor here, and so I believe the situation calls for the same solution used on GW1W – a permanent ban. Erasculio 17:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that half of this is not true. Mostly, I do not think I am always right. I bring up issues. I quit editing mainspace, because if my "English". I contribute with ideas that have been used and helped fixed several editings, including fixing moved images that were not fixed by the movers. I would like to say that this person has been asked by another contributor not to post here, due to their history with me and this should be considered that this person is trying to start another kind of drama. 72.148.31.114 17:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As I was in fact the contributor who suggested to Erasculio to not bring Ariyen up on the Noticeboard (as it might just be seen as an attempt at vengeance), I did not say that he should not post when he has legitimate concerns. There is a lot of "evidence" to show that this is in fact justified to bring up, and that he is not just trying to start drama. And for a vast majority of what he said, I have to agree. In addition (to Ariyen), you regularly insert yourself and your opinions into discussions in which you are clearly wrong. Case and point: grammar discussions. I acknowledge that I am not learned in grammar of any form, other than basic English capitalization and punctuation, therefore, I do not even try to contribute to discussions of appositives, affirmative vs negative tenses or anything. On the other hand, you will often choose that you are right, aggresively defend your opinion, and then be (for lack of a better term) a sore loser when you are wrong. In addition, calling all suggestions/discussions about your behavior and your edits either trolling or assuming is very immature to say the least. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 19:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fair that I withdraw this comment now. You seem genuinely interested in learning from your mistakes, and I don't think that this is necessary any longer. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 02:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion and reasoning put forth by Erasculio. I honestly can't see the user ever improving. She's been given more warnings and started more pointless drama than most outright trolls have; but it's even more damaging than normal because she does it in "good faith."

For whatever reason, the user makes mountains out of molehills - blowing tiny disagreements up into walls of ragey text, and the end result is usually what Eras stated... Ariyen forcefully denying any claims of wrongdoing until the evidence is piled so high there is no possible way to deny it, then she'll apologize and hastily archive the discussion and pretend like it never happened. So far, the paltry apologies and promises to do better next time have seemed to placate the masses (and the sysops) - but we have to ask ourselves how long we want to carry dead weight. Ariyen doesn't improve. She finds new and innovative ways to piss people off, claim she's right about something when she isn't, and worst of all, chalks up criticism and suggestions for improvement as trolling and personal attacks (and ignores them as such). It isn't going to change.

I don't see any benefit to keeping the user around, but I see a definite detriment to the project. Following Tane's reasoning on his ban of Scythe, I'm going to block Ariyen for a year - I'm not expecting improvement, but it's so early in the wiki's life that I can't justify an outright permanent ban. -Auron 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, I read this before, but did not post since I had not made up my mind yet (and still have not made up my mind) on where I stand on this issue. Not going to revert Auron though. --Xeeron 23:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but just in case any admins or bureaucrats are still undecided on the issue (seeing as only two have actually commented on the issue), I'd like to post this here as further evidence that not only has Ariyen still not learned the difference between "having a dialect" and "following conventional grammar norms," but also that she thinks the way she writes/speaks is the only reason she was banned (not to mention further proving her blatant disregard for posting things at appropriate times and in the appropriate places as this was posted on Jeff Grubb's personal facebook wall).

"Apparently, they ban you on GWW and GW2W for using dialect...
As I have seen them claim that someone doesn't know English and ban that person. Despite their own mis-usage of the language, etc. as well. I don't find treatments fair, but at least they've got fan gw wikis to edit on and they get better treatment, too.
I think that people treating others that poorly is giving A-Net a bad name for wikis. Also with that type of treatment (even from the staff), it brings out the trolls (as a staff member has admitted to trolling) and there's more problems caused. I have not seen these issues anywhere else. So, there are problems with English Language. However, it is annoying when you have people who think a Linguist is the perfect person in knowing the language, but that this person nor half of the others know about dialect and that it is used."

