Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Archive 1

Special:Contributions/4.88.40.105

That Wikiraptor from above is back yet again. --Valshia 05:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

They're after our cookies. -- Scourge 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cant stop us, hoes!!! CANT DO IT!! RAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! ---Raptors --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:4.88.40.105 .

They've stopped for now. Lol... - BeX 05:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from this other IP address, yes: Special:Contributions/4.88.42.42. It's an open proxy, btw (duh). Of course, this does bring up an interesting question... do oppose votes from IP vandals using proxies count on an RfA? =P MisterPepe talk 06:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised this guy wasn't blocked already, but I don't know if it's worth bothering now. If anyone thinks this IP should be blocked just say so and I'll do it. LordBiro 08:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So far, the WHOIS lookup on the IPs show that they're all in the 4.0.0.0/8 range (4.0.0.0 to 4.255.255.255) for Level 3 Communications, Inc. I prefer avoiding range blocks; but if it continues, there's the range currently involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one of those: Special:Contributions/4.88.46.107 - anja 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked ... the range block is looking more and more tempting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If we block the range we could enable the registration option, which would mitigate the possibility of blocking genuine contributions. That said, 4.0.0.0/8 is a huge range and I'm a little wary of blocking it! LordBiro 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki will not register an /8 bit rangeblock, it has to be between /16 and /31 iirc and yes, rangeblocking 4.0.0.0 is in the millions of addresses. Let's see if my math is correct to minimize the damage to innocent users with a selective multiple rangeblock. — Gares 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As it says a little bit lower, a pretty large portion (majority, even?) are in the 4.88.40.0 - 4.88.50.0 range. That's a far smaller grouping... MisterPepe talk 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to block 4.88.40.0 through 4.88.50.0 its a smaller range but it looks like the ones that are between them are the ones that are being used. --Sktbrd341 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone tell me how to easily block those ranges and I'll do it. -- (gem / talk) 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Gem, take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Range_blocks . Most likely, you'd do two range blocks (4.88.40.0/21 and 4.88.48.0/23). That limits the block pretty severely, but that's still 2.5k addresses (brb, getting pie out of oven). That's a fairly large number, especially if it's just to deal with one person =P At the least, leave the registration option, IMO. MisterPepe talk 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/4.88.45.130. We're having fun here ;) - anja 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/4.88.47.67. Another one. -- AT(talk | contribs) 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Both already blocked. -- (gem / talk) 15:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh.....Are you guys gonna block us all??? WHAT FUN WOULD THAT BE?!?!?!?! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA DONT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ---Raptors

UPDATE: Gares has blocked 4.88.40.0/21 and 4.88.40.0/23 - however, the second IP range is incorrect and needs to be 4.88.48.0/23 instead to complete the rangeblock. MisterPepe talk 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I put the wrong number in. That's what I get for rushing. On a different note, Pepe, a pie? :P — Gares 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Apple. MisterPepe talk 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, Pepe. The correct ranges have been blocked. Forgive the seemingly laziness, I'm at work. — Gares 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thought you had us huh? HEH bet you didnt see this comin. Have you ever thought of just asking us nicely to leave? Boy, you guys are impatient!! I'm sure you missed us though.... see ya around boys. RAAAAAAAAA!!! ---Raptors

Special:Contributions/203.162.27.90

Another one of those we know quite well by now. Not done much so far, but the same pattern as before. - anja 14:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one of a similar style: Special:Contributions/202.101.105.172 -- ab.er.rant 07:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This last guy seems more like maing editing mistakes. --Karlos 08:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Two edits that remove text starting from the first ampersand? *shrugs* -- ab.er.rant 08:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/220.194.47.69

Yet another. First what seems to be a good edit, then some removing in the same pattern as we know by now. Got a warning on talk page a few days ago. - anja 10:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Xasxas256 11:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one: Special:Contributions/61.156.42.123. This doesn't make sense. Doesn't this feel like it's kinda an automated edit? -- ab.er.rant 13:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. It is rather weird, I'll agree with you on that, still any chance to wield the ban hammer... :D --Xasxas256 14:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:64.157.15.26

