Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Archive 7

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard.

User talk:Kalsion

Violation of GWW:USER after being warned already. — ク Eloc 貢 01:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

if he doesnt want your shitty "welcome", you can't force it on him... — Skuld 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the welcome. I'm talking about him violating GWW:USER after being warned. — ク Eloc 貢 01:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you archive it for him then, Eloc.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To Skuld, it's the same welcome everyone gives. It's not shitty either, it's very informative and makes things seem a bit less intimidating. And if Kalsion doesn't want it, then archive, don't delete the talk page and violate GWW:USER. And, it's "considered rude to make edits to another person's userspace without that user's permission.". Kalsion was told how to archive, there's nothing holding him/her back. Calor - talk 01:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, that passage you quoted Calor is slightly out of context, given that the next words after it are the parenthetical "(not including talk pages)". Now, you're correct in that the policy does generally specify that a user should archive their own page. However, since Eloc has not only reverted the page back but also posted here, I'm not sure exactly what he's looking for: a sysop to come yell at the person in question? For removing a form-style welcome from their page? Yes, policy technically disallows it but it seems a rather silly issue to press.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I wasn't thinking of any policy, but more of social "unsaid rules" that people preach day in, day out on various user talk pages. And i don't know what he's looking for, maybe just confirmation that what he did was right/wrong? Calor - talk 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cayleen Kyoko (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Sockpuppet of Anele Mea. See the history which shows that the page was started by Anele Mea which gives me good proof that it is a sockpuppet. — ク Eloc 貢 03:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It could be some guy making a page for his friend, happens all the time. Anyway, who cares? God, fail. — Skuld 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Eloc vigilante, Skuld. No friend page edits go unnoticed. -Auron 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Are Sock puppets against the rules? I don't see the harm as long as you don't vote twice or anything. I don't think this is a sock account anyway. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Yes, sockpuppets are against the rules. Also, what would be the need to have another account? — ク Eloc 貢 03:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole conversation seems moot unless there is some kind of vandalism or something going on. Proving sock puppets is difficult enough without looking for them unnecessarily. --Lemming

03:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also having looked at the pages in question it does seem far more likely that it is a friend helping make their userpage. --Lemming

03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets refer to using multiple accounts to give the impression that more than one person is favoring a point. Merely registering multiple accounts is not sockpuppetry, nor do we disallow it (in fact, we encourage it if someone has multiple names they use, or signs posts with something other than what their exact username is). Unless they're using multiple accounts to get involved in the same issue, I don't see the harm here.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What would be the need of another account? I seem to recall you supporting the creation of multiple accounts for signatures... -- ab.er.rant

01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

123.115.218.78 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal. Drago 17:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked poke | talk 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

221.194.46.85 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot. --Fighterdoken 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

217.97.226.155 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

~ Kurd 08:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 08:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

74.208.11.169 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot. -Auron 11:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming

15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

2 gibberish bots

208.78.99.157 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) and 124.30.124.66 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) br12 • 14:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

both blocked --Lemming

15:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

80.86.81.207 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

my guild page! -elviondale (tahlk) 16:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming

16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

83.138.145.18 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibber br12 • 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

212.76.64.4 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

..and another br12 • 19:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

76.171.143.206 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Human Vandal Fall 23:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned. --

(CoRrRan / talk) 23:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

72.3.139.213 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal Bot Fall 04:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by BeXoR. -- Gordon Ecker 04:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

62.220.12.98 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

vandal bot Fall 04:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

61.68.181.198 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Not certain if this should be considered vandalism, as the user created this page. Mohnzh 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really something that warrants administrative action at this time. If it's repeated, a warning might be in order but for now it's probably best left as is.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

72.3.139.213 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

vandal bot Fall 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 08:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2 gibbers

81.4.69.200 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) and 212.76.64.1 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) br12 • 16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

both blocked (first one by me, second by Lemming) poke | talk 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

212.76.64.1 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal. Edit: gibber bot.reanor 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See above :P (I'm keeping my 5

now)

br12 • 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No! It was noobish of me to call it a vandal. I'm an Admin noticeboard noob. Gimme my money! (This totally doesn't belong here).

reanor 16:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This one is still gibbering :P Mohnzh 16:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming

17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

203.160.1.146 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibber bot. Mohnzh 16:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it has stopped; will watch its actions (as it's not a normal spam bot) poke | talk 17:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not gibberish, it's hex. Does seem automated, being a first section replacement. Got the impression someone was testing a new bot. Might see more of this in the future. Backsword 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's gibberish when converted into ASCII from hex: Qüsû¨�ÃNP�ËbŒ¾Cù —Ebany Salmonderiel 20:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

203.215.176.10 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibber br12 • 16:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 17:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

81.247.252.125 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

And another br12 • 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 17:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

81.4.69.200 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibber bot.reanor 19:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh-hem. See above :) (You owe me 5

)

br12 • 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Felikia (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

GWW:NPA breach at my talk page (quote: "Still under the assumption that you're the only person who knows what they're talking about in a discussion?"). Now this user is something interesting. The account has been made only to post at my the talk page; but notice this edit, made by the IP 12.210.6.191. User:Felikia later continued that conversation as if she were the one who made the above edit; in other words, as if she were IP 12.210.6.191. And that IP had already been blocked after (surprise!) a NPA attack against me (as seen here). I believe this is the same user who did that attack, using a registered account. Erasculio 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sherlock did digging, I see! Going through the steps you went through, and the IP's POV and Felikia's, I would hazard a guess that Sherlock hit the nail on the head. Calor - talk 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging from your talk archive, you two obviously have history. And I'm not sure this can be seen as a personal attack. Backsword 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The GWO comment interests me. Maybe I'll go looking around. Anyone know her ID on GWO? Calor - talk 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

She has been banned from GWO, after making multiple accounts in order to PM me insults. Erasculio 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah... I remember this from last time it happened. -elviondale (tahlk) 22:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Erasculio, you have to admit you're not the nicest of users (this is not an attack). Yeah, Felikia hates you, but a ban over that comment seems too much. Wait until she really makes a mistake, I know you can take it.

reanor 22:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is an on-going thing it should be taken to arbcom, there is clearly an underlying issue here, and is not an open and shut case. --Lemming

00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lemming's right there. IMO wait on the call to the bullpen (ArbComm) for a day or two, see if everything cools down and there's no more disturbance. Calor - talk 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That might happen. But I wouldn't like this to go all the way up to ArbComm. It's bad for Erasculio's image and record, since he has been subject of user-user arbitration before. That wouldn't be fair if he turns out to be the "victim" here.

reanor 00:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

207.234.145.43 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

— ク Eloc 貢 02:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked -- ab.er.rant

03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

194.80.183.1 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Human vandal. Backsword 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned. (Don't hesitate to warn human vandals on their talk page! It's not something only sysops can do.) --

(CoRrRan / talk) 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's human and can use internet, then it can read and (arguebly) understand a warning.

reanor 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryudo (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

"See you fuckers later" <-- Violation of GWW:NPA? — ク Eloc 貢 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't really an issue if he is leaving anyway. Also he wasn't really referring to anyone specific so it is not a personal attack, it is just crude language which has been discussed extensively already. --Lemming

17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

QQ moar — Skuld 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that some people just don't understand when to stop, and what's funny and what's not, I don't blame him if he leaves

br12 • 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Raptors (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Raptors

Why the notice?

br12 • 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The anon thinks he fails? Lord of all tyria 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Who fails? Raptors or Ryudo? Because, IMO, that was my best laugh of the week, seeing that video. And don't start a whole conversation about the ethics and political correctness of that video, either. If your talking about the seig heil message, then I say that it should be taken off, even though it means (Roughly) "Hail to victory", it's strongly associated with Hitler. But we had this whole conversation with the inverse swastika, didn't we? Calor - talk 21:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

