Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Archive 3

Special:Contributions/86.83.15.245

Me and a user are having a "revert war" over this. Could I get some opinions on it? - anja 15:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Omg, I totally didn't know you could redirect outside of the wiki. Anyways, just take away his rights to editing...you can do that, right?--§ Eloc § 15:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is called "ban" xD. I would delete the page as it's an ip-account.. poke | talk 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He/she has been banned for 1 day already. - anja 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

External redirects should be against policy. but I can't find anything that actually confirms this? --Lemming 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

External redirects should be disabled, if possible. No likely use aside from shipping the unwary off to goatse.--Drekmonger 16:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a request put up already to disable them, although it seems forgotten by Anet atm. :P I'd say this kind of linking is both disruptive and may even be offending. - anja 16:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I completely agree with you, it should not be allowed. I just couldn't find anything specifically mentioning it and perhaps it should until it is disabled. --Lemming 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to jump in to an admin discussion- but external redirects are disabled. This is a wikipedia redirect- it uses double bracket syntax. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

please see Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration#302 redirects and Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for technical administration/Disable hard redirects, elviondale. poke | talk 17:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is I tried to do it once and it didn't work. -elviondale (tahlk) 18:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He has been warned, he repeats his actions: 3day ban IMO + deletion of article since it is a non-existing user's userpage. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it able to redirect to any site or is it just wikipedia with the w: thingy?--§ Eloc § 22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a function of the inter-wiki redirects that we set up. It's possible to redirect to other wikis that we've set up for linking, but not normal sites.

For bonus points, we put in a request to have these things disabled a month ago. MisterPepe talk 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So that means I couldn't redirect my userpage on Guildwiki, PvXwiki, Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia over to here?--§ Eloc § 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true -- it depends on the configuration of the site you're coming from, not the one you're going to. So those should still work fine as long as those sites allow it (although I doubt that all of them allow hard redirects to here). --Rezyk 20:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Naw, didn't work from Wikipedia to here.--§ Eloc § 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I believe User:68.83 is circumventing the block set on his IP (Special:Contributions/86.83.15.245). I do not have proof that they are the same, but a comment left on User_talk:86.83.15.245 gives the impression that User:68.83 and this IP are the same. How do we handle this? Allow it? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User:86.83.15.245&action=history --Xeeron 21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Must be that I am tired, but I don't understand what I have to check on that page? I know why this IP has been blocked, I was making an observation that I believe that User:68.83 and Special:Contributions/86.83.15.245 are basically the same, and that with this edit he circumvents his ban. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit here basically confirms that the two are indeed the same. --Lemming 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That is the post that gives me my 'hunch'. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it is good enough for me, and if you get banned in one place you should not be able to circumvent the ban on a registered account. so also blocked. --Lemming 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Deathwing (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

He or she has been making a lot of inappropriate comments recently. Unfortunately, I don't think any of them technically violate any of our existing policies, so I think we'll need to take this to the arbitration committe. -- Gordon Ecker 09:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Deathwing has been warned. -- Gordon Ecker 09:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is Gaile allowed to do regarding the "vaginal moisturizer" advertisement on her talk page? Is she allowed to remove it? It's not part of NPA, so theorically she couldn't delete it (just as she couldn't delete anything else). Could she archive it while leaving the rest of the discussion there? If I'm not mistaken there were complains about an user who did that (selectively archiving phrases or paragraphs from a section), but those were not considered to be against any policy, just acts in bad faith (as far as I remember). Is the only thing she is allowed to do to archive the whole section, thanks to disruptive behavior by an user? Erasculio 12:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Even though it's not specifically stated in policy, I'd say such inappropriate remarks/posts is best removed. From what I understand from our policies, she's in every right to remove it. It is not related to the discussion in any way and just inappropriate. - anja 14:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the answer : ) Erasculio 14:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

60.218.98.94 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Ampersand bot. --Dirigible 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. MisterPepe talk 23:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

