FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Block Ikin
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 3 December 2010 by Cook Me Plox.

Ikin has been a jerk ever since she joined this wiki. Calling user vulgarities, not following policy, and being rude wherever she goes. This just happened:

[20:26] <Evil1888> http://html.myftp.org/ page one done (last 4 are pretty much lists ;])
[20:26] <Megan> !ping http://html.myftp.org/
[20:26] <JSBot_> Megan: ping http://html.myftp.org/: Could not find http://html.myftp.org/. Please try again.†
[20:27] <Megan> !ping html.myftp.org
[20:27] <JSBot_> Megan: ping html.myftp.org:     minimum = 266ms, maximum = 290ms, average = 278ms
[20:27] <Megan> !htip html.myftp.org
[20:27] <JSBot_> IP: 174.25.125.162
[20:27] <Megan> nice ip.
[20:28] <Megan> evill1888 is it ok if I play with it?
[20:29] <Evil1888> uh.... why?
[20:29] <Megan> Let's play a game shall we
[20:29] <Evil1888> uh....
[20:29] <Megan> it's called how many botnet infections do we need to take evil down
[20:30] <Pharos_5> Lets try 1888 and go from there
[20:30] <Evil1888> uh.... no
[20:30] <Megan> wai not?
[20:30] <Evil1888> cause it's a school project
[20:31] <Evil1888> you could try being kind and NOT piss people off
[20:32] <Pharos_5> D: wheres the fun in that?
[20:32] <Megan> !ping html.myftp.org
[20:32] <JSBot_> Megan: ping html.myftp.org:     Packs: sent = 2, got = 0, lost = 2 (100% lost),
[20:32] <Megan> :/
[20:32] <Megan> ow sad
[20:32] Megan [Ikin@unaffiliated/ikin] requested CTCP PING from Evil1888: 1291264374
[20:33] <Evil1888> what did you do?
[20:33] <Megan> hihi
[20:34] <Evil1888> ikin, WTF DID YOU DO
[20:34] <Megan> don't call me rude.
[20:35] <Evil1888> ikin, you have been rude
[20:35] <Evil1888> many times
[20:35] <Megan> and you are a imposter
[20:35] <Megan> just like chess.
[20:36] <Evil1888> undo whatever you have done
[20:36] == Zamorak [4b51d8be@wikia/ZamorakO-o] has joined #wikia-runescape
[20:36] <Zamorak> Hai.
[20:36] <Megan> What are you using to open the port 80?
[20:36] <Evil1888> idk, my brother set up the server
[20:36] <Megan> lul fail
[20:36] <Evil1888> i just need something to host my project
[20:37] <Megan> what program
[20:37] <Evil1888> just stop or udo what every you are doing
[20:37] <Evil1888> apache
[20:37] <Megan> just restart apache
[20:37] <Evil1888> i can't
[20:37] <Megan> why.
[20:37] <Evil1888> i'm 2 miles from there
[20:37] <Megan> lul
[20:38] <Megan> Hm then it can get hard
[20:40] <Megan> funny how I only did 40 mb/s
[20:40] <Megan> could have done harder
[20:40] <Megan> :/
[20:40] <Megan> but i've stopped.

I have no idea what she did but I was unable to get to my site (which is for a school project on a personal computer), connect via TeamViewer, or upload/download via FileZilla. Attacking me on a personal, real world level is unacceptable, inexcusable, and is beyond against RuneScape:User treatment policy.

Something extra

After an "interesting" conversation in IRC, Cook, Aeriana and myself gained access to a chat log for MSN after Ikin said that she had gotten someone else to attack Evil's servers. Below is a transcript, spaced for clarity.

(5:30 AM) Ikin:seth 
(5:31 AM) Seth:hi 
(5:31 AM) Ikin:could you fuck up some one for me? 
(5:31 AM) Seth:ok 
(5:31 AM) Ikin:He's trying to make a school project site lol
174.25.125.162 
port 80 
(5:31 AM) Seth:runescape info lol 
(5:31 AM) Ikin:yup 
ugly site too. 
(5:32 AM) Seth:done  
(5:33 AM) Ikin:aw 
I wanted him to timeout :/ 
(5:33 AM) Seth:? 
(5:33 AM) Ikin:he's at irc
:/ 
(5:33 AM) Seth:lol 
(5:38 AM) Ikin:are you still doing it? 
(5:38 AM) Seth:yeah 
(5:38 AM) Ikin:it's a apache
serer
not him
(5:39 AM) Seth:its hosted on his computer though 
(5:39 AM) Ikin:so you can stop
:/ 
(5:39 AM) Seth:the isp is qwest 
(5:39 AM) Ikin:it's on a school computer 
(5:39 AM) Seth:oh 
(5:39 AM) Ikin:<Evil1888> i'm 2 miles from there 
(5:39 AM) Seth:his school needs to get better internet  taken down with 40Mb/s 
(5:39 AM) Ikin:yup 
(6:21 AM) Ikin:they want me banned X
xD 
(6:21 AM) Seth:lol
oh
shit
i forgot to stop 
(6:21 AM) Ikin:lul 
(6:21 AM) Seth:stopped now