However, between that, this and this (after the discussion here), it does feel like at least GWW:NPA was broken there. Probably a bit late now, though. Erasculio 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Late or not - something should be done. Because policies or not - Raptors has attacked that user and made them feel uncomfortable on the wiki, repeatedly, after repeated requests to stop. See User:Ryudo. I've seen the owned thing before... the pics are funny, but not to a user who has essentially been bullied and picked on. It is ugly that this can occur here. :( --Aspectacle 00:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a product of weak sysops. Congratulations, Erasculio, you got your wish - a user has actually left the wiki because of a troll, and nothing has been done to stop him. This wiki is working very well. -Auron 01:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a fallacy to assume any strong sysops would enact the policies you desire. Nor is this the place to argue it. Backsword 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A strong sysop system would have allowed Raptors to be banned. If assuming that is a fallacy, I need to go back to logic 101. -Auron 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Less of a "strong sysop", more a "sysop who acts exactly like Auron wants, despite how he has not bothered to call for an ArbComm against an user that bothers him so much". But Backsword is right, there are enough places where to discuss this already. Erasculio 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Why shouldn't a user who's actions have made someone leavve the wiki and fourth userbox on his page says he is above the rules be banned? Use common sense, the answer is obvious. — Skakid9090 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying I'm above the rules doesn't mean I am. It's a joke. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Skakid; don't bother. Those who are blind can't be made to see. -Auron 01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Skadi, what are you talking about? Have you read anything written by me saying that Raptors should not be banned? Have you not seen my comment above about how at least one policy has been breached? Erasculio 01:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Raptors you and your jokes are the reason the term "Epic fail" was invented. -- scourge 01:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And your mother birthing you was the reason abortions were invented. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Someone please ban this guy!

reanor 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- ab.er.rant

03:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys got him good. Now he can't troll for a month. Good job aberrant. Hyrule 03:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He had it coming.

reanor 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya rly. About time. Good riddens if you ask me. Hyrule 03:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

125.7.195.10 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal --Kakarot 23:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Gibberish bot. Blocked. -- ab.er.rant

03:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

203.88.192.104 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibbering bot. It has been banned several times before. As its first ever offense was against my talk page I insist on perma-ban. ;) --Aspectacle 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Perma-ban is not a good idea, sorry :) -- ab.er.rant

03:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but current times are too short in my opinion. Just causes bots to return, wasting everyones time. Backsword 13:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I believe arbitration is warranted regarding the conduct of User:Raptors, primarily regarding harassment of another user and another personal attack. I do not believe that attempting to reason with him or imposing a normal block will be effective enough, given his general attitude (especially regarding previous attempts). --Rezyk 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just ban him, stop being stupid — Skakid9090 01:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that he shouldn't be blocked also; as far as I know, that might just be a matter of us not having enough sysops around atm. --Rezyk 01:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go here, Rezyk? Backsword 02:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It could, but my impression was that these requests can be made in a more informal manner too. --Rezyk 02:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Aberrant blocked him for a month for the NPA vios, so it doesn't much matter. Can take him to ArbComm if he comes back. Backsword 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other bureaucrats, but I will respond to all arbitration requests that I happen upon and that are clearly meant as arbitration requests. Using Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/Requests is just an added convenience for the bureaucrats. --Xeeron 14:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Auron (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

GWW:NPA. Beginning with his comment ("I'm tired of goddamn stupid logic from people that can't think") about those who don't agree with him on the Adminship discussion. Then on my own talk page ("I'm not going to bother responding to your little troll bait, because it is just too stupid", "it's clear that you have no interest using logic and reason to discuss; stop trolling policy pages and let them be productive"), then back at the Admin discussion ("95% of the wiki is ignorant because, as you are demonstrating, they are ignoring facts and intelligence by bringing up the same example over and over after it's been refuted repeatedly" and "You've conveniently ignored (as trolls are wont to do)"). Lastly above, on Raptor's section ("Skakid; don't bother. Those who are blind can't be made to see"). The lack of arguments (beyond "look at GuildWiki!") coupled with all those attacks are getting tiresome. Erasculio 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Auron is an active contributor, but with a rather bad attitude. Raptors broke GWW:NPA far more and far worse, yet he hasn't been banned. So before anyone does anything, consider that.

reanor 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Raptors has been banned like a couple of times now. — ク Eloc 貢 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But he's not banned now.

reanor 02:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to go "all or nothing" on the punishments. Too much leniency is bad, but if Auron were permanently blocked just because of this section, it would be going against many of the things even I believe in, as mentioned on the ArbComm about Skuld. For someone who's a valued contributor, I think educative action is more important than a purely punitive one; but if said education must come through punishment, so be it. Erasculio 02:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, that seems to me to be more an issue of not having enough sysops around. It's not like there is anything else preventing it, unless for some reason the sysops don't consider any of it to be a personal attack. --Rezyk 02:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's gotta by lack of on-line personal. If they don't consider it a violation they should at least say something here.

reanor 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He's been warned. If he makes another ad hominem attack, I think he should get blocked for a day or two. -- Gordon Ecker 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Auron was right on that talk page, cant say he wasnt. also, if Auron offend u, plx fail less. --Cursed Angel 12:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Something that doesn't seem to occur to most people - it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, you're attacking another user and that is not allowed on the wiki. If you want to tell someone they are wrong, do it in a respectful manner or dont bother. - BeX

13:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think being offended by a certain thing is silly, and you don't have anything polite to respond with, you can help by ignoring it. Saying "fail less" (and this applies to so many people) is not going to accomplish anything except aggravate the situation. -- ab.er.rant

14:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiRuiCong (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spam. — kyrasantae 09:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed. -- ab.er.rant

01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

72.3.217.253 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibber br12 • 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still at it. Where's the blocking?

br12 • 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- ab.er.rant

01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Armond (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Also NPA, most clearly here. Erasculio 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Mostly their discussions have been fine, but that is starting to go a bit far imo. Just for the record ^.^ Ale_Jrb (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion will continue, anyway (despite how he decided to make a comment in my talk page soon after that). Erasculio 16:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He's been warned. A result of a heated exchange and not cooling off first. Let's just see how he takes the warnings. -- ab.er.rant

01:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He was commenting on Erasculio's contributions (in this case, Erasculio's comments on skills and balance issues). I was under the impression that wasn't yet disallowed. Erasculio, please stop making up violations of NPA; the boy who cried wolf (wiki re-write) is getting old already. -Auron 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See Erasculio's talk page, it's not "making up". -- ab.er.rant

01:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

213.192.59.78 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot.--Pyron Sy 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- ab.er.rant

01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

61.47.7.195 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot.--Pyron Sy 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- ab.er.rant

01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

76.175.126.237 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalism. here.--Pyron Sy 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Xasxas256 02:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

38.117.88.72 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberling. - HeWhoIsPale 13:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I reverted. So I blocked it first ;) - anja

13:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

67.192.37.34 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot.--Pyron Sy 18:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja

19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

159.145.15.101 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

~ Kurd 08:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 08:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

82.114.160.35 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish.--Pyron Sy 13:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

BeXoR blocked it 3 hours ago. (I don't know if I can post these things, but as no admin has, I did. If it's wrong, plz just tell me) —Ebany Salmonderiel 16:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, don't worry.

reanor 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm2‎ (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Possible spambot. --Fighterdoken 08:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yuppers —

kyrasantae 08:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

216.65.63.45‎ (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot
This user is a gibberish bot.

reanor 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol

br12 • (talk) • 22:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We should just place {{User Gibberbot}} on all known bots so we can tell right away. — ク Eloc 貢 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But we are not supposed to edit Userpages.

reanor 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Put it on their talk page.

br12 • (talk) • 22:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That might work, but we wouldn't see it easily. I just made it to report, I see no real better use for it.

reanor 22:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Gibberish bots do not register accounts, and IPs get reasigned. Backsword 23:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm5‎ (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Linkspam.reanor 05:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 4eva - BeX

14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

80.193.98.46 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Violation - Damadmoo 14:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Violation of what? - anja

14:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One edit was a personal attack. Warned for it now, if they continue to recreate the article they made before then further action can be taken. (Article was speedy deleted). - BeX

14:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Qq6H4f (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & WakEzd (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

— ク Eloc 貢 15:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned. - anja

15:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Scourge (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & Cursed Angel (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Revert war at User talk:Hyrule History — ク Eloc 貢 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Both users notified. - anja

15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

BxhVnc (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link spammer at Guild:Zealots Of Shiverpeak. br12 • (talk) • 15:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned for ever. :P - anja

15:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mwahaha

br12 • (talk) • 15:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we're having less gibberish bots and more link spammers. Most likely the {{User Gibberbot}} report userbox scared them. I'll make a Link spammer userbox to deal with the new threat.

reanor 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is mostly old bots coming back (we only blocked for x months, not infinite, before). They seemed to stop registering after we installed CAPTCHA for registering an account. - anja

17:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

PfzHlg (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link spammer. br12 • (talk) • 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked — Gares 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FuyVnr (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spambot.--Fighterdoken 20:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned. - anja

20:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

200.93.63.19 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibber bot. --Aspectacle 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja

23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

192.18.100.50 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot
This user is a gibberish bot.

reanor 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja

23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

72.3.131.54 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot
This user is a gibberish bot.

reanor 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 02:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm17 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Linkspam. Calor - talk 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bam! - BeX

