User talk:Xeeron

Lmao, nice page. Was thinking the same, but bought my Dell in July. Love it :D Calor — talk 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my current one is getting old and has had some minor bugs for a while now, but I would hate to buy a new computer that I'll be stuck with for some years and find out that it just meets the minimum GW2 requirements half a year later ... --Xeeron 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I have thesame problem, except that my computer just IS old and is experiencing major bugs. Sometimes it flings up the camera in the loading screen, and shos my char as a white block if I manage to get the camrea down ;). I suppose a lot of people have the computer spec problem? (Luckily, other games I'm waiting for aren't for the computer (nor are they many..) :D) --- -- (s)talkpage 23:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My computer owns!, getting a new one for xmas though.. Its gonna be good --Warwick

Uhhh, Windows95. I suddenly feel winter got a bit colder by thinking about that one, hehe. --Xeeron 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Im getting a Good One for christmas! --Warwick

Somthing I'd like to ask about

Did you notice Poke using his SysOp powers to delete some pages? Backsword 21:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He deleted color templates, and a few others. We do not know for sure GW2 will contain those professions (although I doubt they'll scrap, say, the Warrior or Elementalist :P) wich is why Poke deleted em. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

they cant take away the mesmer :( then im outa here --Cursed Angel 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Soo...how long until we substitute races for professions in userboxes. This user is an Asura by nature (with a little Pic of Vekk here.) Calor — talk 22:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

im a charr mesmer by nature --Cursed Angel 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of userboxes pics, are we going to upload skill icons, like Guilt and all that, or not? --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

No, unless it's in Guild Wars 2. But I'm sure you could upload your own personal version. -- br12 • (talk) • 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the question which I guess is behind this (should poke delete pages?), all I can say is: Currently we have zero established policies. That means everyone, users, sysops and bureaucrats is acting in a grey zone. I can only urge everyone to try to be even a bit more conscious how their actions are percieved by others and at the same time also to be a bit more forgiving.

If a sysop does something clearly horrible (not talking about deleting templates here), I am sure that you can go to any bureaucrat to reign the sysop in. However that I am confident and hopeful that it will never come to that.

To come back to the initial question, no I did not, but then I clicked on my talk before clicking on recent changes. =) --Xeeron 22:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. No, the underlying question was really:Did a bcrat see it and choose not to do anything about it, or has it simply not been observed yet. Now I see it used to be the latter. But with your comment, it's now the former.

Which is interesting from a purely theoretical perspective. Backsword 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me deleting those pages, why don't you simply say something? Creating templates for colors for professions which may not even exist in GW2 (this wiki is about GW2) is not helpful at all. And as we don't have a deletion policy, there is also no need to wait 3 days..

And as long as we do not know anything about GW2, I think we should not use GW(1) content here.. poke | talk 00:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Poke, don't take it personally, it's not really about your actions. (I was the first one to suggest their deletion, see user talk:yo#note.) It's actually Xeeron the bcrat who's interesting here. You just happened to be the first sysop to be in action. Backsword 00:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandfathered sysops

They missed me when they grandfathered the other admins, could you promote me? -- Gordon Ecker 03:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This will be interesting. Backsword 11:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Tut..tut..tut. Shame on Anet -- br12 • (talk) • 16:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dropping a hint, ANet? Nah, just kidding. Gordon deserves the readminship. Calor (t) 17:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's done. -- Gordon Ecker 10:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that ANet intended to carry over all GWW admins and simply left out Gordon by mistake, as such I would have promoted him had I not been in skiing holidays. --Xeeron 13:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Policies

Hi Xeeron. Discussion at Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Practices and processes (towards the bottom) is what led to the policy proposals being recategorised as "refuted". The consensus there did seem to go towards archiving all proposals, but the wording of the cat wasn't clear-cut. However, they're still not proposals, which is what you're changing them to. Since this involves a large amount of pages, could I ask you to respond on that talk page instead of reverting all the cats? pling 16:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the page (well, skim read parts, read others) prior to moving. There is a very short discussion, with only a few participants and even someone who prior to the move pointed out that "refuted" is bad wording (same as on Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Policy). Refuting is not what happened, check the wording.