Leading up to the above (in IRC)

<Cook_Me_Plox> Megan, shell booting is still illegal by that law
<thebrains222> ^
<Megan> You don't even know what it is
<Cook_Me_Plox> I know the basics, and that's enough to know that it counts as attacking under that law.
<Megan> Ok what are the basics
<Aeriana> When you're hitting someone with 40mbps with the intend to make their service unavailable, that's a denial of service, no matter how you look at it.
<Aeriana> *intent
<Cook_Me_Plox> Megan, what are you trying to do?
<Cook_Me_Plox> Are you telling me that you didn't break the law?
<Megan> See what you know
<Cook_Me_Plox> ..
<thebrains222> this isn't 20 questons
<Megan> Because you're not beleving me still if I said it before this little "conv" began
<thebrains222> questions*
<Aeriana> That thing looks so lame too.
<Megan> that's not even the one I was looking for
<Cook_Me_Plox> Did you or did you not break 18 USC 1030?
<Megan> Do you know about the shell booter or not?
<Cook_Me_Plox> You first.
<thebrains222> you have the right to remain silent
<Cook_Me_Plox> This isn't a court of law
<Cook_Me_Plox> And you're not under arrest.
<thebrains222> well, actually, anyone has the right to remain silent anyway
<Megan> probably won't
<Megan> because my friend did it
<Aeriana> It looks like a pretty lame scanned script kiddie tool btw.
<Megan> and he's in the us
<thebrains222> wow, great good for you
<thebrains222> sure
<Cook_Me_Plox> Megan, that's bs and you know it
<Aeriana> Res is a bit low, but looks like it's got 4 options
<Megan> See
<Megan> That's why I don't give a fuck giving out info
<Cook_Me_Plox> No, I don't see.
<Megan> because who will believe me
<Aeriana> "hit 'em on the HTTP port", ICMP flood, SYN flood, and I can't see what the 4th is.
<Cook_Me_Plox> Do you have any evidence that someone else did this?
<Megan> Big big msn chat logs.
<Cook_Me_Plox> Other than your word, which I'm obviously not inclined to trust?
<Cook_Me_Plox> Produce pls.
<Cook_Me_Plox> And anyway, that still is conspriracy to commit fraud.
<Megan> http://pastie.org/1340747
<thebrains222> u know, this is just making your situation worse
<Megan> yuåp
<Megan> yup*
<Aeriana> Inciting someone to commit an illegal act, it just makes thing soooooooo much better, right? ;)
<Megan> yup
<thebrains222> ikr
<Megan> and you know what
<Megan> I don't really give a fuck
<Aeriana> I find it hilarious, I hope you guys keep it up.

222 talk 09:31, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Very strong support - I want her gone now! Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 04:52, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - I never really trusted her to begin with. Given that this is her second major violation, I say a block of 2 weeks to one month is in order. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 05:01, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

I want infinite. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 05:02, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Given how she's acted, she will likely screw up again after this, and then we can go infinite. However you're probably not going to get any support for infinite at this time. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 05:04, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Pending support - If this is true, then it's really disturbing and she should be blocked for a month. However, I want a statement from Ikin. ʞooɔ 05:07, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As above Farming cape (t) Lil cloud 9 Talk 05:11, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - These users should not do things like this. --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 05:14, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

I lol'd.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 05:15, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - If Ikin is to be blocked, it wouldn't be as a result of that incident. I read that entirely as a joke, nothing more. It doesn't look like it was her intention to cause actual harm. However, her behavior on other occasions may warrant a block - but definitely not on-wiki. IRC incidents should be dealt with on the IRC.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 05:15, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of this post, I shall assume that she did not intend any harm, and that it was a joke (though I do not believe this is so): You don't find it troubling that she finds using bots to crash someone's computer/whatever to be a joke, and something that can be done at random for grins and giggles? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 05:19, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
How is her attacking my property(the server), crashing the service(web server), and taking my brother's site offline a joke? Such attacks are illegal in some countries like the U.K., where the attackers can face up to 10 years in prison. I also certain don't find it funny. Dayofswords 08:38, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yep. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 05:21, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