This was taken from a comment made on Jeff's facebook page, but I'm uneasy about posting a link to his page as he has nothing to do with the issue. I can provide a link for bureaucrats or admins that wish to see it (although, I'm sure most can find the comment themselves with minimal poking around). --★KOKUOU★ 00:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Jeff is smart enough to ignore her. 09:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Now this may be the biggest mistake I've made in all my time on GW2W, granted, not a long time at all: I believe that Ariyen is not the obstructing contributor some make her out to be. Yes, she has given a lot of people headaches in the past in various ways (usually concerning her stylistic writing style, combined with her native dialect). Yes, she has blown subjects and comments out of proportions aplenty for often not the very best reasons, wiki-wise. But exactly for these reasons, giving her a ban of equal value compared to much, much worse cases is unjust from my point of view. I will try to carefully explain as to why I believe that this user has fallen into the hands of general irritations-driven administrational actions.

At first, disregarding the drama for now I would like to remark on her very original writing style. Ariyen has, to my knowledge and mentioned above, resigned from making grammar-based edits in the main space due to conflicting ideals amongst the members of this community. She has ceased to claim her own writing style is better than others' and most importantly she has seen that she can be wrong in her style of writing. Equally so, as a community, we are all people and we all use our own writing styles. As long as such styles are not obstructing the documentation of the game (again, she resigned from grammar-based edits to the main space), her resolve to abide by that decision should be given a trial phase long enough to determine whether her words actually stand. Last but not least, you cannot possibly remark on her writing style in the light of people who think it's common use of the English language to "speek liek dis". Original as she may be in her style, and as hampering it may sometimes be to the main space (again, resigned), her writing style is hers and hers alone and this wiki is not brought in existence to discuss her style and her roots.

Then, the drama. Yes, Ariyen takes things rather personally at times and has a strong ideal in mind. She is not unique in that aspect at all. From my point of view, it is incredibly hard for Ariyen to get some credit around here. Especially when you start to consider how ruthlessly people remark on her faults (granted, everyone has faults and makes mistakes, but you hit her rudely hard in the face with them). We are people in a community online, whose purpose it is to document a bloody game. Many discussions revolving around Ariyen weren't even on this wiki or GWW. I agree with the fact that "when you have a problem, say it to the face" is a good motto; but crushing ones' spirit, furtherly humiliating her when remarking on flaws in emotional defenses she brings forward and last but not least banning her for acting humane (a.k.a. responding to criticism against oneself, and ones' roots), is just taking personal improvement a step in the wrong direction too far. Criticism should be fine and all, but you can't possibly claim that changing someone over the internet is a viable course of action. Fine, Ariyen has had and might have problems dealing with constructive criticism but she cannot learn from very demeaning comments if you ban her every 5 minutes of the day (of course that is very metaphorically stated). Some things take time and Ariyen especially needs time because, following the mountain of evidence against her, you can't exactly expect her to change every "fault" she "evidentally" has in a few months. Equally she can't learn of her mistakes in practise if she's had the opportunity to do so removed.

Also I would like to comment on the fact that, whilst I disagree with a full year worth of ban, she needs a time-out. Not because she's a disruption to the wiki in its current state (she did rather well in the last few weeks), but because she needs time to theoretically reflect her mistakes and equally the times where a mistake was made against her and she still received the short end of the stick. I think 1 to 3 months, personally in favour of 2 or 3, would have to suffice.

