Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 9

Stéphane Lo Presti, new French GW CM

Hi wiki Admins, I'm the new French GW CM and I'd like to take this opportunity to say a very special hello to your dedicated team. (thanks Auron for passing by my talkpage) I also want to apologize for my newness to this wiki, its culture and technical working.

A few things I'd like to ask if you come accross them: - I've asked this discussion to be stopped http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Feedback_talk:Stephane_Lo_Presti#Bienvenue Feel free to enforce this - the anonymous message posted from 86.74.120.226 contains vulgar language (against the wiki chart)

Again thanks for your work and I'm really looking forward to working with you Stephane Lo Presti 09:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. And I'll try to take a look at the issue, but my french is mediocre. Do we have any sysops with better french around? --Xeeron 10:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Kakarot or Gordon Ecker? Canadians are often advanced in the French language.. -- Cyan 10:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's really not that bad, the original topic derailed into a bunch of users bickering about a fan-site and whether or not it condones violations of the EULA (bots and other third party programs), viruses and whatnot (sound familiar?). There's one vulgar phrase (which even non-French speaking users should be able to spot). It did quickly get off-topic, very similar to any other staff page. I think this is going to be an interesting addition to the staff... -- FreedomBound 12:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Chrome gives a pretty clear translation of the page. I can't vouch for its accuracy (because I don't speak French), but it was easily readable. In fact, I had difficulty distinguishing the French translation from what had been originally posted in English. is for Raine, etc. 18:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, we don't censor vulgar language. Thanks! NuVII 14:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I just thought I'd clarify something: I'm not expecting you to do anything about the French text that is and will be in the talkpages (but you're managing the wiki so feel free to do it anyway). Like Martin does for his German pages, I'll simply manage the few things happening there. But I'm not expecting another "indicent" and I must apologize about the previous one. Stephane Lo Presti 22:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ray of Judgement

I propose that the sysop's protect this page indefinitly. It has a Vandal history that rivals Dancing Daggers and it doesn't look like its going to be stopping anytime soon. --Master Briar 15:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It all seems under control I think. — Why 15:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Filing a report

Hello. I'm here to file a report, and this is where I was told to go. I posted a suggestion/discussion in the Bloodstone Fen talk area, only to get a very rude comment by someone telling me to "shut the fuck up". The person who said it has harassed me on various other sites (though I know that has nothing to do with this), but I don't think it's right for that to be on here. In fact, I believe it's strictly against the rules. So I'm reporting this. The link to it is here. Thank you. Tender Wolf 22:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not an admin issue. We have no policies against being rude. If you have a problem with Mini Me, that's something for you two to sort out between yourselves. — Why 19:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, did you just say you have no policies against being rude? --Master Briar 19:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a policy against personal attacks. Shut the fuck up is not a personal attack. It is a command. - Mini Me talk 20:00, 11 April 2010

I strongly agree with Briar in this case. "Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in comments to other contributors." would seem to fit. There was no need for the comment, as it was solely profanity. G R E E N E R 20:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

K really, if your trying to wikilawyer your way out of this, its just sad. Very sad. You can argue over the word of the policy all you want but anyone could tell that was a personal attack. You were rude, abrasive, profane, and impetuous in that comment. Not that I actually care. You not being banned for this would only serve to make me more smug about how I feel about 90% of the admins here. But thats a discussion for another place/time. --Master Briar 20:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

:< - Mini Me talk 20:13, 11 April 2010

Yeahh... We don't really care about them fucking policies. The admin team so graciously consults one of them magic eight balls to determine which one of us fine folk will get the rude and mean end of a banstick.

On a much related note Briar, STFU. Thanks! NuVII 20:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Love you too sweetheart. --Master Briar 20:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'll elaborate on my decision here, since my previous post seems to have resulted in some confusion. While I don't agree with the way Mini Me expressed himself, no policies were broken, and I'm not willing to utilize discretion and block him for what is, to my knowledge, the first time he is rude or hostile to Tender Wolf (I'm a wiki admin, and judge based on wiki communication). If I blocked everyone who occasionally displays hostility on this site, we would have very few contributors left.
That being said, when said hostility or rudeness turns out to be disruptive to the wiki as a whole I will block the disruptive user. — Why 20:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Why here that this single incident isn't to the point of a bannable offense. If MM were to stalk TW and respond to every post made with STFU or something similar that would be disruptive and harassing, but a single incident (that I can see) wouldn't fall under that. --Rainith 21:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your serious? I make an inside joke with a friend about homosexuality and thats bannable, but blatantly telling someone to shut the fuck up is okay?