However, my immediate undo of the move to "refuted" has more to do with (not) setting a status quo. If my long experience on wikis has tought me anything, it is that wikis have a huge status quo bias. As such, any attempt to claim a status quo has to be disputed right away. What all the move to "refuted" and the wording of the note on top of the pages essentialy does is to establish the status quo that we dont have policies and dont want policies. That is a HUGE decision, which is taken after a very few editors (compared to all the editors who will later use this wiki) have taken a very short amount of time discussing it (compared to how long policy discussions usually are open) and nothing regarding the future had even the hint of consensus. If that wording stands for a while, we will really soon get in a position where it is "established wisdom" that we never want policies here, despite the fact that no such decision was ever made. Putting everything on a processes and practises page is one thing, but preventing (via status quo) future editors from ever establishing policies is something entirely different. --Xeeron 16:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It would have been rather more polite to actually discuss your changes before undoing so many edits. It's somewhat ironic to complain about the status quo bias and then revert without discussion a lot of changes, going back to the previous status quo : P Erasculio 20:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I understand it the way that in fact, we do not want any policies for now. poke | talk 07:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio, the problem is that you went ahead, after minimal discussion, in face of some opposition and implemented something which I see as wide-ranging and wrong. Had you waited a bit more before changing all the articles, I would have had the time to argue my point. This wiki has been discussing things for 2 years now, I don't think anyone can accuse me of jumping the gun. However, I will also prevent others from doing so.

Poke, the important part in your sentence is the italics. That was not at all the way the changes to the proposals read. And the sentence is also a generalisation: Saying "we want PP" and "we don't want policies" are not exactly the same (totally leaving the part who exactly "we" is out for now). --Xeeron 11:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, I waited a couple days after proposing those changes before actually making the edits, in order to see if some opposition would rise, and no one actually opposed there. I could have waited more before making the changes, but letting a discussion stall for days without actually doing anything is a very good way to let apathy settle in and just make a discussion die (as has happened often in GW1W; many times there, as I'm sure you remember, we have had to almost fight to keep interest in a discussion that had been going for days). In fact, applying the changes was a good way to draw more attention to the subject and hopefully get more people involved in a discussion that was small not due to lack of time, but mostly because it appears few people care about this subject at all. What bothers me isn't that you didn't agree with me - it's the way you reverted the changes without any discussion (without even a "minimal" discussion) and how you changed not only the word used (since your main complain is about the word "refuted", just replacing it with something else like "archived" would have been better), but you also moved those proposals from somewhere where they were marked as inactive to somewhere where people may still think they are under discussion waiting to be made into full policies. Erasculio 20:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You did not wait "a couple of days". You wanted 2 days [1],[2] for the category and half a day for the note [3].

During that time just 4(!) people commented. One of which was Kyoshi, who already pointed out that a different wording would be better (and who also already pointed out that it would have been better to use a template instead of pasting the note to each page). Do you think that 3 1/2 people agreeing in 2 days gives you a vast mandate?

What especially annoyed me was you edit here. I basically restored the proposals to (more or less) the category they had been for 2 years, where they didn't create any immediate problems, and where they had been just days before, prior to your move. Did you really think that after 2 years of nothing happening, suddenly my edits would cause a huge influx of badness? --Xeeron 21:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't "a couple" mean "two"? That's the meaning of the word I just used, specifically regarding the change you undid (about the categories). And I remember Kioshi's comment, specifically how he said "Regardless of ease, I would prefer using some kind of box or template like what we have now, just to make it utterly obvious" (in which he states he would like to see a template or a box, which is what I used) and "And even there I'm not too concerned, I would just prefer the word "archived". But do as you want, I've got no problem with what you've listed" (as he states that he has no problem with the word "refuted"). And while few people commented, few people even bothered to be part of the discussion in the first place - as I mentioned above, one of the ideas behind making the edits was to gather more attention to the discussion and hopefully have more people participating, preferably without just undoing the edits without bothering to discuss them first. After all, if waiting a couple days and having a few contributors agreeing didn't give me a "vast mandate", arguably no discussion and no one agreeing wouldn't have given you a "vast mandate" to undo the changes either.

The "huge influx of badness" your edits could have caused are the content of those policies' talk pages - we don't want users to believe those policies are active proposals and thus continue the discussions which had already been started at their talk pages, something which would only be a waste of those contributors' time and force us to repeat what we have been discussing at the PnP talk page in order to explain why those proposals are considered archived/rescinded/whatever right now. That's something which could have easily been avoided just by moving the policies to an "Archived" category instead of the category you moved them to. Erasculio 23:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In common English use, "a couple of ..." does not necessarily equal 2 (and definitely not 1/2). And I will simply have to disagree about the content of the talk pages. I didn't see anything happening there in the last months (even when I really wanted to see something, and various people tried to get activity up), so I don't think that anything will happen now. --Xeeron 08:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Couple definitely means two. Few is three, several is four. If you don't think anyone's looking at the policies anyway, why was it so urgent to revert Erasculio? 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