And last but not least, and not quite related to Ariyen herself, but to Kokuou: I believe we do not take comments made outside of the wiki into account if they are not references or sources to documentation. But if we are; the fact she is looking for support proves to me that she really *wants* to be part of this community and therefore (regardless of how this is her claimed method of defense) I will assume in good faith that she will resolve to make changes required for her to be accepted back into this community and is then able to help build up the wiki. I think that we can safely put the ball in her court sooner than 1 year and if that final measure does not help then I can no longer justify any objection. I recommond to Ariyen (who is undoubtely reading this) to follow the advice people have brought forward in an opposing manner (the evidence, which you are free to contact me about through other sources, of course). Also would I like to press on her yet again that backing away from possible conflict and even starting conflicts is not going to make your point less apparent. Sometimes it is better to let others speak for you as a team. Sometimes you need to let go of your arguments in order to reach a fresh discussion where you can bring up your point in a different light anew. And sometimes, painful as it is, you should consider a full stop on the comment you were about to post. Everyone has these moments and not everyone can always live with their decision not to post it, but if it helps the wiki not to spark the flames of revertwars and drama, then one refrained comment might even make all the difference. And on the bright side; if someone else fucked up with their comment, at least they can't frown upon yourself as the cause. Also it lightens the mood overall when discussing. And finally, to everyone; as a community, whilst it may not feel this way to you; we are all responsible ina way for each other. Whereas I needed a, self-admitted, time-out in the past and forgot to wrap up my last comment with "See you in a few day." I was in fact blocked for 3 days. I know, naughty boy, naughty boy, /frownupon! It really can work if you can discuss it afterwards, can apologize and reflect upon yourself. So unless actually dirupting the wiki to lethal levels, a year ban is just not something I find sensible. And with that I rest my case for now.

Yes this is a wall of text, but I encourage you to read it anyway. I may or not may bring up things I have forgotten at a later stage, if I find them important towards my case. I also apologize for any form and shape in which I made any grammatical error, typo's or sentence structure, a lot of thought ran across my mind and I might have missed something prior to hitting "Save page". (Wow, this IS a Wall of Text!) - Infinite - talk 14:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ariyen has, to my knowledge and mentioned above, resigned from making grammar-based edits in the main space due to conflicting ideals amongst the members of this community": actually, the last mess she was involved in was a grammar-based issue. Erasculio 14:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and apologized after realising what she caused. If anything, it is an improvement. It just takes time. - Infinite - talk 15:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll refrain from commenting on her apologies for now, but my point was that the statement that she would not be making grammar-based edits to the mainspace is not entirely accurate. Erasculio 15:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I sense a personal vendetta, not for the first time. -- Cyan 17:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

When a single person is the hub of all the conflicts on the wiki in the last x period of time, the practical solution is to remove that person. 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully. - Lucian Shadowborn 00:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Infinite; your post was alright, but it basically just begs for forgiveness... again. This user causing drama, stirring up the pot, getting into altercations etc is not a recent phenomenon. She has been editing for well over a year now on GWW and this wiki - a year is plenty of time to adjust, to fit in, to learn the standards of the community. The user has made very little attempt at any of these things. After every huge shitstorm over something as menial as a comma, apologies are offered and amends are made; but before we know it, she's turned around and started some other drama about some other comma on some other page. She got a number of chances on GWW and used them all up, culminating in a year-long ban. After numerous warnings on this wiki and a month-long ban from Tanetris, the user didn't improve here either. That's what we're looking at; it's not like we've never given her a second chance. We've given her a second, third, fourth... I don't even want to think about how many chances this user has used up.

In short, I agree with Felix. This is a wiki about a video game. Documenting said video game is the top priority. When a community has to exert this much effort simply to clean up or deal with the mistakes of one user, that one user is simply dead weight. If the user is capable of contributing to the project, the user is free to; but a year of dramatic, hostile and sometimes irrational behavior hints that the user is simply not ready. -Auron 13:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it can't be helped then (though I am still content I tried). I rest my case. - Infinite - talk 14:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why its needed to extent the ban to permanent, a year is in my eyes enough. -- Cyan 16:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice alot of red..