87.101.244.7 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Ampersand bot. -- AT(talk | contribs) 00:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why they called Ampersand bots? They hardly seem to reflect the actual Ampersand.--§ Eloc § 01:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The original ones would remove any content after the first ampersand in a page's code - now we see a number of variations (such as removing just +'s or the like), but they all share the trait that they make odd systematic changes that no human would generally make. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So what's the point of them? They don't always seem to do alot of damage & don't seem to have enough contributions each to be considered a bot...like 1-3 contributions seems like someone manually doing it, or do you block them that fast?--§ Eloc § 01:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Common thought as supported by cases on other wikis are that the ampersand-bots are basically just probing wikis to see what editing permissions they have, and then cataloging those wikis in a list for later use in such endeavors as link-spamming. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh ic ic.--§ Eloc § 01:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Skakid9090 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) and Readem (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Continued attempts at disrupting and trolling on talk pages concerning possible policy proposals. I'm trying to honor DNFT. Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:No_trolling#This page needs... and Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:No_profanity#Making a list. Regardless of a person's POV, it is not adding to the conversation at all. -elviondale (tahlk) 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There is currently no admin appropriate action we can take as they are not breaking any policies we have so far. All we can do is warn them on their talk pages to behave civilly. If they break any policies, let us know. However you may have to refer this to arbcomm if it just stays at this level. --Lemming 01:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to post a nice thing about how this doesn't really require admin assistance (well, atleast an admin can do nothing more than a regular user could). Edit conflict and Lemming had a nice small post about it already. :P Well, anyway, I think that messaging them on their talk pages is the best we can do, although I see little hope in that helping us at all. -- (gem / talk) 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I express my opinion through humor. I can do it through poetry if you want. — Skakid9090 02:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What these two are doing makes just as much sense as these dumb policies. A list of all the cuss words not allowed in bold on top of the policy page!? I think they are pretty damn funny. - Hyrule 02:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for disagreeing with everything you say Elvion. I most definitely deserve a ban, for being such a hater of you and your awesomeness. I also troll all the Threads, always disagreeing with what the smart and imaginative community wants! WTF is wrong with me? Am I such an idiat, to think Charm Animal doesn't need a nerf O:! And you are right Elvion, Irony and Sarcasm sucks, and is inappropriate on discussion pages. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 02:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of trolling- to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat.

....neither of these guys have a boat... - Hyrule 02:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that was me! Get your trolls straight! —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 03:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee is a better option Elviondale. We'll get soemthing figured out soonish. -- ab.er.rant 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah... I'm checking out of the wiki early tonight. DNFT -elviondale (tahlk) 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This wiki is getting stupid. These so called 'Trolls' need to be banned, and soon, otherwise there will be no place left for serious dicussion. Sysops/Bureaucrats...You're in a position of responsibility! So take responsibility and save this before it ends up a big mess and people stop using it. --ChronicinabilitY 03:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd try to change that the next time I try to run for beaurocrat or try at sysop.--§ Eloc § 04:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to amend GWW:NPA to cover trolling and undirected disruptive and/or offensive behaviour, or start a draft for another policy to cover it? -- Gordon Ecker 05:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:No profanity is getting sidetracked and Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Draft-2007-9-16 is not getting much attention. ChronicinabilitY, I wouldn't mind banning them if you can point out what policy they're violating. The community here has decided that sysops are just policy enforcers and janitors. -- ab.er.rant 05:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And that an arbitration comitte can wield the banhammer with impunity. -- Gordon Ecker 06:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I find this so funny, and strangely fun =). Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 06:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've written up a draft for an arbcomm request board at Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/Requests. -- Gordon Ecker 06:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it is outside a sysops remit to ban people for issues not covered in policy, this was a community decision some time ago. You can not have it both ways I am afraid. So please don't accuse sysops of not living up to their responsibility. We are doing the best we can. --Lemming 10:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Request to discipline Auron

User:Auron has insulted me using profane language. This happened on this page and he said:

No, you're just being a dick.

I would like admins to take punitive actions as per GWW:NPA. Thanks. --Karlos 08:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A warning has been served. Karlos, why are you pushing things like that? Going out with guns blazing and all is fine, but watch where you shoot. -- ab.er.rant 09:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting further action against Auron

Now he is telling me to buzz off and grow up. I believe this constitutes a personal attack. User_talk:Auron#NPA_warning:

Tell him to buzz off until he grows up.