My smug meter has just hit critical mass. :> --Master Briar 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bans are only meted out to those who are not part of the GWW clusterfuck. I was once handed a ban because I said most gamer girls i've run into aren't attractive xD It doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, if a GWW admin decides that you aren't part of the circle jerk you'll get a block.--TahiriVeila 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. For once you said something that I agree with. I think I'm gonna have to put this down somewhere. "the day hell froze over" sound like a good enough title to you? --Master Briar 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I have been harassed by the person, just on other sites, so of course that wouldn't be a matter here. But I'll be keeping my eyes open. I agree with Briar. Tender Wolf 22:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been trollbait on other sites, too. That doesn't mean the admins are going to ride to your defense like white knights on stallions, it means you need to learn how to ignore trolls. -Auron 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OMG shut the fuck up and block him for a day. ThrainFile:User Thrain Sig.pngcontribs 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OMG shut the fuck up -Cursed Angel 22:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference, Briar, is that you're bad. <3 -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the site is, for some stupid reason, whenever anyone sees my name they immediately say "hey that's a good person to troll and flame!", and they always get away with it. Sorry but I don't think that's right. And as Briar pointed out, it is against the rules. Tender Wolf 02:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what rule you are referring to. As has been pointed out, telling someone to shut up is no a personal attack, so it doesn't apply. Unfortunately there is no "don't be a troll" rule here, so there really is nothing that can be done by the admins. Best advice, don't feed the trolls by complaining about them. -- Wyn talk 02:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, that handle invites sticking a fork in you to see just how 'tender' you are. I suspect that you think it's a come-on to the ladies, but it is more like waving a red flag at a bull... --Max 2 03:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tender Wolf is actually a lady. (Unless you're trying to imply something?) --RIDDLE 03:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) oh my god wyn that is the single biggest fucking crock of bullshit Ive heard this week. Theres nothing the admins can do? Its called discretion. They know damn well it was meant as a personal attack and that someone was offended. sysops can and will ban for being trolly. Even when theyre jumping at shadows. The only reason they didn't is because mini is aurons special little pet troll that lives under his own personal bridge. Its fucking sickening. Dont bullshit and say theres nothing they can do thats a gigantic load of crap. Quit sugar coating shit. --Master Briar 03:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Briar, Why already stated that he chose not to act in this situation. He exercised discretion by not blocking Mini. elix Omni 03:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am incredibly offended by the attacks against Auron and Wyn that Briar has just made and demand that he be blocked from the wiki for making them. If this does not happen I will bitch about it and make many comments about the unfairness of sysops. Thank you in advance for complying with my demands. -Faer 03:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Max, as Riddle pointed out, I'm a female, so your saying I think it's a come-on to the ladies is completely inaccurate, because I'm straight. kthx. And yeah, I guess it doesn't matter anymore. Certain people can get away with anything if they're friends with the right people. Must be nice, even though it's been stated by several people the person in question is a professional troll. Whatever, I'm used to people playing favorites, punishing the victims and doing nothing against the accused. Tender Wolf 03:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I happen to be one of their favorite targets, so I know what you are talking about, but I did get the impression that that handle was a kind of invatation... --Max 2 03:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wolf, please don't come away from this thinking that Mini Me is untouchable and will continue to troll you forever. The sysops here may be guilty of playing favorites from time to time, but they won't just ignore people's reasonable complaints. Note that Rainith and Why implied they would act if this weren't an isolated incident. elix Omni 03:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: An isolated event on the wiki. --RIDDLE 03:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite so, thank you. elix Omni 04:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok Briar, since my original response displeased you soooo much, allow me to rephrase. This wiki is run by the trolls. Any admin who attempts to bring them into line gets run out of town on a rail. Thus the better part of sysop discretion has been patterned after Pling's philosophy of how to deal with them (both before he resigned and since)... ignore them and they will move on to their next target, and berate the victims of the trolls for being over emotional, and "asking for it". I'm just jumping on the band wagon. -- Wyn talk 06:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"This wiki is run by the trolls" The sad part is that such statement has become true. I wonder were we screwed it on our way here, because 2 years ago it was a lot less problematic than now. I would like to guess it was a flaw on the original design of the wiki, that gave users (and thus, trolls) too much saying on anything, even on "dealing with trolls" issues.--Fighterdoken 07:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually quite amused at being blamed for bias in favor of Mini Me when pretty much every sysop in this section has refrained from blocking as well, each offering their own reasons as to why they didn't. Great job Briar, you sure caught me there, I can't possibly have avoided blocking him for any of those reasons, it must be because he's my PAL (even though I've insulted him several times in other places, and even had very vehement disagreements over bullshit on Guru - but ignore all that, we're best buds, right?) Such a joke.-Auron 06:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, this is ridiculous. @Briar & Tahiri: I'm not part of any "group" on this wiki, and Auron is most definitely not my buddy. - Mini Me talk 14:48, 12 April 2010

