GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

User talk:Seventy.twenty.x.x

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

No no no no no... Don't you even start that! --User:Gem 13:33, 11 May 2006 (CDT) :)

No no no no no... Please don't stop it now that you started it! --User:Gem 04:23, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
And welcome back. :) --Gem-icon-sm.png 05:06, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
I must say that I am completely lost on what this thread is about. What don't you want me to start? What do you want me to keep doing? Seventy.twenty.x.x 05:23, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
Dont even start was a comment on the box which had something about me and my icons. The second one was a comment on you leaving the wiki. The third was a welcome back. :) --Gem-icon-sm.png 14:08, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Hrm, Luxon clans or Luxon Clans[edit source]

Does the game capitolize clan or no? Otherwise ... GW:ULC --Draygo Korvan 10:27, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Better to ask the cognoscenti, I think. I am not sure the exact phrase "Luxon Clan" is used in game, though the Historian of Clans is called, well, Historian of Clans. Make of that what you will. We have both [:Category:PvE Builds] and [:Category:PvE Team builds]. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin, etc. Seventy.twenty.x.x 10:30, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
Then ill make it Clans instead of clans, Gotta go with the game case. --Draygo Korvan 10:31, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
There are a LOT of inconsistency in category names. Many have been flagged to be moved to more standardized naming; but without a registered bot available at the moment, no one currently wants to clutter the recent changes page with a big batch of minor edits to the hundreds of articles that need their category assignments tweaked. FYI: I would likely go capitalized on Luxon Clans, just to be consistent with the Great Houses category capitalization. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:09, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
Yep already did it Barek. --Draygo Korvan 11:11, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Register bot[edit source]

Good to see somebody on GWiki is able to code a bot. Any chance to get it registered so we can filter it out on recent changes? --Tetris L 08:51, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

heh - edit conflict, I was just typing the same message --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:52, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
Oh, I didn't code it. I'm just using the standard bot framework from Wikipedia. Everything I've done so far has been oneliners. As far as registration goes, we need somone with Bureaucrat or higher powers. That seems to be User:Gravewit or User:Nunix, both of whom seem to be AFW for the time being (or they don't contribute much). When they get back, I'll ask them. –70.20 () 2006-06-12 13:54 (UTC)
Could you put those bot crusades on hold until we have it registered? None of these crusades is top urgent, but they clutter the recent changes to the degree of making it impossible to monitor them. I'd rather wait another week or two, until Gravewit or Nunix have replied.
Also, I'd like to see a list of the current and upcoming bot crusades, similar to what User:Stabbot did. That'd help a lot to keep track of them. --Tetris L 09:11, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
Well, I'm finished with the pending category moves. Wasn't really planning on doing any more "crusades", as you put it. Sorry if it was bothersome. –70.20 () 2006-06-12 14:14 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, you weren't bothersome. Crusades are necessary. It's annoying when the recent changes are spammed with repetitive edits, but it has to be done sometimes. I've done quite a few crusades myself (and much longer ones than those you did today), all manually, since I havn't learned to handle a bot. Can you recommend a guide/tutorial that explains how to do it in plain English for a tech dummy like me? --Tetris L 09:29, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
Hmm... the pywikipediabot distribution already has several scripts prewritten. I've been using the replace.py script for the most part. For simple textual replacements that you can write using Regular Expressions, it is enough. The other bot page you linked to, User:Stabbot, has a good general guideline for how to get it running. If you have trouble with it, I can try to help. –70.20 () 2006-06-12 14:35 (UTC)
My only request if you do register a bot, is to not use your normal logon ID for it. Create something like 70.20.bot, or whatever you want to use (similar to how Stabber had created Stabbot). That way, your day-to-day edits can be kept distinct from the bot edits (and registered bot edits can optionally be shown or hidden in the recent changes screen). Of course, this only matters if you register one. If you don't have any new changes needing bots coming up, then it's not an issue right now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:56, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
I've asked User:Stabber for the keys to his bot if he's not running it any more. Not that I expect to do anything major with a botflagged account. –70.20 () 2006-06-12 16:37 (UTC)
You removed your request, but I would have declined anyway. I think it is better if you got permission from Gravewit yourself instead of simply appropriating my bot account, which actually shouldn't even be botflagged any more. — Stabber  17:55, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

input requested[edit source]