[1], Special:Contributions/64.157.15.26. Don't know wether blocking is useful as tor is for anon internet. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an active tor exit node. Blocking an exit node is somewhat useful, but there's quite a lot of them. Basically, it's a drop in the bucket. Tor is pretty easily abused =P MisterPepe talk 18:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/69.29.173.171

Small vandal edits to same guild page. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a block is required here, it's such a minor incident. LordBiro 19:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks more like a guild member mucking about. --Lemming64 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/70.130.131.46

started blanking pages. Some user pages and main articles. --Sktbrd341 23:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just tried to remove this note as well -- AT(talk | contribs) 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:( Meanies. 70.130.131.46 23:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but please go have "fun" somewhere else. --Lemming64 23:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:(

Blocked. --Karlos 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/99.246.16.103

Adding false information to several articles. -Auron 04:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- (gem / talk) 05:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/The WikiRaptors Return Again Again And Are Still Not Boring Because We RAWK You Wiki Nerds

Blocked for 3 days for vandalism, but I thought I should add the info here for anyone who is interested. LordBiro 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay, thanks.

It's slightly off-topic, but are you supposed to be handing out blocks? =P GWW:ADMIN has that whole "Bureaucrats... are forbidden from executing page deletions/undeletions or user blocks/unblocks" thing. Last time I checked, you were still a BCrat ;) MisterPepe talk 06:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been perma banning those accounts as they were not created for legitimate editing, they were purely made for vandalism, similar to a gold seller bot. --Xasxas256 06:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT!)

That's one of two reasons why I posted it here. The other reason is that I wasn't sure if the ban length was sufficient and wondered what others thought.

But to respond to your question, I probably shouldn't have handed out the block, it was a force of habit. In future I will post the offense here instead of taking care of it myself. LordBiro 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it being a problem at all, maybe we need a GWW:Common Sense to refer to! --Xasxas256 07:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something similar to [2]? :P (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at some point in the future I believe the idea is to remove the block ability from the sysop bcrat role, and probably the delete ability as well. Personally I think the ability to undelete and unblock are necessary, but even those abilities are debatable. Anyway, this probably isn't the place for this discussion so I will leave it there ;) LordBiro 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove blocking from the sysop role? Did you mean BCrats? :) Ale_Jrb (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he did but it's a bit early in the morning to be thinking coherently. :P - BeX 09:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Eloc posted a question about this. Might want to continue the discussion there. -- ab.er.rant 09:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did mean bcrat, and it was early, thanks ;) LordBiro 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If Pepe will just /bow to us, we will think about stopping. ---Raptors

hey sexies, just dropping by to say RAAAAAAAAAA!! ---The Raptors That Are Feared By All You Guys RAAAA

Special:Contributions/203.162.27.95

Another one of those "+" removers. -- ab.er.rant 09:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one... Special:Contributions/89.18.137.226 -- ab.er.rant 09:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Done and

Done. --Xasxas256 10:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/203.162.27.91

Same old same old. -- ab.er.rant 11:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned. -- (gem / talk) 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/62.235.145.11

Angry vandal -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Even though he said he was sorry in his last post, that does not mean the previous multiple vandalism should be ignored. Banned for 3 days in hopes he will calm down. — Gares 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he will calm down. He stopped right after my note on his talk page. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

86.122.71.233

Massive blanker. Now try saying that without closing your mouth. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned. -- (gem / talk) 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Beat me by seconds. :P — Gares 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. :P -- (gem / talk) 17:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hanks Gotcha vs. User:Rein Of Terror

(no user prefered, listed alphabetically) Seems they use their guild page for a personal war... See their talk pages and guild talk page for further comments. Don't know wether a "timeout" for GWW:NPA could help them to cool down? - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that they should both get a time out. They are not adding anything to the wiki, they are fighting with each other and this isn't really the place. Let them cool off and figure it out, away from the wiki. Then when they come back maybe they will stop. --Sktbrd341 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hanks already said he'll let it go. I wont be banning either one of them, but I'll let any other admin do it if they want to. -- (gem / talk) 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I have pointed out their infringements to both of them in several places, hopefully they will take my advice and resolve it with the aid of their guild leader. They seem to have both stopped the revert war anyhow --Lemming64 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry for my behavior and I will be sure to straighten up :) Hanks Gotcha 19:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/62.164.254.132

- MSorglos (talk|contrib) 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- (gem / talk) 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/221.229.244.46

Another one of those AmpersandBots. Also, testing out AVT ;) MisterPepe talk 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, may I just say that I'm quite proud that I managed to get that working =P MisterPepe talk 20:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- (gem / talk) 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still Waiting on that /bow...