Circumventing block

"86.171.158.177 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) Is circumventing an existing block. See above post. -- Wyn talk 10:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)"

That's cause my acc got perma'd because a sysop thought I was another user's sock. :3 --86.171.158.177 10:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you should be emailing an admin, not posting on the wiki in violation of your ban. -- Wyn talk 10:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a theory that when authority is incorrect or oppressive that it becomes a person's duty to resist. However, while we both know that you are not Jake, we also both know that your main account is permanently banned from this site. The block is valid even though the reasoning is not. Misery 10:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Which you can't really prove in any way. :> --86.171.158.177 11:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

One way or another, you were circumventing your block. — Why 11:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What user? + You cant prove it. --86.150.113.220 11:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GWW:AN#FYI. — Why 12:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What made you think he's Tahiri? Or actually any other evil user. o.o; --Pewpew 12:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"That's cause my acc got perma'd" he's admitted his account was blocked, even if it was wrongly blocked he's still avoiding it. If you feel you were wrongly blocked you're supposed to e-mail the admin that blocked you, or a different admin if you'd prefer. ~ PheNaxKian 12:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant Myotheraccount. Not some another account you think I had. --86.167.229.37 12:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Myotheraccount has been blocked, and you're circumventing that block. — Why 12:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Cautious To Pursue guild undeletion

Hello! I'm asking this on behalf of a friend; his guild is still active and he'd like me to update his page, but it's been deleted, so I was wondering if you could undelete it (as it said that can be done by request here). The guild is Cautious to Pursue. Thanks! Tender Wolf 00:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It was moved to historical, I moved it back for you. You can find it here. — Why 01:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay, said it was deleted. hehe Thanks! Tender Wolf 03:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

Any page that has a yes under Resolved? on this page. have served it's purpose and should be deleted. (Unresolved oness should preferably be resolved, so don't delte those.) Backsword 10:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nathe

Recommending instant reversion of all edits he makes through proxy for the duration of his ban, by users or sysops as available. I'd also like to recommend people don't respond to anything he says if they can't be bothered reverting it themselves. Misery 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As it is written, so it shall be done. elix Omni 20:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts on a temporary protecting of his talk page so that only registered users can edit it? Lasting as long as his block (which I will be extending if he circumvents it again). I know protection locks up the wiki for a few minutes, but it may cut down on the disruption in the long run. --Rainith 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a solid idea, but I would also protect his userpage (only the first protect might disrupt the wiki for a short time though I thought they had that fixed now). -- Wyn talk 04:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumventing blocks over some obsession about a game's storyline. Really? I'm going to go ahead and protect the necessary pages, as per the anti-disruption reason. Any admin feel free to revert as you see fit. — Gares 12:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Sounds good to me. — Why 12:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

He might not do it anymore, I was talking to him ingame and he said something to that effect(I am in the same guild as him). Protection may not be necessary(unless he starts doing it again of course). --Hawk Skeer(Talk) 16:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

e-mail and other personal info revisions

could we just have a single heading for them, in the style of "Vandal issues". it's a recurring problem and looks silly to have them scattered all over the noticeboard in between much less "important" stuff like 1RR over goren's trivia. Vili 点 01:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

On the main page not including archives, it has happened twice already since mid April. I have no objections to having a single heading... would make it less scattered. --Lania Elderfire 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

NPA

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

Pornz on the above user's user page and archive box.

