HRWiki talk:WikiTroll

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Rollback link?

Okay, on the WikiTroll page it has instructions for reverting a page back to a previous version. In it, it says:

Next, click the "rollback" link near the upper right side of the page (directly to the right of the most recent author's name).

However it doesn't have a rollback link by the most recent author's name... do these instructions need to be revised?

--Kilroy 19:05, 28 Sep 2004 (MST)

Yes, of course. I have changed the text to refect this. -- Tom 10:26, 29 Sep 2004 (MST)

In these instructions, I noticed that the two sections are sysop and non-sysop. What is sysop, and how do I get it? Its really annoying reverting edits the non-sysop way.

First off, please sign your posts, -erson. Second off, a sysop is just an Admin, which is a user with different rights (blocking an IP, for example). To become an admin, another one must appoint it to you. →FireBird

Semi off topic, but semi on. It's a very nice diversion from studying for your psychology exam that you're going to fail anyway to go through the trolled pages and check out all the...well...trolling ^_^ --Southpaw018 20:47, 3 Nov 2004 (MST)

[edit] Trolling or not?

I notice many IP's are starting to troll, then deleting the trolling afterwards. Is this still considered trolling? -- FireBird|Talk

It depends really. If it is something like they are adding "adsfafsd" to a page and then removing it, I'd think that's more a new person testing on a page instead of the sandbox. If it's something that's defacement, then it's still defacement. Do you have a specific example in mind? -- Tom 02:26, 13 Nov 2004 (MST)
A new user (daunrealist) posted "I am dumb" and "I spelled grammar and Mozillaa wrong" on my talk page, but then deleted it. I told him to stop, but he just said he was "commenting". --FireBird|Talk
Sorry, it was a while ago and I was just testing. Sorry if you were the victim, Fire. --daunrealist 19:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Namespace

Shouldn't this be in the HRWiki namespace instead of the main one? --[[User:Kilroy|Kilroy/talk]] 17:18, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)

Probably. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice. I'll move it now. -- Tom 18:37, 22 Nov 2004 (MST)

[edit] New Format

Although I agree that the new format looks nicer, I have two concerns:

  • By archiving the offense, we're adding to the exposure of spam. If people are really curious about the offense, they could find it in the old format with a few mouse clicks.
  • It's more difficult for people to contribute to the spam page. Before, it was rather straightforward; now people have to figure out formatting for the chart when they add a submission. Perhaps we could devise a system in which people can add a simple comment and another person reformat it later; this adds an extra step, but is more convenient for those less familiar with Wikipedia who still wish to defend the sanctity of the Wiki. =) --FortyTwo
I actually agree with you about the degree of difficulty. It is a big increase. I was actually thinking of saying something in the instructions about, "Yeah, and if you can't figure that table out, just do your best down at the bottom of the page and someone will fix it for you." As to the archive of the old stuff, MediaWiki keeps every edit for every page anyway. We might need to develop some kind of subpage archive, which I would want to make kind of fancy or something, but I was going to wait until the end of the month. -- Tom 21:38, 14 Dec 2004 (MST)
P.S.: I added the note. I'd also like to add that this format is just to make my job a little easier. All those links are the pages I check before I block someone. It's totally selfish on my part... -- Tom 21:45, 14 Dec 2004 (MST)
I saw the note and I understand your reasons for wanting easy access to the offense. Thanks for your quick response! -- FortyTwo
It seems kind of cluttered now (and a whole lot more confusing). But whatever is easier for the admins. It's not like it matters. →FireBird

[edit] 64.246.132.*

I actually didn't block, and I won't block for its last edit because of the nature of their IP addresses. These edits really aren't that bad, and from what I noticed the software did in the time after I blocked "spacemonkey", it seems to be that is who to blame. The software blocks anonymous editors that have the same IP as a blocked user, and I know a bunch were auto blocked while he/she was blocked. The only way to deal with these dynamic IP people is with quick reverts to discourage them. If it gets bad, I don't mind a short temp block, but I don't like blocking legitimate users that might get caught in the same range. Anyway, it just seems that this person thinks they are funny or something, and I imagine they might know Renegade Master in real life. Bah. -- Tom 12:50, 1 Jan 2005 (MST)

Yes, why is he so determined to troll?! -woddfellow2| 22:12, 10 Jan 2005 (MST)

[edit] Archive?

