User talk:A F K When Needed

A F K's Archives

Rise And Fall, Rage And Grace.

---

Current Talk

---

Archive One

---

Currently 34,764 bytes

Re: Aqua's Design

Thanks for the css link. For the record, I do use firefox (not chrome) and I think my criticism, other than the issue with the background not showing up, holds. Must admit I like aqua's design a lot, though. -- NilePenguin 09:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive?

WHYYYYYY??? Your talkpage still had some much to live for! It didn't even have 32Kb yet! You evil monster! --El_Nazgir 14:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh.

32kb isn't the milestone to me it is to a lot of other people.

I just look at the length and make a judgement call. A F K When Needed 14:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I just checked and it was about 42kb. A F K When Needed 14:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, never mind the size part then :P Still, it feels tiny when I compare it to my archives :P --El_Nazgir 14:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no, apparently it was just one of my archives that was longer... Wow, Not sure why I thought that...--El_Nazgir 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to consider stealing code from my archive box :o A F K When Needed 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I can also just copy the code from gwiki IF I ever get an archive here :P --El_Nazgir 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Errr huh? Your GuildWiki archive box doesn't appear to list the size of the talk page... A F K When Needed 03:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Cookie

Just wanted to say thanks for the cookie! Ee 09:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"I have no confidence in the current Bureaucrats."

([1])

Can I ask why? Is it because you didn't have a say in choosing them, or is it a more specific problem with how they're (we're) administrating? I ask partly for simple curiosity's sake, but also because I wanna know where I'm going wrong. pling 20:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A few reasons, largely a result of Tanetris and what he has stated regarding inactive Administrators. It seems like he honestly just doesn't get what I and a few others are talking about, and that's always frustrating. "The thing about that is, this is not the "final" GW2W community." Well, obviously. The community will never cease evolving and changing. People will join, people will leave. Frankly, that comes across as a cop-out. I'll be fair and admit perhaps I'm biased; I've read several of his edits on GWW and I've thus come to expect a very high standard from his comments as a result. But making a genuine attempt to accept him as a human being, I still think that was a weak effort. It wasn't a reason, it was an excuse. There's a difference.

What I for one am talking about in relation to inactive Administrators is what you touched on above here. I didn't get a say in choosing them. I didn't see them make a single edit on the wiki. I watched Infinite and Aqua (and others) mold this wiki into what it is. Then Tanetris comes along with comments such as "Are you level-headed? Objective? Mature? Do you communicate clearly? You can tell us you are and you do until you're blue in the face, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating." aimed at Aqua. This rubs me the wrong way. When have any of the inactive Administrators done that in the last three years? In some cases, when have they ever? A fundamental pillar of wikis is YAV. From my perspective, he is trampling all over it. "It's cool bro, we don't need you as an Admin, my friends from another wiki can take over". - how it feels.

"I'd like to see attempts made to reach out to all the inactive sysops to get statements of intent on whether they plan to become active on GW2W or not before decisive action would be taken." I would not. If they want to be Administrators, they can earn it. I read what Tanetris said regarding it not being a reward, and I agree, but you know what I mean. They can demonstrate to this community that they're capable Sysops. And if not? Frankly, they can fuck off.

I own them nothing. The wiki and community as a whole, owe them nothing. It's time people were treated equally, and it's time "the red block" stopped resting on their laurels.

Thanks for caring enough to ask. A F K When Needed 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I'll make a full response later, but for now I'd like to confirm what you feel is a problem. Essentially, you feel we're shortchanging this newer community (admin-wise) for older users who aren't even around? --JonTheMon 21:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically. It's just that, particularly in the case of Tanetris, what's been said just doesn't seem to fit. "The reason most of those sysops have not lost their adminship due to inactivity is the same reason we don't demote for inactivity over on GWW: we don't suddenly lose our trust in them just because they haven't been around in awhile" - we never did have faith in them. They were grandfathered over from GWW, by members of GWW. Now this wiki has its own community, but for some reason the community has no say in its own wiki.

