Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Archive 10

Raptazz (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

--Aspectacle 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Priceless. Calor — talk 00:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He or she is a fan of Raptors, so what? Was there some other edit on a page that got deleted? -- Gordon Ecker 03:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

They didn't do anything wrong, so why are you reporting them? — ク Eloc 貢 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the edit, considered it possible that it was Raptors circumventing his ban so raised it to the board for the sysops to make their decision. --Aspectacle 03:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's either Raptors, or a completly different troll who has made an effort to study Raptors so they could mimic his behaviour in detail. If you find the existance of such a person plausible, then don't ban. Backsword 03:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like proof. So far all they've done is just say they think Raptors is awsome. — ク Eloc 貢 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to start doing math. That's where proof exists. Backsword 03:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Math? I don't see numbers. I don't see the need for posting someone on the noticeboard after one edit. Regardless of what you think about the account being a sock. If this is Raptors, than a) the longer everyone panics about said sock, the longer he'll make them and b) if he was doing that to circumvent anything, would he really use a name like that? Just ignore it and move on. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone said it before: No need for a witch hunt. Let said user go about his/her business unless there's vandalism or an "I Am Raptors, and I fooled you again" confession. Calor — talk 04:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A user with a nearly identical name, created for the initial purpose of posting on Raptors' page, and with no other contributions. It's more harmful to the wiki to have the potential drama the name creates (as this very section is good evidence of); if you examine the block log you will notice that I specifically disabled autoblock and did not disallow account creation - if it is truly a legitimate user (which I doubt, but I have left open the possibility), then they will have no restrictions preventing them from creating a less provocative user account with which to contribute. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

213.182.114.207 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Making multiple changes (vandalism? I can't tell) which are large enough to cause the server to barf. --Aspectacle 03:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My super-fast comp is barfing trying to see the difference on the edit. Seven digits...that's...a million? Right? makes Eloc's 107,000 or w/e archive looks diminutive. Calor — talk 04:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also 128.197.11.30 (talk • contribs • logs • block log). Huge edits to widely used templates. -- AT(talk | contribs) 04:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not this again.... Calor — talk 04:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] Interesting. -- AT(talk | contribs) 04:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? And what the hell is the popups program, Aspectacle? It's on wp, not here. And I don't know JS yet. Care to elaborate? Calor — talk 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Note the IP editing that link, and a link to a username. Although it looks like these edits are being made using tor proxies, so it may be co-incidental. -- AT(talk | contribs) 04:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Now im curious. Perhaps simply copying a user sig then 5 ~ ? Calor — talk 04:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also note the previous edit you showed. User editing, IP signed. Unless I misread the edit. Calor — talk 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what I'm using. It is ancient, but it lets me revert without loading the page. Definitely switching IPs. I request semi-protection on all of the templates which have been hit. --Aspectacle 04:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I request semi-protection on all templates for three days, and I copied that piece in your .js. Calor — talk 04:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection seems the most sensible thing. Is gordon the only sysop around? (btw, calor, that edit was one of the vandals signing themselves as User:HeavensDancer on guildwiki. Just thought it was worth noting.) -- AT(talk | contribs) 04:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 04:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Very worth noting. I missed that earlier when I first took the link. *whistles "It's a small world after all, It's a small world after all"*. Thanks, Gordon. 04:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally..over. We think. Well, I'm out for the night. Calor — talk 04:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also appears that 69.12.150.55 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) is the same, see here on War Preparations (another 1 million+ edit). --Kakarot 04:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

96.233.12.70 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Falsifing skill descriptions. - HeWhoIsPale 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Seems to have stopped already. - anja 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