I request further administrative action. --Karlos 11:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you need to re-read GWW:NPA. I was not speaking to you directly, I was stating my opinion on what I think the sysops should do. -Auron 11:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack does not have to be direct, if I said "tell him to f-off, he is an immature c***" you wouldn't even hesitate to call that a personal attack. Consider this your second and final warning in this matter Auron. --Lemming 11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lemming; I direct you to my talk page. Gem, Xeeron, Santax and Salome all agreed that it was not a personal attack. You, without logic or reason, continue to believe so. I have no faith in your judgment and feel that you're too involved with the matter at hand, and am officially contesting this unwarranted warning. -Auron 11:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in essence, I can get into a heated debate with any user in this wiki and then if I want to insult them, just use a proxy? "Hey Skuld, tell this guy to go **** himself" and by doing that I am off the hook? In the case you're referencing (which I think you should have been warned for as well if not banned), you told the guy to shape up OR GTFO. But here you're just telling me off. There is no AND/OR. This is very interesting. I wanna see how this one unfolds. I am learning all sorts of cool things about the leadership of this place. --Karlos 12:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let us consider the policy at hand, NPA, the first line clearly states:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in the Guild Wars Wiki. Comment on content, not on the contributor

I have read through NPA several times and have yet to find a stipulation in there that states that if you word the attack in a different tense, that makes it absolutely exempt from said policy. I believe this is a snide underhand attack, cleverly worded so that you could bring up a previous discussion regarding another (similar but different) issue. I do however except that I may not be completely unbiased in this situation, due to the previous dispute, and suggest another admin voices their opinion on this also. --Lemming 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would call neither of these personal attacks, just bad manners, where I can ask Auron to please tone down his comments. But this can also be because of general tiredness of all the e-drama. - anja 14:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

While not an admin, I second that. Let me also refer you to Karlos' Arbitration talk page. -elviondale (tahlk) 15:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Karlos has been antagonizing everybody he's been in discussions with recently -- he relies on straw man tactics to make his points, he belittles the opinions of others indirectly enough to avoid a GWW:NPA defense, and generally just brings down the quality of discussion whereever he's been involved. Auron's reaction to this is understandable -- but the first one is still a breach of GWW:NPA. I'm not sure the second comment was. —Tanaric 15:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it is relevant to this discussion, I would like to link User_talk:Ab.er.rant#Why.... I thought it was rather enlightening, especially the "Nothing will go unchallenged" part. MisterPepe talk 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And since it's being submitted as evidence, I'd like to point out that it's missing a bunch of sentences after it. Those sentences basically explain that any time I perceive someone is stepping on my rights in any way, I will ask for my right. Unequivocally and categorically. Like I have already demonstrated... If Auron cusses at me, I'll report him, if LordBiro cusses me out, I'll lexplore the possibility of getting him blocked, if I can get Auron punished for his racist jokes about me, I will look into it. I'm in a no forgiveness mode, I will let nothing slide. I feel like I'm the punching bag of the elite of this community and I won't take it anymore. Step on my toes in any way and I am reporting you, taking you to ArbComm and so forth. Not to troll, mind you, the basics of trolling is that I get a kick out of how people react. I honestly do not care how people react. I am in "wounded animal" mode feeling not enough has been done to protect me as a user, I feel that AGF anf YAV are no longer applied to me and have not for a while and I am going to vigorously fight for my right to be respected.

The fact that Tanaric and Pepe are HERE defending their buddy Auron and yet no one is THERE on his talk page telling him "you know what, that was really bad of you" is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Until I see someone (preferably a few) who are actively looking out for everyone's interest, not just the interests of their IRC buddies I will remain in this mode (unil ArbComm comes out with a lame decision on the Erasculio case, then I am out). So, yes, nothing will go unchallenged. --Karlos 19:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Defending? I haven't said a thing about my "buddy" Auron. I've been trying to stay out of this discussion because I assumed that you would see me as biased due to our disagreements related to that whole GWW:USER thing. Perhaps that was wrong of me. However, considering how strongly you reacted to the first comment I made in relation to this issue makes me think that that was probably correct.

Personally, I'm a bit pissed at this whole "me against the world" attitude. As with pretty much any issue on the wiki, there are multiple components and far more than two positions possible to take on this issue.