13 year olds should not find that on this wiki - it has nothing to do with the mission of this Wiki and the image should be removed pronto.

On other news, meow. A F K When Needed 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Im 13 and dont find it pornographic in the least. i Know what pornography is. --Neil2250 , Render Lord 16:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"

I couldn't care less what you find to be pornographic, that image is inappropriate and deserves to be removed.

gg @ Emmett for moving a warning of an inappropriate imagery directed at the admin team off the admin noticeboard A F K When Needed 16:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to make a section about inappropriate images, you should probably make a section and not stick it under one called NPA. But since delete tags are already up you'd just be wasting your time. – Emmett 16:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

wait, why shouldn't 13 year olds look at porn? and why care in the first place? how many of them besides neil are going to ever see the images? 67.159.44.103 17:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't care if they look at it. We care if they look at it here. A F K When Needed 17:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

see my last question 67.159.44.103 17:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So I heard ignoring the point is fun. A F K When Needed 17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Look up principle and precedent IP. Sardaukar 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"

You find that arousing? is for Raine, etc. 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people might.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Bureaucrats.

This is relevant. I'll abstain from getting involved further pending investigation. — Why 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to get over it. It appears to have been a mistaken block, that has been corrected, and apologized for. If the IP wishes to open an Rfc for Jon, they are welcome to do so, but there is no other reason for a bureaucratic review. -- Wyn talk 04:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the situation calls for a block review. By the bureaucrats, maybe not, by another sysop, yes. After all, that's the formal block appeal process, and while I'm not the blocking sysop of the original account, I do believe my blocks on the other three were warranted, so we're at phase two of the appeal process. If a bureaucrat (or the bureaucrats) want to investigate this directly they're welcome to do so too. I stand by my descision, as explained on Jon's talk page, but admittedly, I'm not infallible, so I think it's best to have another admin look at the situation and see if I jumped to conclusions or not. I'll provide more explanation to an investigating admin through email should I be asked to do so. — Why 06:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's Lena. People need to learn how to ignore bad trolls. -Auron 08:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want Why, I can have a look at the blocks for you but I've already been shown proof that Magikarp is Lena, which I then went and verified for myself. The only thing I would be checking is the other accounts are in fact Lena's. -- Salome 09:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's settled then. The IPs are open proxies and "Linsey m" was impersonating anyway so I don't think there's much left to review. Thanks guys. — Why 10:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Trolling (Slavers' Exile)

I made a mistake... I meant it's not copied from GWiki (which would make it a copy vio). Just where is this information from that makes it a copy vio? As far as I can tell, it's a copy/paste of Slavers' Exile, which would make the redirect the most appropriate. -- Wyn talk 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what Backsword means is that the history contains unattributed content from Slavers' Exile. I'm not sure whether attribution is necessary now that it's not the current version, but if it is necessary, it can be easily resolved by doing a "null" edit and linking to Slavers' Exile or its history. That said, it redirects to Slavers' Exile anyway...

And Jon wasn't trolling. -- pling 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The material still exists in the pages history; which is required to comply with the licence no less that other parts of the wiki. And yes, it can be solved by attributing it, but a mass attribution for material that should be there in the first place is arather silly. Revision delete, or delte recreate is a lot cleaner.

And you would say that. Backsword 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

He would say that because he's right. – Emmett 18:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use the copyvio template in this case, if it's not really an actual current-page copyvio; just talk to someone with the ability to remove revisions and get them to do it. Using the template and/or restoring the page content just creates confusion (see the OP of this section) and wastes time compared to the practical alternative. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Lania's (non)NPA

Call me crazy, but I'm not quite seeing the policy breach there...24.162.138.215 03:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bots using proxies

We see them more and more often. I propose we (admins) block them for longer terms than the average vandal. There's clearly nothing of value that would be lost. Sometimes they stop after a short block, but often they come back for more, so we might as well lengthen the time they're gone. — Why 22:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The usual response to additional violations is to more than double the previous block duration. This builds up to long bans quite quickly if it really is a bot. Since it is possible (but admittedly somewhat unlikely) to mis-identify a bot, is the initial longer ban really going to be that helpful? Would a policy that bans all known open proxies be more effective? --Max 2 22:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