I'm just saying, shouldn't there be a regulation so that there isn't too many inactive admins? To me, it makes the wiki seem dead when really its quite alive. Again, I'm just saying... maybe once GW2 becomes a resource for GW2 players. - Lucian Shadowborn 18:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that having four active admins (not including bcrats) is kind of disconcerting to look at, but for the moment it seems to be plenty. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree. 100% - Lucian Shadowborn 19:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that this is a wiki for a game that isn't out yet, you would expect the amount of people to actually be active to be small. With few people, requires fewer admins. Also, we are in the middle of an information drought so there is even less people on then usual. So yea, they also have real lives :). --Naut 20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Old candidates for deletion

The list of candidates for deletion have some entries which have been there for more than a month, and some which were not deleted even when other pages, tagged for deletion later, were erased. I'm going to assume that those articles were not deleted since someone thought the deletion was not 100% backed by consensus, and thus I'm going to suggest things to do with those pages in order to not leave articles tagged for deletion forever. Since deletion is a sysop decision, and since I'm not in the least interested in restarting the debate around those pages, I'm going to make those suggestions here instead of at each page.

• Template:AxeSkillNavBox: not used in the mainspace. I would suggest moving the template and its talk page to Venom's userspace (or of someone else, if Venon doesn't want it there) and then removing the deletion tag.
• Template:Signets nav: also not used in the mainspace. The discussion around this was concomitant (and somewhat redundant) with the discussion found on the link above; the discussion here was actually stopped so it could continue there. I would then suggest deleting this and its talk page, since the article and the talk page above will be preserved.
• File:Norn.jpg: I have no idea why this one was not deleted yet; because it's GW:EN concept art featuring Norns, which are also a part of GW2? Considering how it's not used in the mainspace and we have plenty of GW2 images showing norns, I would suggest deleting it.
• Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Policy 2010-09-08: Aryien's policy. She was the only one who wanted to keep this (in fact, she edited the deletion tag). Now that she's gone, unless someone opposes the deletion I don't see the need to keep this around.
• File:Elementalist concept art.png: I also don't know why this one wasn't deleted. It's not used in the mainspace, and it's redundant with some other images.
• File:Hero-ranger.jpg: just another redundant image, as far as I know there isn't much controversy in deleting this one.
• File:Prince.jpg: Utopia concept art. Nothing much left to be said.
• File:HoM reward 30 - Fire God's Vambraces and Black Widow Spider.png: this one is another redundant image, but it's being used as the basis of one of Ramei Arashi's user templates. I would suggest moving it so it's an user image (belong to Ramei) and removing the deletion tag.

Erasculio 20:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

All those images are linked elsewhere. IMO, you should clear that up with the users who are using them first, then perhaps add a "speedy" tag if they are bothering you. Secondly, there is no need to move any navs to my space as I already recreated the testing grounds here and here. So feel free to delete the article pages. Also, I think you mean {{Template:Signets_nav}} as your second link (the one posted goes nowhere). I disagree with removing either of the talkpages as they should both be kept for historical values. If you recall, the conversation took place on both so information was spread between them (irregardless of redundancy). Just my 0.02. IMO, in the future you should just clear up any links or tag pages as orphaned and slap a speedy tag on it. That is if you feel strongly for it, and there has been no activity in a reasonable amount of time. Venom20 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen's article was created prior to the PP and is thus to follow the other policy proposals into archives, regardless of whether the user is "gone" now. I strongly feel you are bringing it up solely because it is Ariyen's, but that is not the point. The rest can just go imo. - Infinite - talk 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If users are using them, move them to userspace. If they're orphaned, then kick 'em. As per Inifinite, old policy should be archived. --ஸ Kyoshi 00:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem with all concept art images since Naoroji made a page in his userspace showing all the concept art images in the wiki (really). If we were avoiding to delete images he has linked, we would be unable to delete any concept art image, regardless of its utility to the wiki. Considering how his gallery is redundant with the concept art images category, and it's just a gallery (as opposed to a userpage design in which one of those images would have been integrated), I feel it's acceptable to ignore his page when deleting things.