Am I guilty of not assuming good faith? Probably. I currently assume that at least one of the lines in this response will be twisted into some strange straw man argument that I'll have to waste a good half hour trying to slap down. Karlos, I feel that you're not assuming that my contributions here are in good faith either. Simply by posting a link to something you said in relation to this discussion, I've now been grouped into the category of "Karlos's Enemies." This is, of course, news to me. As is the fact that I'm apparently busom buddies with Auron and Tanaric. I do not hate any of you. Even if my responses seem vitriolic, Karlos, it is not out of any sort of personal enmity. Please remember that. I am bothered that this conversation seems to be taking a familiar turn, but I'm not overly upset. And hopefully? This will be the end of my involvement in this matter. MisterPepe talk 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell him to buzz off until he grows up.

Clear violation of GWW:NPA.~ Kurd 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow...so if I say "make like a bumble bee", will I be breaking NPA? Really this discussion is pointless, so I suggest everyone make like leaves on the wind. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not NPA at all tbh. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 18:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My personal favorite is 'make like a baby and head out' -elviondale (tahlk) 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

12.210.6.191 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

NPA breach here (a bit o.O, but anyway...). Erasculio 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for three days. —Tanaric 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you : ) Erasculio 01:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

99.229.76.242 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & 99.245.152.232 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal at Guild Wars 2. -- (gem / talk) 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

One IP blocked. Dir posted a note to the other. Are you sure it's the same person? - anja 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Most likely. See the edits done to the page. -- (gem / talk) 22:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, blocked the other one too. - anja 22:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

87.242.116.208 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spam. I think this IP created the same page a couple of days ago, but I'm not sure how to check. -- AT(talk | contribs) 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. And indeed, page was created 2 days ago as well. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

GjpMnk (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spam bot :/--Gummy Joe 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

blocked.. poke | talk 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

72.64.14.118 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Repeated vandalism of pages. Warning has just been given by User:Anja Astor on IP's talk page, but IP has vandalised same article multiple times already. - Shotmonkey 19:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

blocked - 3 days --Lemming 19:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New bots?

Looking at [1] and [2], it seems these may be edits by some kind of new bot; similarly to the ampersand ones, they may be checking if they have write access to the articles or not (of course, we have no way of knowing for sure that this is their intention). If anyone spots other edits of this kind, it'd be great if you could post them here, so at the very least we're sure we are dealing with bots. --Dirigible 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How they bots? Don't you need to enter the security code if you're not logged in?--§ Eloc § 04:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No. -166.122.31.2 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The captcha only triggers when anons try to post links, Eloc, not on all edits. --Dirigible 04:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When I saw those edits (I'm sure there were three on my watchlist earlier) I wondered if it was a bot switching IP address each time they edited. - BeX 04:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alot of them apparently. here, here, and here. And more. -- ab.er.rant 04:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Smurf just reverted a few more, [3], [4], [5], [6]. I think it's safe to assume that these are bots. --Dirigible 05:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want the IPs of these sort of edits to be flagged on this page now? --Aspectacle 05:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked one for 1 day because it used the same IP twice. The option to block subsequent IP's was checked, so we'll see if it autoblocks a few whether our suspicions were correct or not. ;) - BeX 06:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this one, seems to follow the same pattern. - anja 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we now have proof that this is another kind of bot - this IP has been used for the typical &bot that we're used to. MisterPepe talk 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

the spammer(s) uses proxies so it could be a different bot using the same ip -Smurf 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean different IP same bot?--§ Eloc § 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure he means what he said. Click on the bot's contribs that Pepe linked and you might see why. -Auron 01:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. Why would they use the same IP if we just ban it?--§ Eloc § 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the ban will expire. -- ab.er.rant 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're definitly plotting something. See User talk:Terrence Konaii for another one that did something.--§ Eloc § 04:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's this change if anyone's interested. It's a little strange why your signature was affected though. -- ab.er.rant 07:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Another one, 65.44.66.100 (talk • contribs • logs • block log). It's been blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 07:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And another: 87.160.108.201 (talk • contribs • logs • block log), also blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe they're programmed to look for things like the ampersand and w/e the hell I got there and add stuff to them...much like an Ampersand bot.--§ Eloc § 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

161.200.255.162 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Bot of type discussed above. Only edits are garbage to top of random pages. --Aspectacle 06:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by BeXoR. -- Gordon Ecker 06:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

63.241.9.240 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Another random garbage user/bot. Currently its only 3 edits are garbage to the top of a page. --Aspectacle 06:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Ab.ber.rant. -- Gordon Ecker 06:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

60.190.243.173 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Yet another random garbage/vandal bot/person thing. --Aspectacle 23:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 23:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