The IRC is not the wiki, this proposal violates policy - Supporting this is a blatant violation of our policies. you simply cannot ban her from the wiki for this, any more than you could ban a mookie for pking you in game.(Just a random example). Wiki blocks/bans can only occur for wiki violations.--Degenret01 05:22, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Then have Evil change the proposal to an IRC ban. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 05:24, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Consensus overrides all policies. In this case, their actions in the IRC has made users unable to trust them to continue editing the wiki. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 05:27, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think that this is worth a block. But maybe if you could better explain to me what negative effects it had on your site? I didn't quite catch that part. - [Pharos] 05:25, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't open. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe&#039;en mask 05:28, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Basically, she crashed Evil's homework assignment which was being hosted by his own sever and also [somehow] disabled him from uploading/downloading using some Mozilla program. 222 talk 05:33, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Oopsies. Sorry, didn't see that part under the IRC chat. Support an IRC block. Maybe a week? - [Pharos] 05:34, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - We've given her a chance, and she has taken it... to further abuse editors who had done absolutely nothing to her. The extent of her actions should be enough to allow us to use the common sense method and disregard the policy. Frankly, her abusive, abrasive and may I say sadistic - at times - methods of "communicating" with people has convinced me she does not deserve any more chances; I've been on the receiving side of the aforementioned enough times to know. 222 talk 05:29, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Per Degen, I do not support the blocking of any individual based on actions off of the Wiki, even if it's related only in name. Now for the actions taken by Ikin weren't the best in any given situation, it would be best to not have this as a joke. However, when I think of botnets, my mind goes to the Low Orbital Ion Cannon used by Anonymous (group) for taking down sites like that program is meant to do by that group of individuals. If this were for an IRC block, then I might support it if more hostility is displayed. Ryan PM 05:30, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Multiple instances of hostilities have occured before this; if I kept logs of my IRC conversations, I'm sure I could provide at least 3 more examples. 222 talk 05:37, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Wow 3? --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 05:40, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Overall Support - I am not at all affiliated with the IRC server for this wiki. However, I definitely support wiki-based. I have watched this person be a complete jerk to people on this wiki - from brand new users with single digit good-faith edits to people with thousands and green names. I don't like to get involved with these kinds of things, considering I don't know hardly any of you outside of the wiki, but I felt the need to voice my views on this matter, as I have wanted to for a long time (but decided not to considering someone else already tried to on her talk page...). Also, like Cook said, if the logs are true, well that's just the cherry topping on the sundae. (:

  1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 05:42, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- I'm mad. This is my server. Dayofswords 06:49, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

umadbro? --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 07:24, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Those kinds of glib, remorseless comments will only serve to dig you deeper into this hole. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar
[23:17] <Dayofswords> so come, tell me what terrible thing evil did that made to want to take down my server
[23:18] <Megan> Well it's not that
[23:18] <Megan> everytime I see a server
[23:18] <Megan> I want to take it down.
[23:19] <thebrains222> wtf?
You really want this kind of user to stay on the wiki? Dayofswords 07:31, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, she has made a lot of useful edits. What have you done?--Degenret01 07:41, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Are you implying that because dayofswords has not made many edits, that his opinion does not matter? That violates some kind of policy... but I'm not sure which... kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 07:43, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Please show me where I said he doesn't have the right to an opinion. I answered his question, and asked one of my own.--Degenret01 08:00, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it does look like you are implying that Dayofswords' opinion isn't as valued compared to Megan because she has more edits here. 222 talk 08:18, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
"An editor's status, popularity, or in-game experience does not affect how they are treated and how their opinion is "weighed" in a discussion." The argument "I have a right to my opinion" is very weak here. User:Stelercus/Signature 10:39, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support IRC ban, pending wiki ban - Ikin's behaviour in the IRC was obviously unacceptable, and if it affected Evil in the real world, that's easily deserving of a ban. However, I have yet to see any adverse behaviour on the wiki itself, so I don't see why Ikin should be blocked from editing yet. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 07:37, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Support IRC and wiki ban per Cook below. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 10:00, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support IRC ban - I think a 2week irc ban would be good since this was so unacceptable as it is affecting people irl. A lot of people seem to have problems with her personality, although I usually find her to be not to bad. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe&#039;en mask 07:47, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If anything, I want at least an IRC ban; a complete ban, not just for 2 weeks, forever. She can run he bot on a different channel for all I care. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 08:20, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I should also point out that a Denial-of-service-attack is illegal in the United States[1] where Evil's brother's server is located; it is highly likely to be illegal in Norway as well, which is where Ikin lives. 222 talk 08:40, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

- Stalk much on your free time? --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 08:44, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
It says so on your userpage, and you know it. Stop with the idiotic comments. 222 talk 08:45, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
This link appears to deal exclusively with govt computers and such, not an individuals pc.--Degenret01 09:01, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I was given that link by Cook. 222 talk 09:03, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Btw I've never said I ddos, I shell boot which isn't the same as ddos. --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 09:08, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Because of the precedent we made in Forum:Wiki vs CC Blocks, I think that any IRC block should carry over to the wiki. ʞooɔ 08:47, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. That forum was about blocking UTP violators from the community, not the wiki. I can't see any ways to violate UTP while editing, other than flaming people in discussions, or leaving spiteful comments on talk pages. So far, I haven't seen any of that, so IRC and CC ban, sure, but wiki, not until vandalism or similar is uncovered. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 08:58, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
The rule goes both ways; if you get banned from the clan chat, you get a wiki block. If you get blocked on the wiki, you get a ban from the clan chat. Anyway, Megan did do some flaming on the wiki last month, but I'm not concerned with that. If someone is blocked from the clan chat and they are active here, they will be blocked from the wiki. In this scenario, how is the clan chat any different from IRC? ʞooɔ 09:04, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, issue a CC ban as well, which I said above, but as far as I know, one incident of flaming isn't enough to merit a wiki ban. What happens in the IRC/CC should stay in the IRC/CC, and not affect the business on-site. If I could see several incidents, then sure, block her from editing, but she's made plenty more good faith edits than anti-UTP ones, as far as I can see, so allow her to continue editing, but block if she starts being seriously inflammatory. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 09:47, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but should we really be excusing a user's bad behavior on the grounds of their good contributions? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 09:50, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
CC block in unnecessary as she doesn't go on there. And "What happens in the IRC/CC should stay in the IRC/CC" is no longer true due to the result of the thread I posted. Anyway, I wouldn't call illegally shell booting a website "flaming". And this is certainly not the first time she has broken rules; she continually harasses certain people in IRC, continued to update the Grand Exchange after warnings, uploaded cache files after being warned not to (I'm not talking about the music files.) And I think we established in blocking Parsons that your number of good faith edits should not be taken into account. ʞooɔ 09:56, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I had no idea Ikin did all that D: User:Real Not Pure/Signature 10:00, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