Regarding Ariyen's policy, I actually had explained it better at the deletion tag before Ariyen edited it. Regardless of who made any policy proposal, the reason why we have been keeping old policy proposals is not to document the proposal itself, rather to document the discussion about each policy at its talk page (which only makes sense; we are not worried about keeping a policy system, rather in keeping the historical discussion about each topic, which helps people to understand how consensus was reached). Ariyen's policy had no discussion at its talk page when it was tagged for deletion, and the discussion which is there is actually about the deletion itself, not about the policy. Since the policy has no discussion, I believe there is no need to keep it. I could probably provide some examples of similar pages which were deleted, but, well, they're deleted already so I can't find them : P Erasculio 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Naoroji created the page in his userspace, it must have been created for a reason. Therefore, I disagree with it being acceptable to ignore his created pages just because it involves an image that is no longer intended for main space. If you want to tag them for a faster delete, clear up the links with him (perhaps a suggestion to move it to userspace on his talk page). I don't know what deletion protocol is for the sysops, obviously they look at whether or not the images are linked. If they are still actively linked images, then IMO they won't be deleted (sorry if I'm stepping on any sysop's toes). Therefore, it may be in your best interest to ensure that tagged images are no longer presented anywhere. Venom20 04:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Before this blows up into oblivion all over again, we should scratch discussion about the policy. Just archive it and the issue is gone. As for the images linked to Naoroji's userspace; ask him personally and maybe move the images in question to his userspace also if he'd so prefer? (I haven't checked his user talk yet, someone might have already.) - Infinite - talk 12:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I see Venom already proposed to ask Naoroji himself, sorry for that. Also, every time I read the starting comment, my eyes linger on "Ariyen" and "gone". I don't think actions should be origined from "an obstacle out of the way" kind of perspective. Ever. Also, that coming from Erasculio (who is known to have quite the history regarding Ariyen) I feel that we can just ignore his request on deleting that policy as a whole (as per reasons stated above). Just a thought that crossed my mind when re-reading. - Infinite - talk 12:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be more polite if, instead of accusing me of trying to delete Ariyen's policy out of revenge, you explained why you want to keep a policy with no discussion in the first place : P Ariyen's policy wasn't the only one I tagged for deletion; it was the only one in which someone objected (actually, that and the Bots one, now that I see my watchlist). Erasculio 14:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Naoroji's page: while everything here is done for a reason, not everything is done for a good reason. Creating a duplicate of the concept art category is redundant, but harmless enough; creating a duplicate of the concept art category that is actually detrimental to the wiki, by preventing us from organizing the concept art category, is not harmless. This discussion would be easier if instead of talking in generalities ("he must have some good unknown reason", "there could be a reason to keep all policies"), you people talked specifically about the issue here - why do you think Naroji's page and Ariyen's proposal are doing any good to the wiki? Erasculio 15:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Erasculio, there is no doubt that you may have some sort of personal grief with Ariyen, but that isn't the focus of the conversation. "the reason why we have been keeping old policy proposals is not to document the proposal itself, rather to document the discussion about each policy at its talk page", while this perhaps is a half-truth, it isn't the full truth. Not all the suspended policy pages have talk pages that are kept (to name a few, read the talk pages of [[Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Article_retention_2009-08-22|Article retention 2009-08-22]], Assume good faith, and Bots). If you recall, on September 12 2010, you tagged all these with the historical value tag. All we ask is that you give all proposals this respect, irregardless of who may have created them. Venom20 15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You sort of just answered the question yourself. Another policy that meets the "no discussion requirement" has been kept, so might as well keep Ariyen's. I'm not accusing you, per sé; it's just very note-worthy this appointed case is coming from you. :)

As for the gallery, take a look at the title. Avatar Material. It's extremely obvious what the page is used for. An online folder for use in creating avatars for use on fan-forums. Knowing Nao, likely Guru 2 and requests on others. He's collected all concept art on one page in his userspace. There is no harm done to the wiki being in his user space, so as I already stated, we can ask him whether moving the designated images to his user space would be a good consensus. And secondly, as far as I recall, the consensus on the out-dated policies was met on archiving all, with a select few exceptions. Exceptions taken care of, Ariyen's is not an exception and should therefore be archived. Also, this article does not harm the wiki in any way. If possible I could recollect the consensus I spoke of for you.