The troll list is getting fairly long; can we archive some of the older entries to make it shorter to edit? If someone is a repeat offender, a glance at their "contributions" should reveal that. --FortyTwo 22:43, 11 Jan 2005 (MST)

Okay, good idea. How much should I leave here though? One month? Two? -- Tom 15:39, 12 Jan 2005 (MST)
We could probably group them by month, then have just the current and previous month's troll list posted (so, now we would have December and January). Even just dividing by month would help the page, since then people could edit just one section instead of the whole page. It would also make it clearer to first-time reporters where they should place their edits. Thanks! -- FortyTwo 19:51, 12 Jan 2005 (MST)
I think you have the right idea with knowing previous offenders by their contributions listing. I suppose if we created an archive page, I could just put all but the most recent few months there. I don't know what you mean by adding to different months though, since each new entry is placed at the bottom of the list regardless of if they've defaced before. -- Tom 23:48, 12 Jan 2005 (MST)
Yes, that list is getting too fragging long. It takes too long to load. How are we going to archive the older entries? -woddfellow2| 13:35, 14 Jan 2005 (MST)
Oh, almost forgot about this. HRWiki:WikiTroll Archive works for me. -- Tom 19:51, 14 Jan 2005 (MST)

[edit] pertmywert

I would like something done with pertmywert. It's driving me nuts. It seems as though he thinks that his userspace is his own website. If you try to talk to him through his talk page he will get mad and erase your comment, as well as your userspace. He also insults people with crap (see "here). He just doesn't get it, and I see no way to contact him. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

Hey sorry firebird

post something on my page to tell me what i am doing wrong please


[edit] New Spammer thing I noticed

We now have a type of spammer that claims to be unspamming in the summary of change box. Example: Just wanted to let people know, as it confused me for a moment. -- Tom 13:31, 23 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] Testing Outside of Sandbox = Trolling?

I am trying to decide whether or not to ad to the troll blotter. He/she seems to be testing, so it would probably be mean to add his/her IP address to the troll blotter. What should I do? -woddfellow2| 11:31, 30 Mar 2005 (MST)

My advice for the moment is to do nothing; I think the maxim "Please do not bite the newcomers" applies here. As of this writing, the IP in question only has two contributions, which are hardly anything to get worked up about. If the user does it again, then I suggest a gentle note on his or her talk page explaining that these actions are inappropriate. Only after that would I believe that a formal sanction was warranted. — It's dot com 12:30, 30 Mar 2005 (MST)
The use of the test template might also be good as well. -- Tom 19:14, 2 Apr 2005 (MST)

[edit] Block IP Blocks

Is it possible to delete a block of IP addresses? 69.50.1* has been spamming over and over and over and over and over and OVER again, (his favorite targets are Peasant's Quest (don't ask me why!), HRWiki:FAQ, Talk:FAQ, and HRWiki talk:FAQ) but his IP address shifts ever so slightly each time. He doesn't seem to realize that the Wiki now automatically adds a nofollow tag to links. It's really annoying. The alternative would be to block each and every IP address he could theoretically post through, but that's likely in the neighborhood of several thousand (give me a while and I could give you the exact number) and it's possible you might accidently block a legit user. --Jay 07:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The smallest third frame I've seen him use is 166, and the largest is 187. My math gives that the smallest and largest he's probably capable of are 160 and 191. That gives him 8,190 possible different IP addresses! Ow! So if block-blocking isn't possible, he's going to be around for a while... ugh. --Jay 07:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He's still around and still spamming. Isn't there ANYTHING you can do? --Jay 06:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If anyone cares (which doesn't seem to be the case), I've officially seen him use a 191 third frame. I doubt he can go higher, based on what I know about IPs. --me again

[edit] I just can't resist gone yay
(Check the link to see what I'm talking about...) --Jay (Talk) 15:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I clicked, but... Kvb 15:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's the guy who keeps adding "schuylers gone yay" to pages. He did it to Email, to Toons and to his own now-deleted illegitimate User page. He's also been responsible for other sorts of trolling (he's the guy you just reverted and I blocked for a little while.) --Jay (Talk) 15:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just didn't get the "schuylers gone yay" reference. Kvb 15:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How do I?

Let's say I found someone trolling, you know defacing pages, breaking links and all that sort of stuff. How'd I report it? Do I just post something here saying (insert ip adress here) is trolling?

[edit] TROLL is trolling and has trolled on pertmywert s user page and on the hrwiki help page with adult porn sites.