69.40.254.238 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

NPA breach on User talk:Erasculio--Fighterdoken 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. -- Gordon Ecker 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Armond (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Armond has just been banned for 3 days thanks to content on his user page (as seen here). Now that he's back, he added said content back (as seen here). Erasculio 11:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And he changed the note. I do not see it as a personal attack now. - anja 11:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it pretty much the same thing, though? Before it said "I cannot stand the illogical and flat-out incorrect methods he constantly uses in arguments", so he was saying my methods are "illogical and (...) incorrect"; now it has been changed to "I cannot stand his methods of argument, which I deem incorrect and illogical", in which he's still saying my methods are "illogical and incorrect". More than the note itself, what bothers me is the blatant disrespect to what an admin told him - he was told by a sysop to remove the note, and Mr. "trust your admins"'s reply was "fuck off" and adding the same note back, both before being banned and now. Erasculio 11:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It was readded, he was banned, end of story. Saying he deem something illogical is not the same as saying that it's a fact. - anja 12:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In my defense (Anja, not trying to promote this any further, simply stating it as I see), I fail to see how either of those comments fulfill the "personal" part of "no personal attacks". Looking at my arm, it is not the same as my ideas and/or actions. While I might complain about someone attacking my arm, I don't think I'll complain about them attacking my ideas (that is, after all, part of a reasonable debate - according to those debates I had in my debate class at school). Naturally, English is clunky and "attack" is a bad word for the job, but I think you can infer my meaning. Armond 12:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The (huge) irony is that the comment itself does not bother me; I didn't say anything about it before someone took action, although it could be interpreted as something insulting, and now I'm not talking about how the note would be offensive or not, but rather about adding back something Armond was told by the admins to remove. But given how a sysop already told me "end of story", I'll defer to her judgment. Erasculio 14:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind the comment, may I ask why you care enough to put it on the admin noticeboard...? That's some pretty serious work you've put behind this for a comment you don't care about. Especially when I so clearly point to the policy violation I'm reverting because in the edit summary. Armond 16:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Will you two ever stop bickering? ArbComm exists, y'know? Backsword 16:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

/bicker. No point in going to arbcomm, imo. Armond 17:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to let this animosity go, or it's just going to get worse from here. It's pointless and it's embarrassing to even watch. Ignore any personal/sarcastic comments the other may have made/make towards you and focus only on whatever the discussion at hand is about. Or, if that's too much to ask for, stop replying to each other completely for a while. Whatever you think you can manage, just put an end to this nonsense. --Dirigible 22:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

88.107.245.121 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

I warned, but this is just a heads up -elviondale (tahlk) 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning ignored. He's still at it.--Pyron Sy 19:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - anja 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

George233333 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spam. See recent changes.

Vandal. He's moving skill articles to nonsense names. - HeWhoIsPale 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost all undone. Auspicious Parry won't move back through because there's a double-redirect involved. --Valshia 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

blocked. Will fix that article. poke | talk 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hyrule (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Raptors' one year ban applies to his known socks right? - HeWhoIsPale 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, blocked it - anja 21:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

213.140.6.120 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Mass Vandalism --Kakarot 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, three days. - anja 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol and within minutes got himself banned on GuildWiki too. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Against skuld (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

User created to get around the block of SkuId (talk • contribs • logs • block log). See User talk:Raph#sig. -- br12 • (talk) • 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with my block. --Against skuld 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

65.125.155.88 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Blanking pages --Kakarot 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Lemming64. -- Gordon Ecker 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mgrinshpon (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

See here. --ChronicinabilitY 06:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And here! --ChronicinabilitY 06:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. That was fun, I never get to do this. :) —Tanaric 06:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

glad i could bring you something fun to do :-) --ChronicinabilitY 06:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Next time user {{IP}} for the header title please. — ク Eloc 貢 06:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Norrhart Domains NPCs‎

For some odd reason, bots keep hitting this page. I have no idea why they think this is the most important page on the wiki. Backsword 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Condition now. Backsword 14:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrupt bot algoritam? RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 14:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