project honeypot has some pretty nice IP lists. That said, certain parts of w:Wikipedia:Open proxies policy would be compatible with our wiki. --Lania Elderfire 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This does not require a new policy. The sysops are perfectly capable of blocking these bots and if they are following the proper block procedure, each additional offense should carry a longer block. -- Wyn talk 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wyn, please read. Apparently the amount of work needed to keep the bots at bay has increased. Why wanted to increase the initial block period in an effort to reduce the number of steps needed to get the needed effect. That would need a policy change. Your description of the effect of the block policy is practically identical with what I said. While the change would produce a small decrease in the SysOp work load, it really is not likely to make more than a small dent in the problem. The discussion has moved on to preemptive blocks of open proxies. That would be a new policy. That could put the SysOps ahead of the problem, but may have some drawbacks. --Max 2 04:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it would need a policy change. The only things that comes close to a blocking policy are this guideline draft and the sysop guide. Blocking falls under sysop discretion, we're free to determine the length of a block. True, customarily we lengthen consecutive blocks by one wikimedia standard block duration and start with milder blocks, but I see no reason to be nice to vandal bots. My main reasoning for this is that I've seen many return vandal bots, on which we should react by making it so they don't return as soon. Even if it has little effect, it takes exactly the same amount of effort to block an IP for one day as it does for blocking it for three months. — Why 12:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The duration guideline is informal at best. Still, anticipatory blocking of open proxies might save a lot of work, but needs discussion. --Max 2 14:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to start off with longer blocks/use longer blocks earlier for identified bots, go ahead. That's a discretionary thing, really. I'm not sure how many of the bots return, but a longer block length probably won't be harmful. If we're talking about blocking all open proxies pre-emptively (i.e. not waiting for the bots to edit first), that's something completely different. -- pling 15:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki: Admin noticeboard

1.Your User name is Inappropriate, 2. one 1rv is not enougth to get someone blocked (even for a short time.). Also, this is a wiki, not a thong picture Parlour. --Neil2250 , Portal Jumper 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) First off, as I am involved, me using my admin powers in this case would not be the best. Second, the actions of the IPs could be construed as you socking through IP proxies (not saying that's the case, but the possible perception is there). --JonTheMon 16:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

what? Cynn's Thong 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation: Stop your trolling, admins cba to deal with such small Insignificances.--Neil2250 , Portal Jumper 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Allow me my input. The image does quite simply not belong there. The trivia gives enough information for any thong-hunting enthuthiasts to go find it, and I was removing it after 2 legitimate users took it down only to have an ip (who I suspect was you) replace it. Shadow Runner 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Neil, I know I deal with this type of stuff when I'm bored...like now. The page is protected, the Cynn's Thong account is banned...back to trying to get 100% on Know your States. — Gares 17:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugly Vandals

1. I suggest this get moved to the talk page...
2. It is probably time to find the origin of this and complain the the ISP involved.

--Max 2 19:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to archive, complaining to ISP's won't work. He's using open proxies to create new accounts. Many of the servers exist in china, and they could care less. --Lania 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rogueonion (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

Nah I am removing your retarded attacks from my own page it is MY page, and I am trying to collect information about the mesmer update PLEASE stay away from me and quite attacking me, I need my page clean and clear so that I can organize my data so I can email it to guild wars as a general request. I never asked you to spam my page and I dont want you on it, LEAVE ME ALONE. Rogueonion 01:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Persecution complex? ARE YOU KIDDING? lol omg whenever I post you are posting telling me how wrong I am, please just leave me alone. and quit trolling my posts. Rogueonion 01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, no discussion on the noticeboard.. second of all read GWW:NPA and stop with the attacks. If you don't want people editing your stuff, put it on a userpage, not a talk page. Talk pages belong to the community and are for the purpose of communication. -- Wyn talk 02:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

oh so it is ok for you to remove comments but not me? why is this so? Rogueonion 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be having this issue with sparky and shard Rogueonion 01:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE block sparky and Shard from my user page, I am not content to deal with them, they are not my friends, and I wish to not have contact with them, PLEASE keep them from vandalizing my page anymore. Rogueonion 02:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am moving discussion points off the Noticeboard, where they don't belong, to the talk page where they do. If you read the red floating box on the noticeboard, it clearly says NO DISCUSSION. Also, if you read what everyone has tried to tell you, the talk page associated with your userpage does not belong to you, it belongs to the community. Unless someone is breaking the rules they will not be banned (and you cannot ban someone from a single page anyway). No one on your talk page has broken any rules but you. -- Wyn talk 02:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

i am sorry how is a request to block somebody from my page a discussion? im reposting it. Rogueonion 02:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