Done. — Kilroy / talk 12:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When to Add Trolls

I was wondering when I should and when I shouldn't add trolls to this page, because I usually wonder if what I am doing is unnecessary when .... I add a troll after it gets temporarily blocked, to serve as a sort of "log," just in case it comes back for a repeat. But then I wonder, do most sysops look at the user contributions and block log instead of the troll page to see if it is a repeat offender?

Is this page's purpose to be more of an attention-caller to sysops after a troll has done its work, and hasn't been blocked because there were no sysops logged in? Is that really the only time I should add a troll to this page? Or does this serve as a detailed log? If so, then why don't more people add bad trolls after they are blocked? --BazookaJoe 23:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I usually check the user contributions before I block, to see if the user is a repeat offender. It's most important to put them on the WikiTroll page when the troll needs to be blocked but there are no sysops there. Other times, it's not necessary, I don't think. Aurora the Homestar Coder 23:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Over and over, this moron keeps returning. He's got a dynamic IP, so in order to properly thwart him, we have to block the whole range. But by doing so, there's a chance that totally legit users will get blocked as well. Is there any way to report this guy to his ISP? (It's Earthlink in, of all places, Atlanta, GA.) --Jay (Talk) 07:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I tracked down their abuse line and sent an e-mail to it. --Jay (Talk) 07:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yay for automated systems. After mentioning where I was coming from, the nature of the attacker, the IP address he was last seen using, the approximate time he used it, my time zone, and the date... it came back with an automated response, saying I didn't include enough information and needed to include AT LEAST an IP address, a time, a time zone and a date. >_< Strangely enough, responding to that with (in summary) "Uh... I did" got an automated response that said "Okay, we got it!" --Jay (Talk) 07:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When posting on this talk page, please begin your post with several colons, which will indent your reply. Follow that with AT LEAST some content that relates to the lines that precede your message. Last, add your signature and the date and time. Thank you. — Automated Response 07:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ell. Oh. Ell. --Jay (Talk) 07:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, we got it! — Automated Response


OMG!!!! Somehow Fricky Dee trolled on MY IP address!!!! How can that be????? -Kinsey

Woah. Go ask a sysop or admin for help. Rogue Leader / (my talk)

If you have a dynamic ip address then it's possible that at one time the troller had the same ip address as you at some point in time. Also, some ISPs use the same IP address for more then one customer (rare, however). That's my 13 cents. Can be many other things though. -Mick

[edit] troll template

I made a simple template to make adding a troll just a little easier. It is in the following format: {{troll|evildoer}}. It's a lot like the STUFF templates, in that you add the template where it should go, preview it, and then copy and paste the resulting code over the template. Note: the code for a new row (|-) is not part of the template, so you'll need to add that manually. I tried it both ways and it was easier the way it is now. Also note: the HTML comments are next to the brackets where the links go, not in them, because it was easier to replace the text that way. (I don't like the way the selection insists on expanding when I'm highlighting something.) — It's dot com 01:14, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm playing with the variables a little here, but why go through the whole thing of doing a copy and paste? Why not just have {{subst:troll|It's dot com|page|http://diffgoeshere|description}} output exactly what we need:

|| 04/13/2024 || It's not com (all edits) || page || http://diffgoeshere

Works for me. And I don't think it would be too hard to explain, at the very least it's easier than doing the copy and paste thing. -- Tom 20:35, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ah ha, now you want to put the table formatting in there too? I'll let you figure that out. Let me know here when you're done. -- Tom 20:36, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The template has been modified. The format is now: {{ subst: troll | evildoer | | description }}It's dot com 20:43, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

What a tick. I don't think CURRENTMONTH et al. work like we think they do with templates. Do you see what I'm saying? -- Tom 20:40, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, if you posted a troll today with this template, the date would keep updating itself every day. And the user guide says using "subst" for each of those magic words would just show the date the template was created. It looks like we are going to have to have the user input the date themselves. -- Tom 20:46, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Well stink. They need to fix that. — It's dot com 21:03, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The template has been modified again. The new format is now:
{{ subst: troll | mm/dd/yy | evildoer }} [[pagename]][actual edit] || description
Note where the template closes. This is necessary because of the equal signs (=) in the actual edit link.
It's dot com 21:07, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I thought of a much better use for the troll template. The old template was primarily to help with entering the user details. I have changed it to eliminate some make it even easier. Simply type {{troll|evildoer}} where the user data goes. (You now need to build all of the table manually, but the old version of the template wasn't really helping much with that anyway.) The new template has some important links. First, "contribs" shows all contributions, as has been our custom to do. Next, "log" searches the block log to tell whether a user has already been blocked for the current vandalism and whether he or she has been blocked in the past (this link is intended for sysops, but anyone can use it). Finally, "block" is a quick link for sysops to block the troll if warranted (this link will only work for sysops). Happy hunting! — It's dot com 07:55, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What's with these people?