70.119.105.26 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Widespread blanking of pages -- AT(talk | contribs) 11:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - Anja 14:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unreal Havoc (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Please delete my userpage, and talkpage associated with it. I have now moved over to a new account. Thankyou. Unreal Havoc 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A new account on this wiki? If so, it might be better to just redirect your old user page to your new user page. And you can put in a link on your old talk page to point to your new talk page. -- ab.er.rant 15:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already made a new userpage on my new account (this one) so a redirect isn't nessacary. Selket Shadowdancer 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your signature still links to your old account, BTW. Did you copy+paste your old signature formatting? Looks like you forgot to change the link target, if so. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 22:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I did. How can I change that? Selket Shadowdancer 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:User Unreal Havoc sig.jpg‎]]'''[[User:Selket Shadowdancer|<font color="Blue">Selket Shadowdancer</font>]]''' Copy that into your signature box in preferences. -- br12 • (talk) • 22:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sadly I have to lose the image as it redirects to my old userpage. :( Selket Shadowdancer 22:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to it redirects to your current one. If you want to add/change a redirect, just put in #redirect [[Page name]] -- br12 • (talk) • 23:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. Can you give me the full code so I can add it in my signature? Sorry I'm just not very good at this sort of stuff. :( Selket Shadowdancer 23:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Np, just copy that code I put above. The image should redirect to your current userpage, and your link should too. -- br12 • (talk) • 00:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The image is still called Image:User Unreal Havoc sig.jpg‎ , but br12 changed the redirect so that it points to User:Selket Shadowdancer, so if you use the code he posted above (again!), things should be fine :) You may want to re-upload the image with the name User_Selket_Shadowdancer_Sig - in which case, upload it using this link - File:User Selket Shadowdancer Sig, then edit the user page with the following: #redirect [[User:Selket Shadowdancer]] and {{user image}} --Snograt 00:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

May aswell test it here while replying. Thanks for your help guys. :) Selket Shadowdancer 03:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC) File:User Selket Shadowdancer Sig.19px-SelketShadowdancerSig.jpgSelket Shadowdancer 04:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset: I give up with my sig, I'm just going to revert it to normal instead. /sigh File:UserSelket Shadowdancer Sig.jpgSelket Shadowdancer 05:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sig issue resolved. However my old userpage still remains. Can an Admin please remove it? It's just wasting space on the wiki now. Selket Shadowdancer 17:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

82.42.69.148 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal --Kakarot 20:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Warned - anja 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Entropy (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Because this username is the same for entropy of guild wiki but the account was "stolen" by raptors on this wiki, could this user be deleted in case the real entropy wanted to come over here and start a guild wars 2 wiki account? It's not really fair that she can't do it atm because of raptors. 58.110.137.98 17:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed elsewhere. Armond 22:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

lolwut Armond... Entropy's talk and here -- scourge 22:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also on the GW2W noticeboard. — ク Eloc 貢 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ofail. Armond 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

218.61.16.8 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot.--Fighterdoken 18:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Attacked pages

• Category:Norrhart Domains NPCs‎
• QQ
• Talk:Condition

These keep getting hit, and while we revert and block the proxy used, a lot of effort could be saved by some temporary semiprotection. Backsword 18:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• [[Template:R from common misspelling]] — wikilink removed -- ab.er.rant 15:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Gallery of male necromancer Vabbian armor
• Kyhlo Axe
• Light of Seborhin (bundle)

These are also being hit regulary, I think there are a couple of others too--Gummy Joe 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Would this actually reduce the amount of gibberish we get? Surely if the bot hits a dead wall to edit a certain page, it just moves on to another. --Lemming 00:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Bots being bots, they probably just use the random page feature and mess up the first page they can edit. Protection won't help. -- ab.er.rant 02:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally, that's the case. But if you look into those pages history, you'd notice that thise bot seem to be configured to try to vandalise specific pages, which gets hit time and again. It's far beyond what random selection could explain. Presumably it's the same bot, whitch has been set up this way, so to change it would require manual reconfiguration on the bot operators side. Backsword 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that its safe to say that there will be bots on this wiki until we ban IP addresses. All semi-protection is going to do it move the problem to another page. Lord of all tyria 16:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