(2)

Support - First of all, I should note that it is an enforcement of consensus to block her from the wiki if she is blocked from IRC as well, as per Forum:Wiki vs CC Blocks. That consensus does affect IRC as well (though not clearly spelled out, it was the intention), so if she is blocked from one, she must be blocked from both unless there is clear consensus otherwise. As for the proposal itself, I was originally going to oppose. However, when I read the dialogue, I was through shocked. This degree of trolling is unacceptable and should never result in anything less than a block. User:Stelercus/Signature 10:24, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - She has got to take serious things seriously, and stop being immature and trolling. User:1337rng3r/Signature 10:34, December 2, 2010 (UTC)


Another Comment - This is a home server, running from my house on a old dell small form client computer, it is far from a full server(like rack-type). It could never handle a DDoS attack, it could hardly handle firefox. From the logs in the something extra part, she thought it was a school server which if she had attacked they would have known in great detail, and apparently the attack was running for little under an hour, they probably can't just unplug the internet to it like I did(they have exchange(email), file, and web servers, all vital for staff and students) and certainly would have an investigation(as it would clog all incoming/outgoing connections with the huge bandwidth use). As a community college with state connections, this would have not been taken lightly. And one last thing, you may remember this as the same server that ran the teamspeak 3 and teamspeak 2 servers for months as a wikia off-site service, if this had still been in use it would have affected all the users on the wiki who used teamspeak. I know I'm not a huge editor here but if she is taking serious computer network attacks lightly, with assumed knowledge of attacking a school, well what other serious things will she do.Dayofswords 11:08, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

If you thought that this was a school server, Megan, that's absolutely fucking despicable, not to mention incredibly illegal. That you would attempt to take down a server at a college for shits and giggles is really screwed up. ʞooɔ 11:18, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
As a school computer I meant another computer. --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 14:04, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
...What? I fail to see how a "school computer" is synonymous with "another computer". School computer = School computer. Another computer could mean school computer, but it doesn't work the other way round. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:50, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

support - ikin, really, you should really be nicer to people. i know you can code better than me. That is no reason to keep saying it to me. Also if you do !quote (number) in the irc with JSBot in it, one of them will say "joey can't code" or something. I find this quite offensive(looking at the discussion/fight we had a day before) and i want you to remove it, ikin. now. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:47, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

if you had been a active user of my bot you would see that it's gone. --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 12:03, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Who said anything about JSBot? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:28, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support blocking JSBot and Ikin - I really hated her attitude on irc. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 13:02, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, yea... Have I even seen you on the last months? --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 14:04, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - The first thing I thought of when I saw the thread was 'another thread to oppose that proposes to block a good faith user!'. Well, the conservation transcripts above prove otherwise. I most certainly do not trust someone that takes servers down 'because it's fun', and she should be arrested in the first place. bad_fetustalk 15:50, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - I wish some people would piss off with the policy crap. RS:UCS... He/She is a hazard to the wiki, they could just as easily DDoS this wiki and leave it on a high bps for a few days or weeks. Shades of "Wikileaks" anyone? Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 17:36, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

What policy? The only policies mentioned have been UTP, in the arguments for blocking Ikin  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Real Not Pure (talk).
The IRC is not the wiki, this proposal violates policy - Supporting this is a blatant violation of our policies. you simply cannot ban her from the wiki for this, any more than you could ban a mookie for pking you in game.(Just a random example). Wiki blocks/bans can only occur for wiki violations.--Degenret01 05:22, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
This Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 17:59, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Degen, it violates nothing. Consensus overrides anything, or having this discussion would be pointles in the first place. You don't want Ikin to get banned? Sure, but don't go confuse people. bad_fetustalk 18:18, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - *Sigh...* That was too far. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:43, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - From what I have read, this was clearly a malicious and possibly illegal attack for fun, and she appears to have shown no remorse for the damage done by her actions. There is no way to justify such actions to me. Is it really safe to let her loose on the wiki if she's capable of that, despite her good contributions? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 18:00, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - She just maliciously attacked Evil1888's site for fun, not because anything personal as can be seen in the evidence above. She also takes everything as a joke and doesn't care about peoples feelings, and even if we block her, she would surely take it as a joke, just as she took my debate with her, luckily Chess cooled things down before I just cracked up and became aggressive on Ikin, cause she is simply a jerk and should be blocked for 2 weeks, from IRC and wiki, but I bet she wouldn't take it seriously, obviously.User:1337rng3r/Signature 18:17, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Malicious acts like this cannot be tolerated. I see no reason for anything less than an infinite IRC ban and at least a month here. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:36, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Honestly? I'm not going to pretend like what Megan did was right, but you guys are willing to violate a policy to get rid of a helpful contributor because of something in the IRC. That's just sickening. Under no circumstances should she be blocked on wiki. IRC is debatable, she needs to learn that actions have consequences, but I doubt a block will accomplish much. User:Haloolah123/Sig 20:20, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