I've been looking at the troll edits. You'd expect if they were going to do something that would get themselves in trouble, they would do so constructively. I mean, you'd expect they'd put in something humorous or some misconception or something like that. But all they do is insert explicit crap for no good reason. And the threats against the admins? what's with that? They type like they're illiterate, they have no sense of humor or comprehension of other people... What do they think this site is, or that people use this for? Who are these stupid people?

They type like they're illiterate, they have no sense of humor or comprehension of other people; I think that pretty well explains the vast majority of them. --Jay (Talk) 19:26, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

This page needs to be archived soon. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 01:13, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Uh, this page is over forty kilos long. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 19:37, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thechamp

How dare you blame me for being a troll! I threaten to scare the trolls away, To stop them! I only have the sites good order in mind. I sware it! I mean only harm to the vile trolls! I will not appologize for my actions, I did what I did for the good of the site, That is my argument! --Thechamp 19:11, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to scare them away; they can be blocked by sysops. --Jay (Talk) 19:27, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but any administrator will admit to you that They can only be blocked for a minamal amount of time, I say we need a more permenant blocking system! If we can get funding by people that come here, We may be able to get programming axcessable only to the admins, that can perminantly block the site from users that illeaglely use it! There is always a bigger gun! --Thechamp 19:31, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I am a sysop and have, multiple times, blocked IP addresses or user names permanently. --Jay (Talk) 19:33, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
You can set the "Length of block" to "indefinite" or "infinite". See Special:Ipblocklist. --Jay (Talk) 19:37, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
But the admin I spoke with told me that the blockings were only finite? So they realy aren't? -Thechamp 19:41, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
You can set them to finite or infinite. The latter is only reserved for extreme cases. Which sysop did you talk to? --Jay (Talk) 19:44, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think it was the first one on the special page list. _Thechamp 19:46, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Can someone maybe take me off the list? --Thechamp 20:06, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] crossed out

Why are a lot of the topics in this page crossed out or is it just me?--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 19:39, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

me to. I think no one finished the <s> tags. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 19:40, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
These sections were crossed out for a reason. — It's dot com 22:05, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Uh... why are all these sections crossed out? You never excactly gave an answer when talking to bkmlb. — talk Bubsty edits 05:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this like wikipedia

If so can't you prevent trolls by locking pages like they do at wikipedia

Of course we can, but we choose not to lock most pages other than the Main Page. —BazookaJoe 16:41, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Brown spammer

Just a note to the admins - the spammer "David Brown" used the IP addresses, and and, but both of the 24 IPs aren't blocked. I don't know what it takes to get a permanent block, but this *ahem* gentleman blanked at least four pages with his worthless spam on all of those addresses, if it is indeed the same guy. THE SMOKING MONKEY 18:09, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

He struck again. I hate this spammer. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 16:02, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tired

Hey, guys, I'm really getting tired of being blocked from editing just because a troll has a similar IP address to mine. I DON'T troll, never have, never would, and I'm really getting sick of being blocked just because of one idiot. This is the fourth time this has happened. Please fix it. --ISlayedTheKerrek 13:17, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What do we do about this?

Or rather: this? Yeah, it's a user page, but the user's only edit was to spam her (guessing from the name) user page. That was way back in May. I see no point in blocking a user who's clearly not going to deface the wiki,(note the future tense) and hasn't done so in 6 months, but also has done nothing but spam. Delete the page and user? Block and blank the page? I can't believe it took 6 months for this to be found. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 08:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the page (sysops can see what used to be on it if you care) but I don't know if there's any point to blocking a (l)User who doesn't seem to actually exist. --Jay (Talk) 08:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 08:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Tiki What?