By virtue of it being random, it's not impossible for certain pages to come up more often. Even if those pages are semi-protected, how long should they be semi-protected? How do we identify a not-so-random gibber bot? What if the bot doesn't come back? And if it really is manual configuration, how do you tell when it got reconfigured and time to unprotect and protect something else? What about genuine anon users who has something to contribute while a page is semi-protected? I just think it doesn't really achieve anything; it certainly won't inconvenience whoever's running the bots. Protection is effective against actual users, much less so for bots. -- ab.er.rant 16:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

82.4.232.23 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Keeps removing comments from talk pages , has already been asked to stop.--Gummy Joe 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

blocked - 1 day --Lemming 00:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

203.124.131.68 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

— ク Eloc 貢 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Condition

Could we get this semi protected from IPs? It appears that this one is being attacked constantly by bots (history). — ク Eloc 貢 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See discussion above. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Page

Images on main page should be protected. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They are aren't they? Which images are you referring to Corran? --Kakarot 18:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

By the looks of it: all of them. (Main Page deformation is childsplay now.) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

/me doesn't know how wiki's work apparently. Nevermind me. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it happens. Anyway it's best to make 100% sure now than to find out later when something gets changed :) --Kakarot 19:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They should just change the links to the different (yet already uploaded) pictures, not re-upload them over the same filename for every event. -Auron 22:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lussh (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & Liche (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Violation of GWW:NPA at here. Both accounts are owned by the same person just so you know. — † Eloc † 08:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the french part of it is a personal attack too. — † Eloc † 08:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc, please don't pick fights with users over minor variations in policy that truly does no harm to the wiki and only serves to antagonize all of those involved. While I will ask Lussh to be more polite, it is you who is in the wrong here, regardless of the letter of the policy. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