Your input is requested at GuildWiki talk:Please sign your talk pages#Move--Draygo Korvan 16:11, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Wikis[edit source]

"Thank you for experimenting with GuildWiki. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the article How to help if you would like to learn more about contributing to GuildWiki. –70.20☎ 21:25, 12 June 2006 (CDT)" You are such a Wikipedian! There's worse things in the world though I suppose :P --Xasxas256 21:35, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Dunno if you're using "Wikipedian" as a pejorative or not. I hope not. –70.20 04:20, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
I'll reply here instead of below but I'm writing this with your resignation in mind. The above comment was made in jest, I know that text doesn't always show up humour well but the :P was supposed to indicate it. I posted that because you'd written in several places that you're a Wikipedian and that test text is straight from there, it was a bit of rib digging. I think I also mentioned it on User talk:Rainith#Punitive_blocks_on_first_offense that it wasn't a serious post. I was written as a bit of way to hear your thoughts on some GuildWiki vs Wikipedia issues (mostly regarding vandalism) and as a chance to "meet" you. I like putting something on a user's talk page instead of just waiting for me to "run into them". Anyway you seemed to take it to heart so I figured I'd just drop it, you didn't see the humour/light heartedness in it, fair enough I respect that.
However the thing I like about the GuildWiki is that we do know each other, we have some fun, it's not all about rules. I get plenty of red tape and bureaucracy at work, if it was as painful as like that here, I wouldn't bother sticking around. We may not have as many concrete policies as Wikipedia (and probably never will) but to me it's a strength that largely we get along without red tape surrounding our actions. As for WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL I think we are civil, I don't think we attack each other personally. Personal attacks are not considered acceptable here, you rarely see them among the regular contributors and if they do happen, regardless of is the perpetrator, it's frowned upon.
The rules don't set the tone and behaviour of a wiki, it's what the overriding precedence is. A person new to a forum may look at the rules but the style in which they post (including the way they treat others) will be largely governed by how they see others posting. I lived in the country for a while, the road rules are the same there as the city but because everyone is less rushed and more cautious on the road there, I found myself driving accordingly. Sure having fair, well written rules is useful but ultimately a person's conduct will be better if they see that if they see that everyone else is happy to follow the rules (and play nicely I guess). I'd say that a new user could probably pretty quickly get a feel for what's considered acceptable behaviour here on the GuildWiki. Even Wikipedia has WP:IAR as a kind of admittance of the fallacy of having such strict rules. Common sense to me is the most important rule, I don't know if it's on an official policy page but who cares, using common sense is well...common sense! Because we use common sense here, we largely get along (we discuss things all the time but we rarely fight), it makes all other policies secondary (but by no means redundant) and means that we can get along and build a successful wiki. Sorry about the essay length reply but hopefully it gives you a bit to think about (even if a lot of the points are pretty obvious), I enjoyed thinking about why I consider this to be a sucessful wiki and how we do it. --Xasxas256 10:39, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

The term "crusade"[edit source]

Just wanted to point out that the term "crusade" isn't - as you've put it on your user page - "due to User:Tetris L." The use of the term on GuildWiki goes back to a time before I became a regular here. I think the term was first used for the "case crusade", i.e. the eleminating captial letters from article names. --Tetris L 07:08, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

Leaving as a statement..[edit source]

..is the worst possible statement you can do. You're doing good work, and it is only thorough hard work and proving yourself will you start to build the trust of other users and familiarity with the community. People are not robots/computers whom when presented an argument will look at it absolutely without bias and make a clear analysis. People are biased. If you want to lobby for a reform of the administrator's ban powers, then you certainly need to know that it will take time.