Can somebody tell me what the Wiki Tiki Tavi troll section is? I'm totally confused here.--~~Ampi~~meowarchives 06:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a particular spammer, which has been grouped into its own table for ease of reading. Click on the edits and you'll see a pattern. — It's dot com 07:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I must say this about the name given to this's probably the only time you'll see a loose Kipling reference on the HR Wiki. --ISlayedTheKerrek 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's his own reference to the wiki software we used on the old wiki but, yeah, I guess it is a Kipling reference. I never noticed that before! — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 17:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah; I found it amusing. Props to whoever named the software. Up next: The Jungle Powerbook™, The LAN Who Would Be King, How The Webmaster Got His IP, Sysops Courageous, and KIM (Knowledge-based Information Management). —AbdiViklas 18:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Kipling?!?! What the... oh wait, never mind. I just rembered Rudyard Kipling's Rikki Tiki Tavi. Ok... —Darklinkskywalker|Talk_|i did this stuff_ 01:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Has anybody seen the cartoon of it? That was cute. —AbdiViklas 02:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
It was definitely cute. I think I prefer The White Seal, personally. (Also done when Jones went solo.) — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notifying Sysops vs. Keeping a record?

Even though NSMC1 had already been blocked in the middle of his vandalism, I went ahead and added him to the Offenders list, along with the offenses. That entry was immediately removed with the message "Sorry, but this is only to alert sysops". So, my question is: Why are we keeping a record of other offenders on this page, if this page is only meant as a way to notify sysops? — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. I have something in mind for this guy, though (who is hopefully just a copycat with a poor sense of humor). — It's dot com 19:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Note also that it's especially unnecessary in the case of NSMC or WoW or any other serial vandals we may have because the sysops will automatically know to give these usernames infinite blocks. For these guys, we only need to list them if there are no sysops around and we need to inform them of new usernames to block. Heimstern Läufer 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
But thanks for asking that question, Kiefer; I actually was wanting to yesterday and refrained. So the purpose of WikiTroll is not to be a comprehensive documentation of vandalism, but simply a way to "tattle" when nobody who's on can themselves block? —AbdiViklas 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Er, yes and no. It's gotta be somewhere in between those two extremes, otherwise we'd either list everybody or delete each entry as soon as the user was blocked. I've noticed that if people were in the middle of listing offenses when the vandal is blocked, they tend to go ahead and make the record as complete as possible. — It's dot com 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like we're more on the side of archiving all the vandalisms, which I think is fine, personally - it gives us a record to refer to, especially for repeat offenders, and it also tells would-be vandals that we do pay attention to this stuff. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What actually does constitute a troll?

I noticed that under Ciberdude444's trolling list, he is listed for insulting Salty. Yet, I reported someone as a troll for insulting ME, on my user page, and it was reverted. What is the deal? -ISlayedTheKerrek 20:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

One incident is usually not enough to label somebody a troll unless they've done something especially heinous and/or they've made it clear they plan to continue. For somebody to be labeled a troll they have to have a clear history of of trolling and/or vandalism. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ @ 21:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Understandable, but this person did have a history of trolling. This person also went out of their way to post said message on page. -ISlayedTheKerrek 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that (whom you listed) posted a message on your talk page, whereas Ciberdude444 was vandalizing articles and user pages. In addition, this edit, while unsigned and very poor in mechanics, is just a question in a place that questions are allowed to be posted. He didn't even type an actual swear (at least, not with that edit). Hope that helps. — It's dot com 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It does, but at the same time, it doesn't. I know user talk pages are open to editing by anyone at anytime. I know that in most cases, it isn't considered trolling (see the references to pertmywert). However, in this case, I believe said person went out of their way to cause trouble (otherwise he/she/it wouldn't have brought up an incident that happened over A YEAR PRIOR), and in this case deserved to be reported as a troll. But whatever. You guys, I'm sure, have better things to do than worry about this. My point is still this: if it looks like a troll, smells like a troll, and acts like a troll, it's a troll. (P.S.- saw the "least favorite admin" deal on Dot com's talk page...furthering my point, guys.) --ISlayedTheKerrek 04:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, everyone's entitled to an opinion. And I'm not gonna block somebody just because they say they don't like me. — It's dot com 05:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the specifics of this situation, but in my experience, trolls generally get labeled as such when they are specifically asked to stop harassing other users and they fail to do so (among other things). Also if they're warned by an admin to knock it off, and they don't. Also, it seems that the admins pay a bit more attention to the situation when a user other than the one being harassed makes the report. Just my experience - were I an admin, I'd take a careful look at as much of the history as I could manage to see what's going on before I made a decision. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSMC

can someone tell me what NSMC means? i apologise for my non-wikiknowledge Ciberdude444 02:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