See my response at that page please. — † Eloc † 08:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I hardly see Personnal attacks, i didn't putt a single name. If you think you are targeted that means you must feel what i'm saying is somehow true. lussh 08:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Lussh, please refrain from exacerbating the conflict. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have respect for you Aiiane, I'll stay calm. lussh 08:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks lussh. I've also responded on your talk page. —Tanaric 08:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean to add fuel to the fire here, but I am appalled that you block Eloc instead of Liche. Eloc's reasons were upheld by policy and such. In fact, only one person there was going against both the spirit of the policy, and the word of it and that was Liche/Lussh or whoever you want to be. Liche was breaking both GWW:SIGN and NPA. As Calor said, if Liche disagrees with them, doesn't mean he should ignore all the advice given to him by Eloc, Calor and myself, nor break the policy and give an excuse that they are "childish". Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't block for harrassment here, nor that you should unblock Eloc because your decision is yours and I respect that. However, I believe that you went against the wrong person, Eloc, instead of the person who was in the wrong. While Liche may contribute excellently, he has no right whatsoever to break at least two policies both in the literal sense of it, nor in the overall meaning of it. -- br12 • (talk) • 17:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Am I missing something here? After reading the talk page and such for Liche/Lussh, I see no reason why Eloc is blocked but Liche/Lussh isn't. This user has violated policy consistently, defied any who encourage him to comply, and then outrightly says he/she will not follow them. Are we afraid of losing a contributor so we instead ostracize a long-time member who had a very valid argument? Why are we catering to someone who says things along the lines of "allowing my policy violations is the cost of my contributions"? On the contrary, users are expected to follow the rules, regardless of what they can offer the wiki, and tbh, anyone can take a screenshot and upload it. I don't see why we have to give in to this form of content-terrorism -elviondale (tahlk) 23:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Elviondale on this one. Sure, Eloc may have taken it a bit too far with his warnings, but still Lussh/Liche has said he will not follow policy because he thinks it's childish and stupid. It may only be GWW:SIGN for now, but still. On top of that, his entire ranting paragraph looks to be pretty much one long NPA violation again Eloc. I don't disagree with Eloc's ban, since he did push to far after told to lay off, but I think Lussh/Liche should be reprimanded as well, if for nothing else the NPA violation.--Pyron Sy 01:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and resolved. I'm seeing several GWW:SIGN issues that Eloc's been raising at other users. I'll try an amendment proposal soon. -- ab.er.rant 07:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As per GWW:DICK, Eloc's in the wrong here. Armond 08:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As per GWW:Non-existant policies don't apply here, you lose. As per GWW:GWW policies don't apply anymore either, Eloc loses -elviondale (tahlk) 12:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to Tanaric to discuss his blocking of Eloc; however in regards to Lussh: what exactly do you want me to block them for? Upon being asked to be more polite, they agreed to be more polite. Why should I be tossing out blocks when a situation can be resolved without them? WRT policy violations, I see no violation of the spirit of GWW:SIGN here, and any violation of the letter is a tenuous one that really doesn't have enough of an effect to justify making an issue of it. Whether or not Lussh should be blocked has nothing to do with whether or not Eloc is blocked, this isn't a "tit for tat" system where we compare blocks among users. Lussh's initial response was provoked (given that the matter had already been discussed and mostly settled prior to Eloc bringing it up) and was, if you look at it, not aimed at a particular user, but the wiki policies in general, which honestly makes a certain amount of sense when you examine exactly how much trouble has been stirred up by attempting to be so restrictive. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aiiane. It's up to the SysOps to decide the best way to deal with NPA vios, and if he agrees to calm down, situation resolved. Not that I think Aberrant is any more in the wrong. The personal attack on BeX wasn't of the milder sort. Backsword 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Tanaric and Eloc can discuss the block, and work it out. Good. But isn't this just a bit of a double standard, as Eloc is blocked for trying to uphold a policy? All of us try to uphold even the smallest details in policies (user image, sig images, etc. to name two). So Eloc goes off trying to be a good wiki-citizen by telling Liche/Lussh to sign in as person X to sign as person X, and sign in as person Y to sign as person Y depending on which account he uses, and he gets blasted for being out of line and being too finicky despite the fact that all of us are on the wiki. The pot's calling the kettle black. Sure Eloc got pissed off, but because Liche/Lussh wouldn't simply be on account X while signing for account X, or on account Y while signing as account Y to avoid confusion in elections and debates, etc. Maybe half the users on the wiki should be blocked for trying to make people follow simple policies. This isn't so much as an argument to unblock Eloc as it's giving reasons for something like this not to happen again. And Backsword, I agree that SysOps ultimately make the decisions, but the situation isn't resolved if nothing is done about the situation (Liche/Lussh's signature) in the first place. So, in closing, I ask admins to consider people's motives a bit more before blocking people, and for all the people on the wiki in general to comply with the policies, and instead of disrupting to make a point, maybe calmly following the policy for the time being, then stating your case on the policy talk page and seeing if it can be changed. Calor (t) 20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We, as users, are somewhat trusted to the task of informing other users about policies, and warn them about policy breaches. The problem is that some users (i have seen Eloc fall on this several times) feel that they should not only warn, but also enforce policies, and instead of posting a report here, they just keep going on what ends sometimes in a personal war against a user. Maybe, same as with 1rr, we should implement a "One warning rule"?... that, or maybe we can make those few users understand that, if their warnings are ignored, they should just report instead of insist?.--Fighterdoken 20:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Calor, I very much took Eloc's motives into account when I blocked him. He has on many occasions created issues where there were none. The ultimate goal of policies on the wiki is to maintain a positive collaborative environment. Eloc's actions have quite often been anti-community, and I believe they were anti-community in this case.

In any case, this is not the appropriate place to talk about this. Consider moving this discussion to my talk page. There's an existing thread about it there -- feel free to merge as you find appropriate.