Like I said above, just give us that /bow Pepe, and we'll think about stopping... ---Raptors

You never saw your talk page? It's been a long time since I've posted there, but you never cared to reply, which I found very disappointing as I was looking forward to a nice little chat. :) -- (gem / talk) 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Check it now. Also, RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcookiesRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ---Raptors

Special:Contributions/83.149.19.6

+'s and &'s -- ab.er.rant 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Xasxas256 09:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

It'd be great if someone could protect {{Latest update}}, {{Game update}} and Image:New-download-thing.png, since they're all being used on the Main Page currently. Discussion regarding this can be found here. --Dirigible 17:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Rainith 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/GW NOOB

See Image:Elona Reach map.jpg MisterPepe talk 22:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the user has been asked on their talk page to refrain from future such postings. If they mend their ways, hopefully they'll mend their ways. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

& Bots

Special:Contributions/200.83.4.3 - One of those & bot things. -- Scourge 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another "&" one. Special:Contributions/210.205.32.173 - BeX 09:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Special:Contributions/203.162.27.94 - anja 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one Special:Contributions/200.83.4.6 -- Scourge 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/194.88.214.195 - BeX 10:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

All blocked. -- (gem / talk) 10:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/209.200.52.79 - BeX 10:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- (gem / talk) 10:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A new one.. 81.225.196.12 poke | talk 10:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done... -- (gem / talk) 10:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/211.152.45.225 Another one 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/209.200.52.68 - BeX 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. I guess this guy wants some attention. -- (gem / talk) 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/147.251.53.146 Omg, it killed Kenny! (Or rather everything after the "&"-sign) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a new variation... interesting. I'm not sure that that's the same thing, but teh blockage commences MisterPepe talk 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/85.120.156.202

Rather large vandal, the diff may not be viewable. It gave me a server error :/ -- AT(talk | contribs) 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- (gem / talk) 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/209.200.52.70 & Special:Contributions/68.1.120.86

Both of these for blanking almost at the same time. Also another one of those random + deleting ones Special:Contributions/203.69.39.250 --Lemming64 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Barek warned on talk pages. +-bot was blocked for a few days. —Tanaric 17:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/130.225.54.2

another + delete --Sktbrd341 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- (gem / talk) 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Special:Contributions/209.200.52.81 this is another one, but the skill progression for Shield of Deflection should have been something else than "+armor". Therefor, it might have been a legitimate modification. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not going to ban, just in case. -- (gem / talk) 23:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably is (APEWS lists it as a potential anon spammer), but I agree with Gem. MisterPepe talk 23:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/207.199.213.66

Major page blanking. --Sktbrd341 00:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/69.115.136.211

& bot. --Sktbrd341 00:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue

We're having a big wave of anon vandals (or some person changing his/her ip very often) removing +'s out of articles and removing parts of articles/talk pages. See Special:Contributions/62.231.243.136, Special:Contributions/72.3.237.81, Special:Contributions/162.66.29.23, Special:Contributions/62.231.243.138 for examples. Is there something we can do about this, or just keep reverting? - anja 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked all of your examples. Just post all ofthe IPs here and we'll block 'em. The same guy was vandalising a few days ago with some of the same IPs, so long bans on all of the IPs will atleast slow him down. -- (gem / talk) 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/210.194.94.43 and Special:Contributions/67.15.183.21.