It's not violating a policy. It's actually enforcing the consensus of the thread we've all mentioned. And while she is quite helpful at times, her mistakes are piling up. Anyway, I don't see how we can trust her to edit (let alone run a bot) after shell booting what it seems she thought was a school. ʞooɔ 20:36, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
This was done in IRC. She has had problems on wiki in past yes. But she has already been blocked for those. User:Haloolah123/Sig 20:38, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Consensus overrides all policies, and we are getting consensus here and furthermore we already have consensus as to why off-site actions can lead to a wiki block here. Consensus dictates policy and all policies are subservient to consensus. You're essentially suggesting that policies can never change because using consensus to override/change policies is bad. Furthermore the fact that she has already been blocked for things and still continues to act negatively strengthens the argument that she should be blocked. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 20:42, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
The fact that she can be a helpful contributor and often is weakens that argument. Policies can always change, but there is no consensus here to change it. User:Haloolah123/Sig 21:06, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
As Cook said earlier, we established that we ignore good faith edits in these discussions, as we did with Parsonsda. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 21:28, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support wiki and IRC block - This is unacceptable. I should mention that any possible wiki block should involve blocking GEbot and JSBot also, as using they are easy ways for her to evade her block. --LiquidTalk 21:26, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

She doesn't run User:GEbot. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe&#039;en mask 06:12, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
I believe that was the original name she came up with. Not to be confused with User:GEBot Sentra. Farming cape (t) Lil cloud 9 Talk 20:10, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

RS:NOT exists for a reason - Consensus doesn't override policy (Proposition 8 being ruled unconstitutional is a nice real world example) unless the community also agrees to do away with the policy. You can't use UCS to get around this one either, and the wiki vs cc blocks discussion doesn't involve IRC. If Ikin is blocked from the wiki based solely on this IRC evidence, we are knowingly ignoring and one of the fundamental policies that has held this wiki together for so long. Yes, what Ikin did is inexcusable, but blocking someone using MSN evidence is bloody ridiculous. I can say whatever I want on MSN because it has absolutely nothing to do with the wiki. If someone copied and pasted or faked an MSN conversation I was in, would you try to get me desysopped/blocked? You can ban Ikin on IRC, but that's not in our jurisdiction. This isn't even a matter of support and oppose. This is the community being ignorant of a policy. How disappointing. Andrew talk 21:34, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

And which part of RS:NOT are you referring to? Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 21:39, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
No, we are not violating RS:NOT. In case you haven't noticed, the block policy was amended per Forum:Wiki vs CC Blocks to say that any user blocked for RS:UTP violations will be blocked from both the CC and the wiki, regardless of which the violation actually occurred on. The IRC isn't the CC, granted, but it's still an offsite feature like the CC is, which is what the forum was discussing. I don't see a problem with applying the same principle approved in that forum here since what she did was obviously a UTP violation. --LiquidTalk 21:42, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
One, exactly what Evil said. Two, "Consensus doesn't override policy unless the community also agrees to do away with the policy" -- says who? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Let me just pull out some excerpts from RS:NOT#..._based_off-site for you....strict wiki business should stay on the wiki.. . . . Likewise, though some of your fellow editors may be RuneScape friends or instant messenger contacts, binding decisions must be made solely using discussion on the wiki itself. References to outside discussion that may be relevant in an on-site discussion are acceptable, but they may not be used as the basis for a consensus or decision by themselves. The only pieces of evidence provided in this discussion are IRC and MSN logs. This discussion is in blatant violation of policy. Andrew talk 21:45, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, right, so the forum I mentioned above is nonexistent and you're going to use a technicality to violate its spirit to try to get Ikin off? Seriously? --LiquidTalk 21:46, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I would hope that you aren't ignorant enough to assume that. As I already said, the forum you mentioned does not cover IRC. You insult me by accusing me of trying to "get someone off" on a technicality. I am defending the wiki's policies, just like any defense lawyer that gets a case dismissed (even if the defendant did commit the crime) on a technicality is defending the United States Constitution. Extreme comparison, yes, but the same principle applies. If we do away with our policies every time someone does something bad, we're already lost. I have also already mentioned that Ikin should be banned from the IRC channel, so of course I'm not interested in letting anyone get away with anything. Andrew talk 21:49, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
UTP violations, as opposed to all other blocks, deal directly with how users interact with other members of the community. If it has been proven that they have disturbed members of the community to the point of being given a block, it's only logical to completely remove their communication with the community while that block is in effect (aside from the privilege to appeal the block on their talk page, which would be removed if they abuse it). Otherwise, they will be able to continue to do whatever it was that resulted in a block, defeating its original purpose.
 