Asking for a change, not getting it, throwing a tantrum and leaving is not the way to bring about change, in any community/system. It casts you as caring more about having your way, than actually helping out the project. I am not saying this is who you are, I am saying that it will have amore negative effect on future requests for change you make as people have this lingering image. Just advice from someone who likes your work. --Karlos 03:14, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

I think it won't make your position any better to be the 'second Stabber'. This is allready the second time you leave for something like this and I really hope you are coming back soon. Don't take these things too seriously, relax and have more fun. --Gem-icon-sm.png 03:55, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
I've commented on the matter of our baning policy on GuildWiki talk:Penalties for abuse. Regardless of the outcome of the discussion there, I agree with everything Karlos said here. You have proven to be a valuable and skilled contributor, and it would be very sad to see you go, for whatever reason. If you stay and discuss, I'm sure we can work this out. Leaving (or threatening to do so) should always be the very last resort. It's a sharp blade, but it gets blunt quickly. Repeatedly threatening to leave makes you look bad, especially since most people who leave come back sooner or later. Having said that, I know it is hard to resist sometimes. I have done it. Karlos has done it. And we're both still here, as you can see. :-D Please reconsider and stay too. --Tetris L 05:44, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
Actually, you misunderstand me. I have no desire to lobby for change, nor am I 'throwing a tantrum' as you claim. I had hoped to fade away rather than make a huge scene or use leaving as a political tool. I would in fact hate to be perceived as using such ridiculous tactics. To be honest, I am a bit surprised you, Karlos, found my page and was moved to comment on it: I don't think we have had any interactions in the past to justify this interest. And with a heading like 'leaving as a statement', it is no wonder that several other people have been attracted to the heat.
As regards leaving, a person always has the freedom to walk away. The statement on my user page is a statement of disagreement with the way GuildWiki assigns blocks. If I had been aware of this from the start, I would never have started contributing. It is such a fundamental disagreement with what I consider wikis to be---open, forgiving and friendly places---that it is clear to me that I can't continue here. See above for Xasxas256's comment that I am 'such a Wikipedian'. I have made no secret of it-- I am a Wikipedian (even got the t-shirt!) and a strong believer in certain Wikipedian policies such as WP:BOLD, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL that I hold to be universal. I am surprised that something like NPA and CIVIL, at least, are not also policies here. What really gets my goat is that on previous occasions I have been rebuked by sysops when I urged someone to be bold in updating pages. What I get out of this is that my mentality is simply incompatible with GuildWiki. Which is fine, because one cannot expect everything to always line up properly.
I don't know why I was called a "second Stabber" above by Gem. My understanding from the arbitration in that case was that that he left the wiki (and then later came back) because another user complained about his disruptive wiki behaviour. Surely there is a difference between that case and this one! Have I been disruptive? I certainly hope not.
Finally, with regard to 'reconsidering' my decision to stop contributing, as Tetris L put it, it is simply impossible. I have randomized the password of this account, like I always do when I give up a persona. I should have done it after the argument on Talk:Grind, but, unfortunately, my resolve then was not as strong.
I hope I have explained myself enough that you can all go back to doing what you were doing. 70.20.100.196 07:41, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
Sorry, but I just have to answer you. I didn't use the term 'second Stabber' because why you left, but because you were starting to make it a habit like Stabber. No offense to anyone, I get heated sometimes too. --Gem-icon-sm.png 08:36, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
Seventy, the fact that you're suprised that the statement on your user page was even noticed shows that you don't know GWiki very well yet. We are a small community, and a contributor as active as you doesn't go unnoticed. It doesn't happen every day that we win or loose a valuable contributor. A single contributor does matter on GWiki, and it may very well be that because of your "lobby for change" (even though it wasn't meant as such) our blocking policies may be revised. This wiki is still young, and few things are set in stone.
Oh, and if it's the password that stops you from reconsidering, I'm sure that can be resolved easily. ;-) When I asked you to reconsider, I was talking about you as a person. I don't care what account you use, especially since your account name is just an anonymous number anyway. Just create a new account, (70.21?) or continue to post under anonymous IP. You will be recognized anyway. --Tetris L 08:58, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
Starting a response with mock shock is always helpful to a dialog. Either you are making this bigger than it is or I am just blind to your affliction. This wiki does not even have a banning policy. We admins currently "wing it." The policy in Guildwiki:Bla bla Bla that you find so deplorable is not binding to us. I have lobbied for more central reform, more defined roles and have failed in that aspect. I have come to realize the wiki is just too small for people to care about these things. I really don't see "ban abuse" as being rampant on the wiki. If you do, make it a case to review admin bans and flag the ones you feel were unjust/uncalled for. If you fight the battle long enough, people will take notice and change it. Take a page out of PanSola's book.
The pride and stubborness expressed in your note lead me to believe there is little chance you will change your mind. I think a part of you is actually enjoying this Custer's Last Stand being played out here. I wish you success in your future endeavors. --Karlos 10:10, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
You are being uncivil to me for no reason. I have never had any interactions with you, and I have no desire to justify my actions any more than I have already. My decision to stop contributing is mine alone and I haven't used it as a threat against anyone. Your reading of my motives is neither correct, nor necessary. I notice that, in the debates on blocking, all the sysops save PanSola have shown an exorbitant belief in their own sagacity. This is a red flag, redder even than the blocking issue. You clearly don't see any merit in this debate and proudly display your lack of sight. Fine, but I am not your ward. Go lecture someone else. 70.17.174.163 10:26, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
I would be lying if I said I didn't expect this response, word for word even. I am sorry to see this end in that way. My intentions were to try and make you reconsider and get everyone working together again. Good intentions do not always lead to good actions. For any offense on my part, I apologize and wish you the best. --Karlos 11:09, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
"What really gets my goat is that on previous occasions I have been rebuked by sysops when I urged someone to be bold in updating pages". If you are talking about the instances with me, I want to clarify something. I never rebulked you for encuraging people to be bold. I was pointing out that "Any policies we share, but lack an actual policy article for, should be ported over here; it is bad form to link a Wikipedia policy article in support of any action, even if that policy is the same as one traditionally held by the GuildWiki." I personally would encourage other contributors to be bold too (unless it is an obviously controversial issue, in which case I would encourage discussion first). My beef is the quoting (well techinically, linking) of Wikipedia policies. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 03:03, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


