Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Archive 8

Vorrax (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Ok, not asking for a block or anything, but this seemed the most appropriate place to post this. If this isn't the correct place, please do tell me where I should post this. Anyways, go to his userpage. He redirected it. Also, if you click on edit to the redirect, he has the entire main page copied. So what is going on? I tried asking him but he didn't make much sense to me in his answer. — ク Eloc 貢 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I was looking at it and wondering and reading the discussion page, but couldn't make heads or tails of anything there. Calor — talk 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if you removed the redirect, the page would be in direct violation of GWW:USER and would be violating the GNU Free Documentation Licsense. — ク Eloc 貢 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

4th bullet under Content Restrictions. Basically states no copyrighted text or images, GFDL, blah blah bah. Calor — talk 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well without the redirect, his page would most likely reach over 300KB in size. Also, he took PvXWiki's Main Page, and they don't use the same license as us. — ク Eloc 貢 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PvX? Wow...that's interesting. Calor — talk 03:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He also took Guildwikis page, and yet again, they aren't on the same license as us. — ク Eloc 貢 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I also posted a message on his talk page if that counts for anything. — ク Eloc 貢 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the note posted can be enough for now. I'm not sure about the user page redirect, so I wont touch it. - anja 08:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Raptaz (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & SystemisFlawed (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Seems the year just got shorter. Mind prolonging it? Backsword 14:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What a stupid suggestion. SystemisFlawed

My point further proven. He's clearly violated the ban, multiple times, and deserves to be banned here again. But he's starting to have far more sockpuppets than PBS. Genius. Calor — talk 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

every new user isnt raptors, and what makes you to think that he would name himself raptaz? thats just too close and he knows it --Cursed Angel 19:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible, but the "he must be a roxxorz" comment on raptors talk page further shows that there is a good, not positive, but a good chance that Raptaz = Raptors. Also, in Raptors's mind, it could be one of those they think X, so I'll do Y. Or is it they think Y? Lastly, if I'm incorrect, then I apologize to both users named for being a sockpuppet of Raptors. Calor — talk 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

yah, raptaz started to make as many useless and short edits he could on izzy's talk page just when this election thing begun, systemisflawed begun making the difference, as many useful edits on pages that he could. His first edit makes me think that he started only to vote twice against or for someone but nothing in his behavior says that he's raptors. you're all getting paranoid believing that raptors still care about this site, i miss him --Cursed Angel 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A sysop should block this account. (Raptaz, dunno about the otehr one) -- (gem / talk) 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide proof they are sockpuppets of Raptors (or any other banned user), I would happily do that. But none of them has done any policy violations in itself, so I don't see a reason to yet. - anja 22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To use the NFL term, there's no irrefutable evidence that they're sockpuppets of Raptors. Evidence, but not irrefutable. Calor — talk 22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this wiki let's a single person cause so much trouble without even trying. It's worse than anything else I've seen so far. I'm outta here for good. (Yes, I'm giving Raptors his second or third scalp, enjoy it mister!) -- (gem / talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Raptaz might be User:Rapta? XD — ク Eloc 貢 02:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Have they actually violated any policy, or are they just suspected sockpuppets? -- Gordon Ecker 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They were sockpuppets but not of raptors. I created both accounts to, as the name says, point out the system was flawed. I had no intention of voting twice and as you can see I didnt attempt to use either of the accounts to add another voice in the same discussion to appear to have more support. I am sincerely sorry Gem left the wiki, it was not my intention. As Anja said above and to my knowledge, no rule was broken. The most damage this has caused was mostly from the community reaction to the actions (I didn;'t expect people to assume I was raptors, just suspect and ignore considering the minimal impact of the edits over a 30 minute period). Don't bother with a lecture of wikilawyering or exploiting rules to prove a point, I am well aware of both essays. I am responsible for the actions I made but not for the community reaction to them. I wouldn't be suprised to see the block lifted as the reason was a sockpuppet of raptors, which I am not, and something about NPA which I wasn't aware of. 74.62.153.41 08:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that you were not familiar with something like W:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It seems that lately, we have a need of porting that over, or people would just claim that it's a wikipedia policy and not ours. -- ab.er.rant 09:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever that is it wouldn't be enforceable anyway. 72.18.206.72 09:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