Can I ask why this hasn't been done long ago? Misery has one edit on this wiki. If you want to talk about grandfathered Administrators being trusted, then let's talk about how the Misery account was used by a half dozen people. Trusted? Lolnope.

Rainith has three edits. He spectacularly fails the criteria which Tanetris is applying to Aqua. Yet he's an Administrator, and the ever present Aqua is not.

Xasxas256 has five edits, I'd replace him with Infinite faster than blinking.

Does anyone really expect to ever see BeXoR and JediRogue ever again? If so - what have either of them done to earn the trust of this community?

Salome if an extremely pleasant person. But he has just under 20 edits - how can non GWW people be expected to have faith in him if he suddenly appears and starts banning and deleting?

It strikes me as a Gravewit scenario. If any of those inactives randomly appeared and tried to take over, who would support them?

I reckon you, R.Phalange Pling, know what I mean. A F K When Needed 22:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think any of the current admins (active or inactive, any of them) will randomly start banning people and messing up the whole wiki? I just can't feel that way. They have been entrusted with sysop tools for a reason... in the past, yes. And just like many a tradition, any practice should not be repeated at the present just for the sake of tradition, unless there's a particularly good reason to that and that reason is still valid in present situation. I do share your opinion about replacing inactive administrators with users who truly deserve them by present judgment, but I've never seen any of the current admins behave intolerably or abuse their power as administrators. Did I miss something? I may not have been active enough, but I've been around... well, way before Wikia move of GuildWiki. So what I'm saying, is...
Is there any other reason to your lack of confidence in current sysophood than that it's unfair that inactive administrators have done nothing in GW2W to deserve their status? As long as they're doing no harm - in my opinion that's pretty unlikely (I still agree that having more blue boxes and no red boxes at all would look much better, and I don't think anyone else has disagreed on that thought either). Mediggo 23:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting I think they would deliberately abuse their tools. I'm saying I also don't have any particular reason to believe otherwise; I don't know who they are. If they returned and started using their del / prot / ban buttons, I would have zero confidence in their judgement. Good intentions or otherwise, they don't have a history here of doing right by the community and making logical decisions. A F K When Needed 09:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've detected a problem. You're confusing two separate issues, possibly more, and trying to lump them into one big mess instead of addressing each on its own. Blaming bureaucrats is a pretty obvious sign that this is happening.
Firstly, nobody is opposing new sysops being appointed. The bureaucrats, however, are maintaining their high standards from previous wikis, and doing you the benefit of making sure new sysops here aren't failures. Bad sysops are worse than no new sysops. This point actually took up the bulk of Tanetris' post - making sure the folks GW2W is submitting are high quality. If they are, a promotion is an almost certain outcome of their RfA.
Secondly, very few people are expecting the whole list of inactive sysops to stay that way forever - most people are in favor of reconfirmations for some if not all, and a combination of that list being pruned and new names being added will make a solid list of staff for this wiki. On the same note, however, we've known some of these people for 6-7 years - we've seen what they can do, we've seen their dedication to the old wiki, and we know how much they can bring to the table. The entire community saw it, too - which is why they got promoted in the first place. Stamping up and down and demanding they all get demoted comes off as a kid throwing a tantrum. They got promoted for a reason and with relatively high expectations; with a few exceptions (Misery, for example), they're all still good people. Bexor in particular has shown an interest in returning once the game is out. Demoting her for no reason does the wiki far more harm than good (and, yes, "we have too many sysops" is no reason - there is no cap).
A big issue is this pervasive idea that sysophood on this wiki is a prize. A gift. A reward to be earned. It's none of these. Regular editors can do pretty much everything a sysop can do except ban, delete and protect - and those tools are only brought into play when all other methods have failed. Sysops try to diffuse situations before banning and help editors reach agreements before protecting a page mid-edit-war. A good sign that a user is sysop candidate material is that they do those things as a user already. Breaking away from this notion that sysophood is a badge of honor will go a long way toward helping you understand where Tanetris is coming from. Tanetris isn't holding onto the stack of badges and hoping to hand them out only to his friends. He doesn't see them that way. The badges only get pinned on people that can use them effectively, and the skill sets for using sysop tools are often not the same as skill sets editors use.
On a different topic, I think Aqua would make a fine sysop. It'll take him a few nasty troll attempts and a couple heated dramafests before he's really ready, but those come in time, and there will be plenty on the road ahead. Tanetris' wall of text is mostly to avoid putting an inept sysop in the line of fire. I can tell you first-hand from my years of PvX bcrat (and from sysoping gww) - mediocre sysops stand out. They get targeted. Trolls flock to them to complain about "problem" users. And if the mediocre sysop starts bending like a reed in the wind, they've painted a massive target on their face, and trolls will mark them as an easy target. Once someone is marked, it takes years to work off that rep, if it's possible at all - usually it isn't, and those people end up stepping down or being removed from their sysop position because of the damage they cause. It's far better to have higher standards going into the position than it is to try to remedy the situation if you promote a whole bunch of mediocre sysops simply because they're "from this wiki." Trolls won't give a shit where they're from - an easy mark is an easy mark. Don't give them one, and the wiki's life will be made easier. -Auron 02:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware it's not a prize. It's that they're from another wiki, and I have no reason to trust their judgement. You might. You might be friends with them. I've a thought; I know a pretty cool guy from Wowpedia. Will I send a Bureaucrat an e-mail requesting he be made an Admin? Afterall, he can bring a lot to the table, to use your own words.