02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AzdL4j (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Linkspam. See history of Deadly Paradox. Oscidaes 04:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Permabanned. -- Gordon Ecker 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

91.121.94.144 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibber-- br12 • (talk) • 17:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 17:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

212.6.39.11 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot
This user is a gibberish bot.

reanor 18:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Oh, btw, I prefer text before userboxes. They are hard to read :P - anja

18:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

With time, you'll just recognize the box and you won't even need to read it. I'll make it easier on the eye, though.

reanor 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's annoying how it puts the text after it all weirdly margined so they aren't aligned properly :S

br12 • (talk) • 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed with {{clear}}

reanor 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. --

br12 • (talk) • 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Alot better, thank you. :) - anja

18:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the box, for what it's worth. This page is a serious thing, but a little levity always helps. Would suggest smallifying it a bit though, and I am worried that others may follow suit and we end up with a proliferation of vandalboxen (yeesh) --Snograt

19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

222.62.198.66 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot
This user is a gibberish bot.

br12 • (talk) • 19:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Poke - anja

19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop using that messy box..? poke | talk 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

God you guys are so stiff, what's so messy about it? It's not like it's making the page too long, it already is.

reanor 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As you can see on the talk page, a new design was proposed and even simple icons (which are not bigger than normal text) are unwanted... poke | talk 19:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The box doesn't add anything useful, it just makes the sysop job a bit messier. If you want eye cany, use your name space. --

(gem / talk) 20:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, no more userbox. Anyway, I read the whole proposal talk, very stiffy btw. What you guys need is an Admin noticeboard page with a list of subpages links, like:

Bot reports: Gibberish, link spam, etc (obvious, easy, quick block)
Vandal reports: Intentional vandalism (take a look, think it over, ban)
Policy Violations: Users gone wrong (discuss, drama, resolve)
Other reports: borderline cases, not clearly covered by policies (drama, discretion required, resolve)

So users get here first, go report to the right place, and admins can work on shorter lists with similar issues. Wich also allows admins to choose to work on what they think they are better at dealing with.

reanor 20:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why split this when the situation canbe handled as is? More pages = more time used to report and more time used to resolve. There's not a huge wave of issues that can't be resolved immediately, quite the contrary. --

(gem / talk) 00:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Then do it here, add Sections, I think it'd good to categorize.

reanor 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what poke's sandbox shows; areas for spam/vandal bots and seperate headings for user related violations.

br12 • (talk) • 15:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what are we waiting for?

reanor 16:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Please read, and continue, on the talk page. - anja 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

222.190.118.5 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Bot.reanor 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

66.207.237.215 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal and gibberish human :S reanor 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked. -- ab.er.rant

00:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ce8Poh (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link spammer - Damadmoo 10:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned - anja

11:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

CvrI08 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spambot as of yesterday, but better latter than never...--Fighterdoken 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely :) It's banned for ever. - anja

20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm5 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link spammer.--Fighterdoken 05:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the link as your current one has no contributions. The links were made from the above IP adress. — ク Eloc 貢 06:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back :) the reason why it doesn't have any contribs is because the page where that user edited on was deleted, that's why contribs is empty. And BeX banned the account already... hmmm four days ago :O -- ab.er.rant

08:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

60.22.194.173 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) This one was linkspamming the same page and is now blocked :P - anja

08:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya. That's what it was. The IP just link spammed on a userpage that doesn't even exist yet. — ク Eloc 貢 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the link so the discussion is understandable.. - anja

16:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i think the problem was me copying the name of the page instead of the author of the edit... I really should avoid making reports after midnight :P--Fighterdoken 17:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya, but that's strange. I thought IP adresses couldn't make new pages or post links or something like that. And why would they choose a user page that isn't a real user, unless they forgot to login/register that account? — ク Eloc 貢 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the bot doesn't know better. Needs the ban stick to learn :D. Calor — talk 22:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend perma blocking 60.22.194.173 as that's probly the source of all the link spam accounts. — ク Eloc 貢 23:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. Not even the same pattern. - anja

00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nenni32 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

I already warned him about vandalizing, but keep an eye on him just incase. — ク Eloc 貢 02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

220.231.39.55 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish. -- (gem / talk) 06:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - BeX

07:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

67.192.37.34 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish. -- (gem / talk) 07:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - BeX

07:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Raptors (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Could someone please unblock Raptors temporarily, until we've figured out the outcome of his arbitration case? The only page he will be allowed to edit once unblocked will be Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2007-11-15-User:Raptors. Anything else, no matter how harmless, should be reverted on sight, and if he keeps it up we can discuss reblocking him immediately, without waiting for the case to be resolved. Thanks. --Dirigible 10:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

unblocked. Btw. is there a faster method for unblocking than looking through that big list? poke | talk 10:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Special:Ipblocklist and search. - anja

10:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock. -- Gordon Ecker 10:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So how do you know he will try logging into his username? — ク Eloc 貢 10:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

By putting a 1000x300px box on his - or your - talk page? poke | talk 10:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Or do you just want me to PM him ingame for you next time I see him online? — ク Eloc 貢 11:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can reach him, that would be a good idea. --Xeeron 12:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

24.215.140.51 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Human vandalism..swords and Chuck Norris. Go figure. Calor — talk 00:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Gordon blocked. Calor — talk 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

194.69.1.23 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalism, 4 occurances within 20 minutes. All edits have some gibberish added to the beginning of each page. Disgruntled Celery 07:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's we currently call a gibberish bot. They attack at certain times of the day and don't listen to warnings. All that can be done is keep reverting until a Sysop bans it. — ク Eloc 貢 07:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja

10:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

AnoZhz (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link spammer. — ク Eloc 貢 07:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja

10:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

218.249.83.87 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish--Pyron Sy 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

why dont u block bots forever? i mean, they arent people. --Cursed Angel

01:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because IP numbers aren't permanent. Even a fixed IP can get reassigned if someone moves or changes ISPs. -- Gordon Ecker 02:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why does it matter if you block them forever if it just changes? — ク Eloc 貢 02:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To deter them. Calor — talk 02:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So by temp blocking them it just deters them? If it's permanent, then it stays permanent. — ク Eloc 貢 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because if you block them forever, and someone else is assigned the IP at some point in the future, a perfectly innocent user may not be able to access the wiki because of the actions of others. I mean I could go into a net cafe, spam nonsense here, get the IP blocked forever, then no-one else who uses that multiple user computer would be able to access the wiki. --Lemming

03:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But what are the odds that someone would actually be onto one of those blocked IP. — ク Eloc 貢 03:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that IPv6 in in development because IPv4 (the current IP addressing system) is running out of numbers, I'd say the chance of that happening is just gonna get bigger and bigger. But even if it's just an extremely small chance, why risk blocking a legitimate user permanently for the sake of a few clicks to revert things? -- ab.er.rant

10:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, against a fixed IP vandal, every doubling of the block length will cut the reversion and blocking workloads caused by that vandal in half, so the benefits of a 1 year block over a 3 month block are minimal. -- Gordon Ecker 11:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

66.87.139.2 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Human vandal. I've stuck a warning on his talk, but may pay to watch. --Aspectacle 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ap4Bga (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & IaeM7n (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link spammer accounts. -- (gem / talk) 08:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Permabanned. -- Gordon Ecker 08:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

212.219.231.1 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Random vandalism. Ale_Jrb (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- ab.er.rant

11:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fuckyoufagots (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

User created for vandalism.--Pyron Sy 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And the comments on the page. Calor — talk 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He says we are sad for playing this game and we have no life whatsoever. Yet he registers a user, and vandalises his own user page. Something doesn't quite add up there. --

br12 • (talk) • 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is just my biased opinion..but if he/she (anyone, for that matter) goes through the time and effort to vandalize a page on a (semi) obscure wiki for a game that he/she (supposedly) doesn't play, doesn't that mean he/she has just a little too much time on their hands? Suggesting that they, ermmm...have little life outside of online. Calor — talk 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned, and is it vandalism if it's your own userpage? — ク Eloc 貢 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(moved - continued at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard#Fuckyoufagots)

No, but you can be wanred/blocked/permabanned for more then vandalism or NPA. Something such as libel, for example, could easily get you banned, or somethingblatantly insulting to anyone reading (i.e.FuckYouFagots). Calor — talk 19:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

219.140.59.179 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberbot -- br12 • (talk) • 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Gares Redstorm. — ク Eloc 貢 16:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

66.232.113.212 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Website spamming in an edit summary. [1] --Valshia 19:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No spamer. A failed attempt of using a webproxy. Of course, the reason to use the proxy might have been malicious. Impossible to tell. The edit itself was harmless. Backsword 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)