217.169.44.14 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Another one. -- AT(talk | contribs) 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

74.231.24.2 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Amp bot. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 01:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

blocked. -- ab.er.rant 01:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

209.200.38.173 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Bot. They're now creating nonsense pages :/ -- AT(talk | contribs) 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 08:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mgrinshpon (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

• http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Mgrinshpon&diff=406099&oldid=406096
• http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Mgrinshpon&diff=406110&oldid=406103

NPA violation and another one after someone warned him about it. Doesn't seem like willing to co-operate. -- (gem / talk) 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 day for violation of NPA. - anja 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Related: http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Mgrinshpon&diff=407692&oldid=407572

I don't care if that warrants a ban or just a warning (although he is very aware of the NPA policy for sure), but I am not willing to get into further discussions with these people so I will just report further cases here. Also, I am suspecting various sockpuppet accounts on the wiki (not all related to the people here), but I will not pursue any of them with no 100% sure evidence. -- (gem / talk) 20:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well after that recent spurt of vandalism from Tab I would say it is either a friend or a sockpuppet. That account has been banned now too. --Lemming 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He's already been banned for this. MisterPepe talk 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some vandalism from Tab after the PA, this and this. -- (gem / talk) 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Major edit conflict o.O Anyway, I posted a note on the talk page. - anja 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tab and Grinch are 2 different people, not a sock of the other. Readem, Edru, Skakid, and others including myself can confirm this. If you did an IP check, you'd notice that the IP range for Tab *should* be from within Great Britain while Grinch's *should* be from within the United States. You would probably even be able to check which exact state using Arin WHOIS database. Rawrawr Dinosaur 20:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying :) - anja 21:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

=P Hooray for lack of CheckUser. MisterPepe talk 21:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I advise checks like this be used in future before false sockpuppet accusations are made? Rawrawr Dinosaur 21:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Rawrawr, I hesitate to say this, but the extension that allows administrators to look up IP addresses of users isn't installed on this wiki due to security privacy concerns. We don't have a way to do so at the moment, which explains our rampant speculation here =P MisterPepe talk 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For more information, see GWWT:TECH#CheckUser MisterPepe talk 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(ed conflict) A check isn't possible as we do not have the required software installed. Also, I didn't mention any names that I would believe to be sockpuppets nor did I say that I'm 100% sure about any of them. (and it's irrelevant wether it's a friend or sock when it PAs and vandalises) -- (gem / talk) 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The other two main wikis that come to mind (guildwiki and PvX) both have the extension installed, and to be fair, their system for dealing with NPA and Sockpuppetry etc. is alot better than this one's. Rawrawr Dinosaur 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

GuildWiki does not have CheckUser, and PvX needs it because regular votes are such an important part of that site. --Dirigible 21:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a check user ip function...think about it, it auto gives the IP when they aren't logged in and forums can easily check IPs, so why can't we?--§ Eloc § 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's less of a question of "why can't" and more of a question of "why should we". See the relevant discussion at GWWT:TECH#CheckUser. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm sort of reviving a dead thread, but guildwiki does have CheckUser. Fyren ninja'd it in during one of the MediaWiki upgrades. He just never bothered to make it public, and I never said a word; but seeing as I don't really feel attached to GWiki now that it belongs to wikia, I don't have any problem spilling the beans. -Auron 05:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Just great. -- (gem / talk) 07:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So, sexy user or sexiest user? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tab (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

durrrrr --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

=P He's already been banned for three days by Lemmi, see the discussion right above this one. MisterPepe talk 21:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

195.172.86.59 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalism. -- AT(talk | contribs) 09:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming 09:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

209.153.75.154 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Not quite sure what to say about this :/ -- AT(talk | contribs) 01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - BeX 01:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for reverting the vandalism in my page : ) Erasculio 02:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

74.65.249.208 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Menu&curid=2725&action=history -- (gem / talk) 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Posted a note on the talk page. - anja 21:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dual-site admin requested

If any admins who have Sysop access on the other wiki see this, please take a look at User:207.200.116.67. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 02:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Swift Cola (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalism, edit bot? --Ember Silvermoon 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

moved the page and left a note on user's talk page. poke | talk 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he's a bot as he has a Userpage and stuff.--§ Eloc §

213.42.21.61 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Double-edit vandalizing/blanking of Miniature. - HeWhoIsPale 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days --Lemming 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