Hopefully everyone can meet eachother half way in this fashion. - Infinite - talk 15:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with meeting halfway seems to come up when one side picks the halfway point as a starting point to try to end it, so the halfway is actually three-quarters.

As per everyone above, I repeat: archive policy, ask Naoroji/users, kick anything that's undisputed. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually, reading the Practices and processes talk page, we have the following quotes:

• "Anyway, I fully support this and the immediate deletion of every policy proposal on this wiki :) poke "
• "I would agree with deleting them. Erasculio 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)"
• "Since most of them contain a lot of potentially useful discussion, putting them into a rejected policy category might be better. Even those discussions from December 07 (dot dot dot) are interesting. pling 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)"
• Later, in a summary of the discussion, I stated "The policies themselves. As mentioned above, most of them have interesting discussions at their talk pages, so keeping them could be useful."

...Which is why I don't see any "half-truth" in the argument that old policy proposals were kept due to the discussions at their talk pages; and incidentally, that's why I tagged for deletion some of the articles Venom claimed I would have tagged as with historical value.
I really don't understand why do you people want to keep the old policy proposals that have no discussion. Claiming that we have to "respect" the policies is sincerely meaningless to me - I'm not worried about the proposals' feelings about their own deletion, and if the only reason to keep those proposals around is to avoid offending their creators, let's please delete Article retention 2009-08-22, which was the proposal I created (and somewhat ironically forgot to tag for deletion at the time). Claiming that those policies do no harm by existing is a rather moot argument - the same could be said about anything at the deletion log. We don't keep only things that do no harm by existing; we keep only things which have a point to exist. Erasculio 19:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"I suggest we move everything to a "Refuted policies" category and leave everything (including the main Policy article) there, without a main "Policies" category. - Erasculio" You *did* say everything, which enticed my confusion as to why you want some of them deleted now. It's just the timing in combination with the target that makes me question the reason behind it. - Infinite - talk 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is old stuff - I tagged those pages for deletion in September. Everything else has been deleted already, with the exception of Airyen's policy (because she complained), the Bots one (Xeeron reverted the deletion tag and I didn't notice, which is why I didn't mention it again until this discussion reminded me of it) and my own (which I had forgotten about). Why do you people want to keep those? Erasculio 21:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it's easier than conjuring WoT-discussions such as these if we just treat them as forgot-to-be-taken-care-of policies and archive them. If you, however wish to continue the discussion: The fact that the 3 were brought to light in such a fashion could be seen as historically relevant in the execution of the swap from Policies to a PP and solely for that reason we could archive them with a copy of this discussion? - Infinite - talk 21:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, speaking of which, the 3 were not deleted, but I can't find any other policy that was deleted. (Only moved and renamed.) In which case there was likely never a consensus reached on deleting any policies, or did all the admins simply miss them? - Infinite - talk 21:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I can change the image on my template. When I picked it it was being used on the HOM page, which is how I found it. Ramei Arashi 23:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) For the records, when looking at Ariyen's policy I noticed it's less of a policy and more just a list of old policy proposals (and mostly a list of red links now). Just like this was not kept (that article was replaced by the current Policy page, instead of archived), IMO Ariyen's "policy" should not be kept. I wish people could read that statement as an argument, though, instead of just claiming "Look, it's Erasculio talking about Ariyen, must be a cry for vengeance!!!!!" (here's an example of a policy that was deleted, as far as I remember). Erasculio 09:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, I didn't notice that other Policy hub page was deleted. Ariyen's is basically the same indeed. Can't disagree based on those points. - Infinite - talk 12:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey everyone. Just letting you know, I've nominated my page for (speedy) deletion, so it shouldn't be a problem any longer. Cheers :). --Naoroji 10:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As per Eras, hope the new page serves your purpose well. :) - Infinite - talk 12:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)