Here's something weird, tho. Notice that in all examples in the contribution histories of these five IPs where part of an article was blanked, it happened right after an "&" character. Removing + signs and content after & characters. Strange. --Dirigible 05:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an astute observation, Dirigible! It could be that someone is attempting to edit articles and inadvertendly destroying them. LordBiro 09:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Or that someone is running a weird bot. Usually if that kind of stuff is an unwanted side effect, the edits also have something that makes sense in them. Besides, he is chaning his IP all the time, so... -- (gem / talk) 10:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has happened so many times now in different articles, that'd I'd rather guess it's a bot or semibot of some kind. An example is this editor, which posted lots of spam links and also removed content in the same pattern as earlier vandals. Might have nothing to do with eachother though.. :/ - anja 10:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Smurf reverted another of these guys, 66.45.252.82. Checked it with nmap, that computer is running a whole bunch of services; dns, ssh, apache, ftp, mysql, pop3, smtp, imap, profile, netbios, msrpc, smb, basically everything but the kitchen sink. The website is at http://66.45.252.82. That IP appears in multiple blacklists, such as SORBS, Spamhaus, and most importantly DSBL. It's an open proxy and a spam box (with all those ports open it's possible that the owner isn't even aware of this, maybe he has a trojan installed of some kind?) .

The other previously mentioned IPs currently appear offline to me, but 5 out of the 6 of them also appear on at least one blacklist of some kind. So... I don't think whoever/whatever is making those edits is doing so in good faith. Jumping through open proxies and with a seemingly automated edit pattern doesn't really sound like someone trying to contribute positively. Not sure what exactly it is, but I think we should keep blocking them. --Dirigible 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one of these IP's: Special:Contributions/62.231.243.137, again only removing "+"-signs, who were supposed to be there. Anja even gave this one a friendly message on his/her talk page. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And another one: Special:Contributions/222.66.97.75 --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on that user's talk page to use the Sandbox, as they've only made one edit so far. It is curious though...maybe I'll leave another note, see if I can get a reply. --Xasxas256 23:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) They now are starting to register to remove '+'s... Special:Contributions/BkxWvz :-( --  (CoRrRan / talk) 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tr4Dot and Special:Contributions/200.83.4.3 Same pattern of edits as above. Tedium 02:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/89.178.36.121 - BeX 05:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikitravel, Brickwiki, Wiki.ThePPN, DreamhostWiki, and it even has a short article dedicated to it on one wiki, AmpersandBot. We're not alone with these guys. --Dirigible 14:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/203.162.27.92 one more. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 18:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/209.200.52.73 I think one more (PvE&PvP) - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/200.83.4.3 Yet another -- AT(talk | contribs) 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Already posted above, nevermind. -- AT(talk | contribs) 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The page Dirigible links for info about the AmpersandBot lists an add-on that can be used to stop these guys, can someone with more technical knowledge than me take a look at it here and see if this is something that would be feasible for us to request? --Rainith 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle Lion

There's a bit of a revert war plus vandalism over here. See also Talk:Battle Lion and History. -- ab.er.rant 03:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest we clean the article up, then protect it against further edits due to the extensive vandalism targeting to that particular page. --Lemming64 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up and protected it. -- (gem / talk) 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a temporary protection template? I'm quite opposed to "speedy-protection". LordBiro 17:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a temp prot template, but I wasn't intending to keep the page protected for too long, just a week or two so that everyone forgets the whole page. -- (gem / talk) 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good to leave protecting as admin discretion so long as there is obvious cause and call for it. --Lemming64 01:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth requesting that the Media Wiki software be upgraded to v1.10 to get, among other goodies, the ability to set an auto-expiry to page protections. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Raptors That Are Feared By All You Guys RAAAA (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

-- (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned before you even posted here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ban THIS HOEBAG!!!! You think you are clever don;t you? HA! I laugh in your ugly hoebag face! ---Raptors Like Cookies (Raptors)

Please note GWW:NPA. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, good sir. I in no way meant to cuse you emotional distress! RAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ---Raptors

Are there any ways to block re-registering of them? Special:Log/block 7 infinite blocks for accounts that will not come back because they were only created for beeing banned. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 06:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If the vandal has a fixed IP addres, an IP block would work. Otherwise, the only thing that would work is requiring email confirmation for all new accounts, which I don't think we should do without a policy. -- Gordon Ecker 08:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, when you block someone, if the "Block account creation" box is ticked, they have to obtain a new IP in order to register a new account. --Xasxas256 08:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Also it should autoblock all IPs which try to log in with a banned account iirc. -- (gem / talk) 10:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So Barek and Rainith just forgot to check that box or is that raptor using different IPs? - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 10:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's checked by default, so he's probably using multiple IPs. -- (gem / talk) 10:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a way to slow this sort of thing ... currently, if an anon attempts to post an external link, they get a message "Your edit includes new external links. To help protect against automated spam, please solve the simple sum below and enter the answer in the box". Similar puzzles (I've seen graphic images of words that need to be typed in) can be used for creating new user accounts. Likewise, if anon vandalism continues to increase, we can discuss expanding the posting filter for anons to apply to any anon post, not just when an external link is posted.