Auron, I've a lot of respect for you - and I do mean that - but I can't help thinking what you said misses the mark for those of us who never really got engaged with GWW. It's more of the same "well, we know them, and they did well on another wiki..." -- don't care. They havn't demonstrated to this, separate, community that they are up to the task. They're separate entities (or at least should be), and I've half a mind to start a GW2W version of the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, with GWW at the top of the list.

I do not want to see GW2W turn into GWW, and grandfathering Administrators over is a great start to exactly that. I've no problem with any of the current Administrators - although I feel fresh blood would be an asset - however I do concede your point regarding having an "easy target". The active Administrators have done a fantastic job thus far. The red block have, in many cases, done nothing whatsoever. People from other wikis (e.g. GWW) may trust them, but I really don't give a shit. Their actions on GWW are no more relevant than my actions on Wowpedia, the WoW forums or MSN. A F K When Needed 09:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your allusion to your Wowpedia friend isn't quite appropriate because you are the only person here who would vouch for him. The inactives are at least familiar to some of the users here who were also active for some time on GWW or GuildWiki. In fact, I can personally attest to the effectiveness of at least two of them. Am I not a member of the GW2W community whose word is worth something? Or must there be an arbitrary number of GW2W users who will say "I know and trust this person with sysop tools" before they can be considered to have the support of the community?

I acknowledge that there is no representation of "GW2W-only" users among the administrators. I intend to do something about it. But please don't discount those of us who come from the previous wikis (which includes yourself!) when you talk about the GW2W community, because we are every bit as dedicated to the success of the project as anyone else. 09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not discounting them; you in particular are probably my favourite Admin anywhere. It's just that normally everyone in the community gets a say - and in this instance we're not.

Felix, do you honestly think a single person here would vouch for Misery? Do you honestly believe that account should continue to be an Administrator? Can you honestly tell me that you consider the Bureaucrats to be acting in the interests of the wiki by not demoting it?