You have got to be kidding me. Ikin has "disturbed members of the community to the point of being given a block" (on the IRC, which no one seems to dispute). Therefore, "it's only logical to completely remove [her] communication with the community while that block is in effect". That is the logic presented. That completely applies here. If you are going to nag on the fact that the forum was using the CC as an example, then that is horrible technicality abuse. We are a wiki. We operate on trust. There is a reason we do not have judges with the ability to dismiss cases based on things like this. We use COMMON SENSE, not frivolous legal issues to resolve conflicts. The policy you mentioned for keeping things separate was thrown out in the Wiki vs. CC block thread for UTP violations. This is a UTP violation. I really don't see how you can try to use this technicality to get her off, especially when the reasoning provided and approved fits perfectly fine in this scenario also. You are not defending the wiki's policies by doing this. You are defending a frivolous technicality. --LiquidTalk 21:58, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is ****ing ridiculous, I wish that all the opposition would stop humping off their policies and USE THEIR COMMON SENSE!!! This is like referring to a gunman, he goes out and shoots someone on purpose, for nothing to do. The person lives, life goes on. Would you let this gunman come into your public shop or bar? No you wouldn't. What Megan did was an illegal activity in general law. You CANNOT go out and DDoS someone like that... To heck if you've made 100,000 edits that have formed the basis of this wiki. If you go out there, and INTENTIONALLY cause trouble just like that at that type of scale. I don't care if it over rides this policy and that policy and if you are going to go out there and start bumming off that policy to make yourself look cool and smart compared to everyone else... She committed a SEVERE offence which in truth, warrants a block from wikia globally. Grow up and start using your common sense please... Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 22:05, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

If you were looking for an award for throwing out as many childish insults, making no sense, and ignoring reason as many times as possible in one paragraph, you just won. You obviously need to spend a bit of time reading up on our other policies. Andrew talk 22:12, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Whatever Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 22:15, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - First of all, I don't know how many times I've said this already, but I'll say it again: I am not trying to "get her off." Now that we've established that, you're damn right I'm defending technicalities, because sometimes it's necessary. Wiki vs CC blocks was very clear in its wording. Stelercus only proposed that CC and wiki blocks be linked, and when it was closed, you yourself reiterated that, Liquid. There is absolutely no room for interpretation there. Wiki blocks result in CC bans and CC bans result in wiki blocks. Nothing in there talks about "off-site bans" that result in wiki blocks or wiki blocks that "can result in bans in other places connected to the wiki" or anything of the sort. Now, RS:NOT was not thrown out the window with that proposal. It still applies to everything else, and it does clearly state that IRC/MSN evidence can not be used as the sole basis for a wiki block. If there was any way for this to work like wiki vs cc blocks, I would support Ikin being blocked; however, it clearly does not, and until that time, I will continue defending what I know to be wiki policy, and twisting my words to make it sound like something else only insults me. Andrew talk 22:10, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