N***** Stole my Cow. He was a troll bot that caused massive damage round here. That is why annony's need t use cathpa now. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 02:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

cathpa? Ciberdude444 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The code of letters and numbers that annonys have to correctly enter in in order to edit. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
what kind of damage did nsmc do? not pages but number of pages
He hit more than 800 pages, I believe. In an extremely short amount of time. I watched it happen; I helped revert it. --DorianGray
how wasnt he banned? Ciberdude444 02:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason we couldn't jump right in and ban him was because he made so many edits he caused the whole wiki to go down for a short while. He had an ever-shifting proxy IP, and took a while to ban all of them... I'm sure someone else can explain it much better than I... --DorianGray
if he was just a ip why do u call him nsmc?Ciberdude444 03:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That's just a general term we use to describe the massive amount of troll bots that attacked that day. Or something like that. Has Matt? (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
then why do u call it that specifically? Ciberdude444 03:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
His main method of operation was to entirely blank a page, replacing it with "N**** Stole My Cow". Hence the moniker, NSMC. --DorianGray
how did he blank so fast? Ciberdude444 03:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
"He" was a bot. Computers can do stuff in the blink of an eye. --DorianGray

Oohhhh, I never knew that. So there wasn't actually a user with the name of NSMC? SaltyTalk! 03:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There were many users with NSMC in their usernames, but they were all created quickly by a bot, which then caused the users to blank pages. The complete story of this vandal can be found on this page. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 03:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

He also said N***** stole my bike. TheThin 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BlackWidower

User:BlackWidower on his page it says EXACTLY what this says. F*ckin Decemberween! Should he be blocked?TheThin 02:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, just yet. First somebody should politely notify him on his talk page, which I'll go do. Keeping in mind that he hasn't been in since the 5th, though, it might be a while 'til he sees it. In the meantime it isn't really life-threatening; I doubt many would see it (if this discussion weren't calling attention to it!). —AbdiViklas 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Yelt family

Should we add Yeltensic to the troll page? we could add that any addresses somewhat like his should be blocked. Seriously (Talk) 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If you see a sockpuppet of Yeltensic and there's no sysop around, you probably should list it so the sysops know when they arrive. Otherwise, though, it isn't necessary. The sysops will automatically block his sockpuppets, and this page isn't really meant as a record of offenders; it's more a way to alert sysops of who needs to get blocked. So, don't worry about it for now. Heimstern Läufer 23:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Given that the project page defines a WikiTroll as "a person who deliberately defaces documents on a wiki", and I merely created a document that really was very non-offensive, that would be a "no". In fact, going on that, it's pretty doubtful whether I should even have been blocked in the first place. YeltensicNetscape 00:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Persistant re-creation of a page that you were asked not to make, and the subsequent creation of several sock puppet accounts are a good place to start. --DorianGray
Maybe I've been tainted by Wikipedia, but I think it's pretty absurd that anyone would be blocked for creating a user subpage like mine, or referred to as "harassing" for arguing with admins, or sternly reprimanded by admins for using profanity, let alone censored profanity. CosmicInsigadol 00:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
(I'm Yelt, I just used this less directly related name so that I would actually have a chance to post here rather than get instantly blocked). CosmicInsigadol 00:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
In a lot of ways we are similar to Wikipedia, but in some very important ways we are different. At Wikipedia, you have more free rein on what kind of subpages you can create, but here we try to limit them to those that serve the project. The project, by the way, is about Homestar Runner (see below). (We have also, by wide consensus, agreed to keep the language at a level you could find on the official site.) Since guestbooks are not central to the project, and because there already was a place for discussion on that subject, your subpage was deleted. Creating the subpage, however, was not why you were blocked per se. You were blocked because you continued to make the subpage in a disruptive manner. Up until that point, we were all willing to discuss the situation calmly and rationally. Your actions today have not helped your case one iota. You have been blocked, and you don't like it. Big deal. You're not the first person in the history of all wikis that this has happened to. But let me ask you to consider why you are even here. In the two weeks you've been a user, you still have zero actual contributions. — It's dot com 01:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, he does technically have a contribution: thanks to his trolling, I haven't been able to edit from my home computer for the last three weeks. So, you know, Yelt, thanks a whole lot there, buddy. (There has GOT to be a way to fix that problem. I'm really starting to get mad about it.) --ISlayedTheKerrek 18:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yelt Friend

