Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Archive 2

222.153.236.223 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Tho interesting comments, not quite the place here -elviondale (tahlk) 06:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. -- Gordon Ecker 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

...and sent him right over to Guildwiki by doing so ;). I have the feeling our special friend Slinky is back. --84-175 (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

AsuRog (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spamming links on Goren. --Gummy Joe 21:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Third offense. Teh Banz0rs. MisterPepe talk 22:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

GgzHj5 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Another link spammer... --Valshia 22:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked before you posted ;) MisterPepe talk 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

lol --Valshia 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Be0Oit (talk • contribs • logs • block log) & GrnZqe (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

link spammers -Smurf 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

75.47.124.147 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Massive link spamming of Trial by Fire. - HeWhoIsPale 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Argh edit conflict, you beat me to it ;( --Gummy Joe 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, you beat me to fixing the article. - HeWhoIsPale 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

84.169.149.196 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Minor vandal. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Left a message on the talk page, seems to have been a test edit. MisterPepe talk 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WakEzd (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link spammer.--Gummy Joe 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - anja 21:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

and this one Qq6H4f. Kinda strange how each user name only edits one article. -Smurf 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also blocked. And yes, it is a bit odd. - anja 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice we're getting a spate of these? 6 characters in the names, random alpha-numerics, first and fourth capitalised? --Snograt 21:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

user:BxhVnc is a link spammer. How do i revert Guild:Zealots Of Shiverpeak? --Primeval 21:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. For future reference; use history, compare, then undo. Backsword 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you --Primeval 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Or press the "diff" link in the redent changes, then you can see a "undo" link at the top right part of the screen.
Spammer blocked. - anja 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ue4Ulh (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

link spammer. Is there a way to find out when a username was created? I wonder if they were created before the the CAPTCHAs. -Smurf 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

These are old accounts that were already banned for a month once. Linkspaming the same article. Automated retries, I'd think. Backsword 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 23:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ck5R9y (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

link spammer. -Smurf 02:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

CvrI08 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

A link spammer returns. Think I reported him last month too. --Valshia 07:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked already ;) - anja 07:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe permabans for link spammers? They're never going to contribute anything to the wiki. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Their IPs might, if reassigned. Backsword

TuaPbk (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link Spammer --Gummy Joe 10:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming 11:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

CeaAmk (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

More link spammers ;) --Gummy Joe 12:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked --Lemming 12:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

124.171.173.164 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalized Andrew Patrick and other pages which have been reverted. --Primeval 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• He's already been warned by Anja and continues to vandalize --Primeval 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- ab.er.rant 01:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Primeval 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another Goon squad member or groupie I guess. --Lemming 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Raptors (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Getting sick of this users attitude, obviously that is not enough but for a ban however I have asked him 3 times now to remove the offensive message from his user page including removing it once myself. This has now resulted in: [1]. Obviously now he has targeted me it would be a conflict of interest for me to ban this user. If anyone else would like to consider the evidence I would appreciate it. --Lemming 00:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. No need for a ban. Sorry. --- Raptors

I think it's a bit late for that now Raptors. -- Scourge 01:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats that supposed to mean? --- Raptors

It's not that hard to interpret Raptors. Lemming64 gave you so many chances to fix your userpage, yet only when he put you up on the Admin noticeboard did you decide to change it... -- Scourge 01:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I could have just left it, but didn't. But its not up to you to block me or not now is it? --- Raptors

Posting here to try and stop the conversation for a moment. I'll post my response shortly. MisterPepe talk 01:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it and apologized. What more do you want? --- Raptors

(Reset indent) After looking into the situation, I'd like to go though a few points quickly.

• The message in question was a violation of GWW:USER. According to that same policy, Lemming64 was allowed and encouraged to remove it.
• Scourge, he did change it to something that he felt would comply with policy. Looking at the talk page comments (and the updated flashing message), it appears that Raptors thought that the language was what Lemming was objecting to.
• Raptors, you and I have clashed in the past, specifically regarding vandalism. I'm still not a big fan of the way that you handle things around here, but I have to thank you for actually making positive contributions of late. It's a big improvement.
• While there has been a certain degree of... friction... between Raptors and other users of late, including minor policy breaches and a general argumentative nature, I don't think that we've crossed the line into GWW:NPA yet.
• At the top of this page, it states, "Do not post here in regard to content matters or user disputes." This was a policy violation (which was taken care of), but I personally do not think that this is an issue that falls under Sysop jurisdiction. Isn't this sort of thing that we have BCrats for?