=S — ク Eloc 貢 10:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"I didn;'t expect people to assume I was raptors". So you make an acount named Raptaz, which appears days after Raptors, who is known to have sockpuppets was banned for a year, spam the recent changes with it, but you don't expect people to assume you are raptors. I hate it when people insult my intelligence by trying to convince me of something obviously wrong, so stop trying please. --Xeeron 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who the sockpuppets belonged to, I think there's an important point to be noticed here: we cannot allow this wiki to suddenly have a witch hunt over who is a real user and who is a sockpuppet. If all new users who appear to be even slightly suspect cause so much trouble (thanks to discussions made by us, not by those users, wondering if they are or not sockpuppets), we would only be allowing Raptors to continue to disturb the wiki despite being banned (as we would be causing conflict ourselves by accusing innocent users of being sockpuppets). We cannot know for sure who is a sockpuppet thanks to all the ways to avoid IP detection; if anything, I think it would be better to judge the actions of any user (be it suspected to be a sockpuppet or not) based on his/her contributions, not based on who we think it may be. Erasculio 11:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This will be easier with CheckUser. — ク Eloc 貢 11:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We block for actions. If someone suspects an account is a sockpuppet but said account hasn't actually done anything, there's really no reason to block it. If an account has done something worthy of blocking, it shouldn't matter whether it's a sock or not. The only instances where the concept of "sockpuppetry" really matters are a) continuing matters in which a blocked user was involved and causing further disruption (in which case the fact that it is a sockpuppet should become rather obvious), or b) voting in elections. Neither of these should be reason for "witchhunts". Nor should anyone be going on such witch hunts. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We block for actions by people, not actions on specific accounts, however it's pretty hard to prove that two accounts belong to the same person, and the burden of proof is on us. -- Gordon Ecker 11:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Without a means to uniquely identify users (which, on the internet, is actually a lot harder than it seems, given that we do not require personal information such as a valid credit card number or the like that can't easily be made up/reacquired), we can't truly block users. We can make attempts, but they will be subpar at best. In the end, we block for actions and actions alone. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

*coughcheckusercough* -Auron 12:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

... it's pretty hard to prove that two accounts belong to the same person unless that person slips up ... -- Gordon Ecker 12:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Once an user is blocked, Autoblock (which we have installed) blocks any edit attempts made by that user's IP, even if we cannot see said IP ourselves. So if it had been Raptors, CheckUser would not have helped - the fact he's making edits is a proof that he's using proxies. Unless No open proxies is accepted, it's just way to easy to circunvent IP blocks and identifiers. Erasculio 12:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Like Aiiane said... we block people for their actions. Does it matter if they are a sock puppet if they aren't breaking any rules? Don't create a problem where there is none. If they do break a rule, take action. If they create a new account under a new ip you won't know about it until they do something to get your attention, which again, can just be banned. You guys are making this out to be far bigger than Raptors did. 122.104.228.3 13:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but it does matter if someone with two accounts is breaking the rules with one of them while using the other one to escape the consequences of their actions. But, like Aiiane said, it's pretty hard to prove that two accounts belong to the same person, so even though policy refers to actual users, in most cases, it can only realistically be enforced against specific user accounts. -- Gordon Ecker 03:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If Raptors makes a sockpuppet account and does nothing but good with it, I don't think we should either 1) attempt to figure out if it's Raptors or not or 2) ban it. We can't be checking every new account that pops up. Let's do what Aiiane says: deal with disruption and not worry about the rest. —Tanaric 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If we find out Raptors has a sockpuppet account (or is a sockpuppet account), I think the block should spill over into the other accounts, but I agree that actively searching for sockpuppets would be a waste of time. -- Gordon Ecker 11:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And, for the record, I completely agree that if any account, even an overwhelmingly positive one, identifies themselves as or is otherwise proven to be Raptors, it must be banned. —Tanaric 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

We block people for a reason. To prevent them from causing further damage. Which is why Raptors accounts should blocked. And in this case, also to uphold respect for ArbComm. Backsword 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ereanor on ArbComm: Raptors: "If you can't establish it's a case of sockpuppetry, he'll just screw up with that account too, so you ban him anyway. His second account has proven a perma-ban and any kind of ban useless, it doesn't matter if it's Raptors, Hyrule, Troll-X or Vandal-Y, you see a violator, you ban him, if it's the same guy, who cares, just ban him." And that's the bottom line 'cause...w/e the System IS flawed, discussions like this are retarded and we should be documenting something instead of wasting our thoughts here.reanor 08:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sockpuppets are largely a moot point due to the impracticality of sockpuppet identification. -- Gordon Ecker 09:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