I'm not a big fan of these measures - I prefer keeping the wiki as welcoming as possible; but they are effective methods to reduce or at least slow down vandalism from anons or those who rapidly change IPs/user accounts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah don't like that idea for the reasons you've said yourself. But it could be useful for those "+" remover bots. If your edit removes any "+" signs then you have to fill in a CAPTCHA! --Xasxas256 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A good idea for a temporary measure against these bots. I support something like that. -- (gem / talk) 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So Captcha for + and & removers and (against Raptors) for people doing some RAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ? :-)- MSorglos (talk|contrib) 16:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! The RAAA thing really cracked me up! Support! -- ab.er.rant 17:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gem: why do you think the CAPTCHA should only be a temporary solution? -- Scourge 01:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Barek: "I'm not a big fan of these measures - I prefer keeping the wiki as welcoming as possible" -- (gem / talk) 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

86.83.15.245 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Redirecting his/her userpage to a page outside of this wiki (I have broken the redirect for now, since it causes trouble). I cannot see this specific case is noted in the policy, but when reading policies, I got the impression this kind of redirect is not allowed. Am I right or wrong? - anja 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed his page earlier on, but while I find it weird to redirect outside of the wiki, there is currently nothing in our policies to forbid it. This discussion comes closest to deliberating what kind of redirects should be allowed. If he restores his userpage, there is nothing we can do about it. Whether we should do something about is is a matter for the userpage policy discussion. --Xeeron 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, see Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Requests_for_technical_administration#302_redirects - I'm pushing for disabling all inter-wiki redirects, but we haven't gotten enough comments on it to ask ANet. MisterPepe talk 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I find redirects outside of this wiki not categorically disallowed in any policy, it's also the page he/she is redirecting to that made me break the redirect. If the user reverts, I won't touch it again, as we have no apparent policy. I don't feel this matter would get much attention if we bring it up now at user policy talk. I think disallowing redirects outside wiki would be a better way to go about it, there is really no practical purpose of redirecting out. We should get some more attention to that proposal. - anja 23:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This specific example could probably fall under admin discretion. --Lemming64 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Carl (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnndddaaaaaaaaaallllll. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, just a mis-edit - anja 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Anja - check the user's contrib history. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Check his contribs. He's blanked the guild pages policy after replacing it with the content of his own guild's page, and then doing the same to the formatting page for guilds. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of which point to misedits - a user trying to figure out how to create their guild's page, and clicking in the wrong places. Better to assume good faith - and notice, he's finally succeeded in creating the proper page. A vandal wouldn't do that. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm gonna trust your judgement on that then. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides, User:Carl doesn't weigh as much as a duck. If you know what I mean. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But does he float? LordBiro 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Does he look like he's made out of wood to you?? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What floats doesn't necessarily mean that it's made of wood... it might also be a witch. "We did do the nose..." "The nose?" "And the hat,... but she's a witch!" --  (CoRrRan / talk) 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the wart? MisterPepe talk 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

SHE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT!!!! (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I got better... MisterPepe talk 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, this is getting far too silly! Sergeant-Major LordBiro 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Build a bridge out of her!" --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And what else floats on water, besides wood? MisterPepe talk 22:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bread! Apples! Very small rocks! Cider! Gravy! Cherries! Churches! Lead! --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And now, for something completely different. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A man with three buttocks. MisterPepe talk 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I think you scared all of the vandals away. - BeX 03:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But with only a flesh wound, so it's totally ok. --Gaile 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

More vandalous goodies

Special:Contributions/139.55.237.215 - almost everything has been... rude. - Thulsey - talk 06:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for ~0.143 fortnights. Take that, Xas ;) okay, fine, I put it in as "two days" MisterPepe talk 07:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