My personal judgement: I do not see grounds for a block at this particular time. Lemming, I would recommend that you bring it to ArbComm attention - at this point, the policy violation has been taken care of, which makes the rest of this case a user issue. While he may have an "attitude" that grates against other users here, I do not see (other than the flashy message thing) his actions as a policy violation.
Other admins, agree/disagree? MisterPepe talk 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, and was wondering how to word my response, but you explained it nicely. User Raptors behavior and responses on talk pages almost always try to provoke and taunt other users. But there are no specific breaches of policy that I feel would warrant a ban. At least, not yet. -- ab.er.rant 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There was another issue here that resulted in two personal attacks by said user. So Raptors has been warned about breaking a different policy before. I apologise for the mis-use of the noticeboard. I forgot about that stipulation. I would have given raptors a temporary ban myself for 3 times breaking the same policy whilst being warned however I felt as the third breaking was directed at me I felt that was a conflict of interest. However now the comment has been removed I am happy to leave this issue be, so long as Raptors does not further break policy knowingly. --Lemming 01:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I must ask though, was the first flashing message I had removed because it said fuck in it or because it said "Get the fuck out of my userpage"? --- Raptors

I removed it because of this stipulation in GWW:USER

Content restrictions - These are absolutely not permitted in any form - Material patently offensive to others, including ArenaNet's competitors.

The message was blatantly offensive to anyone looking at your userpage with or without the swear word, There are obviously different degrees of offensiveness, This was blatent. --Lemming 02:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) GWW:USER states that "material patently offensive to others" is not permitted on userpages.

It was the content of the message - we don't have a policy that says "Don't swear. Ever." MisterPepe talk 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But lets say I, for instance, just had a curse word flashing in the banner, would you have removed it? --- Raptors

Can I have a link please? --- Raptors

A more exact link? Sure: GWW:USER#Content_restrictions.

I'd really rather not get into hypothetical questions at the moment. The problem that I personally have with the comment is one of context, rather than having any sort of colonial sensibilities offended so easily. There is a large difference between (for example) "F*** you all, I'm going home" and "I have no idea what the f*** is going on." One is offensive, the other is not. I would still recommend that you avoid the non-offensive one, though - while not technically a policy breach, it's still somewhat unlikely to help you make friends =P

Hope that helps. MisterPepe talk 02:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant a link to the policy: dont swear. ever. I misread what you wrote. Also, making friends isnt what I'm trying to do here. I'll keep my real friends instead of trying to make e-friends. --- Raptors

Wow, I seemed to have missed alot of stuff here. Anyways, from what I could dig up from this convo, not sure if I'm missing anything here, the swear words on his page are allowed as swearing isn't against the rules, it just seems to be frowned upon...or did they change the policy?--§ Eloc § 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the context not the swear words. --Lemming 10:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

200.204.148.140 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

+ removing vandal. - HeWhoIsPale 14:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have stopped after that one go. I'm keeping an eye on it though. - BeX 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

81.99.144.112 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

removing vandal.--Gummy Joe 11:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

122.148.134.208 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Poo is not nice. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

He was warned and stopped his vandalism theres no reason to ban him unless he vandals again. --Primeval Talk 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine, he still should be watched- so I bring it on the noticeboard. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyotyo9 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vang3rgfhygvye3hgerdal. --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Might just not know what he's doing. Backsword 10:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be my guess too. I'll try to ask. - anja 10:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading Anja's comment (he used sandbox) he still vandalizes everything... Chriskang 10:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be directly mean to em, but it seems he's just very very ignorant, he's trying to contribute and figure things out.. just doing it in a horrible way. -- Txzeenath 11:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