*cough*Noopenproxies*cough* (we could use more people there anyway, and it is a way to deal with sockpuppets). Erasculio 11:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"The use of scripts or bots allow malicious users to rapidly rotate IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by helpless administrators" lol Even with another dumb policy we can't stop them from existing or even identify them easily. I don't mind who is behind the screen, if it harms the wiki, block the IP.reanor 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

85.25.151.22 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalism.--Pyron Sy 00:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

123.111.94.222 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) + 64.180.116.133 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

As I see it, its most likely a vandal as opposed to a sock, but in either case, I would think a block is warranted -elviondale (tahlk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Both have been warned, I'll keep an eye on them now. - anja 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This [1] Could be bad...

Speaks for itself. 122.104.231.28 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We have enough users watching Recent changes that I doubt if anything did happen (and that's a big if) it would be reverted/deleted straightaway. I doubt anything pre-emptive can be done about it, after all, it's another wiki and is most likely a joke. -- br12 • (talk) • 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

isn't that a different wiki?--Gummy Joe 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See the comment about f***ing with the official wiki? AKA us. And, I am a bit anxious, as a few months back there was this absolutely massive page of pure vandalism that I tried blanking and putting a speedy delete tag on, but it wouldn't reload the page. And I have 2 gigs of ram and a brand new comp. Calor — talk 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing new that the Guildwikiians have some weird rivalry against us (and now their average age is about 7), but they say they're gonna do this sort of thing all the time. I've never actually seen it happening, myself. -- br12 • (talk) • 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Both wikis have idiots that think their job is to slag off the other. Its not just over there. Lord of all tyria 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The other wiki sux lets crash it --Cursed Angel 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

LoaT's point proven I guess :P . -- br12 • (talk) • 19:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was primarily referring to eloc's "Woohoo we owned GuildWiki by being affiliated with a-net", but thanks anyway CA. Lord of all tyria 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It was already tried. And failed. The server was slightly annoyed when that specific page was accessed, but the rest of the wiki worked and all was fine once I reverted. No worries. They'd just get themselves banned. Again. Backsword 19:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Still best to try to avoid a problem than say "Give us your best shot, we'll end still standing". Calor — talk 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As a loyal GuildWikian, I am offended at both the remark about the "average age," and also that you would think that any of the useful contributors there would ever do anything to maliciously hurt this wiki. I am aware that I shouldn't be the one to talk, as I was rude to this place also, but is this whole header even necessary? --MP47 (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Any of the useful contributors, MP. There are contributors on both wikis that have an account, fifty contribs, and a redlink userpage. They help for a day. Doesn't mean they can't do something "malicious to hurt this wiki". And I know the genuinely good people on GWiki that are the major contributors wouldn't try to sabotage this wiki or anything, as I spent six months there making a few contribs and reading all the major discussions. Calor — talk 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of the useful contributors, which all of those were: Lord Belar, Jiorugi Derako, Teh Uber Pwnzer, and JediRogue.--MP47 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologise about the average age comment, it was simply a joke, but if you feel offended then that it my fault. I must also say that I am not "loyal" to any wiki - I just choose to contribute on this one. I have nothing against GuildWiki, in fact I respect it. I have also said above that I believe this 'conspiracy' is simply a joke, and they will not carry it out. I do not know any of those contributers who took part in that comment (although I am familiar with their names), but I am sure they would not disrupt a wiki, be it this one, GuildWiki, GWOwiki or whatever. Although, their maturity is something to be questioned. br12 • (talk) • 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's bordering on targeting them personally Brains. I've seen immature fun and jokes going around in talk pages on this wiki as well. It's in the nature of gamers to be immature once in a while :) Let's not turn this into a discussion on the behavior of wiki users. There's really nothing much more to say regarding the link other than we'll keep an eye on recent changes (which we have quite a few doing just that everyday, so it won't turn ugly). -- ab.er.rant 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We must consult DJ Sdbay. 76.90.84.75 01:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys can rest assured that nothing will happen here regarding that talk page.--MP47 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to note on that, there are sarcastic users on both wikis, as well as all across the 'net. Users such as myself and Teh Uber Pwnzer are only threats if we lose our senses of humor. :P (and gain knowledge of using proxy servers and bot editing.) I find it funny that anyone even spotted that discussion, let alone thought it a threat... but kudos to 122.104.231.28 for even being that sharp-eyed.