65.44.66.100 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

One of those crazy nonsense bots. Erasculio 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming 14:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

New Bots, pt.2

Ok, after looking at some of the new bots, they tend to put either random gibberish at the top of each page, or they put a Ä infront of non english symbols, such as § or é. Just though this might help in a way.--§ Eloc § 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

ADDED:After some more research, I also determined that the bots don't keep using the same IP adresses, but rather switch between a set which may have been pre determined. This can be seen in the one right below this post and it uses the same IP 20 mins later, rather than right away.--§ Eloc § 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The symbols is likely a bug in the bot script or something because it doesn't actually just add those symbols - those symbols replace other non-alphanumeric symbols, that's why those symbols only appear on certain edits, and not all. -- ab.er.rant 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

202.28.27.3 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

One more bot. Erasculio 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

61.153.43.246 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Bot with a block history, he's back for more. 3 days isn't enough. -Auron 04:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

72.249.45.76 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Three edits, no blocks. -Auron 04:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

64.27.5.49 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Four edits, has no blocks on record. -Auron 04:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

6 now =S--§ Eloc § 08:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All the last 4 are blocked. - anja 08:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

62.94.22.196 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

One more bot. Erasculio 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 03:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

J.Kougar (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Probably no need to ban, but his actions on Gailes talk page are pretty... unpleasant. Direct insults on Gaile and Izzy and that sort of stuff. The reason for me to post here instead of his talk page is to stay out of trouble as he seems pretty angry atm. I have better things to do than to fight people for no good reason, I'll let the admins do it for me. :P -- (gem / talk) 00:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This old incident might be worth the read too. -- (gem / talk) 01:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

He received a one month ban for that incident and the ones that followed it, as well as creating accounts during that ban to circumvent it and vandalise more user pages like mine and BeXors. I think this issue though is perhaps more suited to arbcomm? --Lemming 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, he seems like a trouble maker.--§ Eloc § 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Recentchangestext

MediaWiki_talk:Recentchangestext#ID_tag_please — Skuld 09:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

193.63.82.60 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Ok...so i'm bringing this up here not because i disagree with the block, but because of the inconsistensy and the ridicoulousness of the sysops way of handling things. Lemming decided that it was more than ok for him to block this user for posting irrelevent content however...if i could direct you HERE to something Lemming himself said to me when i tried to do just exactly the same thing. Now i'm not going to let this go this time because its stupid. Either do the right thing and push a policy through fast that allows us to deal with these 'trolls'...or you have to Un-Ban this user and then deal with them (and all the others) within your policy. I would be VERY interested to hear Lemming's explanation on how he doesnt feel he is being totally hypocritical in his actions. --ChronicinabilitY 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lemming64 probably meant "content" where he put "text". The anon user did not put any meaningful content. — Skuld 15:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In which case it's still against policy....And also the issue arose from when i was removing 'content' that nobody could class as usefull either....--ChronicinabilitY 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not block him for posting irrelevantly content, I blocked him for vandalism, it is a fine line I agree. But that user was clearly a vandal. Let us not just direct this at me also please. BeXoR reverted this users content and deleted parts, as did Erasculio. I think that shows 3 users in total agree that this was vandalism. Again you keep accusing the admins of not doing the right thing and pushing through a policy to deal with trolls. Admins have no jurisdiction about pushing policy through over that of a regular user, that is an issue for the community to discuss and decide, not sysops. --Lemming 15:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The text you were removing whilst off topic was in some way related to the subject at hand, and could be seen as a legitimate post. This user was starting to go around spamming popular talk pages seemingly arbitrarily practically baiting for a block from his edit summary's. This is clearly the act of a vandal, not a legitimate user making an off topic post. --Lemming 15:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The text wasn't exactly offtopic. It was an satirical attack on a position that Chronicinability had advanced. Thus people taking issue with him removing it. Backsword 02:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: Sysops ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY . Regards BeXoR and Erasculios: Yes i know other people did as well, and i'd still like to see an explanation of how this differs from what i was trying to do. Please dont for one minute think that i disagree with the block, however....if you are really just janitors, as you all keep saying you are (to stop you from having to make any decisions you don't want to), then you have no right to block the Anon because he isn't breaking policy. Draw the line for me, show me the difference between what you did and what i did apart from the fact that you are a Sysop and i am not! And regards what you just posted i cant believe that you feel that what i was removing was any less irrelevent than what you removed.