—Tanaric 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I trust your decision in Eloc's case. No need to argue this any more unless someone else has other valid complaints. Calor (t) 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

so i herd u liek trolin? — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 04:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

203.124.131.68 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Block expired, it came back. Needs reblocking. — † Eloc † 08:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

203.126.25.170 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot... on a massive level.--Fighterdoken 02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming 02:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Skakid9090 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

See [2]. Totally not necessary and I think its safe to assume that this falls under 'patently offensive' -elviondale (tahlk) 06:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And [3]. Perhaps on a mission to get a ban? -elviondale (tahlk) 06:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Second one may just be a joke (unless Erasculio claims otherwise), but first one is a copy of this, from a previously banned user.--Fighterdoken 06:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Was for future reference, sry. Joke was because I was bored x_x — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 06:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It matters little "what it was for", that does not belong on this wiki period. Do not post any such similar content again or you will be blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

k. — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am not letting you get away with a warning for that story, be it for future reference or whatever, that kind of thing never ever belongs here. This is not the first time you have been banned for attacking Gaile. Please think about your actions for a few days. --Lemming 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Aww, it was deleted completly. I didn't even get to see it =S — ク Eloc 貢 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That Maybe? Lord of all tyria 22:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

lol skakid who's the one getting banned now? --Cursed Angel 22:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[4] Made his presence known on the GW2 NOTICE as well. -elviondale (tahlk) 22:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol@this. /disagree Armond 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

74.208.44.213 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish bot.--Fighterdoken 03:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. -- ab.er.rant 03:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

82.199.191.231 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

~ SCobra 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned by Anja. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He didn't stop after being warned. — ク Eloc 貢 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

See the block log for details. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

82.173.62.118 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

~ SCobra 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned - anja 22:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Armond (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

removal requests should be directed to an admin -- I request the removal of the personal attack against me at Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Tanaric. — ク Eloc 貢 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious Eloc... -- scourge 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you deny that that is an accurate assessment of the situation, if biased? Because that's all it is. Armond 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Scourge, but I am serious. I find it quite rude and ignorant. It also clearly violates GWW:NPA. — ク Eloc 貢 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if we could remove every negative thing that had ever been said about us? Well, unfortunately, Eloc, this isn't a perfect world and sometimes you just have to suck it up and ignore people. In my opinion, your constant getting in a huff over every single little thing that people say about you creates more drama than it solves. That's life, so either deal with it, or don't participate in it. Kokuou 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

On IRC, Eloc has told me he considers my remark "disparaging", as the NPA policy calls it. (Log available on request.) If one would ask me, I would say that "QQ" is not "disparaging", and those who think it is are going to run into it plenty much anyway (heck, you probably will even if you don't think that). Armond 06:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Armond, if Eloc feels that it's a personal attack and has made a complaint against it, could you be accommodating and reword it to just refer or link to that incident rather than Eloc's person? It is rude and a bit unfair because the primary proponent of that issue is an anonymous user, not Eloc. -- ab.er.rant 07:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"QQ" is not disparaging. That's like saying "complain" is disparaging... Besides, even if it was, it's not a personal attack. If it was disparaging, it would be disparaging towards Eloc's actions, not his person. --— Edru/QQ 07:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, so Eloc went QQing taken from RFA page

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. from NPA

It is as unacceptable for anyone to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action as it is to attack any other user. more from NPA — ク Eloc 貢 07:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Eloc. :/ --71.229 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I could care less about how "foolish" or "boorish" you've been in the past. This is just more NPA-happiness. Armond 07:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Eloc, behavior like this makes people hate you. Admins are not interested in protecting you from yourself and your own reputation.

Armond, rephrase please -- it doesn't hurt anything. The fact that Eloc doesn't understand the nuances of "QQ" isn't worth fighting over.

—Tanaric 08:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone already hates me. Simple as that. — ク Eloc 貢 08:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when was that a good reason to stop trying? -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 08:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since always? When someone already hates you, then don't tend to go back from hating you. — ク Eloc 貢 08:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this conversation. You can discuss your status with the community on your or another's talk page. —Tanaric 08:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Already have it on my userpage. — ク Eloc 貢 08:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well. At your request, Tanaric, it has been done. Armond 09:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

76.25.2.1 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

looks like a bot -- Brains12 • Talk • 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

may be a legitimate user messing around, will wait and see if more random edits are forthcoming. --Lemming 19:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned. I highly doubt it is a bot. — ク Eloc 貢 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, the first edit I saw looked rather botlike, but his more recent contributions look like a human vandal. -- Brains12 • Talk • 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be non-botlike, but still not constructive, have given a proper warning, that was less than helpful eloc. --Lemming 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

the rest of this conversation has

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard#Vandalism template --Lemming 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