The owners of that account would not vouch for themselves, so what the fuck are the Bureaucrats waiting for? This is GWW all over again - people are too scared to risk doing their jobs in case they get headhunted for it. A F K When Needed 10:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe Misery performed its duties satisfactorily on GWW; whether it was a single person or a sovereign nation isn't significant to me. In any case if the Misery Collective won't even vouch for itself then it will be demoted when the reconfirmation is declined without much ado. There are several names on the list that I would not allow to retain sysop status regardless, but I trust that it will be sorted out in due time. I do not think there is a chance of the call to reconfirm current admins being stymied. 10:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't really have any reason out of the blue to trust them as people. I wouldn't leave my kids with Tanetris or Pling. But for bureaucratting a wiki? They've done it for years, and they're good at it. They've seen many things tried on GWW, and they've seen just as many fail. I honestly think it would hurt this wiki more to reflexively throw out the old hands in an attempt to keep GW2W from becoming like GWW, because then you'd lose all that progress - all the things GWW thought was a "really good idea" that turned out to be awful ones. GWW tried to make itself brand new when it was created - a new userbase flocked to it, many clashes of old hands (from gwiki) and brand new users, and a ton of really fucking bad ideas that were implemented because nobody knew better. Bcrat elections, arbcomm, "janitor-only" sysops... they were all put in because of some irrational fear of bureaucrats and sysops going rogue and abusing their power. I honestly can't think of that happening once on any of the Guild Wars wikis (gravewit's debacle only came about due to his role as the site owner, not as a bureaucrat... which he never did anything as anyway). Throwing out the old crowd means also throwing out their experience and their knowledge, and that only weakens the wiki project.

Anyway, while I do love wall of texting, I think my point will be better served in a short message. Avoid repeating the mistakes GWW made, but at the same time, don't reinvent the wheel. Take the things that worked well (RfAs, recons, etc) and tweak them if needed, but keep them going strong. Take the things that sucked ass and throw them out the window. But always keep it in perspective! Make sure the things you're trying to address are actually problems, and make sure the way you're addressing the problems is solving them without causing more.

Right now, the best thing we can do is keep experienced bureaucrats in their seats. Unless they're actively hurting the wiki, trying to rally a cause against them is fruitless and a waste of energy. We don't need a civil war; the game isn't even out yet, and won't be for months. The wheels on sysop reconfirmation are already turning. Change happens one step at a time, and running at the bureaucrats with torches and pitchforks isn't going to do anyone any good. -Auron 11:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, that works.

Thank you. A F K When Needed 12:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

srs or Scythe

I am serious. Tanetris requested that I start an RfA, and seeing how there's a focus on adminship, I did. I didn't want to just ignore the request or say, "oh I hereby give it up"; but rather to just push the decision to the GW2W community. -- ab.er.rant 17:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tanetris told you the community was reconfirming Bureaucrats, yes. To say he told you to start a request is stretching it just a tad; he linked you to the page and told you to get involved. A page where Bureaucrats were requesting that the community allow them to retain their position. If you don't seriously plan on using the tools in the best interests of the community (e.g. using them at all), why would you make a request to keep them? That is doing a Scythe. You (surely) must have realized when creating it that it had no chance of success. Yet you made it anyway. That is doing a Scythe. The community doesn't have a clue if you're in any way serious about positively contributing, yet you asked for a position of trust regardless. That is doing a Scythe. The Request page didn't offer a single reason for people to support it. Yet you made it anyway. That is doing a Scythe. Everything I have listed is making a RfA with absolutely atrocious reasoning - or none - and, you guessed it; that's doing a Scythe.

"Hey guys, I don't really have time for this project so no longer wish to be a Bureaucrat" would be getting involved. Either you're a capable Bureaucrat who looked at his contributions and saw a Reconfirmation destined for failure, or else your judgement and knowledge of the community (both of vital importance for Bureaucrats) is so sorely lacking I don't even know how to respond. You wanted to put it to the community? If there's no chance for an RfA to succeed, why have one? It's hardly good for your self-esteem and if you wanted advice on how to get more involved, there's plenty of people (Pling, Tanetris, Infinite, Aqua, Konig, the list gees on) who could help you out on a user talk page.

The bottom line is if you don't want to be likened to Scythe, you should refrain from behaving the exact same way he does. A F K When Needed 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would he even know who Scythe is? 19:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, way to jump down his throat. Did it ever occur to you that he might not expect to be reconfirmed but is going through the motions for the benefit of the community? Or perhaps to to gauge what might be different about RfA's? --JonTheMon 19:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Felix they edited both GWW and GW2W at the same time back in the day.