Actually, that IP isn't necessary at all, since she was already dealt with by sysops and prolly won't be back. Not that it matters either way, really. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The thing

I thought I was on the fanstuff wiki. --TheThin 16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing, it seems very supspicious that you log on just as a Dr. Who attack ended, that you are asking a question on the WikiTroll talk page, and that Homestar Swimmer claimed to be you in an edit summary. Now don't lie to me; are you really Dr. Who, or is there another explanation for this? Has Matt? (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Who? also claimed to be Yeltensic and JoeyDay. I wouldn't take him a vandal at his word. —BazookaJoe 23:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh, before we make quick conclusions, The thing was already trolling when he created those subpages. — Seriously (Talk) 17:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Though Dr. Who has struck before, including on The thing's wiki. Also, The thing has reverted him here before. — Seriously (Talk) 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
How can I revert the same time as Dr. Who trolls if I was Dr. Who. Plus I don't use AOL. --TheThin 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying you are Dr. Who, I'm just saying it looked kinda suspicious. Has Matt? (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, just not exactly assuring. — Seriously (Talk) 17:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Is Dr. Who a real person? --TheThin 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I'ma take this conversation back to the original discussion: The thing was trolling. I don't care if "he thought he was on the fanstuff wiki". Totally not a vsalid excuse, the thing. — Seriously (Talk) 17:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
And as far as I know, he is a person. Um, obviously. — Seriously (Talk) 17:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Took a quick look at The thing's recent edit history, and I don't personally see anything that looks like trolling. But regardless, I'd like to ask you something, Thing: I've seen a history from you of making questionable edits, then apologizing profusely for them, making a big deal of undoing them, and giving excuses about them - like "I thought I was somewhere else", etc. It might make sense the first, even the second time, but this seems to be a regular habit for you.
I'd personally like to know what's going on in that head of yours. I'm not about to accuse you of also being the Dr. Who vandal (although if you turned out to be, I certainly wouldn't be surprised), but I basically want to know what's really going on, now that this pattern has turned up. While we're discussing a website that is itself whimsical, funny and lighthearted, I (personally) believe this wiki should be taken seriously, and I don't see you doing that. Behavior like this just says "This user wants a lot of attention" and makes a bold statement about one's level of maturity, but does little to get you on people's good sides. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I just came on again after Not a sockpuppet!!!! --TheThin 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I remember him figting against Dr. Who with me. See this. I mean, c'mon! Can't that be used against "you always come when Dr. Who's attacks are over"? Bluebry 21:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That is weird though. --TheThin 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Kieferskunk, There is one thing he did that was trolling, as he knew the outcome: A subpage that was, um, I forget. But still, lemme just dig through recent changes and I'll show you in a few seconds. Believe me, I'll dig up the evidence. — Seriously (Talk) 21:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I give up. I know he did it, check his talk page. He acknowledged the fact that he did it, so I don't know why I can't see it. It might be at the wooky, and if it is I apologize extremely for the trouble that I've caused. I'll go check. — Seriously (Talk) 21:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Found it.
    1. 15:27, March 5, 2006 Kilroy deleted "User:The thing/TEST/tbd/ = -)(*" (content was: '{{delete|Utterly useless subpage, made because user was bored}}')
  • 15:27, March 5, 2006 Kilroy deleted "User talk:The thing/TEST/tbd/ = -)(*" (Talk page for deleted page)

Bluebry 21:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, The thing.