81.180.65.2 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Looks like a bot. --Doll 04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. -- ab.er.rant 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

80.87.131.100 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & 63.238.216.253 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

— ク Eloc 貢 07:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. —Tanaric 07:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

210.22.158.132 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Bot -- Brains12 • Talk • 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

bloc.. poke | talk 21:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's back. Calor (t) 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again. -- Gordon Ecker 03:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

200.51.208.38 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

And another -- Brains12 • Talk • 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

..ked poke | talk 21:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BjnZ0n (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Linkspamming. Lord of all tyria 14:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, forever - anja 14:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

125.33.54.227 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Looks like they are starting to do more than just random gibberish at the beggining of an article. — ク Eloc 貢 04:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw something similar a few weeks back, maybe two months. They don't like apostrophes and commas. Calor (t) 04:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 07:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Same pattern as always, don't you remember them messing with your sig Eloc? :P - anja 11:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks rather like a bot script which does not support UTF.. poke | talk 06:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol... so it does more "damage" because it's less effective, that's rather funny. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 08:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

80.250.210.12 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberbot -- AT(talk | contribs) 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. -- ab.er.rant 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Syshiran (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spam -- AT(talk | contribs) 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Treating it as link spammer. Infinite block. -- ab.er.rant 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

212.181.230.3 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberbot --Kakarot 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. -- ab.er.rant 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

218.84.25.250 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spam-a-bot. Calor (t) 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

BLocked - BeX 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

198.173.203.7 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Add another. Calor (t) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. - BeX 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

203.169.17.146 (talk • contribs • logs • block log), 210.19.71.60 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) and 194.244.33.11 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberbots. --Doll 12:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 12:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

211.38.131.22 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

And another. --Doll 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 12:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

213.180.95.196 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) - 213.143.2.206 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberbot --Kakarot 13:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC) and another --Kakarot 13:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 14:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

203.94.61.143 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Keeps removing talk page content in violation of GWW:USER instead of archiving it as appropriate. Nbajammer 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I directed them to archive the talk page to keep it clean since they aren't permitted to blank it. I think user was merely confused on how to "hide" talk page content. I even provided a link so they can paste it in. Nbajammer 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have solved in a good way :) - anja 08:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Des on trentes (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Repeated blanking of Wammo, previously warned. - HeWhoIsPale 13:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Corsair Captain (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Repeated posting of incorrect information. -- Almighty Cow 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Level 1 warned. — ク Eloc 貢 01:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Level 1? About three people know your warning system, Eloc. Calor (t) 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Calor here, please don't cite some arbitrary system you created on a common page. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridicilous. Your latest "no original research" etc are horrible. Instead of doing good for the wiki they actually prevent people from posting stuff. -- (gem / talk) 02:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Eloc, please refrain from using Wikipedia templates that you don't understand the meaning of. Remove the part about "original research" as its meaning on a real-world encyclopedia is different from a game encyclopedia. If we disallow research, then we're disallowing things like drop rate and salvage rate research. Don't throw such terms at other users without properly defining them, especially not to new users who might be driven away. -- ab.er.rant 05:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, some of Wikipedia's warning form letters would work well here, but this isn't one of them. -- Gordon Ecker 08:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pfff I got a "don't change articles without talking it in the talkpage, you waste other users time 'cause they have to fix it, and it could be considered vandalism" message in wikipedia for adding a missing period. WTF?reanor 17:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I deleted that no original one. — ク Eloc 貢 01:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing periods can be very troublesome, y'know --Snograt 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

221.208.174.223 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberbot. - Oscidaes 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. - Tanetris 02:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, they're getting smarter. — ク Eloc 貢 07:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty soon they'll have your entire username figured out, down to the last bit of Katakana and Kanji. :D -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 08:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh shit! Run! — ク Eloc 貢 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