Despite all this, you have now set yourself a deadline to get something sorted, as in 3 days his Ban will be up, and by reading his comment in his final contribution, he knows he hasn't broken policy, so unless something is sorted it's going to get a lot more complicated. --ChronicinabilitY 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you say it's a matter of judgement where the line is then your doing exactly what you said you weren't allowed to. You describe yourself as policy enforcers, if they dont break poilicy...nothing to enforce! --ChronicinabilitY 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page and the main page talk are two different things. Lemming (and BeXoR) enacting separate standards for the two are understandable. -Auron 16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No it is not understandable. Not when they describe themselves as just policy enforcers. --ChronicinabilitY 16:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I am part of the community, as are you and the hundreds and thousands of other users. Don't point fingers at a group of 10 people and say it is down to you guys to devise a policy that we can all agree on, that is not the sysops roll and never has been. I think the point here is people have been devising policies against it, and the problem is it is not something everyone or even a majority it seems can agree on, not because of apathy. --Lemming 16:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) User talk pages have rules about removing content, whereas ordinary talk pages do not. Our article retention policy doesn't say anything about keeping vandalism on talk pages, but our deletion policy allows vandalism to be deleted. So my revert on Gaile's page may have not followed policy, but the deletion of the spam talk page and revert of that other page were fine. (If I have said anything that's incorrect here it's because I'm falling asleep right now and having trouble concentrating - going to bed now). - BeX 16:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if it's not alright to remove vandalism from user talk pages, then there have been dozens of breaks of policy from reverting those spam bots over the past few weeks. - BeX 16:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya rly. Lemming64 gets petty sometimes (see also; that link on Chronicinability's talk), but the block is fine. The user was obviously a vandal. -Auron 16:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict:Then why was every sysop so opposed to reverting my edits when i was removing the content just as you have done this time! The policies are being bent when and where the sysops feel they can easily get away with it, and if they think they'll come up against any sort of opposition then they do nothing and state there are no policies telling them to. Things need to made clearer. Stating 'Youre not responsible for it' Lemming is a terrible attitude for anyone on this wiki to have, let alone a sysop. Surely all of this is just proving that a policy is needed! The line isnt drawn so no-body can be accused of stepping over it by posting irrelevant content. --ChronicinabilitY 16:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To quote lemming from what he posted on my page: "A decision was made at some point that random censoring of talk pages, whatever the content is, is not permitted, and this is the rule we uphold." --ChronicinabilitY 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of vandalism is completely different as I keep saying to removing off topic content. I never stated you are responsible for the policies. I am stating that you need to stop passing the buck on to the sysops as it is not what we are here for. We do regularly get involved in many discussions about this wiki as we are all users who are very much involved. But trying to put ownership of the creation of policies that you feel are necessary is not what we are here for. --Lemming 17:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of vandalism must but very creative in order to justify removing what you did today, but not what i was removing. --ChronicinabilitY 17:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we should change the talk page policy to say that you can remove vandalism/crude comments?--§ Eloc § 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(@Chronicinability) Yeah, it is a bit of a stretch. Even if you were technically violating policy (sort of like how BeXoR technically violated policy), you were doing it with good intentions, which is more important than following a policy to the letter when the policy is wrong (sort of like Wikipedia's Ignore all rules; if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining the wiki, ignore it). The individual sysops that bitched at you were in the wrong tbh; you were not vandalising, you were not acting in bad faith, and you weren't even revert warring (you removed the comment once, I don't read that as a revert war).