Template not lifted[edit source]

I noticed the template not lifted of of this account. If there is proof this is a Stabber account, then this account should be perma-banned for one reason and one alone; Instructions for the adminship voting that Stabber wrote, herself, states a nomination counts as a support vote. Here, however, its shown that Stabber nominated this fellow contributor and 70.20 also has a support vote.

If there is proof that this two accounts are under control of the same person, then action must be taken for vote tampering. If that's the case, I will substitute my name for 70.20, to keep the number of votes the same. --Gares Redstorm 15:47, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Nice catch! Can we please stop saying that Stabber's sockpuppetry was harmless? You should go ahead and change that vote with your name. This user has, after all, claimed to "leave" the wiki, and only the votes of active users should count. I will provide the evidence for sockpuppetry here in a few minutes. F G 17:19, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
As the one impacted by the duplicate vote, I would say that the duplicate vote should just be eliminated. I have no problem with having one less vote. If you trully support me for future potential slots, feel free to add your name; but I'm not concerned by having fewer votes if some of those were from "stuffing the ballot box" (I'm still catching up with developments after the weekend, but I'm assuming for now it was a duplicate) --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:18, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
Edit: I've been distracted the last two days with real world activities, so have just now returned to this. After reviewing the info I could find (conversations seem to be going on in several places at once), I see no proof at this time that 70.20 is a sockpuppet of Stabber, just a lot of conjecture. That said, if the community should identify what it considers a duplicate vote, simply remove it. The comment above that "I will substitute my name ... to keep the number of votes the same" makes me uncomfortable. If you support a voted-on item, vote for it regardless of if a suspected sock-puppet is being removed. The two actions (removing a suspected sock puppet, and inserting a vote yourself) shouldn't be connected on any vote. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 08:39, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
I've just never been one to vote for people, even if I could vote for myself. However, I did not want to see you be wronged in any way. I agreed that all nominees are worthy of adminship and should be admins, but as far as voting for people, it's just not what I do. --Gares Redstorm 08:51, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
I tend to agree with Barek, this accusation is mostly conjecture. One thing that stands out in my mind is that 70.20 wrote above: I don't know why I was called a "second Stabber" above by Gem. My understanding from the arbitration in that case was that that he left the wiki (and then later came back) because another user complained about his disruptive wiki behaviour. Now, Stabber was always very corrective about this; whenever someone referred to Stabber as a male and she saw, she would correct it. It was almost obsessive, and I would find it hard to believe indeed that Stabber could have written this sentance. -Greven 13:07, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
Ahem, I rejected the placement of the template 2 days ago. Why are people still trying to make a case that we should reject the template? --Karlos 13:48, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
I blame lack of sleep in not noticing the tag being removed. - Greven 14:22, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Case that User:Seventy.twenty.x.x is a sockpuppet of User:Stabber[edit source]