75.134.17.109 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Playing with numbers... be careful, this one might just be a minor vandal as opposed to a bot. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Notified on the talk page. - anja 16:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

They reverted their own edit; no harm, no foul, no need for a block at this point. --Rainith 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Lw6Cb1

I got a whisper in game from a person claiming to be a vandal and warning for a major vandal attack. I guess this is one of those user names that have been used by this user. Also been informed every user page will get spammed. Let's see how this works out. - anja 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, it's just someone who needs to gets his humour circuits resoldered. --Dirigible 01:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We had a bit of fun, but he admitted he joked when he saw I posted here. Not sure whether I believe it or not, but it doesn't really matter :P - anja 07:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/AfgE2u

Seems the ampersand bots have finally found a purpose. See this and this. -- AT(talk | contribs) 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, it might be time to tweak around with ConfirmEdit again. =\ --Dirigible 01:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one -- AT(talk | contribs) 02:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration#Spam control. --Dirigible 03:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

69.248.129.34 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Very sneaky fellow. Reverting it isn't even done with a quick mouseclick... :( --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems like something that more merits a warning on their talk page rather than an immediate block. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

74.100.13.13 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

vandal -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 01:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Xeeron 01:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

68.6.162.118 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Blanking Guide to modifying in-game graphics/Player made modifications. -- Gordon Ecker 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Did it solve? Looking at the later contributions, it does look like he/she stopped vandalising? - anja 08:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He did it again.. poke | talk 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Gave him/her a final warning.. - anja 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for three days. Should keep an eye on this one. - anja 20:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe nearly all of this user's posts were violations of GWW:NPA. The final posts was over-the-top and blatant; however, the earlier ones also each stated "Further advertising of such mods which breach said contract will lead to the contact of my attorney who will in turn handle this accordingly." However, the GWW:NPA policy also lists "Threats of legal action." as a personal attack.

Of course, admins must weigh the legitimacy of such a threat before deciding it's a policy violation - although true legal concerns should be routed directly through ArenaNet anyways. In this case, the threats appear meaningless unless this user is an official representative of NCsoft or ArenaNet, which does not seem to be the case. As such, the threats, to me, were clear violations of policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OvsA5l (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Everyone do the robot! --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja 08:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

AsuRog (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spammed Goren's article with external links. --Indecision 08:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again. - anja 08:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

CvrI08 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link spammed the Massive Jawbone article. This is the 2nd time for this user according to the history. --Valshia 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. — Gares 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Template protection

Someone is insisting on editing {{pipe}}. Can we protect this template (and maybe other highly-used ones of this kind)? Whenever someone edits one of these templates, the wiki needs to update every instance where they're used. --Dirigible 18:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, not to mention the fact it really screws up the formatting for a lot of pages. --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Any other ones that come to mind? MisterPepe talk 19:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Template:2pipe and definitely Template:STDT. There's also these but I assume those are already protected automatically. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to throw the Protected template on those if they get protected.  :) --Rainith 19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had time so I went ahead and did those. I checked the link Santax gave and I think that those are automatically protected as there was no option to either protect or unprotect them. --Rainith 19:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please only protect templates that have been targets of vandalism before. If we ever need to change something (and be it only to fix a category) protected templates make for more work. --Xeeron 19:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Eloc_Jcg#asfd

You admins need to man up and actually say something to Skuld about his actions and stop being afraid of him. --- Raptors

Nobody is afraid of Skuld. I agree that his actions have warranted a block. I'm sure we'll see him around again in three days. —Tanaric 19:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

About time somebody manned up, good job. --- Raptors

Could you type one more "~" when you sign? It'll add the timestamp to your signature. -- ab.er.rant 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I like 3 better. --- Raptors

203.111.237.16 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Blanking articles. --Dirigible 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for now. --Dirigible 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

71.165.250.61 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal here. --Karlos 06:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rainith 06:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perv