In this case, the anon broke policy and was duly punished; he was a vandal and was a disruption to the wiki. In your case, the sysops got overzealous in their quest to "enforce" policy. I won't apologize on behalf of overzealous sysops, but try not to hold it against them. They enforce policy how they see it... even if they completely miss what the policy is trying to achieve in the first place. -Auron 17:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[7] It was definitely a revert war. --Lemming 17:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we got to draw the line somewhere, policy or not, some people go to far.--§ Eloc § 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that history shows nothing. The first was the initial, the second was my only other revert, all edits after that we done withiin policy and archiving which the sysops fought so hard to prevent. If the trolls can work within policy to fill pages with crap, then dont stop users in good faith from trying to do the same to keep the wiki working well and not full of spam! --ChronicinabilitY 17:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronicinability, reading what you wrote above gives the feeling (to me, at least) that you're angry with this whole thing. Try to calm down a bit, if possible - you are right, this is something that deserves a discussion, but I have the impression you are letting this issue trouble you too much. It is a problem, I think you are right to complain - the line between what is vandalism to a talk page and what isn't is very thin. It's hard to figure out if something is just spam or if it actually has a point to be made; and when in doubt, as things are right now, I think the proper things for the Sysops to do would be to not act. The case here was easy to notice as spam - the anon himself said he was just spamming for the sake of spamming. In other cases it's not so simple. Erasculio 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I will admint that i am angry with the situation, and here's why...i looked at what the Anon had done and saw that it was exactly what i could see coming. The sysops acted, as i believe they should (and the community should be allowed to) in ALL cases like this. However, the big picture isnt being seen...yes this time it was clear that he was just spamming, but it still illustrates the point...it's NOT against policy so if the sysops are just janitors enforcing policy, then he shouldnt be banned...if they are using their judgement and removing content detrimental to the wiki, then they should be consistent with that and not shout at me when i do it. If they are trying to draw a line somewhere between the 2 (as it seems they are) then to the community that line is not clear enough and it needs making clear. What i do find interesting is that the Anon knows he hasnt broken policy, and also he was banned without warning or anything, this is not the way things are meant to be done by POLICY!...if we are going down an 'Ignore All Policies' route then i have no objections, just make it clear! --ChronicinabilitY 22:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Relating to this entire discussion, I propose This. --ChronicinabilitY 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

62.231.243.139 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal Bot--Gummy Joe 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

194.151.10.246 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish Bot. Backsword 01:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

71.176.112.153 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Repeated vandalizing of Guild Wars 2 --- Raptors / RAAA!

blocked. -- ab.er.rant 03:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

59.25.30.250 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Bot. -Auron 02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Anja Astor.--§ Eloc § 04:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

198.165.21.154 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot --Fighterdoken 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- ab.er.rant 05:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

72.67.218.27 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

[8] & Special:Contributions/72.67.218.27.--§ Eloc § 04:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Urgent, bumping. -Auron 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya, me, you and Aspectle seem to be only one working on it.--§ Eloc § 04:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Help! --Aspectacle 04:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Working on it, Damit Auron, you're comp is faster than mine lol--§ Eloc § 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My browser is lagging like hell when I do four diffs at once, lol -Auron 04:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

lol, I had 5 open and I turned on & Windows Media Player.--§ Eloc § 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ty for coming to the rescue Aiiane, although you shoulda banned him for 1month for each page he vandalized ;)--§ Eloc § 04:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

122.252.226.40 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

More bot fun. Can we do something about these in general? Backsword 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked that and yet another. -- ab.er.rant 06:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

217.169.44.14 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

zzz -Auron 10:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja 12:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

38.116.192.13 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Heavy vandalizing of the Title article w/ maniacal laughter. - HeWhoIsPale 14:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Lemming 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

58.107.138.176 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalism to Dye. --Aspectacle 00:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned. -- ab.er.rant 00:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

212.71.30.162 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Bot. Backsword 09:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any sysops in the house? Backsword 12:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - anja 13:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

129.123.104.8 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Random gibberish bot. --Fighterdoken 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

blocked. --Lemming 21:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

71.77.143.190 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Creating pages giving links to websites that I don't care to follow, and pure vandalism. Calor - talk 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked --Xasxas256 01:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

XD, I followed the links. They don't go to anywhere. Only to another page on the wiki with nothing else on it. Obviosly the person doesn't know anything about wiki coding.--§ Eloc § 02:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the block? I would say creating an article with the content "if you are here to suck balls u suck ballsxxx.com" is vandalism to me. Or were you just commenting that they wikified those links incorrectly? --Xasxas256 04:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Commented and responded to Calor.--§ Eloc § 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well in that case you got your indenting wrong then! :P Or maybe I just feel as though I'm the centre of attention and everyone is talking to/about me! --Xasxas256 04:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just habit to automatically indent one : past the person above me. On another note -- haven't seen you in a while Xasxas. You been away or something?--§ Eloc § 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

196.20.65.210 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Meta bot.--§ Eloc § 07:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 07:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)