190.3.28.120 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandal, please ban him >.< Bigrat2 09:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. - BeX 09:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaile Gay (talk • contribs • logs • block log) and Izzy Cartwright (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Wow, just wow. Impersonating Gaile and Izzy, while using their sigs and redirecting their sigs to Gaile and Izzy's actual pages. Kokuou 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked. - anja 21:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aww, I thought someone was actually reporting Gaile and Izzy. — ク Eloc 貢 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SnowBunny (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalism, see here as well. --Kakarot 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. -- Gordon Ecker 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

86.136.217.123 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalism --Kakarot 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Dealt with. MisterPepe talk 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

77.220.179.20 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberish on Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship and Guild_Wars_Wiki:Policy -elviondale (tahlk) 06:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked - anja 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

192.87.54.66 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Blanking-gibberling. - HeWhoIsPale 13:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned. - anja 13:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

148.244.251.246 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

gibberling. - HeWhoIsPale 15:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked -- Brains12 • Talk • 16:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

91.194.4.141 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberbot --Kakarot 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked -- Brains12 • Talk • 16:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

193.145.56.193 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibbot --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

220.134.110.231 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibbbot --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

81.26.157.11 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibbbbot --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Got those three. - anja 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

62.193.226.136 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibbbbbot. Have fun, Anja. Calor (t) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

;) Got it. - anja 20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

222.221.6.144 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Errr... not sure if this is the right place to post this, but just had to revert this IP's last change as it was just random letters tacked onto the front of an article, checked its history and its got 9 changes over the past 3 months and they are all just random letter strings at the start of articles. Not sure what thats all about. -- Salome 11:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

oh i think its called a gibberbot! Yay me, I learned something new today! -- Salome 11:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what we call a gibber bot :) Blocked the IP for 3 months now, seeing as it has only been used for bot vandalism since september. - anja 11:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound dense but what do gibberbots do apart from putting a random strong of text at the start of everything? Like its vaguely annoying and im sure if your an Admin/Sysop who has to block them all it's REALLY annoying, but like its not the most disruptive thing in the whole wide world. Just wondering if the bot has some higher purpose than just to be mildly annoying? Oh and speedy as ever Anja! :) -- Salome 12:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea really.. Before some of these IP's removed +'s and altered characters in the pages (gibber bots do that too sometimes, seems they can't handle non-Latin characters). We have speculated it's some kind of bot script gone wrong, like a link spammer or so, the gibber being a try to get past CAPTCHA. But it may also be someone thinking gibber spamming random wikis is alot of fun :P - anja 12:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

74.61.121.163 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

[[5]] don't know anything about gibberbot stuff but i don't think this kind of thing is acceptable. lussh 15:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's not a gibberbot - that's yer plain, common-or-garden, ignorant vandal. --Snograt 16:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Level 1" warned, keep this space updated if he does it again. -- Brains12 • Talk • 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Errrr... what's "level 1 warned" when it's at home? -- Salome 16:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's a reference to Eloc. Look above to Corsair Captain or on the talk page, and it may make a little more sense. -- Brains12 • Talk • 16:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

LoL. — ク Eloc 貢 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

84.233.233.41 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & 85.136.20.103 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Both this and the one above gibberbots. — Galil 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

both blocked 3 minutes ago. poke | talk 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

218.202.7.231 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & 61.150.66.18 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibbots. — Galil 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Got them :) - anja 20:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

202.84.17.42 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

More gibberish -- Hong 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rolled back and blocked. - BeX 10:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

222.235.64.181 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Yet more gibberish -- Hong 02:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

64.61.84.2 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & 222.235.64.182 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Couple of gibberbots Nbajammer 06:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked. - BeX 06:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

202.115.130.23 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberbot. — Galil 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked - Tanetris 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

66.98.250.59 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

— ク Eloc 貢 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Gordon Ecker 06:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

58.172.195.113 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Gibberbot. --Kakarot 04:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a regular vandal to me. Warned. - BeX 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)