Could someone delete this? Seems to be a bizarre case of an edit war on a vandal article, and its ended up stuck on the wiki. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better off clean and protected for a little while, so the revert and vandalism wars can calm down :) - anja 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If the vandal insists on recreating it, they should just be temporarily blocked from editing, imo. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It was never really a vandalism war, Anja - there was just enough discussion regarding it that it kept popping up, and the person who initially created it recreated it when it popped up. The accompanying discussion has died down, so I went ahead and removed it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:ANDREW (talk, contribs)

Is uploading images which already exist. Does not comment on my messages on his talk page.. Currently all images are tagged for deletion. It's a bit annoying.. poke | talk 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The images are duplicates, and not tagged as would be needed for images specific to the user space. So, I think you can safely tag them for speedy deletion - after leaving a notice on the user's talk page letting them know the reasons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing was that I left a note on his page and he continued uploading new ones.. But now he stopped.. I will watch his actions a bit ;) poke | talk 11:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

75.153.176.135 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Blanking armor. -- Gordon Ecker 01:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User warned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Hi, could someone please delete Seeking The Seer, move Seeking the Seer over it and afterwards create a redirect from the small the to the capital The. Thanks. (Added why I ask for that:) Gamelink links to Seeking The Seer while the article is at Seeking the Seer. Der moon 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

done by copy&paste ;) poke | talk 11:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - I thought of moving because of the history being maintained. Der moon 11:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but as Seeking the Seer is still existing as a redirect, it should not be that big problem.. poke | talk 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Although, the real question should be - what is the actual in-game capitalization? If it's "The", then the way it is now is correct; if it's "the", then it should be switched back and the game-link adjusted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the move and was going to question why the page was moved. But I believe that the quest name is Seeking The Seer, I was told that the game links are pretty much the correct in game capitalization but there might be some error. --Sktbrd341 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

90.199.48.241 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

left message for the user. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kisskiss911

Advertising gold seller. I can't even find a policy that forbids it or what to do if you come across it, but thought I should let someone know. Oh and if anyone is tempted by it, the site screams fraud. -Smurf 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. Not sure if I did the right thing but GWW:CONTENT did say no links to sites that would violate the ToS. But the top of that policy seems to imply that it doesn't apply to user talk pages... which I think may warrant a change or a change to the user page policy. -- ab.er.rant 03:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

From GWW:USER: "These are absolutely not permitted in any form: Material in breach of ... the game's terms and conditions." So I'd say right call. - Tanetris 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. I missed that. -- ab.er.rant 04:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicholifingers (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Minor vandalism. LordBiro 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Made a note on the talk page. - anja 20:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

77.44.3.53 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal. Ignores warnings placed my Kurd and I and continues to vandalize Animal companion. -Auron 15:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

One day for all that? o.O -Auron 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - anja 15:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I should rephrase... only one day for all that? -Auron 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes? I chose one day, since I found it fitting. As far as I could see, he/she did not do most of the edits after the talk page notifications, so I thought one day would work. I'll rethink and block again tomorrow if it's needed. I prefer making a shorter block first. I know you and I don't agree on blocking durations. :P - anja 16:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For IP addresses I think 1 day is a perfectly acceptable first ban, even if they've produced a lot of vandalism. LordBiro 17:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Riven and related issues

It is a bigger problem than it might look:

1. We have a user who deliberately breaks what he thinks is policy to get said policy changed.
2. There is some kind of upload/delete war going on between him and Anja/Aiiane.
3. There is a disagreement between me and Aiiane on what the current sig policy is and consequently what can be enforced.
4. Our deletion policy is lacking any speedy paragraph covering "deletions due to policy violation"
5. Therefore, to enforce her understanding of the sig policy, Aiiane uses a speedy paragraph which is clearly NOT correct.