74.102.178.170 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

no u! --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just one occasion so far, I'll keep an eye on him. - anja 15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Two, they also created a spam article that was deleted. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This IP is back and has vandalized again. I'm going to sleep so someone else will have to watch them. :P (That second article they made was called Ur Face or something and was nonsense and got deleted). - BeX 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on the talk page. - anja 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AnoZhz (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Spambot. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked. poke | talk 15:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kstarheel042 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Love the first map picture, but its not a map -elviondale (tahlk) 18:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted but there is no need for a block as the user is informed. poke | talk 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit)... And as it's not real vandalism.. I will keep an eye on him. poke | talk 18:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

>.< What category would that be? -elviondale (tahlk) 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

2nd map uploaded under the same name, this time some weird black image that wouldn't thumbnail, I deleted as a corrupt image. --Lemming 19:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Riven (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments/Draft 070731#Clearly showing username

76.104.221.85 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link Spam.--Gummy Joe 16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just one occasion, and not in the same way as before. I'll keep an eye out for more. - anja 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

They must of found a new way of doing it ;)--Gummy Joe 16:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Spamming is still spamming though. -- ab.er.rant 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

TtvQss (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

One of those link spaming bots. Backsword 14:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - anja 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

203.81.29.204 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Ampersand bot. Backsword 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - anja 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sailors (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

No explanation necessary, glance through contribs. NPA vios on scourge's talk page after being made aware of the policy. -Auron 04:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 day. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Article: Way of the Master

As of the full release of the game, this skill has since been renamed back to it's original form, "Way of the Warrior". Normally, this would be a simple task of using the Move feature to shunt it all over, but the original Way of the Warrior page is still intact, and redirects. The only way to move the page is via admin; the original page will need to be deleted, before the current page can be moved into it's place. I'm not sure on the exact process, which is why I'm noting the issue here. -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 04:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I believe I got all the redirect pages too. --Rainith 04:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you could just edit both pages and do a manual switch-a-roo. ;) -- ab.er.rant 09:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Move is preferable, since it preserves the page history (and thus, the attribution). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, but since that redirect isn't likely to get deleted, the history is still being preserved, albeit on separate pages. It's just a way to "move" that all users can perform. -- ab.er.rant 04:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to this subject, they've switched the in-game name BACK to Way of the Master. Who wants the pleasure of switching it back again? -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back. Now would ANet please stop changing the name on this skill.  :) --Rainith 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Raptors (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Yet again he/she is pushing the boundaries, they had a false "new message" notification on their page linking to Goatse (Thanks to Smurf I was able to find out what it was without actually clicking it). I thought I'd bring it up here because no doubt there is going to be some type of repercussions. -- Scourge 08:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Goatse?--§ Eloc § 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do a google search I'm sure you'll find out what it is. A warning that it is most definitely NSFW.

On the subject of this though, is linking to porn bannable under the user page policy? --Rainith 08:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Rainith, Eloc is under 18, he can't legally view it. More information about it is here Eloc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx. I just saw offensive content on the userpage policy, I'm sure it's covered under that. -- Scourge 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya, doesn't sound like I want to view it anyways lol. I think it's worth a ban as it's an illegal link for people under 18.--§ Eloc § 08:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Faking the "You have a new message box" to link to porn that is horrific is absolutely not going to be tolerated. He has been warned about pushing boundaries more times than I can count and in my book this is going to get him a time out. That image is not even porn, it is just plain nasty. --Lemming 11:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - 1 day --Lemming 11:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have left a warning on his talk page. I did not feel confident he should be blocked immediately, as I found this to be the first real policy violation on his part, just pointing out policy loopholes before. - anja 11:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Raptors' consistently disruptive behaviour warranted grounds for a block rather than a warning this time around. If this user was well behaved and the link was not added as an intentional provocation then a warning would have been fine. This user has repeatedly shown that they have no common courtesy towards other wiki users and exploited flaws in policies to get away with very questionable behaviour. They have already added content to their user page which is in violation with the Guild Wars websites Rules of Conduct and this link is also in breach of that agreement. - BeX 12:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Gaile_Gray#GW:EN_Armors