READ WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN. It's NOT your page, they haven't broken any rules, YOU HAVE. You can not dictate who can or can not post on the talk page associated with your userspace. It doesn't work that way. -- Wyn talk 02:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Chaos Messenger (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

His post was in bad faith, but posting on someone's talk page when they're banned isn't against the rules. Wikis aren't instant messaging programs - Wyn can simply respond when the block ends. Chaos does not gain the "upper hand" in an argument by posting when someone else cannot, since the argument cannot progress without the other responding in the first place. -Auron 17:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole "while she wasn't there" part was not why I posted it. Apparently it wasn't meant to be an attack, but it sounded like one the the through-over. --- Ness Hrin | 17:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

[1], to Wyn and any admin who happens to stumble upon this. ---Chaos?- (^____________________^) -- 17:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Locking Regina's talk page

Since Regina's talk page is at 110 kb, and it doesn't look like she will be able to answer those questions any time soon, it may be necessary to lock her page for now in order to prevent it from becoming so big to the point of breaking browsers (similarly to what was done to Linsey's page). The same applies to Emily's talk page, which is currently at 105 kb; since both will be extremely busy these days with the two big conventions, it may be necessary to lock her talk pages for this and the next months, at least. Erasculio 10:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The content can simply be moved to a holding tank, like the questions Emily doesn't answer for years. -Auron 10:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Block circumvention (Moo Kitty)

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

He/She is back as 76.76.22.249 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) I don't see wisdom in continuously banning him as he/she isn't vandalizing anything at the moment. Even if we do, he/she will just use a proxy site and get back. --The Emmisary 23:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Though Moo might not be vandalizing, he/she was blocked, and for a reason.

We might not be able to keep Moo at bay for good. But it doesn't justify to just ignore him! - J.P.Talk 00:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Moo Kitty / Iffy was permabanned. Block circumventing IPs will be banned too. — Why 10:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Iffy was blocked permanently for block circumvention. Although she is a liar, she told me that if she was perma-banned she would stop circumventing. Misery 12:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why is she circumventing, if she'd stop if she was perma-banned? I don't really follow you. — Why 12:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because she's a liar? -- FreedomBound 12:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

^ Misery 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

>.< — Why 14:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

*pats Why on the back* It's ok. ;) — Gares 14:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Zealous Vow dispute

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Zealous Vow dispute

Eh, the IP doesn't seem to be a random vandal. Hasty blocks shouldn't be made in that kind of case. A warning should have been served here, at best. -Auron 12:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the IP partially because he knowingly broke policy, see his edit summary. Maybe it was a bit hasty, but I don't see the use of pointing people at policy they already seem to know and understand. — Why 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Scythe Has Fallen

The Scythe Has Fallen (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

He called me a troll while I wasn't even trolling.

Aaaand I stopped and won't participate in that conversation any longer. If I crossed any boundaries while I was still arguing with Scythe, I apologise. - Mini Me talk 22:12, 28 July 2010

Auron started the shitstorm with the ban. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 22:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

IRC has nothing to do with the wiki. They are not governed by the same people or for the same reasons. If a user has problems with IRC, they can contact mods in the channel to contest the block. Starting drama on this wiki is not an acceptable course of action. -Auron 22:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Except the IRC is one big clique Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 22:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And action shouldn't be taken as long as you're in your private base insisting on treating people who are prone to escalating problems in such a manner. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 22:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

"[Wyn] resigned to end the drama, a respectible course of action. Why cant auron do the same?"