Not a nice situation :-/ --Xeeron 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is messy, but whilst the policies are still young and evolving I think we have to accept some common sense interpretation in situations where users are exploiting loopholes. This then gives us the opportunity to close said short commings in the wording. --Lemming64 22:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Aiiane uses a speedy paragraph which is clearly NOT correct" - I think it was correct. The original image was deleted (by normal 3 day deletion, although it could simply be deleted by I4) and it was recreated some times and then recreated with different names (after the original one was protected). So I think G6 applies, although - what I just said before - it could also be deleted by I4.. poke | talk 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Which original image are you relating to? I don't find any first riven sig icon which was deleted by normal deletion, Image:User Riven sig2.png was protected, but not deleted. Therefore G6 does not apply. Neither does I4, since the sig image is not uploaded for use in his user space (nor does it exceed 100kb). I see you are trying to do the right thing here, but I feel that admins using their own interpretation of "common sense" or, worse, what people might have intended when the policy was written, instead of the much clear policy that is actually written is a very bad precedent. If a policy is bad, we should still adhere to it. Try to change it, but dont break it: That goes for users like Riven, but just as well for admins. If there is nothing written in the actual policy, there should not be deletes or bans. --Xeeron 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I think it's more than just "might have intended" - since the specific section in question was discussed as part of the original draft debate in detail (see the archive section I linked to from my user page). I support clarifying policy, however I think in this case there's very little question as to what was actually intended. However, I do agree that G6 was effectively a stopgap measure and no, poke, it wasn't necessarily correct. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest shouldn't everything a banned user that is getting round a ban by creating a new account be subject to immediate removal, as they are circumventing the existing ban? In which case a general speedy category may be needed like - Speedy - Article or Image created/uploaded by a banned user --Lemming64 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

See here, Lemming. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a ban is warranted for the policy violation, as he was warned several times already, and yet refused to comply. I can't help but feel this is similar to the ban on Karlos for his refusal to conform to policy. -- ab.er.rant 02:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's similar, but different in one key regard: with Karlos, once notified of the issue, he would not undo it himself - but he also was not going to re-create the violation when someone else changed it. On the otherhand, Riven could have claimed ignorance at first, and even claimed a passive polciy protest forcing someone else to change it; but once he re-inserted the violating content after it was removed, Riven crossed the line from protest over to vandal - there's no way remaining for him to claim ignorance of the policy at this stage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the user's comments at User_talk:Aiiane#Your_signature_pic is more indication to me that captcha on account creation is needed - the sooner, the better. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

84.90.45.84 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Consistent vandalism of Guild:Electronic Empire -- AT(talk | contribs) 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Decided to take care of the other IPs that have shown similar behavior over the past two days. — Gares 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

121.45.206.220 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) and 121.45.237.27 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) and 67.36.183.58 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Assumed to be same person based on IP subnet. Repeated vandalism on User:OhYo and Guild:Guards_Of_The_Citadel. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

APNIC says the IPs are from Internode Systems, and ARIN says the third one's on Wikipedia:AT&T. Unfortunately, we don't really have a way of dealing with this kind of thing. -- Gordon Ecker 03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I've blocked the ones from today. -- Gordon Ecker 04:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the content leads me to believe it was a member of a guild that was ousted from the alliance... Hopefully they'll just get bored. -elviondale (tahlk) 05:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

72.70.195.128 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalism on skill, hero, minor vandal on miniatures. Der moon 22:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Warned. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

71.81.240.46 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Recurring vandalism on Gaile Gray. --Indecision 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Gone now. - BeX 03:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

203.206.2.26 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Yet more vandalism on Gaile Gray. Temp protect? --Indecision 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to both posts on the noticeboard! edit conflicts x2! lol --ChronicinabilitY 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate, you've got to be quick :P --Indecision 03:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! :) --Gaile 03:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - BeX 03:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

*Grateful wave of approbation* --Gaile 03:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

69.181.135.66 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

See equipment with the not-terribly-game-related new page dongs - Tanetris 02:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 03:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

68.117.90.155 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Repeded ongoing vandalism of latest game update. (Game updates/20070809) Backsword 01:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming 01:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

79.8.174.24 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Just posting so you are aware you may want to keep an eye on him. [[3]] Thx. --ChronicinabilitY 14:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked for blatant personal attack. --Lemming 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

86.130.89.56 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Removing sections of Guild Wars Wiki:How to help. Not necessarily a vandal. --Indecision 09:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Warned for now, let's see if he/she stops. -- ab.er.rant 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RAAAAAAA (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal, violating NPA and SIGN, etc. -Auron 02:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bex got to that one she's nicer than me, I would have been tempted to perma ban, it's an account that was set up purely to harass someone as far as I can tell. --Xasxas256 03:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)