IRC/MSN evidence is not being used as sole evidence for this thread, we know that Evil's brother's server was crashed through direct actions of Ikin and associates. 222 talk 22:13, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the wiki. If you knew someone on this wiki robbed a store, would you block them? They'll go to jail, yes, but is it relevant at all to the wiki? No! Andrew talk 22:15, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
While never clearly spelled out in the proposal, IRC blocks were implied by the following clause (which appears to have already been quoted). "If it has been proven that they have disturbed members of the community to the point of being given a block, it's only logical to completely remove their communication with the community while that block is in effect (aside from the privilege to appeal the block on their talk page, which would be removed if they abuse it). Otherwise, they will be able to continue to do whatever it was that resulted in a block, defeating its original purpose." Either way, RS:UCS prevails. User:Stelercus/Signature 22:16, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
That's what I said fifteen minutes ago. Way to steal my words back after I stole them from you. >=( --LiquidTalk 22:17, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
That was negated by this: Keep in mind this means that not only will UTP violations on the wiki apply to the chat, but UTP violations on the chat will apply to the wiki. Even then, this only applies if the UTP violator in question uses both as well as what Liquid said when he closed the proposal. And as I've already said, UCS can't be applied here because there's nowhere for it to be applied. RS:NOT and wiki vs cc blocks are worded very clearly. Andrew talk 22:20, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I see no reason to differentiate IRC from the clan chat in this context, and the reasoning that IRC was not included in the Wiki vs CC blocks thread is insufficient. Leaving it out was more likely an oversight than intentionally attempting to separate IRC and the clan chat. The point of the proposal was to establish a standard by which UTP violators are stopped from bothering anyone else through media which this wiki controls. For all intents and purposes, IRC = clan chat. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:18, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Not when it's worded that clearly. If you would like to start a new proposal allowing IRC to be included like the CC is, go for it. That would quickly gain support, including from me, and then this proposal would pass. Andrew talk 22:20, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Inconceivable Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 22:21, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Princess Bride is a great movie, yes, but highly irrelevant. Andrew talk 22:21, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Or how about we avoid being unnecessarily bureaucratic? As I said, IRC not being included in the original proposal was more likely an oversight than intentional. We don't need to bicker about technicalities like this. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:23, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I stand by my opinion. Stand by yours if you wish, but I don't think that UCS can be applied like that here, and I'm not budging. Andrew talk 22:25, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
<Edit conflict hell>As Liquid said (we are all stealing words from each-other now), the logic presented in the proposal was, "If it has been proven that they have disturbed members of the community to the point of being given a block, then we must completely remove their communication with the community while that block is in effect." We have proven that Ikin has disturbed members of the community to the point of (well, assume that she will be) a block, therefore, we must completely remove their communication with the community while that block is in effect. If you're going to get so tied up in the fact that the proposal was focused on the CC rather than the IRC, you will find that she (Ikin) will be able to continue to do whatever it was that resulted in a block, defeating its original purpose. User:Stelercus/Signature 22:26, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Do what, crash servers? Lol, I doubt a wiki block would deter her from that, and you can already ban her from IRC.. Andrew talk 22:32, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Annoy people with her attitude. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Andrew, come on. If you are going to nag on technicalities, then I am forced to do so as well. I must mention that the quotes Stelercus and I cited used the term "chat", not "Clan chat". Last I checked, the IRC stood for "Internet Relay Chat". It is a chat form also. Stelercus even explained his statement that the it is implied that any chat form was covered by the proposal. --LiquidTalk 22:26, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
The point is, she hasn't done anything on the wiki worthy of a block since her last block. Not these little technicalities. User:Haloolah123/Sig 22:28, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Closed - Users blocked from either the clan chat or the wiki for UTP violations will automatically be blocked in the other if they are active there. --LiquidTalk Andrew talk 22:32, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Again. Not including IRC was an oversight. Even ask Steler. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:35, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Well... She did run her GEBot without approval. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 22:30, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
"If you would like to start a new proposal allowing IRC to be included like the CC is, go for it. That would quickly gain support, including from me, and then this proposal would pass" (Andrew). Really? What's the point of going through all that if you yourself support the idea? Keep in mind, RS:NOT also states that we are not a bureaucracy. User:Stelercus/Signature 22:32, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Because we have no authority to do what we are proposing to do right now. Andrew talk 22:36, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I wish Andrew would just stop stonewalling this discussion. As per above, you admitted that you would support had the policies been changed prior to this. Theoretically, you are willing to support, but instead, you are just being a complete dick. Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 22:37, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, your ignorance amazes me. You obviously don't even understand DBAD, and you're just pulling it out of thin air because you don't like what I have to say. And I'm sure as hell not gaming the system. Like I told you earlier..go study our policies more. Andrew talk 22:39, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

I feel that you are being a dick. You are attempting to stop this discussion just on the basis of policies... You said it yourself, had the policies been nerfed EVER SO SLIGHTLY. You would be sitting here supporting. Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 22:41, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Stop this discussion? No, where have I ever even implied that? I've said I support Ikin being IRC banned. That's part of this discussion. There are others earlier in this discussion who had similar opinions, yet you are singling me out. Now, unless you have any other policies you'd like to pull out of a hat, let's get back to the actual discussion, shall we? Andrew talk 22:43, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, look. Regardless of whatever policies or discussions we cite, the bottom line is that none of that matters if there is a support consensus here. The policies are reasons for people to support or oppose proposals, but they are not used to singlehandedly derail them. Consensus overrides policies. --LiquidTalk 22:45, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Halo, are you calling illegally shell-booting a site and continually violating RS:UTP a techniaclity? User:Real Not Pure/Signature 22:34, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

What Ikin does elsewhere is irrelevant. Like I said, you don't block someone here for robbing a store IRL because it's irrelevant. The RL authorities deal with that. Andrew talk 22:36, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

You'd block them if they broke UTP during the robbery, and were walking on eggshells after a previous ban(s). User:Real Not Pure/Signature 22:43, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

@Andrew: Riddle me this: If Hitler was still alive, wWould you allow him the guys who did the Google attacks to be here on the wiki? Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 22:44, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing Ikin to a World War II mass murderer....? Andrew talk 22:47, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Gaz Lloyd invokes Godwin's law! Its super effective! Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 22:50, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding? We are trying to be SERIOUS here. --LiquidTalk 22:51, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
This actually cheered me up so much :D Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 22:58, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I am. The link to Godwin's law was going to crop up anyway. I found it laughable that there are several pages of textwalls arguing over a tiny technicality that is both a simple oversight and is covered by IAR. Everyone is so ridiculously serious it could be a court room or something silly like that. I thought I'd lighten the mood with something just as laughable and silly. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 23:00, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
I lol'd. And I said Hitler because I couldn't think of a good example. How changing it to 'guys who did the Google attacks'. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 23:21, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
The only way to prove that it's them would be if they start bragging about it on the wiki. UCS would then come into play. *However*, "we know they did the Google attacks" wouldn't be a viable argument. Andrew talk 23:25, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

*Facepalm* - Well guess what, I supported the banning of Ikin based on what I've seen on the wiki. The evidence is from IRC, but it doesn't say we can't discuss her failure to regard the UTP of wiki anywhere. 'Nuff said.