  1. This user is known to have used a bot for editorial purposes. There is only one "other" user here who is known to use bots. The ability to run bots is the key identifying feature of this user -- Deldda Kcarc claimed it, and Stabber and Seventy definitely had it. We know for a fact that whoeever this person is, he knows his way around a programming language. (Little wonder, considering all his IPs trace back to the computer science department of some university.)
  2. For a newcomer to the wiki, he seems extremely clued in. See [1], [2], [3] (a revert he made within hours of showing up here; think when you were confident enough to make reverts by citing policy), [4]. Note that he appeared right after the arbitration episode when Stabber was supposedly "leaving" the wiki. No other users who joined during that time period immediately jumped into the deep end.
  3. He had a very Stabberesque flameout in Talk:Grind/Archive 1. And then reappeared in a month, coincidentally when Stabber had just flamed out again. Then, very recently, he had another very similar flameout. Those who have seen enough of Stabber's episodes would be able to make out some impressive parallels. In fact, he was even accused of being a "second Stabber".
  4. He "asked" Stabber for the "keys" to the bot, and then Stabber "declined". The farce was almost deliciously transparent. Really, ask for keys to the bot? I loled.

Unlike User:Deldda Kcarc and others, this case is not cut and dried. I hope I have made a sufficient case for strong suspicion. This can only be proven by examining server logs, though, as I can't find an actual slipup.

-- F G 17:42, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

I agree, this one is very suspicious, especially that he came on as soon as I had that fallout with Stabber and tagged us both for banning. Not only was that what Stabber had just asked for, but putting a ban on herself is something Stabber has done to herself before. However, there is no hard proof (in terms of tracing IPs or Stabber saying something as him or vice versa), so I am removing that tag. The history of this conversation is here for others to see. --Karlos 17:58, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
Tracing IP's wont get you anywhere, 70.20 is from VA while Stabber is located in PA. Knowlege of how a Wiki works shouldnt be any grounds of suspicion, many people can come from editing wikipedia, so they would already be familiar with finding policy and citing it, as well as performing reverts. Flameouts are common, if you start tagging everyone that gets in a fight, you would have a long list. Another bit of evidence that this user was familiar with wikipedia is the users knowlege of a basic wikipedia bot and how to convert it, its not hard if you know wikipedia. If anything, this one is a large stretch ... even if a proxy was being used it is unlikely that it was getting bounced off of verizon. If anything, this user has more in line with F G, who uses the same IP range, which would also explain the policy, and the banning bit. --Draygo Korvan 14:59, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
The IPs noted above in this talk are from Pittsburgh, PA, not VA. Interestingly, so are the known IPs used by F G, as remarked already in User talk:F G. All appear to be Verizon dynamic IPs. Granted, an entire city is a wide net, and for all we know this could be a gang of meat puppets abusing the site. Carnegie university is in Pittsburgh also. It would be interesting if this case goes to the suggested "discovery" phase and User:Stabber and User:Deldda Kcarc are also found to use Verizon dynamic IPs from Pittsburgh. To me, that would be a damning amount of evidence. It's a good thing I'm not an admin here, as, left to myself, I would consider banning the entire Verizon dynamic IP range. Arrowsmith 14:51, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
You could be a meatpuppet too, you came completely out of no-where and started posting on this specific issue. Well you basically came on this site AS a meatpuppet by your own admission. --Draygo Korvan 15:07, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Hello, what new nonsense is this? If you have solid proof, present it. If not, piss off. 70.20 20:31, 1 July 2006 (CDT)