According to this dictionary it does not. But never mind that, lets settle, for "I didn't think it was long enough". Regarding your second point, please check my first answer to Pling above (basically, to avoid establishing a status quo). --Xeeron 14:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Less bureaucracy is the reason why Pling introduced the PP in the first place. A direct counter-measure against the maze of policies (not always user friendly) which covers the very basics of GW2W edits. It's becoming the new status quo because the active community we find here seemed to agree with and reach consensus on it. People who will use the lack of policies as an excuse to be diruptive will know what general policies are like and thus know how to contribute to the very best extent they can muster. This new status quo is only meant to introduce the GW2W to a state where sysops and bureaucrats can, at all times, participate as common contributors in an argument and still keeping things in check if this is requested. Any community is introduced to trial and error and this initiative, supported by the active part of the community at that time agreed with introduction of PP. I fail to see the problem if any events are a chain reaction to said introduction and they remain mostly unquestioned (unspoken consensus). This was until you started to revert these edits, of course, which results into us all having to find a new consensus. - Infinite - talk 17:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I do want to give you an answer, but I guess it will be better in the form of a more general essay about status quo bias. I'll try to put something together. --Xeeron 11:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Xeeron/status quo bias is the essay I put up on this topic. My edits were basically to counter what I perceived as agenda setting by Erasculio. Namely changing the status quo from "we don't have policies" to "we don't want/like policies". While the difference seems minor, the implications can be huge in the long run. A similar example would be a reinterpretation of all those editors who commented in favor of an "overview page" towards into a status quo where "we do not want details". --Xeeron 14:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As a side note: "This new status quo is only meant to introduce the GW2W to a state where sysops and bureaucrats can, at all times, participate as common contributors in an argument and still keeping things in check if this is requested" sysops could always and have always participated as common contributors, the introduction of PP does not change anything in this regard. --Xeeron 14:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read and understood the essay, which can easily be countered with a new question: How is a policy system not a status quo on its own? Is less bureaucracy honestly a bad change? And new user equating to a bad idea accounts to both ways of running things. More bureaucracy stresses that point even moreso.

At all times is the key part; with set-in-stone policies they are often thrown into a user vs user argument involving various policy ping pong. They then have to make sure they act accordingly which might stir up more chaos. A simple PP allows the sysops to give them their two cents in attempt to reach a consensus and then take action at a later stage if this still proves required.

(Reset indent) I'm not saying that your argument isn't a very much justified one, but it feels as if the system for it being new is being objected to altogether. Something which is exactly what your essay depicts as becoming a problem. Also note we are still in one of the first stages of this wiki; There is still time to attempt a core change as this. If it really fails to work then we can still dig up the (now) archived proposals that had the most positive and turn them into the utmost priority at that stage and implement the previous policy system, right? - Infinite - talk 19:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure you get what I am objecting to. While it is true that I have my doubts about PP (I wrote them down at Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_talk:Practices_and_processes#describing_vs_prescribing), and I expect that it will lead to some problems down the road, that is not what this section or my edits on the policy proposal pages were about. --Xeeron 20:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I now realise I must have been confusing your comments with someone else's objections, my bad. Either way, I'd rather see the system at least in effect before massively objecting to it, let alone questioning the actions that are cascading from the idea itself. I have been inactive of late myself due to personal things but if I was to object to an idea that was caused by PP, I likely would have done so in time. However, the short discussion timeframes are in fact questionable and a little more time would not have hurt. At the same time, more time would halt or at least stall implanting the system and we'd be stuck with only half a system. I think we should allow the changes that were scheduled and revert when applicable after they were made this time. (Because of the initial consensus.) - Infinite - talk 22:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fixing the categories. I think we have some people jumping the gun and doing things without consensus... It doesn't feel right. I've tried to talk about at least one of the pages on that refuted to get questioned as to why I was even doing such. It's not related to an actual policy, but I'm not the only one who feels it could still be useful, same with another article or two. I've tried to talk about formatting that was moved without consensus. If I had moved them, I'd been fussed on. I'd like them moved back and discussed which place they should be... and what should be done with what, etc. on each page not the discussion on one page, when more than one page is affected/effected and the discussion may be the same, but is about each article. I'm lost at what to do. I keep being told I'm wrong and I know I'm right. I've done a lot of things similar on many communities, etc. that I know what I'm doing. I'm tired of being at the end of someone who doesn't like what's going on or the way I type, etc. :-( Ariyen 17:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Troll?

I fail to see where a trolling event occurred? I did not interrupt any current discussions with meaningless drivel. I didn't say anything to force another user into some sort of emotional response. There was no intent to cause the user any grief. A comment was made to be an observation on the chosen sentence structure. There wasn't even an attempt in sarcasm (as it does not translate well in text only situations). Are you saying that one shouldn't comment on the status of one's userpage? Whether it be good, bad, or neutral? I'm just curious as to what is borderline trolling? Venom20 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe the thing about the elite/leet thing could be construed as trolling or a hostile greeting. I think, when in doubt, make sure that when you type something, that it doesn't sound sarcastic, hostile, or even remotely close to anything that could be considered negative, since he doesn't know you and you don't know him and you never know how people react to a somewhat odd greeting. Other than that, I dunno :/ --Lania 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I suppose. Although I thought what I typed wasn't sarcastic, nor did I intend it to sound hostile. And thus I didn't' think it is that either. Venom20 21:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