  1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:30, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Can we all use our inside voices please? This is an emotionally charged thread but we don't need to resort to personal insults. ʞooɔ 22:43, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Given that Andrew has admitted that he would support were it not for the exact wording written in the thread, then it would seem that emotions are not at play here. What we have here is a bureaucratically charged thread. And Andrew is technically correct, the best kind of correct!
225px-Number_1_0.png
kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 23:29, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

(3)

Was the IRC server used for the attack? If the IRC server was used in any way for Ikins attack on Evil, whether to find its location or to send the attack itself, I would consider that important. But if she only announced/bragged about the attack in the IRC and did not use it for the actual offense, then she only violated UTP in the IRC. I notice some people have problems with technicalities being brought up. Following protocols and procedures keeps us from being a mob of squabbling children. Things should be dealt with in a calm and reasoned manner.--Degenret01 04:39, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I used the little cmd ping command (not on my bot) to get his ip in the first place so yea, the bot didn't do much else then showing that I did something. --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 04:48, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment -

Didn't know if it was necessary but meh. - [Pharos] 05:17, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I used HTTPS mIRC to get his ip. --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 05:22, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support two week block for UTP violations Seeing the comparison for IRC and the CC this would be appropriate. For her attack on Evils computer, that was not done through the IRC and so should not be a matter for us here. I think Evil should call his local police dept. and use the logs presented here if he wishes to pursue that matter.--Degenret01 08:15, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just read above that she obtained the ip addresss from a CTCP sever command. Do you guys not have mode +x on the IRC server you guys use? Mode +x on my server gives all users a hostmask which makes obtaining their IP near impossible. Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 08:34, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Evidently not, because /mode +x returns "unknown mode char". The channel is hosted on freenode. And I don't see a similar command. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 08:43, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ew gross, you guys should have +x. However even if you did, any admin of the server would still be able to see it (@ Rhys).
  1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 13:16, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Ikin posted this link: pJVj3.png She plans to do it again. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 09:17, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

I should really learn using the real words, but think this way, if I wanted to give back wouldn't I already have done it? --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 13:01, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
We don't know if she's just threatening us, Evil, or if she genuinely wants to commit another illegal act. I really don't want another shell booting to happen ANYWHERE, but if it does happen, we can probably get real-life laws involved. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 09:32, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Tell the police or your service provider, if it is not happening through the wiki or the IRC then it does not belong here on this thread.--Degenret01 09:34, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm getting User:Sannse. This seems to be very serious. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 12:49, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to get Wikia staff involved. We are working out what we are going to do about it and if anything this will just cause more problems. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe&#039;en mask 13:20, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, getting Wikia staff on this will cause confusion and more problems. User:1337rng3r/Signature 13:25, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
<Edit conflict> Wikia staff, especially Sannse have repeatedly said that as a community we should solve problems like this by ourselves. Seeing as we are the ones that know about it best and are affected by it. And quoting her here when asked to make a decision/ give her opinion, "your wiki, your choice". - [Pharos] 13:34, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Just wait for another TLUL episode when you do that... Farming cape (t) Lil cloud 9 Talk 13:42, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - IRC is not the wiki. You guys complained when TLUL got blocked for something on IRC, noting that it happened on IRC, not the wiki. Well, that point still stands here, so blocking her, but campaigning to unblock TLUL for something which happened on IRC isn't fair. --Callofduty4 12:59, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Also, may I remind you guys that pilejumping her to get her blocked isn't much short of a breach of UTP. You must conduct this forum in a mature and non-hypocritical way (for example, leaving out stupid reasons like "I want her gone now!"). This "website crashing" or DDoSing or whatever seems to be off-site. You aren't meant to block for off-site happenings, even if they are RuneScape related. A block from the IRC channel would be a suitable punishment. --Callofduty4 13:09, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
And another thing - this seems to be a highly personal and therefore biased forum, put forward by the person who was offended. If you really wanted to be completely neutral, someone who was not involved should have put this up. --Callofduty4 13:12, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
I'm waiting for my block (Yes I am...)... --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 13:15, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Press for a cookie --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 13:25, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Heres a real breach of UTP: Are you an idiot? Lets leave her on this wiki and let her talk crap to people and threaten them with a DDoS and what not... Yeah, that's pretty damn fair isn't it? Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 13:42, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I don't want to innerup but I was the biggest flamer of all times, I'm just saying now scroll down and get a cookie. --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 13:48, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Weakly Support IRC block - Gaah really sorry. My head was in chaos. Support - Well this incident is personal matter, but it doesn't mean it would infect more areas. Disruptive behavior must be strictly prohibited. And to whom using policy to say "Wiki isn't IRC": I repeat, this is network attack. It will possibly spread to wiki. But generally speaking it is harassment, some legal actions would work better than flaming in the wiki to tag the guilts. Rewlf2 16:29, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Bye all, btw cake on the #wikia-cod. --Farming cape (t) Ikin Talk 21:09, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Ikin has agreed to a two week block from the wiki and IRC, and she will leave Evil alone. If she does anything else of the sort, this block will get lengthened. ʞooɔ 21:13, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - Ikin's block has been extended to two months as a result of further violation of UTP on her part, in addition to block evasion. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:28, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.