Jon the community derives no benefit from a Request that isn't going anywhere and he can gauge all he likes about RfAs from the other ones currently on-going. A F K When Needed 19:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found any evidence that they ever interacted, but really, what will slapping Ab.er.rant with the full force of your e-peen accomplish? Every person on his RfA has said it would be best to reapply for tools in the future, there was no need to berate him. 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

When I saw his RfA come up, I was thinking the same as Jon. We don't really have the RfA process set in stone, and having a variety of RfA's even ones that will most likely fail or are neutral helps nail the details down and how decisions are made. Plus this is kinda the first time we've done RfA's almost strictly in AfD format in all the guildwars wikis. --Lania 19:37, 04 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware Felix; I didn't mention Scythe directly to him until a section about the statement was created on my talk page. I don't mind dropping it since there appears to be a consensus that the random RfA will benefit us in some way. I don't see it, but I do see when I disagree with every other person in the discussion, and am thus almost certainly mistaken.

I stand by what I said on the page itself. A F K When Needed 20:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I only disagree with your choice to be a meanie poohead. 23:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone has to (or have I been lied to?!). A F K When Needed 01:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point, given your understanding of the purpose of the Aberrant's RfA, I think it would be good of you to retract portions of your comment or clarify them, especially with regards to user intent. --JonTheMon 04:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "The community doesn't have a clue if you're in any way serious about positively contributing, yet you asked for a position of trust regardless." You aren't the community. Many of us do know who Aberrant is (even you, apparently, so I'm not sure why you're purposely ignoring what you know of him), many of us do trust Aberrant. If he says he's going to contribute, I believe him. Do I think he should retain admin tools? That's what the RfA is all about. Regardless of the result, the RfA is valid.

"The Request page didn't offer a single reason for people to support it. Yet you made it anyway." You could say the exact same for my RfA and for Tanetris's. I didn't include any "candidate statement" in mine because I wanted to community to make the case. Aberrant presumably wanted the same. pling 20:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There's no reason to offer redundant rationale if you already have the position and interact with the community. I know of Ab.er.rant extremely vaguely, my knowledge of him extends to "was on GuildWiki, moved to GWW, inactive b'crat on GW2W". Not exactly intimate knowledge on which I can support an RfA for B'cratship.

I'm not considering myself to be the community. I'm looking upon both the GWW and GuildWiki editors as both being a part (but not all) of the community here. Some people knowing you from an external source is irrelevant, you should make an effort to be known by the community, here, and seek to be judged on the merits of what you've done here.

In any event, as per my edit above, I give up. I don't see why all of you are convinced we're learning from this, but whatever. A F K When Needed 20:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if our interpretation of English is different, since I view the phrase "join in" as a request, but you obviously don't. I did what Jon guessed - I just put it up to the community - I did want to see the reactions. It was easy to guess what you mean by your "srs or Scythe" comment (didn't know about Scythe), so I tried giving you a response; but your mind was already made up. That was my mistake, for responding. -- ab.er.rant 02:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Signature help

I get you know about those things, so could you give me some pointers? Like, how to use custom fonts?--Xhosant 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Curiousity killed the charr

Hey A F K, I was wondering if you still had the intention to join Dirge Warband. I know it's been over a year ago since I formed it, but I only just today had it restored to my account. Either way, I hope to see you in-game. :) - Infinite - talk 11:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Server? Also, it'd help tons if you linked to it from your userpage (sorry if you do and I fail at finding stuff). A F K When Needed 21:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So, unsurprisingly, it's you/Guild. To be honest I rolled on another server, and while I'd love to be a part of the Guild on alts, my main isn't a Charr.

Also why, WHY, did you and Konig have to pick different servers? If you were both on the same one, then I'd transfer in a heartbeat. But now I'm torn. :< A F K When Needed 21:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To return to you about this, I am only running the guild to give that lore-wise warband feel that the game sort of fails to grant you (join my warband, because we battled a ghost together!) and potentially meeting up later on, when guesting is up. The guild system is horrible, anyway, so you might as well just list it for semantics sake and represent some other massive guild whenever you need guild upgrade perks. I don't put much value into guilds without GvG, anyway. :P - Infinite - talk 18:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)