It may be just me, but that comment of Scythe's makes it sound like he's intentionally stirring the pot to get his ends. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 05:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"I would have already banned him for wiki disruption, but I haven't for obvious reasons. He doesn't seem to have the slightest clue he's doing anything wrong, and I'm not sure he ever will. -Auron 21:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)"

you touch me i get wikiapedia's core admins invoved, because that is exactly what Guild_Wars_Wiki:Sysop_guide and Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship#Sysops disallow, seeing as you are personally invoved. I Challenge any other Sysops to find a legitimate reason to ban me, in this case, that doesn't also apply to Auron. — Scythe 17:49, 6 Aug 2010 (UTC)

Note that a) this isn't "wikiapedia," and b) the obvious reason to which Auron refers is precisely that he is personally involved. elix Omni 17:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

a)wiki.guildwars.com, mediawiki / wiki, same difference b) i was aware of that, however he thought about it, which shouldnt even have crosed his mind having been a sysops for so long. — Scythe 18:08, 6 Aug 2010 (UTC)

Now I don't think that's fair. A man is free to think as he pleases. It's acting on such thoughts that can be unethical or immoral. elix Omni 18:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

and yet, Wyn was banned for that reason, except it would be "a woman". — Scythe 18:12, 6 Aug 2010 (UTC)

Errr, there was actually quite a bit more to it than that, but you'll have to ask someone else for details as I can't remember everything. - Mini Me talk 18:16, 6 August 2010

i dont think so, (i had made my acc. like that week so im not 100% certain) it was "being emotional, issuing threats to use admin powers, and being too bias in affairs she is was invoved in — Scythe 18:18, 6 Aug 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, if this were a PvX issue, I would have already banned you for trolling. I guess the standard deviation around here is getting a bit more lenient treatment than I remember. Karate Jesus 22:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"I Challenge any other Sysops to find a legitimate reason to ban me" - Disruption and epic trolling. You seem to not notice how weak your arguments actually are and how much disruption you cause by trying to prove a point (which doesn't exist). I won't ban you now, because I have the small hope that you'll actually notice it yourself. poke | talk 23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"I Challenge any other Sysops to find a legitimate reason to ban me, in this case, that doesn't also apply to Auron." poke, if your going to wikilawyer, and quote me, half a quote is a half truth, doesn't work. Weak as they may be poke, they are character definition, your comment suggests there isn't a never ending repetition to these actions. Plus, add together the existing army of these actions, would be; "weakness in numbers". Also, you haven't found a reason that works in that context yet, have you? Didn't think so. — Scythe 0:45, 7 Aug 2010 (UTC)

Scythe, you've been causing a massive amount of disruption even after repeatedly being told to drop it. I'm not going to comment on your crusade against Auron. You're free to request reconfirmation for whoever you want, if you believe they're abusing their sysop tools. What you're doing now though, is causing a massive amount of drama. Take a break and come back in a day. Also, please reread what this wiki actually is all about. We're in no way related to Wikipedia or their Admins, except the fact that we use MediaWiki software. — Why 01:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wyn got banned for trolling and being mean to Lacky. There was another incident with the IRC stuff posted later where she admitted to other instances of trolling him, but she wasn't banned because of that, those posts only caused more drama, but also served to verify that we do not take IRC chat into any account here. She was banned for what she actually did on the Wiki. The IRC crap has nothing to do with here, just like me saying something about someone else over vent or msn doesn't mean diddly-squat here. If the IRC people don't like you or want you on there, deal with it the same way you would when the jock kids don't want you sitting at their lunch table and go eat your Doritos somewhere else.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 01:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"you touch me i get wikiapedia's core admins invoved ~ a)wiki.guildwars.com, mediawiki / wiki, same difference" WTF are you talking about Scythe? GWW is owned and operated by ArenaNet, using MediaWiki software. There is absolutely no other connection between GWW and Wikipedia, and the admins there would laugh in your face if you tried to get them involved, and you might want to read this before you try taking your case to ArenaNet. The Administrators you have available to you can be found on this page, and you have been asked by several of them to let this go, and stop this disruptive behavior. You've been asked by several members of the community, including myself to stop your disruptive behavior. You should maybe try listening to them. You have signed Auron's request for reconfirmation, and that is what you can do. -- Wyn talk 07:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He's banned, so why don't you all give it a rest? - Mini Me talk 10:30, 7 August 2010

Seriously... I like how everyone jumps on the bandwagon ripping on scythe. Just let him destroy himself. --Lania 17:06, 7 Aug 2010 (UTC)

"disruptive"

"disruptive"

"disruptive"

"disruptive"

"disruptive"

(get it?)

go to User_talk:Why#Disruptive if you still want to discuss this — Scythe 20:34, 12 Aug 2010 (UTC)

76.109.121.236

76.109.121.236 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
My spidery senses tell me its iffy again. --The Emmisary 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a black costume? Also, you are correct good sir.