Also, I'm flattered that you consider me a useful contributor, MP47 (but you spelt my name wrong! For shame). -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't really affect us at the moment. — ク Eloc 貢 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Woot! too many retarded issues lately...reanor 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is quite amusing that while 122.104.231.28 manages to find a sarcastic "threat" to GWW, he fails to notice the date is almost a month off. :P Lord Belar 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

84.161.240.78 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

vandalism...--Ryudo 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned. - anja 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Auron (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

NPA, again. "Your complete inability to see what I'm talking about baffles me", and etc. Erasculio 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your inability to see what I'm talking about is just that; it's not a personal attack. I could call you a ton of names to more thoroughly describe someone who is unable to see arguments with logic and reason, but I didn't. Describing it for what it is does not constitute a personal attack. -Auron 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute. It is best for an uninvolved observer to politely point out that someone has made a personal attack, and for the discussion to return to considering the content, not the person." quoted from GWW:NPA. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 01:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point the above ("someone who is unable to see arguments with logic and reason") as a continuation of the NPA breach I linked. Erasculio 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is failure to communicate. Backsword 01:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Although I understand that you feel insulted Erasculio, I agree with Backsword that this is a failure to communicate. Auron, please try to not be so inflammatory in your discussions with others. Like I said before, if you want to tell someone you disagree, do it in a respectful manner or dont bother. I suggest you two stay away from each other for a while. - BeX 03:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is just pettiness...everyone involved just needs to grow up!! (And i understand that some of you may take that as breach of NPA but whatever), just get over yourselves! this isn't aimed at anyone particular just everyone involved in sutuations as petty as this. GWW:NPA isn't there for everytime someone says something you dont like, it's there for serious matters, which this is not one! --ChronicinabilitY 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ — Skuld 07:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't imagine that helps the "situation", Skuld... -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 07:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing will, ErasQQulio is just out for trouble, as usual. — Skuld 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How is that not an NPA? It's like saying "You're complete inability to funuction as a normal human being" or "You're a retard".... Auron is the one who complains about weak Sysops but it's what is protecting him most from being banned. 58.110.136.10 07:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Skuld, please don't go back to behaving like this again. And when asked not to comment in such a rude and inflamatory manner, don't respond with another similar statement. The result of your arbitration case was that you would try not to act like this again. - BeX 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with BeX here, Skuld, and give you a formal warning in that regard - I will block you if you continue along this trend again. While Auron's actions might be questionable, yours in the above are definitely in the realm of NPA violations. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the NPA violation here? Seriously, all we have is an out of context quote that sure as fuck doesn't sound like an attack to me and a link to an already resolved prior notice. What's going on here past "Auron's a big meany!"? - HeWhoIsPale 14:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He just worded it fancy, that's all. In other words, it means "You are an idiot...why?" — ク Eloc 貢 15:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

With no context to that quote I'm going to have to disagree. This quite frankly looks less like an NPA violation by Auron and more like a user using NPA to attack another user they don't like. - HeWhoIsPale 15:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just voicing my disapproval of E's actions. My actions are equal, if not less so than his timewasting. Attack? Lol. — Skuld 15:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

69.11.56.195 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Racial remarks and vandalism. Fall 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned. - anja 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

83.20.156.102 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

creating articles with no appropriate information, vandalizing pages, already warned by Calor but is still vandalizing. Fall 19:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And in a foreign language. Calor — talk 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the first edits vandalism, but then again I don't understand what's written. If there's more vandalism I'll block. - anja 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Flara is polish for Flare. The first bit is "It costs 5 energy to cast", I guess the rest is description. Anyone know good polish to tell him? — Skuld 20:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. Calor — talk 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

71.174.28.174 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Warned but continues to vandalize. Fall 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also possible NPA breach on his talk page.--Fighterdoken 16:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

blocked for 1 day for his vandalism --Lemming 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)