this is essentially how dealing with me irl works, if you dont know me you'll be like 'wtf dude, just gtfo' when im kidding. Its not you, its not them, its getting used to you it takes time, not everyone can do it, but if one person doesn't, so what? Just move on. — Scythe 21:59, 27 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if "first impressions" weren't so important... but since they are... --Lania 22:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

first impressions are only important for a little while, although they are extremely important for that time. (eg if you've known someone for over a year their first impression probably isnt going to matter so much anymore.) — Scythe 22:37, 27 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I thought Venom was just giving sound advice.... It didn't sound so much like trolling as it did as one person giving advice to another, to help them improve their appearance towards other members. Perhaps it could have been handled a bit more delicately, but it also could've been stated in a worse (MUCH WORSE) method. So, honestly, I don't think Venom was trolling, so much as he was (from my personal observations) trying to give recommendation of sorts. :) --Amannelle 23:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what Xeeron was trying to say is that he should have made his comments in a neutral tone, such that a person who is a bit sensitive won't take it the wrong way. --Lania 02:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

/agree — Scythe 2:28, 28 Sep 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I thought based on the content of the page it would be accepted just fine with the user. I try not to just say welcome in a drab way. I suppose I could have further identified what I meant by defining some words, but then the sentence would lose it's style. I'd apologize to the user if he/she was offended, but it appears thatthe user does not want anyone contacting him/her on his/her talk page. I just wanted to know what Xeeron's take was on a troll? Venom20 02:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that I didn't call you a troll, but said "borderline trolling". I had seen your edit before and let it go, because I didn't find it that bad. However, it *could* be interpreted as offensive. Which is what, imo, the user did. So he saw something offensive, removed it, and got admonished by the guy who posted the offensive text. It is not a good idea to post something that can piss off users and then to berate them for getting pissed off. --Xeeron 15:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree... Note, this also applies irl. Some one you know well might greet you like, "Hey, how's my little kitty kat doing?" This is okay because you are familiar with not only the greeting, but with the person as well. On the other hand, if someone I don't know greeted me like that, I probably would tell em to go fuck off, and if that didn't work, I'd kick em in the nuts or pepper spray em. Using an overtly familiar tone can be very offensive in many cultures in the world... especially in Japan, if you don't use keigo (polite speech) to a stranger, you are being offensive (which is why foreign countries that teach Japanese teach the polite speech as the language base). Also remember, that people from around the world use the wiki, which is why using a neutral as possible tone is very important. --Lania 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xeeron, I understand what you meant now. I didn't see it like that before, but it makes sense that since I was the one that did the initial offending (unintentionally of course), it makes sense that one would perceive my notification about deletion as trolling. Thanks for clearing this up Venom20 13:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Hey Xeeron,
I put up an RFA in my userspace and I want your opinion on it, for the content (my RFA), but also the format I have used.
As noted on that page, the methods for deliberation are up to you (and the other bureaucrats). As this sets a precedent, I figured it would be good for the RFA to be relatively free form.
--Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 01:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

First, sorry for being late, both with answering here and with setting up something for RFAs. The latest discussion about admins and bureaucrats let me to believe that it would be best to have a system where users discuss the qualities (as a sysop) of candidates in a talk page format, not a vote. However it would still be useful to have one centralized page that everyone can bookmark. --Xeeron 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

83.234.245.140

We tend not to infinitely block IPs, even if they're bots. Should this block length be lowered? pling 01:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not use the "disable account creation" option, so should anyone be stuck behind that IP, they can still contribute (I usually did the same on GWW). If you want to lower the length go ahead, but I vaguely remember a case on GWW where a vandal came back after several months when the block expired. --Xeeron 01:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting the pages I requested for being deleted :D -Fabian 15:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

np, just doing some sysop duties. --Xeeron 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bcrat reconfirmations

We're doing them, and you are a current bcrat. Join in. - Tanetris 21:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, just closed out the reconfirmations, and wanted to say on a personal note that I do hope you stick around and that I'll be seeing you on the admin list again once you've had more of a chance to acclimate to the current community, and the community's had more of a chance to get to know you. I know you have the ability, but community trust can be a delicate thing, and I'd rather see you "re-"earn it than the community feel you're being thrust on them by the say-so of those who've been around longer. - Tanetris 06:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not much of a surprise for me, I fully understand why people want to have bureaucrats that are active. And I simply am not active in a community if I dont play the game at all. Just wish I had made it into the beta of GW2 (for entirely selfish reasons as well, heh). But in a way, this is a good outcome: I would have felt very obliged to spend time here if reconfirmed, now I can do or not do just as I like. --Xeeron 09:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)