Might I suggest that someone move this discussion to a subpage of Gaile's user namespace? User_talk:Gaile Gray/GW:EN Armors (Currently @ lunchbreak at work, so I can't do it myself and I also wanted more input on such a move. The discussion has a tendency to become quite large IMO.) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 10:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of courtesy I think you should be asking Gaile whether or not to do that. No other user should be editing someone else's talk page except to leave comments, etc, and sysops certainly don't have any more right to than a normal user. - BeX 11:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with asking Gaile, that's a given. (I also asked Kurd to make a comment on Linsey's page when he archived her talkpage.) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page & copyedit

Just a little note to our admins to keep syncing the copyedit more often. It also helps if you edit main page changes into the copyedit and then sync instead of editing the main page directly. --Xeeron 09:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

71.165.250.61 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalizing several articles with "Charge!" and then claiming he didn't know what he was doing. I don't think you can accidently vandalize that many articles the same way by accident...--§ Eloc § 04:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. The same IP was also vandalising GuildWiki and blocked there as well. -- ab.er.rant 05:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving Death With Honor

It should be moved over to Death with Honor which already exists. -Smurf 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

done. poke | talk 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot account

Biro wanted me to post it anywhere, so I ask here. I request the bot flag for my bot account (name was decided in IRC :P). I will use the python framework ("unless I don't make my own one o.O") and want to help on the bot project (and the coming "equipped appearance" removal). poke | talk 21:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikichu, I choose you! (Interpret this as meaning that I am giving Wikichu bot status, please let me know if you have any objections, or alternatively challenge Wikichu with your own Pokébot.) LordBiro 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope your bot tags all those images for deletion, I will not be a happy bunny if the unused image list jumps another 500 :p --Lemming 21:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Auto-tag unused images? Hm, nice idea ^^ will think about this :)

Thank you, Biro :) poke | talk 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah just the ones from the removal of equipped appearance. The other unused images need to be sorted manually really as some can be given homes. I would say that the ones preceded by Guild or User could be auto tagged though as almost all of them are simply abandoned. --Lemming 21:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah yeah, that will be - of course - be done :P poke | talk 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just tag the ones you are making unused with removing the galleries. I don't think autotag for unused is great. - anja 21:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Raptors (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

This user just admitted he is the user who created at least some of the following accounts here, here, here, and here., one of which has a permanent ban. Therefore he is dodging that ban with this account. I believe the ban should be reviewed and possibly re-instated as avoiding a ban is not acceptable. --Lemming 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I responded to this at User talk:Santax. You're reading into things wrong. --- Raptors / RAAA!

I think I read pretty clearly "Yea me and my buddy were the ones who did all that, and we got banned for it too" --Lemming 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have read it the same way, Raptors. And I don't think I mind if your buddy created the accounts if you used them together. You are still circumventing a permaban. - anja 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I guess I should have been clearer. *Ahem* Me and my friend ,at his house, on his computer, where he made the accounts and did all of the vandalizing, were the ones who did all that, and he got banned for it too. Weeks later at my own house on my own computer after all of that was over, I made the Raptors account and decided to contribute positively while being as big of a dick as possible. --- Raptors / RAAA!

LoL, so you couldn't tell that the accounts were made by him/he was associated with it?--§ Eloc § 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's more a matter of reasonable doubt, and assuming good faith, Eloc. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough for any other user to pick a random user on the Wiki and make fake accounts based off their username, Eloc. Better to be skeptical about everything then to jump to conclusions. -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All the accounts that were perma banned have nothing to do with me. The only time I vandalized I was banned and waited it out, I believe the longest I had to wait was 2 weeks. I don't have an open proxy like my friend does. I never bypassed any blocks because its not possible for me to do so. --- Raptors / RAAA!

90.156.169.224 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Telemarketing spam I suppose is the best term for it. - HeWhoIsPale 17:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. - anja 17:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

194.44.23.190 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Vandalizing. Looks like spamming links and making it look like content. Blocked once already. -Smurf 19:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

StcDk6 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Link Spamming, repeat offender. --Valshia 03:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked - 4EVA - BeX 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eloc Jcg/Builds

Mind remaking it for me please with history intact?--§ Eloc § 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy. MisterPepe talk 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ty, XD. I got the idea to put all my guilds builds on PvX wiki but I'm to lazy for that lol.--§ Eloc § 21:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

218.80.215.231 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Ampersand bot. -- AT(talk | contribs) 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)