Yes!! I knew it! — Seriously (Talk) 21:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot assume The thing was being malicious by creating that subpage. Curiosity is the more satisfactory reason. The final decision is that it is not trolling, and his 3/5/06 entry has been removed from the list. —BazookaJoe 21:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. — Seriously (Talk) 21:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I know. That's what I thought when I heard it. But, we CAN tell, can't we Mr. Sysop? Please check the edits of the delorted page, BazookaJoe. User:The thing/TEST/tbd/ = -)(*. Bluebry 21:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm not trying to keep at this, but we can't just let him go because he was curious. I say that we can't just keep looking after him like this. We can't say it's fine that we had to clean up his mess. — Seriously (Talk) 21:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[1]BazookaJoe 23:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do you seem to have something against The thing, Seriously? You're always trying to find evidence of him trolling so that he can be blocked. I'm still kinda neutral on this issue, though, so don't think I'm siding with him. I was just wondering what you had against him. Has Matt? (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, The thing is on Seriously's cool people list. (Note:This isn't an answer on Seriously's behalf). With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Granola is right. I like The thing. I'm just agitated at him right now, just like Kiefer. — Seriously (Talk) 22:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think to say I'm "agitated" at him is exaggerating a bit. I'm annoyed that this situation keeps coming up. But I'm also annoyed at you for making just as big a deal out of it, Seriously. You seem to be taking it upon yourself to make sure The thing gets punished for virtually everything he does - while I agree that some of his edits have been trolling and vandalism in the past, I don't agree on this particular instance. More importantly, I'm perfectly happy to defer to the sysops on their decisions about whether The thing's behavior warrants punishment, even if sometimes I don't agree with it.
We already called you out on Dot com's Talk page for trying to dictate sysop policy. I'd like to suggest that you just trust them to know what they're doing and to know when discipline is necessary, and when it isn't. Okay? — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Rather than have to go all the way to that page to add an offener (I used to have dial-up, and it took about 5 minutes to navigate 3 pages), simply have a link somewhere such as The Stick or whatever that links here. teeeffoh! 00:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe have a link on Recent Changes. Just a suggestion, everypeoples in the place to be. teeeffoh! 00:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. I definitely recommend adding it. — Seriously (Talk) 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There's already a link to Wikitroll from HRWiki:The Stick. Having a link straight to editing it isn't needed. Either the troll has already been blocked by the time you get to wikitroll and adding them is unneeded, or if they haven't then you can afford to take an extra second to add them. Thunderbird 00:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another suggestion

As I've said a million times before, I don't like the fact that I get blocked because of trolls. I had an idea- why not use the unblock template that Wikipedia uses? That way, innocent users don't have to wait for however long it takes the block to expire, and they can post almost immediately after. --ISlayedTheKerrek 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked users at Wikipedia can edit their talk pages, but that's not the case at our wiki. You can, however, email an admin and see if the block can be lifted. If this continues, you should contact AOL and see whether they can do anything, or consider ditching AOL altogether. — It's dot com 20:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but the email sysop feature doesn't work on my computer. Ditching AOL is not an option, because I still live at home and we only have one computer. --ISlayedTheKerrek 05:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The only reason that I can think of that MediaWiki's Special:Emailuser feature would not work is if you did not properly set up and confirm an email address in your preferences. As for emailing, that should be possible from any email interface, AOL or otherwise. -- Tom 05:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HUH?

What happened to the archive?

Let me see. There was never an archive. Maybe your thinking of the fanstuff WikiTroll.--H*Bad 00:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
no, actually the archive is here. --TheThin 00:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive Link?

What is wrong with linking to HRWiki:WikiTroll Archive on this page? --Sam Goldfish 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is already linked here.--H*Bad 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Mm, let's put the link back. —BazookaJoe 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If you put the link back, then you need to update the archive. When the table was taken off of the WikiTroll page, it was simply removed, not archived. — It's dot com 16:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
10-4. —BazookaJoe 13:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Since when was it "Unneeded" to list trolls?

This page's purpose wasn't to list trolls, rather to bring trolls to the notice of the sysops, in case they'd missed them. Since the sysops see pretty much everything that happens (we're a relatively small wiki, so it's viable for sysops to look at every single edit that's made) it's rather pointless to have the page. The listing of all trolls is done well enough by Special:Log/block. --phlip TC 09:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess that when the sysops group was only a small number of people who monitor only in a specific time, the page was needed. Now the group is larger and we have people around the clock watching the wiki. Now, since someone trolls, it's only a metter of minutes untill it gets blocked. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 10:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] silly question

this is probably dumb but... why do trolls say what they did in the summary? Meme3 06:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you see a vandal edit that with a descriptive summary, it's probably an automatic summary provided when a user blanks, redirects or completely replaces a page. Occasionally it may be that the vandal is using the edit summary to taunt us, but it's usually the autosummary. Heimstern Läufer 06:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why, oh, why?

Could we add the sciences on what makes people troll, so to avoid doing so? Like sometimes, my friend does that to 'Kipedia. The only problem is... I have no idea the psiciatricts of it. Could someone explain, so I could put it on? Or could someone say to me "Jellote, do not put that line on this page!", or stuff like that? --Jellote wuz here 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jellote, do not put that line on this page. Thanks. — It's dot com 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools