https://wiki.urbandead.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Liberty&feedformat=atomThe Urban Dead Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T10:42:47ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.37.1https://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1392736Talk:Main Page2009-02-20T09:11:41Z<p>Liberty: /* New Page Design */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| style="background:#EEEEFF; border:solid 2px #CCCCDD; padding:10px; width: 300px; float:right;"<br />
|-<br />
| '''Message Archive'''<br />
*'''[[talk:Main Page/archive|Archive1]]'''<br />
*'''[[talk:Main Page/Archive 2|Archive 2]]'''<br />
*'''[[talk:Main Page/Archive 3|Archive 3]]'''<br />
*'''[[talk:Main Page/Archive 4|Archive 4]]'''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''Remember to always sign your messages''', <br>by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) in the end of your message.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Could I just be really unlucky? ==<br />
<br />
For the past 3 days, I have not been able to hit with my attacks at all. Attacking at 40% with a fire axe, using around 45AP on attacks, I have not hit once. Am I just really unlucky? Or is it zerging counter-measures?<br />
<br />
Note: I do have one alt, a Zombie in Mornington, my main is a survivor in West Grayside.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Tasty Sub|Tasty Sub]] 03:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Interesting, I don't think its Zerging. You might want to post that in the [[Bug Reports]] section of the wiki.--[[User:Zaphord|Zaphord]] 04:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The same thing has been happening to me. I don't know about this, but I just got back from a UD hiatus for a while.<br />
When I took a shot at a zombie in a ruined building with closed doors I received the text:<br />
"You took a shot into the darkness, missing the zombie" or something similar. I did, though, land the first shot.<br />
I did notice that my pistol had less hit percentage as well...--[[User:RobertG|RobertG]]<br />
<br />
==Hmm...==<br />
Standing Survivors : 9550 (44%)<br />
Standing Zombies : 11752 (56%)<br />
<br />
When did that happen?? The cemetery RP next to buckley has 64 zeds...amusing. maybe we're finally gonna get some apocalyptic action!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think it's because of the new FAK search rate in malls. I know my success rate has been cut in at least half, even with a genny. And since hospital search rates weren't bumped, and sucked to begin with, that's a lot less hp for zombies to deal with. <br />
<br />
:Or maybe there's some new zombie tour/group trashing the burb and I'm just not aware of it. --[[User:Antipathy|Antipathy]] 07:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::Hospital search rates didn't suck, they were the second best in game only beaten out by mall FAK rates. More likely it's just Borehamwood combined with the holiday season downing survivor numbers.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::I think Kevan kept those values separate. I'm not positive though. And I think the ratio is so disproportionate because of the new update to the Mall FAK search rates, as Antipathy said above. --{{User:Omega360/Sig}} 04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::I can't see FAKs making a huge difference. I mean in a multiply by a billion sense it could, but if a zombie gets you chances are you'll die hp regardless.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::It's roughly 1 AP per FAK but you get a potential 5 more hp healed. That's like claiming scanning makes revives uber-expensive or ruins were debilitating to survivors before you took damage from them. It's not a big deal and has been around long enough that it's obviously not what is causing this recent swing.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::::The same thing happened with Monroeville, a downturn in survivor numbers. It will pick up. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::::Momentary loss of interest in Malton, probably. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Yep. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::FAKS do make a big difference. When FAKS are very common, most survivor have 60 HPS - enough that a lone zombie generally can not kill them after spending AP moving around, tearing down light barricades, etc. If FAKS are rare and saved for serious injury / infection, zombies often find 40-59HP survivors to kill. That makes a difference even in the numbers MOB can kill during a strike, let alone their feral cloud. Plus, more frequent kills means survivors spend more AP on revives and healing. Basically its a small change that has a ripple effect. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
That "momentary loss of interest" in the established map should tell us all a lot about what most players think about starting fresh. I know people who have come back to the game to play on the new maps but don't drift back into Malton afterwards. The fact that so many seem to switch allegiance for the duration of a new map strongly suggests that a lot of the none donating players don't care about the games history and just want to experience the short term and far more equal/exciting battle for a new city. Does anyone know if the overall number of players is up? I hope so because it would probably be a spur to create more new cities.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Judging from some of the behavior ive seen. (survivors sitting in the street, especially outside VSB buildings, and the killing and non dumping of bodies,) Theres a lot of newbs. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 13:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::New players are a good thing though and given a bit of a chance they can and do learn. Of course not all of them stay long enough, especially on a temp map with perma death for survivors but still. As for the survivors sat outside... a lot of that is down to dummy accounts made simply to provide an easy source of XP. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::I sure it is. When monroeville came out, I was almost sure kevan had spammed street alts for us zombies to feast on. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
Standing Survivors : 8440 (39%) Standing Zombies : 12714 (61%)<br />
<br />
Plus, 57% of Survivors are zombie hunters. Still think this is due to Monroeville? --[[User:Antipathy|Antipathy]] 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:no. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Whoops, I meant Borehamwood, not Monroeville. --[[User:Antipathy|Antipathy]] 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::That number isn't actually strange.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Bugged? ==<br />
<br />
okay, i'm in spicer hills and i'm in hopping road police station and the blocks all around me say "cOdE4HrPsout" is this a bug or is it just my computer?--[[User:Jerrel Yokotory|Jerrel Yokotory]] 22:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Uninstall any UD addons you've got.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Template:InactiveGroup]]==<br />
Just made this so inactive groups that are not historical can still be noted as such. If we ever do another Suburb Group Massacre (talking about that, it's been roughly half a year since the last one. Who feels like doing some more group massacring,) this template could be used to indicate inactive groups (on their page, of course,) and older, inactive groups in general.<br />
<br />
It's based off [[Template:HistoricalGroup]], but is not intended as a replacement. For one, it is for historically insignificant groups that still existed. <br />
<br />
Thoughts?<br />
<br />
{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Decembers never good. Too many users at work/college, off on holidays. we can run it again in january. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::I was thinking January, but if I have internet access when I'm away, I might be able to get started in mid-December. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::Maybe. I want to refine the system slightly, groups on the stats page are assumed to be active etc. shouldn't take as long as last time anyway. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::::Someone needs to do a Great Radio Group Massacre as well, although someone was planning it at one point. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::::I'll help with a Radio Group Massacre, if one finally gets started. And another group massacre. Yay for cleaning up the wiki. (Err...and on the subject at hand, I think the template sounds like a very good idea, and has probably been needed ever since crit 12 was removed. It would make it very clear which groups are worth checking out as a new person, and which pages are just archives. Are there specific standards, though, for differentiating between a historical group and an inactive group?) --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 15:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Yeah, historical groups have to be voted on. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::::::I've gotten a [[Radio/Group Massacre|Great Radio Group Massacre]] started, by the way Jen. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:This template needs new colors and image, otherwise it can be easily confused with the historical template. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 15:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::It will have a different name and feature a date. something like Group massacre 2008 die harder. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::fucking reading words is haaaaaaard. link, where in australia are ya from? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::::You can discuss more on. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:The_Great_Suburb_Group_Massacre#2008 --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::::How come i suggesting new colors and image for the inactive group template turned out to be a discussion about another suburb group massacre ? --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 20:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Because that's what the template was intended for. Obviously, the colors should be changed, but I suck at coding. Any ideas? {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hmm. By the looks of it, [[The Great Radio Group Massacre]] is going to find hordes of inactive groups. Is anyone against me adding this template to groups that don't reply and are '''obviously inactive''' (no activity on the main page, not on the stats page?) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Anyone got any disagreement? I'll assume [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus|silence implies consent,]] until someone talks ;). {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 02:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Alright, I've started throwing these on groups that are obviously inactive-that is, no stat-page action, no edits on their pages for a while, and no activity on their forums (if they have them.) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Rotters at revive points? ==<br />
<br />
Sometimes I am reviving at a revive point and their is a rotter there. I kill a zombie but it doesn't kill the rotter at the front of the line it kills someone else. I think I read something about this early on but can't figure out where I read it. What I'm wondering is how do you clear a rotter out of a revive point? Can someone explain to me why this happens or link to somewhere that can? Thanks--[[User:Jamespoky|Jamespoky]] 04:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You can try adding the rotter to your contact list, then selecting the rotter to attack. You'll have to grab the rotter through a DNA extractor or by the rotter revealing himself through an attack or speech, of course.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
It's a tactic, James. Organised zombies sleep in the revive queues in order to slow the turnover. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's usually better done by a survivor with a shotgun. It's a legitimate tactic, if a bit annoying (rotters that are "survivors" will usually sleep away from non-rotter RP's so rotters can get revived.) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the reply's, I know its a tactic and all but I don't understand why the zombie that has been standing there longest without logging in, which is in the front of the revive queue (I believe thats how the revive queue's work), In this case the rotter, isn't also the first one to be attacked and killed. Sorry I poorly worded my previous question. I don't understand what the game uses as factors to decide which zombie gets attacked first when their's multiple zombies at a location, is it like lowest hp or something? I just always thought that the zombie next in line to be revived would also be the next to get attacked. I'll have to try adding the rotter to my contact's. Thanks--[[User:Jamespoky|Jamespoky]] 15:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::It determines it in the same way the survivors screen determined the order you see the characters on list. Just you can't target. So, basically, Activity. The confusing part here is that [[DNA Extractor]]s use a ''different'' form of searching out the list, specifically it always goes to the First unscanned in the stack(list of names/users) instead of the first user. That functionality used to work in a manner so that Brain Rotting was stronger when syringes used less AP, because you couldn't see the profile and didn't have the Revivify This Specimen button you couldn't always know if a rotter was top stack until you scanned everyone or used a syringe, you still can't but you can now revive below top of the stack and get profiles to singularly kill below top of the stack. Basically now Brain Rot's main functionality is preventing scanning, not preventing revives. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I see, wow was I mixed up! Thanks for the excellent explanation.--[[User:Jamespoky|Jamespoky]] 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== it's not letting me do any thing and signing out ==<br />
<br />
i can sign in and clik on links, but thats it. every time i click on a building or action it just signs me off, can anyone help me with this problem please.<br />
:[[Bug Reports]]. I believe there are a few there that might cover this, if there aren't feel free to report it there and someone will let you know what's going on. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
ok it was there but there suggestions didn't help im still getting kick off when i do something. Thanks for the help though.....any more suggestion<br />
<br />
== Unlucky? Don't think so. ==<br />
<br />
I play 3 zombie characters, always keep them separated. I attack with hands, usually graab someone within 2-3 attacks. After that, I try to bite and blow through 45 AP without a hit. This has happenned more than once- more like 10 times. The odds against it are staggering. Am I running afoul of the "no cooperation" AI? I love the idea of this game, but the implementation is driving me away. I like the "no cheaters" stuff, but seriously- make it realistic.<br />
:Do you have tangling grasp?? There is a massive tangling grasp bug that means for some people you just don't hit. It's addressed a lot of [[Bug Reports]] and [[Known Bugs]]. While i wish Kevan would fix it all i can do is offer you my tips for minimising the misses. Try using bite as much as possible, it works fine for me. And ifyou do have to use hands, attack once, then if it hits attack someone else striaght away. Don't utilise the grasp or the bug kicks in and you just keep missing, good luck.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ah- wish I had come here before I tried again. I definitely agree about tangling grasp bug- I just attacked a survivor with hands, hit on the first try, then had 43 straight misses with bite. That's a 0.00002% chance- better chance hitting Powerball or getting whacked by a meteorite.<br />
<br />
So I guess getting tangling grasp has really screwed me- what I hoped would double my chances actually ends up driving them to zero. How does one go about reporting a bug? I understand it's been reported already, I just want to add my experience to the pile.<br />
<br />
Thanks, ciggy.<br />
<br />
== Uploading troubles ==<br />
<br />
I am trying to get [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:Malton001.JPG this]] to change over to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/a/a1/Malton001.JPG this] image, but it does not seem to be working. I have tried using the “Upload a new version of this file” button to no noticiable affect. Any advice? [[User:John Ibans|John Ibans]] 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You may need to refresh your thingy, browser. I'm pretty sure firefox is ctrl+R --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Making a similar game ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking of setting up a game with a similar set up as urbandead, are theyre any links you could recomend that would help me with this? Or any problems I may encounter?--[[User:Athur birling|Athur birling]] 16:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== New Page Design ==<br />
<br />
Me and [[User:The Rooster|The Rooster]] have been working on a new page design, which you can [[User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sandbox3|see here]]. Some areas of the new Main Page aren't quite done yet such as the Community Portal and other possible tweaks. The Wiki News section and the Community Portal section will be templated if this is approved. Such changes can be implemented through discussion editing.<br />
<br />
Give your approval or disproval through '''Yay''' or a '''Nay''' if you like/dislike the idea. Constructive criticism would be good. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Yay''' - Always wants a more UD style page. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Yay''' - <--Obviously. Anyway, Gnome should be credited with most of the work here, I just offered an opinion occasionally. The redesigned page is better at a lot of things, and is a worthwhile improvement in my view. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''May''' - It'd be rather awesome.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Yay''' Looks good to me--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 00:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Yay''' - Shoop da woop! {{User:Met fan/sig}} 01:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Yea''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Yay''' - Lookin' sharp! I would rather like the original UD banner to remain on the main page, but that's my only complaint. --[[User:Claude Garrison|Claude Garrison]] 02:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Yay''' - Definite change in the positive direction. -- {{User:BlackReaper/sig}} 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Nay''' - No. It looks a little more annoying to me due to the dark green and then bright pink. The UD website has the nice forest green background on all of the pages which makes it look nice, but we have white which doesn't look good at all and it wouldn't make sense to go from that page with all that color, to pages like this.. And I wouldn't want you to change the background of all the wiki to green because that would look fuck awful.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 02:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''No Way''' The wiki looks professional. If you change the colour of the main page to green, then wouldnt you need to do that with the rest of the wiki too? Leave as is. It is classic.--{{User:Disco Inferno/signature}} 03:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Yay''' - A change for the good.--{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 03:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Yay''' - Looks good. I'd like to see the "First Time Playing?" box retained in some way, though. {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 07:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Ewwwww'''- yuck yuck yuck, it's tacky! I like the classic look. It fits in with everything. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Nay''' - Trying to make a wikipage look good makes the code look horrible (all those &lt;font color="#FF9999"&gt;s inside links, yuck). The page by itself looks pretty good but it doesn't fit with the rest of the wiki. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 08:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Weak Yay''' - Mid and all the Nay voters make good points. But it still looks good :). {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Hugely anal Nay''' Can we have a box around the headline flavour text? Just to show where it ends, and can we make vandal reporting, deletions and the like more visible? its hard enough to for newbs to find these pages as it is. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''No!'''- It's so bland!! Add some better borders! {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 09:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=1389925UDWiki:Administration/Promotions2009-02-16T11:50:17Z<p>Liberty: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
{{Promotions Intro}}<br />
==Candidates still requiring vouches==<br />
<br />
==Candidates currently under community discussion==<br />
===[[User:WOOT|Rakuen]]===<br />
I'm bored and I need attention, so, have at ye--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - why the nigger not?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - His sig is silly. Also he never does anything.--[[User:Disco Inferno|Disco Inferno]] 07:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:His sig is cute and as for not doing anything, what do you call [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Image%3ASpanking_PhotoS.JPG&diff=1323250&oldid=1321587 this categorisation of an image]?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Did that require sysop powers? No.--[[User:Disco Inferno|Disco Inferno]] 08:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::How could anything he's done have ''possibly'' required sysop powers? Has anything you've done required sysop powers? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::The real question is "what do you do that would be ''aided'' by sysop powers?" --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 08:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Ban hammar? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - While I believe his heart's in the right place I need to see some more work from him. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Anything resembling an actual request would have gotten a vouch, but just a desire for attention? Methinks not. That's what ''Misconduct'' is for. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Surely the fact that it's on this page makes it clear it's an actual request. He's been around long enough to know what happens on the promotions page...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Hell no. What the fuck have you ever done besides troll around?--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As J3D--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 08:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - [[Special:Contributions/WOOT]]. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 10:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' mainly for his poor attitude to us monroevillers? monroevillites? Monroevillains. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''against''' Hahahaha.... NO--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 11:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Why not. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 11:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:'''Third Vouch: 11:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC) {{User:Liberty/Sign}}'''<br />
===[[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]]===<br />
I've been thinking of doing this for a while now as I find Link to be a very useful and helpful member of the community who would make a good sysop. He's been around since before the 26th of July last year (History Purge wiped anything before that) and he's made somewhere in the region of 5-6000 edits. He's active in the administration sections regularly and already performs a lot of maintenance tasks. Either way, I think he would be a good sysop and this nomination has been a long time coming. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Just noting that I've seen this. I'll make up my mind later <tt>:)</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Okay then, I've decided I'll do this, assuming the community trusts me. I'm really quite bad at selling myself, but I encourage you to look at my [[Special:Contributions/Linkthewindow|contributions]], my [[User_talk:Linkthewindow|talk page]] and it's [[User_talk:Linkthewindow/Archive|archive]], as well as some of the administration archives (especially [[A/MR|move requests]] and [[A/SD|speedy deletions]].)<br />
<br />
I'll respond to any questions asked, so fire away. I'm probably what you would describe as a [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:GNOME|wikignome]], making lots of small edits that people don't really notice (such as categorization, fixing template calls, and the like.) <br />
<br />
As far as activity goes, I'm a student-my activity will likely drop off around exam time, and experience a surge during the holidays.<br />
<br />
Other then that, I would like to thank everyone who has voiced their opinion (against/vouch/abstain, doesn't matter,) and continues to do so. It's a lot easier to know your flaws when someone's pointed them out to you <tt>:D</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' - See above. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Hell yeah!''' or in other words, '''Strong Vouch'''. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**'''Third Vouch received at 23:31, 13 February 2009 (GMT)''' -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Works tirelessly in the maintenance of the site. Perfect candidate. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I still think the new suburb massacre template should be a different colour to differentiate it, but hey. Strong candidate. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**I think the same now, but it's a tad [[The Great Suburb Group Massacre|late]]. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Vouch''' - Most definitely. Been around slightly before my time but unlike me he's worked his ass off around here!--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:'''Against''' - You're not cut out for one of the most important jobs a sysop has, dealing with A/VB cases. I still think you would do a good job in other areas, but the shortcomings there are troubling. We can't have a wishy-washy sysop who can't bring himself to rule, and I also don't like your opinions on Hagnat's soft warning to that user. Personal threats of that manner can't just be shoved off like other things would. Remember, being a janitor is only a small part of a sysops job.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Abstain''' - Fails criterion four. Shouldn't be in this section yet, but Cheese seems to have caught Hagnat's making-shit-up-as-he-goes-along disease. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
**'''Questions for candidate''': How would you rule in the past three misconduct cases that have been brought? What do you think are the problems with [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJakezing&diff=1369385&oldid=1369370 this edit]? What would you do to rectify this if you became a sysop? You mention below in response to another user your possible incompatibility to be a sysop due to your habit of avoid drama, why have you not withdrawn this bid and allowed time to demonstrate to the community your ability to cope with drama if the need arises? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***Firstly-Hagant's edit. There's no policy against threatening death (which is a personal attack, and the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Civility|civility]] policy failed (more like fell flat on it's face.) That said though, death threats are ''extreme'' poor form and should be discouraged. If that was what Hagant was planning to do with his "pre-warning"-then good. However, saying that the user would get a perma next time is an empty threat, as it isn't against any policy (although, personal attacks of that level should be discouraged.)<br />
::I'll assume that this isn't including the recent SLR one? Anyway:<br />
::1. [[A/M#Boxy|Boxy]] - ''Leaning Misconduct'', but I would have had to have thought about it quite a bit first. Pretty much what Nubis said in the case - the sigs where pretty much the same. ''However'', SLR has a [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 history] of doing stuff like that (pushing the boundaries of policy,) while SA didn't. It's not a clear-cut case.<br />
::2. [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2009|Hagnat]] - Probably would have abstained (as I said below,) but ''leaning'' misconduct. When Hagnat banned him (the first time,) SLR wasn't given the full week, which he should have been given (according to policy, Boxy's new one institutes a much better rule over this, imo.) ''However'', it's hard to see SLR's actions in good faith, especially after his comments on the talk page, especially this quote:<br />
:::{{Quote|Sexylegsread|But, I don't think it does break policy. It isn't lost in a barrage of links, theres only six links, and its repeated a few times. 1/6th of my sig, as stated. I won't change it back to that, '''considering you are all fags who cant handle anyone who finds a policy loophole and exploits it''', but yeah, it doesn't break the policy, thus isn't vandalism.}}<br />
::<sub>[[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning#Sexylegsread|Source]], emphasis mine</sub><br />
::In short, Hagnat acted early with his ban, but in light of SLR's comments on the talk page, it's hard to see his comments (and hence, actions,) in a good light (as exploiting a policy loophole is ''never'' in good faith.<br />
::3. [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Karek/2009|Karek]] - ''Not Misconduct'' as the page was a deletion workaround. It was deleted in the first place (crit 7,) by Thad after a [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/Aug_2008#Haliman_is_a_Fraud|community outcry]] over it's existence. Admittedly, the situation was different at the time of the second vote (especially regarding the UBCS page,) it's still a workaround.<br />
::Finally, I plan on focusing on the more janitorial/maintenance aspects of sysoping (which can probably be inferred by my current wiki habits,) and taking it slow on A/VB and A/M for the first month or so. Most of the community doesn't seem to have an issue with that.<br />
::Thank you for your time. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***Thank you for taking the time to respond Link. In response to your answers, Hagnat should have been immediately been demoted for threatening a user with an unwarranted ban and using his status as a sysop as an intended badge of authority, I'd have taken it to Misconduct but that place is no longer ruled on a case basis but by rather who brings the case. If any of our ''trusted users'' actually cared for proper procedure they'd be going over there and apologising for Hagnat's behaviour. I won't hold my breath though.... The Boxy and Karek cases were clearly not misconduct, the Boxy case resulting from a faulty perception caused by Hagnat's actions. The Hagnat case was clearly misconduct and your indication of an unwillingness to involve yourself seals this for me. I am unconvinced that there is a great enough volume of work on the admin pages to warrant token sysops for janitorial duties, placing useful contributors in positions of prominence where they are subject to stress was shown to be an error after the Gnome fiasco. Although you work hard on this wiki, I am not convinced that you require the extra buttons to increase your effectiveness, I am therefore forced to vote '''Against''' promoting you on this bid. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::If you are deciding the SLR case based on his history and comment you are acting like a moderator not sysop, fyi. If Iscariot is actually against someone exploiting loopholes then ban the account because it has been hi-jacked. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It's odd isn't it? If I'd have made snide remarks in response to someone else's vote then I'd be escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Double standards are quite peculiar aren't they? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Vouch''' - A helpful user who will be a great sysop. Unless he's into drunken wiki'ing like some previous sysops have been... :) --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**That's not aimed at me by any chance? =p -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***I sure hope not! :) --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
****I think J3D is a more likely candidate.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 07:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**No, actually. Sober all my life <tt>:D</tt> {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' -- I like what he's done so far, and can imagine what he'd do with additional powers. [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 00:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Linkthatshit!--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 00:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Vouch''' - Good guy, resonable, helpful.--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Vouch''' I'm in. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:ooops Wrong answer. Link, the Edit that Iscariot pointed to was as a result of the user making real world threats against the safety of another user. What some folks are failing to remember is that Violations of the T.O.U. are AUTOMATICALLY considered banable... and this dates from Waaaaay back. There does not have to be a policy in place as this is a directive from "[[User:Kevan|On High]]" dating from late 2005 early 2006. There is no policy because there doesn't have to be one.'''Against''' for now. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''[[ALiM]]''', i mean vouch ;)</s> --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Okay i'm going with '''abstain''', i like you and i think you do a lot of good work. But your avoidance of areas of drama isn't a useful talent for a sysop...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fits the job perfectly. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Vouch''' - His constant use of edit summaries pisses me off no end (seriously - not necessary) but apart from that irrelevant detail he's alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
**'''Against''' - As others, etc. I really can't stand fencesitters and Conn's point about death threats is very well made. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**I've got it set up to prompt me if I don't use an edit summary. So, meh. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 02:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***So... don't have it set up to prompt you if you don't use an edit summary? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I was always kinda surprised that he wasn't a syops already.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 10:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Very much vouch for link. --[[User:Mightyoak|<span style="color: ForestGreen">mo</span>]] [[User talk:Mightyoak|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ヽ(´ー`)ノ </span>]] <sup>[[MCM|<span style="color: DeepSkyBlue ">MCM</span>]] [[MOB|<span style="color: DarkMagenta">MOB</span>]] [[Dribbling Beavers|<span style="color: SaddleBrown">DB</span>]]</sup> 12:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Nothing wrong with him <tt>:)</tt>. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]¦</sup></small> 12:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Vouch''' - I was going to nominate him myself, he is an excellent user and I feel he would make an excellent addition to the sysop team.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 15:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*What is your opinion on the SLR-Haggie case that just finished?--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**It wasn't an easy one. With the comments that SLR made on the [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning#Sexylegsread|VB talk page]] it was clear that it was really just annoying trolling, but Hagnat banned him ''before'' the comments where made, making it clear trolling. His sig wasn't breaking any pages (with the exception of Karek's,) but he was ''disrupting the wiki to make a point''. Although if I was a sysop at the time, I would have abstained, as I'm quite unsure. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***I hope you break the habit of abstaining, because it's far more unhelpful and cowardly than any other position a sysop could possibly take. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 21:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He's everywhere! {{User:Met fan/sig}} 16:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He's conscientious, helpful and level headed.--[[User:Lois Millard|Lois Millard]] 17:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Its about time ;) --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I see Link all over the wiki already, so if he's up for the added responsibility, I see no reason not to give him sysop status. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 19:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Because of your reply to SA. If you weren't expected to deal with A/VB as a sysop I could support you, but A/VB is very important and sadly busy. If you can't make a decision one way or another on a case you won't make it. The point of that question is do you decide based on the policy or based on the user and not deciding either way is the only completely wrong answer.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 22:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**Yeah, point taken. I tend to avoid drama, for better or worse. I know that there is a heck of a lot of drama inherent in being a sysop, and admittedly, it would be something I would have to learn to cope with, although not all our sysops spew drama at their ever step. Thanks for your message-it's a lot easier to have your flaws pointed out <tt>:)</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***See, it isn't about avoiding drama. It is about making good decisions or at least standing behind your decision. There's still time! Go stick your nose in VB. :) --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Seems you are no good at choosing a side, and that is an important part of being a sysops.... Also, your name reminds me of falling out of windows.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - not a member of the confederacy of douchebags. now that I've got to know him. i trust him.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Abstain'''</s> - Your answer to Iscariot's question made me stop... Last I recalled, we have a zero tolerance policy towards threatening someone's physical, real-world safety. That has nothing to do with "civility" -- it's about breaking the law.... IMO what was wrong with that edit was that Hagnat totally ignored a very clear policy and gave a "soft warning" to someone who's been around the wiki a loooong time now. In so doing he basically made up his own version of the policy as he went along -- as per usual. I don't think you'd do that sort of thing intentionally, Link, but I'm a little concerned about that answer. I'll read more comments and allow you a chance to reply and see if I change my vote. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**Ok... I'm '''Against''' now... Because as a sysop you kind of ''have'' to get get your hands dirty in the drama to a degree, make some hard decisions re: A/VB and Misconduct, etc. As others have said, you seem reluctant to do so, and that's rather a significant weakness IMO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''vouch''' level headed and knows what he is doing. I lean towards Wans opinion where A/VB etc... is concerned but am sure you would not shy away when you have been given responsibility to be active there!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - I have done a lot of lurking lately and I can tell you that I don't think he really does anything that requires the sysop badge. Also, if he wants to abstain on administration issues then what is the point anyway?--[[User:Disco Inferno|Disco Inferno]] 07:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Nubis===<br />
I don't want to steal Karek's thunder, but I think he and the others have a point that sysops shouldn't be afraid of the community opinion. If they are then they probably aren't doing their job correctly. I'm one of the longest standing sysops and it's probably time I put myself up for a review. (to be honest, the majority of the [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] I do doesn't require Sysop powers) but hopefully I have shown that I can be reasonable and fair in A/VB/M matters. <br />
<br />
Besides, if Karek steps down this place may fall into chaos and I don't want to see that. So, again, following his wise lead, I'm submitting a re-promotion bid. <br />
<br />
I don't really know what else to say, but consider it open season on any complaints/issues and I will address them. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - For following Karek's retarded example. If anyone else had put up a case on administration in which a result either way would not change the current status, like putting a deleted page up for deletion or reporting a perma banned user they'd have been escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Apparently not here though with one rule for sysops and one for ever fucker else. If you want to be 're-promoted' you have to be demoted first, basic logic and English. Hagnat may have pulled emo-validate-my-existence-by-saying-nice-things-about-me shit in the past but that doesn't change the basic premise that this is crapping up an admin page (whilst a user who is actually up for promotion has a bid in progress no less) and you should all know better. I'd remove both of these on basic principle that you can't be promoted but we all know you'd use excuse to escalate me in the fair and impartial way you do. If you really want the community's opinion, go submit a demotion request and then go for re-promotion properly. And why are you 'Under Community Discussion' when you haven't received three vouches yet? One rule for sysops.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I think you are missing the point that this could very well change my status. <br />
*:I did, however, put it under the wrong heading because I was posting on my way out the door and worried more about getting the news item right than the placement of this. Sorry. That was an accident. I would move this to the right place, but it has enough to be here now, so that would be pointless. <s>(Actually, I forgot AHLG wasn't a sysop anymore - going to move it. - now) </s> I see SA posted. It can be here now.<br />
*:Mostly this is about giving the users a place where they are expected to vent any and all concerns about a user. A place where (unlike a talk page) I don't have control of the content and where it is public enough that even casual users can respond. I would think that you of all people would welcome this IF the sysops doing it actually agreed to abide by the communities opinion at the end. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Nubis is correct, even if it was triggered by karek's move, it's still a brave move to put yourself up for reevaluation no matter what the circumstances are. Nubis is showing a trust in the community by putting himself in such a position. And Iscariot, stop nitpicking. The discussion has been accepted by the community on both reevaluations, so stop nitpicking and actually say what you think of the abilities of both Sysops, rather then nitpicking on something that doesn't matter.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*No offense, but you sometimes come across as 'biased', although I'll leave it is an assumption since this is the internet and there are no MIND-READING DEVICES. Other than that ''meh'', I don't have any real problems with you, except you're a little odd sometimes... I think you have a good balance on the 'ignore the rules', ie, not going overtop with it. Your [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] is good too. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Abstain for now''' - You are a HUGE asset to the sysop team and I fully support you, but I want to wait until the drama surrounding these promotion bids of you and Karek dies down a little and we get official opinion on it before I officially vote. Yes, I'm weird like that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:'''Vouch''' - Tired of waiting, I'm voting now.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*As Gnome. Does his share of work around here, reasonably fair. Overall an alright guy, if a bit of a hothead sometimes. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* BFFs FOR EVA! Other than the Amberwaves deletion thing, I've never had a problem with Nubis. And besides that, it was almost entirely about opinion that the conflict started at all. He also makes me laugh.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I had to fight for the Amberwaves image "on principle" because I didn't want the Marty Banks pictures deleted. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::I'd have fought to keep those, because a lot of them were well made, not just "Lol fat" wrote in MS paint.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''abstain/borderline vouch''' I don't often see eye to eye with Nubis but I do know that he argues from principle rather than spite/bias. He does a lot of good work around the wiki and my only real issue with him is that a very large amount of the petty and technicality misconducts that are brought against him would be avoided if he followed the rules --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:At least those petty and technical misconduct cases don't involve banning users. That has to be something.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' he sometimes makes me laugh, and has never crossed me yet. gold in basket please.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - "Distinguished quality. A remarkably prime sysop. Thanks. A+!" --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:''Fast shipping! Good Communication! Would bid again A++++++++++''--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As AHLG, you seem a little odd but, I don't see you doing anything wrong which should keep you from being sysop. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Yer ok fer a Goon '';P'' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Dem's fightin' werds...oh, wai---[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' ''He's NEVER been considered a Good sysop.'' and as Wan. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' Nubis is my homeboy. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Damn good Sysop. --{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 10:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Abstain''' - Meh. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - the only issues i had with nubis was during the conflict between some wiki users (such as myself) and the goons. Aside from that, i agree with him most of the time and strongly trust him not to abuse his powers. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Nubis ego +1''' :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Karek===<br />
I was going to wait until the other bid was finished to do this but have decided it's gonna happen now instead.<br />
<br />
I have been a sysop for a while now, there has been much drama relating to some of my actions a lot of various background work done. We've finally reached a point where the majority of the sysop team is actually active and doing stuff, I hoped we had reached a point where the sysops understood that they actually do have some control of the user base and should act accordingly <small>(In a manner conducive to the administrative nature of the position)</small> but I'll leave that to everyone else to decide, although we certainly are closer than we were when I was promoted.<br />
<br />
I'm putting myself up here as opposed to simply demotion, because I feel that it would be improper for me to leave without at lest giving the community at least one final chance at assessing my treatment and actions as a sysop. Yes, this is a re-promotion bid, It's also probably not as good as it could be wording and information wise I've always sucked at these things. Have at thee.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because he wants to baptise children in acid. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* <s>'''Against''' - I like Karek, but it looks like he's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEfzo0q5BxU lost his smile], he's a good guy, and a good for the community.. but if he doesn't want it... he doesn't want it. If you change your mind... I'll happily change my vote.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:'''Vouch''' - <Iscariot> It's not a pity, if Karek decides to stay, I'll be leaving the game. --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 20:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Question''' - Do ''you'' want to stay on as sysop? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:('''Strong Vouch''' if he wants, '''Against''' if he doesn't.) --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* He's fine and all. I think you should stay. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - As per Anime Sucks. --[[User:Speels|Speels]] 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* <s>'''Vouch''' - If you want to stay on, you would be welcome. I believe you are an excellent sysop.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:'''Abstain''' - I would dearly love it if you carried on, but if you want to leave this god awful place, then go for it. Also, as Anime.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Against''' - If you don't want to be sysop, don't do it. Even if the community is overwhelming support of keeping you on, if you don't want to do it then just don't. I find this move to be in somewhat poor taste because the '''last''' thing we need is a sysop who doesn't want to be there.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:'''Vouch''' - As Anime's update. I don't know if it's true but it's worth a shot.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Very Strong Vouch''' - While I don't always agree with Karek, I very much respect his opinion and I personally find him to be a very able and knowledgeable member of the team. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because I may not agree with what you say much of the time But I will defend with my life your right to say it. Honestly. Furthermore, no community may be properly represented in its administration without at least some representation from <s>all</s>most possible angles. Karek is my counterpoint on many of beleifs I represent as my own. If Karek leaves I would have to change my public visage, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do ''that''.<small> btw if anyone wants to comment on this please do it on my talk page so it doesnt shit up this validation of Kareks service and abilities. </small> [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Shit mate, one of the few people on this wiki I can count on to be intelligent and know what he's doing, and now you're going to leave? Damn. Do what you want to do, but I still say you did an awesome job.--[[User:Suicidalangel|SA]] 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I would like to see him stay, he does a lot of useful work, with a minimum of fuss <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:44 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Vouch''' - As <s>Nubis.</s> err...Suicidalangel. And who will be left to out-lawyer the wikilawyers if you go? DON'T LEAVE US! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
*:Erm...Nubis hasn't posted here yet. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Good work, Team-[[User_talk:Suicidalangel#Team_Angel_Sigs|BFF]] <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:17 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:::Dangint! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I think I said everything on my talk page under Srs Question. I don't think you are as hated by "the community" as it was painted. Hopefully, this will give you the reassurance that people do respect you for taking the hardline on issues.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]-'''[[User:Nubis|+N+]]'''BFF SA--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As others, I don't always agree with Karek... however, he's one of the best sysops we have. He always strives to things ''the right way'', and is probably the single person I've learned the most from on this wiki. The wiki will lose a very good person if you go, karek. Sigh... :( --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - You suck for putting Honest up for promotion, but apart from that you're alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I don't always agree with your opinion, but I think you are as fair and unbiased as anyone will get around here. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - [[A/DM|You want over here]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Btw that's an as anime not a i want you demoted nao.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Karek's a great guy, and what boxy said-he does a lot of work with very little fuss. Although he can attract drama sometimes, that's pretty ''meh'' overall. He's enough of an ass to make hard decisions and get things done, but he's nice enough to not simply piss everyone off for no reason, and create MOAR DRAMAS!!!! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:That said, Karek shouldn't be forced to stay on as sysop if he doesn't want it. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''vouch''' Karek and I disagree on a great many things but he is always willing to explain and defend his position in a fair and logical way rather than just dismiss people as wrong he is also the most likely of all sysops to act without bias. Couple that with his understanding of how things work and i really doubt that we can afford to lose him... Still going to argue with him a lot if he stays though.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Linkthewindow and Honestmistake. You're pretty much the best sysop we have. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Meh''' - I know he has worked very hard as a sysops but the way he handeld a deletion lately was outright terrible, plain undemocratic. --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fair, unbiased and one of the best sysops around :). --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' this is an easy one. as above. perfectly explained... speels go suck a dogs dick.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Bold in desicions but rarely wrong in my opinion. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - While you might not always like they guy, he is necessary.--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 23:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - --[[User:Bullgod|Bullgod]] 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch... OH SHIT BULLGOD ^.^''' - --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - he does an awesome job here.,, dont see a reason why let him go. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Recently Concluded Bids==<br />
===[[User:Honestmistake]]===<br />
''Moved to [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Honestmistake|archives]].'' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:54 16 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
==Archived Promotions==<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Complete list of Promotion Requests]]<br />
*[[:Category:Successful Promotions Candidacies|Successful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies|Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unaccepted Nominations|Unaccepted Nominations]]<br />
*[[:Category:Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies|Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies]]</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=1389924UDWiki:Administration/Promotions2009-02-16T11:46:58Z<p>Liberty: /* Rakuen */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
{{Promotions Intro}}<br />
==Candidates still requiring vouches==<br />
===[[User:WOOT|Rakuen]]===<br />
I'm bored and I need attention, so, have at ye--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - why the nigger not?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - His sig is silly. Also he never does anything.--[[User:Disco Inferno|Disco Inferno]] 07:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:His sig is cute and as for not doing anything, what do you call [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Image%3ASpanking_PhotoS.JPG&diff=1323250&oldid=1321587 this categorisation of an image]?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Did that require sysop powers? No.--[[User:Disco Inferno|Disco Inferno]] 08:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::How could anything he's done have ''possibly'' required sysop powers? Has anything you've done required sysop powers? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::The real question is "what do you do that would be ''aided'' by sysop powers?" --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 08:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Ban hammar? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - While I believe his heart's in the right place I need to see some more work from him. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Anything resembling an actual request would have gotten a vouch, but just a desire for attention? Methinks not. That's what ''Misconduct'' is for. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Surely the fact that it's on this page makes it clear it's an actual request. He's been around long enough to know what happens on the promotions page...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Hell no. What the fuck have you ever done besides troll around?--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As J3D--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 08:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - [[Special:Contributions/WOOT]]. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 10:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' mainly for his poor attitude to us monroevillers? monroevillites? Monroevillains. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''against''' Hahahaha.... NO--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 11:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Why not. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 11:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Candidates currently under community discussion==<br />
===[[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]]===<br />
I've been thinking of doing this for a while now as I find Link to be a very useful and helpful member of the community who would make a good sysop. He's been around since before the 26th of July last year (History Purge wiped anything before that) and he's made somewhere in the region of 5-6000 edits. He's active in the administration sections regularly and already performs a lot of maintenance tasks. Either way, I think he would be a good sysop and this nomination has been a long time coming. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Just noting that I've seen this. I'll make up my mind later <tt>:)</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Okay then, I've decided I'll do this, assuming the community trusts me. I'm really quite bad at selling myself, but I encourage you to look at my [[Special:Contributions/Linkthewindow|contributions]], my [[User_talk:Linkthewindow|talk page]] and it's [[User_talk:Linkthewindow/Archive|archive]], as well as some of the administration archives (especially [[A/MR|move requests]] and [[A/SD|speedy deletions]].)<br />
<br />
I'll respond to any questions asked, so fire away. I'm probably what you would describe as a [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:GNOME|wikignome]], making lots of small edits that people don't really notice (such as categorization, fixing template calls, and the like.) <br />
<br />
As far as activity goes, I'm a student-my activity will likely drop off around exam time, and experience a surge during the holidays.<br />
<br />
Other then that, I would like to thank everyone who has voiced their opinion (against/vouch/abstain, doesn't matter,) and continues to do so. It's a lot easier to know your flaws when someone's pointed them out to you <tt>:D</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' - See above. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Hell yeah!''' or in other words, '''Strong Vouch'''. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**'''Third Vouch received at 23:31, 13 February 2009 (GMT)''' -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Works tirelessly in the maintenance of the site. Perfect candidate. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I still think the new suburb massacre template should be a different colour to differentiate it, but hey. Strong candidate. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**I think the same now, but it's a tad [[The Great Suburb Group Massacre|late]]. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Vouch''' - Most definitely. Been around slightly before my time but unlike me he's worked his ass off around here!--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:'''Against''' - You're not cut out for one of the most important jobs a sysop has, dealing with A/VB cases. I still think you would do a good job in other areas, but the shortcomings there are troubling. We can't have a wishy-washy sysop who can't bring himself to rule, and I also don't like your opinions on Hagnat's soft warning to that user. Personal threats of that manner can't just be shoved off like other things would. Remember, being a janitor is only a small part of a sysops job.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Abstain''' - Fails criterion four. Shouldn't be in this section yet, but Cheese seems to have caught Hagnat's making-shit-up-as-he-goes-along disease. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
**'''Questions for candidate''': How would you rule in the past three misconduct cases that have been brought? What do you think are the problems with [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJakezing&diff=1369385&oldid=1369370 this edit]? What would you do to rectify this if you became a sysop? You mention below in response to another user your possible incompatibility to be a sysop due to your habit of avoid drama, why have you not withdrawn this bid and allowed time to demonstrate to the community your ability to cope with drama if the need arises? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***Firstly-Hagant's edit. There's no policy against threatening death (which is a personal attack, and the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Civility|civility]] policy failed (more like fell flat on it's face.) That said though, death threats are ''extreme'' poor form and should be discouraged. If that was what Hagant was planning to do with his "pre-warning"-then good. However, saying that the user would get a perma next time is an empty threat, as it isn't against any policy (although, personal attacks of that level should be discouraged.)<br />
::I'll assume that this isn't including the recent SLR one? Anyway:<br />
::1. [[A/M#Boxy|Boxy]] - ''Leaning Misconduct'', but I would have had to have thought about it quite a bit first. Pretty much what Nubis said in the case - the sigs where pretty much the same. ''However'', SLR has a [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 history] of doing stuff like that (pushing the boundaries of policy,) while SA didn't. It's not a clear-cut case.<br />
::2. [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2009|Hagnat]] - Probably would have abstained (as I said below,) but ''leaning'' misconduct. When Hagnat banned him (the first time,) SLR wasn't given the full week, which he should have been given (according to policy, Boxy's new one institutes a much better rule over this, imo.) ''However'', it's hard to see SLR's actions in good faith, especially after his comments on the talk page, especially this quote:<br />
:::{{Quote|Sexylegsread|But, I don't think it does break policy. It isn't lost in a barrage of links, theres only six links, and its repeated a few times. 1/6th of my sig, as stated. I won't change it back to that, '''considering you are all fags who cant handle anyone who finds a policy loophole and exploits it''', but yeah, it doesn't break the policy, thus isn't vandalism.}}<br />
::<sub>[[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning#Sexylegsread|Source]], emphasis mine</sub><br />
::In short, Hagnat acted early with his ban, but in light of SLR's comments on the talk page, it's hard to see his comments (and hence, actions,) in a good light (as exploiting a policy loophole is ''never'' in good faith.<br />
::3. [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Karek/2009|Karek]] - ''Not Misconduct'' as the page was a deletion workaround. It was deleted in the first place (crit 7,) by Thad after a [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/Aug_2008#Haliman_is_a_Fraud|community outcry]] over it's existence. Admittedly, the situation was different at the time of the second vote (especially regarding the UBCS page,) it's still a workaround.<br />
::Finally, I plan on focusing on the more janitorial/maintenance aspects of sysoping (which can probably be inferred by my current wiki habits,) and taking it slow on A/VB and A/M for the first month or so. Most of the community doesn't seem to have an issue with that.<br />
::Thank you for your time. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***Thank you for taking the time to respond Link. In response to your answers, Hagnat should have been immediately been demoted for threatening a user with an unwarranted ban and using his status as a sysop as an intended badge of authority, I'd have taken it to Misconduct but that place is no longer ruled on a case basis but by rather who brings the case. If any of our ''trusted users'' actually cared for proper procedure they'd be going over there and apologising for Hagnat's behaviour. I won't hold my breath though.... The Boxy and Karek cases were clearly not misconduct, the Boxy case resulting from a faulty perception caused by Hagnat's actions. The Hagnat case was clearly misconduct and your indication of an unwillingness to involve yourself seals this for me. I am unconvinced that there is a great enough volume of work on the admin pages to warrant token sysops for janitorial duties, placing useful contributors in positions of prominence where they are subject to stress was shown to be an error after the Gnome fiasco. Although you work hard on this wiki, I am not convinced that you require the extra buttons to increase your effectiveness, I am therefore forced to vote '''Against''' promoting you on this bid. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::If you are deciding the SLR case based on his history and comment you are acting like a moderator not sysop, fyi. If Iscariot is actually against someone exploiting loopholes then ban the account because it has been hi-jacked. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It's odd isn't it? If I'd have made snide remarks in response to someone else's vote then I'd be escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Double standards are quite peculiar aren't they? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Vouch''' - A helpful user who will be a great sysop. Unless he's into drunken wiki'ing like some previous sysops have been... :) --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**That's not aimed at me by any chance? =p -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***I sure hope not! :) --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
****I think J3D is a more likely candidate.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 07:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**No, actually. Sober all my life <tt>:D</tt> {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' -- I like what he's done so far, and can imagine what he'd do with additional powers. [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 00:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Linkthatshit!--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 00:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Vouch''' - Good guy, resonable, helpful.--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Vouch''' I'm in. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:ooops Wrong answer. Link, the Edit that Iscariot pointed to was as a result of the user making real world threats against the safety of another user. What some folks are failing to remember is that Violations of the T.O.U. are AUTOMATICALLY considered banable... and this dates from Waaaaay back. There does not have to be a policy in place as this is a directive from "[[User:Kevan|On High]]" dating from late 2005 early 2006. There is no policy because there doesn't have to be one.'''Against''' for now. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''[[ALiM]]''', i mean vouch ;)</s> --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Okay i'm going with '''abstain''', i like you and i think you do a lot of good work. But your avoidance of areas of drama isn't a useful talent for a sysop...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fits the job perfectly. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Vouch''' - His constant use of edit summaries pisses me off no end (seriously - not necessary) but apart from that irrelevant detail he's alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
**'''Against''' - As others, etc. I really can't stand fencesitters and Conn's point about death threats is very well made. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**I've got it set up to prompt me if I don't use an edit summary. So, meh. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 02:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***So... don't have it set up to prompt you if you don't use an edit summary? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I was always kinda surprised that he wasn't a syops already.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 10:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Very much vouch for link. --[[User:Mightyoak|<span style="color: ForestGreen">mo</span>]] [[User talk:Mightyoak|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ヽ(´ー`)ノ </span>]] <sup>[[MCM|<span style="color: DeepSkyBlue ">MCM</span>]] [[MOB|<span style="color: DarkMagenta">MOB</span>]] [[Dribbling Beavers|<span style="color: SaddleBrown">DB</span>]]</sup> 12:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Nothing wrong with him <tt>:)</tt>. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]¦</sup></small> 12:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Vouch''' - I was going to nominate him myself, he is an excellent user and I feel he would make an excellent addition to the sysop team.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 15:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*What is your opinion on the SLR-Haggie case that just finished?--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**It wasn't an easy one. With the comments that SLR made on the [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning#Sexylegsread|VB talk page]] it was clear that it was really just annoying trolling, but Hagnat banned him ''before'' the comments where made, making it clear trolling. His sig wasn't breaking any pages (with the exception of Karek's,) but he was ''disrupting the wiki to make a point''. Although if I was a sysop at the time, I would have abstained, as I'm quite unsure. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***I hope you break the habit of abstaining, because it's far more unhelpful and cowardly than any other position a sysop could possibly take. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 21:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He's everywhere! {{User:Met fan/sig}} 16:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He's conscientious, helpful and level headed.--[[User:Lois Millard|Lois Millard]] 17:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Its about time ;) --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I see Link all over the wiki already, so if he's up for the added responsibility, I see no reason not to give him sysop status. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 19:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Because of your reply to SA. If you weren't expected to deal with A/VB as a sysop I could support you, but A/VB is very important and sadly busy. If you can't make a decision one way or another on a case you won't make it. The point of that question is do you decide based on the policy or based on the user and not deciding either way is the only completely wrong answer.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 22:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**Yeah, point taken. I tend to avoid drama, for better or worse. I know that there is a heck of a lot of drama inherent in being a sysop, and admittedly, it would be something I would have to learn to cope with, although not all our sysops spew drama at their ever step. Thanks for your message-it's a lot easier to have your flaws pointed out <tt>:)</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***See, it isn't about avoiding drama. It is about making good decisions or at least standing behind your decision. There's still time! Go stick your nose in VB. :) --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Seems you are no good at choosing a side, and that is an important part of being a sysops.... Also, your name reminds me of falling out of windows.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - not a member of the confederacy of douchebags. now that I've got to know him. i trust him.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Abstain'''</s> - Your answer to Iscariot's question made me stop... Last I recalled, we have a zero tolerance policy towards threatening someone's physical, real-world safety. That has nothing to do with "civility" -- it's about breaking the law.... IMO what was wrong with that edit was that Hagnat totally ignored a very clear policy and gave a "soft warning" to someone who's been around the wiki a loooong time now. In so doing he basically made up his own version of the policy as he went along -- as per usual. I don't think you'd do that sort of thing intentionally, Link, but I'm a little concerned about that answer. I'll read more comments and allow you a chance to reply and see if I change my vote. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**Ok... I'm '''Against''' now... Because as a sysop you kind of ''have'' to get get your hands dirty in the drama to a degree, make some hard decisions re: A/VB and Misconduct, etc. As others have said, you seem reluctant to do so, and that's rather a significant weakness IMO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''vouch''' level headed and knows what he is doing. I lean towards Wans opinion where A/VB etc... is concerned but am sure you would not shy away when you have been given responsibility to be active there!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - I have done a lot of lurking lately and I can tell you that I don't think he really does anything that requires the sysop badge. Also, if he wants to abstain on administration issues then what is the point anyway?--[[User:Disco Inferno|Disco Inferno]] 07:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Nubis===<br />
I don't want to steal Karek's thunder, but I think he and the others have a point that sysops shouldn't be afraid of the community opinion. If they are then they probably aren't doing their job correctly. I'm one of the longest standing sysops and it's probably time I put myself up for a review. (to be honest, the majority of the [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] I do doesn't require Sysop powers) but hopefully I have shown that I can be reasonable and fair in A/VB/M matters. <br />
<br />
Besides, if Karek steps down this place may fall into chaos and I don't want to see that. So, again, following his wise lead, I'm submitting a re-promotion bid. <br />
<br />
I don't really know what else to say, but consider it open season on any complaints/issues and I will address them. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - For following Karek's retarded example. If anyone else had put up a case on administration in which a result either way would not change the current status, like putting a deleted page up for deletion or reporting a perma banned user they'd have been escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Apparently not here though with one rule for sysops and one for ever fucker else. If you want to be 're-promoted' you have to be demoted first, basic logic and English. Hagnat may have pulled emo-validate-my-existence-by-saying-nice-things-about-me shit in the past but that doesn't change the basic premise that this is crapping up an admin page (whilst a user who is actually up for promotion has a bid in progress no less) and you should all know better. I'd remove both of these on basic principle that you can't be promoted but we all know you'd use excuse to escalate me in the fair and impartial way you do. If you really want the community's opinion, go submit a demotion request and then go for re-promotion properly. And why are you 'Under Community Discussion' when you haven't received three vouches yet? One rule for sysops.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I think you are missing the point that this could very well change my status. <br />
*:I did, however, put it under the wrong heading because I was posting on my way out the door and worried more about getting the news item right than the placement of this. Sorry. That was an accident. I would move this to the right place, but it has enough to be here now, so that would be pointless. <s>(Actually, I forgot AHLG wasn't a sysop anymore - going to move it. - now) </s> I see SA posted. It can be here now.<br />
*:Mostly this is about giving the users a place where they are expected to vent any and all concerns about a user. A place where (unlike a talk page) I don't have control of the content and where it is public enough that even casual users can respond. I would think that you of all people would welcome this IF the sysops doing it actually agreed to abide by the communities opinion at the end. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Nubis is correct, even if it was triggered by karek's move, it's still a brave move to put yourself up for reevaluation no matter what the circumstances are. Nubis is showing a trust in the community by putting himself in such a position. And Iscariot, stop nitpicking. The discussion has been accepted by the community on both reevaluations, so stop nitpicking and actually say what you think of the abilities of both Sysops, rather then nitpicking on something that doesn't matter.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*No offense, but you sometimes come across as 'biased', although I'll leave it is an assumption since this is the internet and there are no MIND-READING DEVICES. Other than that ''meh'', I don't have any real problems with you, except you're a little odd sometimes... I think you have a good balance on the 'ignore the rules', ie, not going overtop with it. Your [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] is good too. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Abstain for now''' - You are a HUGE asset to the sysop team and I fully support you, but I want to wait until the drama surrounding these promotion bids of you and Karek dies down a little and we get official opinion on it before I officially vote. Yes, I'm weird like that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:'''Vouch''' - Tired of waiting, I'm voting now.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*As Gnome. Does his share of work around here, reasonably fair. Overall an alright guy, if a bit of a hothead sometimes. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* BFFs FOR EVA! Other than the Amberwaves deletion thing, I've never had a problem with Nubis. And besides that, it was almost entirely about opinion that the conflict started at all. He also makes me laugh.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I had to fight for the Amberwaves image "on principle" because I didn't want the Marty Banks pictures deleted. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::I'd have fought to keep those, because a lot of them were well made, not just "Lol fat" wrote in MS paint.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''abstain/borderline vouch''' I don't often see eye to eye with Nubis but I do know that he argues from principle rather than spite/bias. He does a lot of good work around the wiki and my only real issue with him is that a very large amount of the petty and technicality misconducts that are brought against him would be avoided if he followed the rules --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:At least those petty and technical misconduct cases don't involve banning users. That has to be something.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' he sometimes makes me laugh, and has never crossed me yet. gold in basket please.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - "Distinguished quality. A remarkably prime sysop. Thanks. A+!" --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:''Fast shipping! Good Communication! Would bid again A++++++++++''--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As AHLG, you seem a little odd but, I don't see you doing anything wrong which should keep you from being sysop. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Yer ok fer a Goon '';P'' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Dem's fightin' werds...oh, wai---[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' ''He's NEVER been considered a Good sysop.'' and as Wan. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' Nubis is my homeboy. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Damn good Sysop. --{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 10:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Abstain''' - Meh. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - the only issues i had with nubis was during the conflict between some wiki users (such as myself) and the goons. Aside from that, i agree with him most of the time and strongly trust him not to abuse his powers. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Nubis ego +1''' :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Karek===<br />
I was going to wait until the other bid was finished to do this but have decided it's gonna happen now instead.<br />
<br />
I have been a sysop for a while now, there has been much drama relating to some of my actions a lot of various background work done. We've finally reached a point where the majority of the sysop team is actually active and doing stuff, I hoped we had reached a point where the sysops understood that they actually do have some control of the user base and should act accordingly <small>(In a manner conducive to the administrative nature of the position)</small> but I'll leave that to everyone else to decide, although we certainly are closer than we were when I was promoted.<br />
<br />
I'm putting myself up here as opposed to simply demotion, because I feel that it would be improper for me to leave without at lest giving the community at least one final chance at assessing my treatment and actions as a sysop. Yes, this is a re-promotion bid, It's also probably not as good as it could be wording and information wise I've always sucked at these things. Have at thee.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because he wants to baptise children in acid. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* <s>'''Against''' - I like Karek, but it looks like he's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEfzo0q5BxU lost his smile], he's a good guy, and a good for the community.. but if he doesn't want it... he doesn't want it. If you change your mind... I'll happily change my vote.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:'''Vouch''' - <Iscariot> It's not a pity, if Karek decides to stay, I'll be leaving the game. --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 20:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Question''' - Do ''you'' want to stay on as sysop? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:('''Strong Vouch''' if he wants, '''Against''' if he doesn't.) --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* He's fine and all. I think you should stay. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - As per Anime Sucks. --[[User:Speels|Speels]] 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* <s>'''Vouch''' - If you want to stay on, you would be welcome. I believe you are an excellent sysop.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:'''Abstain''' - I would dearly love it if you carried on, but if you want to leave this god awful place, then go for it. Also, as Anime.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Against''' - If you don't want to be sysop, don't do it. Even if the community is overwhelming support of keeping you on, if you don't want to do it then just don't. I find this move to be in somewhat poor taste because the '''last''' thing we need is a sysop who doesn't want to be there.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:'''Vouch''' - As Anime's update. I don't know if it's true but it's worth a shot.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Very Strong Vouch''' - While I don't always agree with Karek, I very much respect his opinion and I personally find him to be a very able and knowledgeable member of the team. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because I may not agree with what you say much of the time But I will defend with my life your right to say it. Honestly. Furthermore, no community may be properly represented in its administration without at least some representation from <s>all</s>most possible angles. Karek is my counterpoint on many of beleifs I represent as my own. If Karek leaves I would have to change my public visage, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do ''that''.<small> btw if anyone wants to comment on this please do it on my talk page so it doesnt shit up this validation of Kareks service and abilities. </small> [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Shit mate, one of the few people on this wiki I can count on to be intelligent and know what he's doing, and now you're going to leave? Damn. Do what you want to do, but I still say you did an awesome job.--[[User:Suicidalangel|SA]] 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I would like to see him stay, he does a lot of useful work, with a minimum of fuss <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:44 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Vouch''' - As <s>Nubis.</s> err...Suicidalangel. And who will be left to out-lawyer the wikilawyers if you go? DON'T LEAVE US! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
*:Erm...Nubis hasn't posted here yet. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Good work, Team-[[User_talk:Suicidalangel#Team_Angel_Sigs|BFF]] <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:17 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:::Dangint! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I think I said everything on my talk page under Srs Question. I don't think you are as hated by "the community" as it was painted. Hopefully, this will give you the reassurance that people do respect you for taking the hardline on issues.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]-'''[[User:Nubis|+N+]]'''BFF SA--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As others, I don't always agree with Karek... however, he's one of the best sysops we have. He always strives to things ''the right way'', and is probably the single person I've learned the most from on this wiki. The wiki will lose a very good person if you go, karek. Sigh... :( --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - You suck for putting Honest up for promotion, but apart from that you're alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I don't always agree with your opinion, but I think you are as fair and unbiased as anyone will get around here. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - [[A/DM|You want over here]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Btw that's an as anime not a i want you demoted nao.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Karek's a great guy, and what boxy said-he does a lot of work with very little fuss. Although he can attract drama sometimes, that's pretty ''meh'' overall. He's enough of an ass to make hard decisions and get things done, but he's nice enough to not simply piss everyone off for no reason, and create MOAR DRAMAS!!!! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:That said, Karek shouldn't be forced to stay on as sysop if he doesn't want it. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''vouch''' Karek and I disagree on a great many things but he is always willing to explain and defend his position in a fair and logical way rather than just dismiss people as wrong he is also the most likely of all sysops to act without bias. Couple that with his understanding of how things work and i really doubt that we can afford to lose him... Still going to argue with him a lot if he stays though.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Linkthewindow and Honestmistake. You're pretty much the best sysop we have. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Meh''' - I know he has worked very hard as a sysops but the way he handeld a deletion lately was outright terrible, plain undemocratic. --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fair, unbiased and one of the best sysops around :). --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' this is an easy one. as above. perfectly explained... speels go suck a dogs dick.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Bold in desicions but rarely wrong in my opinion. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - While you might not always like they guy, he is necessary.--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 23:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - --[[User:Bullgod|Bullgod]] 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch... OH SHIT BULLGOD ^.^''' - --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - he does an awesome job here.,, dont see a reason why let him go. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Recently Concluded Bids==<br />
===[[User:Honestmistake]]===<br />
''Moved to [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Honestmistake|archives]].'' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:54 16 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
==Archived Promotions==<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Complete list of Promotion Requests]]<br />
*[[:Category:Successful Promotions Candidacies|Successful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies|Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unaccepted Nominations|Unaccepted Nominations]]<br />
*[[:Category:Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies|Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies]]</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Liberty&diff=1389006User talk:Liberty2009-02-15T03:34:38Z<p>Liberty: /* Iscariot Promotion */</p>
<hr />
<div><div id="shortcut" class="noprint" style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #FFF; margin: 0 0 .5em 1em; text-align: center; padding: 5px; float:left; clear:right; font-size:smaller;"><br />
<span class="plainlinks">New Topic</span>:<br /><span class="stealthexternallink"><big><big><big>[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Liberty&action=edit&section=new +]</big></big></big></span></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tank! ==<br />
<br />
If you are referring to the Cowboy Bebop song then yes, that is partially it. Mostly Left 4 Dead, but I like that song a lot. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:It also refers to the sheer size of his wife.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::How do you know Nubis is a guy? O_o --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 12:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::I had forgotten about this conversation! Is my gender really a mystery? Or more to the point, is it important enough to verify? I could post a picture of my tits but that could either be really cool or really gross. Is it worth the risk? ''IS IT?'' (and wow it took me 20 days to come up with that) :) --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::If you post a picture of your tits I will....I...I really don't know. That's something I never thought would come up ''here'', someone saying they're going to post a picture of their tits. And no, your gender is not all that important to most of the wiki population, Read is just a dick more often than not.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I wouldn't mind my talk page being the place of Nubis' boobs. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 00:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::Famous.Last.Words. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 01:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::No, it isn't. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 06:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::The fairer sex can have wives too, in certain jurisdictions anyway, don't be so presumptuous Sue. And yep, this carefully sculpted reply needed the full 6 days :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::MichaelRead still reffered to Nubis as a 'he'. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::No females on the Internet. Haven't you heard? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::'Round here lesbians are called he. Well, not here, but where read is.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It took you 5 days to come up with that? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 11:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::In his defence, two of them, he was banned.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Oh yeah. Well, good job then. Nice burn. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 11:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Nah it took me five days. It was like an epiphany when it hit me though--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Box-man's talk==<br />
To be frank, I can say with the utmost certainty that they were talking about Iscariot being the troll. I don't find him to be a dick too often, but sometimes he does do things that are bit unbelievable. Regardless, I like him. Anyway, just thought I'd tell you that so you didn't feel as if you did something wrong.--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Cancerous troll?==<br />
You have me all wrong. Srsly. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== who are you ==<br />
<br />
and where have you come from? If i'm not mistaken you've made around 100 edits, but you seem to be everywhere i am. Except [[ALiM]], you should be there as well.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Is 100 edits alot? [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::nah it's hardly any :P --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Wow. You reply fast. I checked out the page you refered me to, I might go there oneday, but it doesnt really look like my thing. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::haha, don't worry, i was mostly kidding. It's a page i made and spruik around the place, nice to grab another page hit though ;) I'm a bit of a recent changes stalker so expect the fast replies if i'm around.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Not JUST a Recent Changes stalker. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::I'm right outside your window, bob. *binoculars smiley* --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Yeah? And you're posting using whose wireless network? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Err...mmm...ahhh...neighbours?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::That's a shame. If you'd somehow managed to hack your way onto mine (doubtful) I would've been able to fuck your computer up but good. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::Is that coz you're "teh l33t haxx0rz"? I submit that it is.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 12:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::You're 8 days late to the party, but I'll bite. You don't need to be teh l33t haxx0rz to access someone's computer on the same network as you if they haven't ticked the "do not share files" box. It's just a matter of opening a folder and pressing Delete. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::Haha, I love how you reluctantly react to my baiting. You're a true gem, bobby. Yeah I haven't been around lately to stalk your contribs and think up witty retorts to your posts. I do try, but my interest in this old place is waning.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 08:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::You know, if you go on about how awesome a troll you are it only makes you look like a tool. I wish you the best of luck in your waning. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 08:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::::I don't think he was bragging about how good a troll he is. LOOKS LIKE HE TR00LED YOU THEN.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::::I wasn't :( --{{User:Nallan/sig}} 10:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== My talk page ==<br />
<br />
Do not rearrange things on my talk page. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
or mine.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:lol --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Iscariot_(2)|Iscariot Promotion]]==<br />
Is the dumbest thing you could have said or done on this wiki. Have you not actually seen any of his contributions or did it just not occur to you that his [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Promotions#Guidelines_overhaul|idiotic ramblings]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections#Trolling|are just that]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Move_Requests/Archive#The_Ridleybank_Resistance_Front.2FGore_Corps|ill]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_12#User:Sarkomance|informed]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2008#December.2C_16|idiocy]] [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_12#December_2008|that would only convince]] [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions/Archive#Ineligible_candidates|people equally as ill-informed]]. Just because he spews shit about how his opinion is always consensus doesn't actually make it so especially when he [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FArbitration&diff=1363866&oldid=1363863 does] [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot_vs_Sgt_Raiden|shit]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02#User:Karek|like]] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Move_Requests&diff=prev&oldid=1359840#Recent_Actions this] [[User_talk:Kevan#Misconduct_Case_Feb_2009|on]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#User:Iscariot|a]] [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#User:Iscariot_2|regular]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Kristi_of_the_Dead_vs_Iscariot|basis]]. If you want to see what he really thinks of consensus just visit the [[Category_talk:Recruitment#Category:Recruitment_Rules_Discussion|Recruitment page]] and its [[Recruitment/Archive2#Please_revisit_the_.22large_group.22_rule|archives]][[User_talk:Iscariot#MT09.27.3F|.]]<span style="color:#FFFFFF"><sub>This amuses me if only because he now claims to be the voice of it, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Grim_s&oldid=1278129#Iscariot <span class="stealthexternallink" style="color:#FFFFFF">which he's done before</span>].</sub></span><br />
<br />
Maybe next time understand that [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot_and_The_Order_of_Philosophe_Knights_vs_Sarah_Aline_and_The_Upper_Left_Corner|there's a reason Iscariot]] is disliked by most every active contributor on the wiki. Then again you've been [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#User:Iscariot|taken in by this rambling sycophant before]] so I don't know if I should be surprised that you actually listen to his bullshit when it's about [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Discussion#Communal_Accounts|how the wiki is out to get him]] as opposed to realizing how he tends [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_10#User:Iscariot|to abuse]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_09#User:Soldier|the rules]] to try and get his way. He's pretty much shown himself to be an all around scum bag, and I used to be the guy who would [[User_talk:Iscariot#If_I_may_ask|defend]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Conndraka_vs_Iscariot|him]] on the wiki, not to mention the one he used to come to for advice regarding it. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I fully support Karek's attempts to libel another user on his way out of the wiki and applaud his pseudo-harassment and impotent rages. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::You are just pissed that he did it on a page where you can't remove his comments with snide little summary links. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Listen to Karek. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 20:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:lul. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=1388212UDWiki:Administration/Promotions2009-02-14T12:23:04Z<p>Liberty: /* Candidates still requiring vouches */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
{{Promotions Intro}}<br />
==Candidates still requiring vouches==<br />
<br />
===[[User:Iscariot]]===<br />
<br />
Everyone's been talking about it around the wiki for the time that I've been here, and while the nominations are rolling in (and the sysops are falling fast), I would like to see what this community thinks of Iscariot being promoted. <br />
<br />
He would offer balance to the current sysop group and help create a more communal balance to decisions in the sysop-only sections of the wiki. I enjoy reading Iscariot's views towards administration discussions and issues on the wiki, and regardless of how extreme some users think he can be, he is always offering a hardline, dedicated argument in relation to the guidelines of the wiki, in its parts, when such a view is needed.<br />
<br />
Judging merely by his UD profiles, my guess is that he has been around since September 2007, and by the way he behaves I can see he has a good knowledge of wiki history and policies. I am willing to trust the user with the added responsibilities of SysOp status, and I can only trust that he would be willing to take them on too. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 12:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' - There is a large chance he will reject this solely because he was nominated by what he thinks is an alt account, but I'm still willing to push this forward. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 12:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
===[[User:Jerrel Yokotory]]===<br />
User: Jerrel Yokotory--[[User:Jerrel Yokotory|Jerrel Yokotory]] 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Erm...are you submitting yourself for promotion? -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I umm... think so. I'll ask :/. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::It appears [[User_talk:Linkthewindow#Yes|so]]. :/ {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Questions''': Why do you want to be a sysop? What do you see yourself contributing to the wiki if promoted? What areas of the wiki would you concentrate on if promoted? --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)</s> '''Against''' You are ineligible, as you have not made 250 edits to date. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against X1000''' - Criteria 2 aside, what have you even done that shows that you know how the wiki works? [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADunstan_Smit&diff=1378895&oldid=1374177 Here] is some proof where you say that you know very little about Wikicode which is a big no-no for anyone who wishes to be a sysop.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:And also, the VB case against you a couple of months or so back was quite interesting. I --{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Candidate fails criterion two. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - as Iscariot (and don't edit conflict me, Argo <tt>:D</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - name sounds like anime, and I dont trust that shit--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 00:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:What? --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 00:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' -blink- -blink- who? you must be kidding. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - I really haven't seen you active around the admin pages, or anywhere else. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Candidates currently under community discussion==<br />
===[[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]]===<br />
I've been thinking of doing this for a while now as I find Link to be a very useful and helpful member of the community who would make a good sysop. He's been around since before the 26th of July last year (History Purge wiped anything before that) and he's made somewhere in the region of 5-6000 edits. He's active in the administration sections regularly and already performs a lot of maintenance tasks. Either way, I think he would be a good sysop and this nomination has been a long time coming. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Just noting that I've seen this. I'll make up my mind later <tt>:)</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Okay then, I've decided I'll do this, assuming the community trusts me. I'm really quite bad at selling myself, but I encourage you to look at my [[Special:Contributions/Linkthewindow|contributions]], my [[User_talk:Linkthewindow|talk page]] and it's [[User_talk:Linkthewindow/Archive|archive]], as well as some of the administration archives (especially [[A/MR|move requests]] and [[A/SD|speedy deletions]].)<br />
<br />
I'll respond to any questions asked, so fire away. I'm probably what you would describe as a [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:GNOME|wikignome]], making lots of small edits that people don't really notice (such as categorization, fixing template calls, and the like.) <br />
<br />
As far as activity goes, I'm a student-my activity will likely drop off around exam time, and experience a surge during the holidays.<br />
<br />
Other then that, I would like to thank everyone who has voiced their opinion (against/vouch/abstain, doesn't matter,) and continues to do so. It's a lot easier to know your flaws when someone's pointed them out to you <tt>:D</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' - See above. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Hell yeah!''' or in other words, '''Strong Vouch'''. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**'''Third Vouch received at 23:31, 13 February 2009 (GMT)''' -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Works tirelessly in the maintenance of the site. Perfect candidate. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I still think the new suburb massacre template should be a different colour to differentiate it, but hey. Strong candidate. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**I think the same now, but it's a tad [[The Great Suburb Group Massacre|late]]. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Most definitely. Been around slightly before my time but unlike me he's worked his ass off around here!--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Fails criterion four. Shouldn't be in this section yet, but Cheese seems to have caught Hagnat's making-shit-up-as-he-goes-along disease. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Vouch''' - A helpful user who will be a great sysop. Unless he's into drunken wiki'ing like some previous sysops have been... :) --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**That's not aimed at me by any chance? =p -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***I sure hope not! :) --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
****I think J3D is a more likely candidate.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 07:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**No, actually. Sober all my life <tt>:D</tt> {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' -- I like what he's done so far, and can imagine what he'd do with additional powers. [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 00:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Linkthatshit!--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 00:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Vouch''' - Good guy, resonable, helpful.--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I'm in. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''[[ALiM]]''', i mean vouch ;) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fits the job perfectly. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - His constant use of edit summaries pisses me off no end (seriously - not necessary) but apart from that irrelevant detail he's alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I was always kinda surprised that he wasn't a syops already.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 10:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Very much vouch for link. --[[User:Mightyoak|<span style="color: ForestGreen">mo</span>]] [[User talk:Mightyoak|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ヽ(´ー`)ノ </span>]] <sup>[[MCM|<span style="color: DeepSkyBlue ">MCM</span>]] [[MOB|<span style="color: DarkMagenta">MOB</span>]] [[Dribbling Beavers|<span style="color: SaddleBrown">DB</span>]]</sup> 12:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Nothing wrong with him <tt>:)</tt>. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]¦</sup></small> 12:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Nubis===<br />
I don't want to steal Karek's thunder, but I think he and the others have a point that sysops shouldn't be afraid of the community opinion. If they are then they probably aren't doing their job correctly. I'm one of the longest standing sysops and it's probably time I put myself up for a review. (to be honest, the majority of the [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] I do doesn't require Sysop powers) but hopefully I have shown that I can be reasonable and fair in A/VB/M matters. <br />
<br />
Besides, if Karek steps down this place may fall into chaos and I don't want to see that. So, again, following his wise lead, I'm submitting a re-promotion bid. <br />
<br />
I don't really know what else to say, but consider it open season on any complaints/issues and I will address them. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - For following Karek's retarded example. If anyone else had put up a case on administration in which a result either way would not change the current status, like putting a deleted page up for deletion or reporting a perma banned user they'd have been escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Apparently not here though with one rule for sysops and one for ever fucker else. If you want to be 're-promoted' you have to be demoted first, basic logic and English. Hagnat may have pulled emo-validate-my-existence-by-saying-nice-things-about-me shit in the past but that doesn't change the basic premise that this is crapping up an admin page (whilst a user who is actually up for promotion has a bid in progress no less) and you should all know better. I'd remove both of these on basic principle that you can't be promoted but we all know you'd use excuse to escalate me in the fair and impartial way you do. If you really want the community's opinion, go submit a demotion request and then go for re-promotion properly. And why are you 'Under Community Discussion' when you haven't received three vouches yet? One rule for sysops.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I think you are missing the point that this could very well change my status. <br />
*:I did, however, put it under the wrong heading because I was posting on my way out the door and worried more about getting the news item right than the placement of this. Sorry. That was an accident. I would move this to the right place, but it has enough to be here now, so that would be pointless. <s>(Actually, I forgot AHLG wasn't a sysop anymore - going to move it. - now) </s> I see SA posted. It can be here now.<br />
*:Mostly this is about giving the users a place where they are expected to vent any and all concerns about a user. A place where (unlike a talk page) I don't have control of the content and where it is public enough that even casual users can respond. I would think that you of all people would welcome this IF the sysops doing it actually agreed to abide by the communities opinion at the end. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Nubis is correct, even if it was triggered by karek's move, it's still a brave move to put yourself up for reevaluation no matter what the circumstances are. Nubis is showing a trust in the community by putting himself in such a position. And Iscariot, stop nitpicking. The discussion has been accepted by the community on both reevaluations, so stop nitpicking and actually say what you think of the abilities of both Sysops, rather then nitpicking on something that doesn't matter.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*No offense, but you sometimes come across as 'biased', although I'll leave it is an assumption since this is the internet and there are no MIND-READING DEVICES. Other than that ''meh'', I don't have any real problems with you, except you're a little odd sometimes... I think you have a good balance on the 'ignore the rules', ie, not going overtop with it. Your [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] is good too. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Abstain for now''' - You are a HUGE asset to the sysop team and I fully support you, but I want to wait until the drama surrounding these promotion bids of you and Karek dies down a little and we get official opinion on it before I officially vote. Yes, I'm weird like that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:'''Vouch''' - Tired of waiting, I'm voting now.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*As Gnome. Does his share of work around here, reasonably fair. Overall an alright guy, if a bit of a hothead sometimes. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* BFFs FOR EVA! Other than the Amberwaves deletion thing, I've never had a problem with Nubis. And besides that, it was almost entirely about opinion that the conflict started at all. He also makes me laugh.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I had to fight for the Amberwaves image "on principle" because I didn't want the Marty Banks pictures deleted. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::I'd have fought to keep those, because a lot of them were well made, not just "Lol fat" wrote in MS paint.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''abstain/borderline vouch''' I don't often see eye to eye with Nubis but I do know that he argues from principle rather than spite/bias. He does a lot of good work around the wiki and my only real issue with him is that a very large amount of the petty and technicality misconducts that are brought against him would be avoided if he followed the rules --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:At least those petty and technical misconduct cases don't involve banning users. That has to be something.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' he sometimes makes me laugh, and has never crossed me yet. gold in basket please.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - "Distinguished quality. A remarkably prime sysop. Thanks. A+!" --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:''Fast shipping! Good Communication! Would bid again A++++++++++''--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As AHLG, you seem a little odd but, I don't see you doing anything wrong which should keep you from being sysop. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Yer ok fer a Goon '';P'' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Dem's fightin' werds...oh, wai---[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' ''He's NEVER been considered a Good sysop.'' and as Wan. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' Nubis is my homeboy. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Damn good Sysop. --{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 10:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Abstain''' - Meh. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - the only issues i had with nubis was during the conflict between some wiki users (such as myself) and the goons. Aside from that, i agree with him most of the time and strongly trust him not to abuse his powers. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Nubis ego +1''' :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Karek===<br />
I was going to wait until the other bid was finished to do this but have decided it's gonna happen now instead.<br />
<br />
I have been a sysop for a while now, there has been much drama relating to some of my actions a lot of various background work done. We've finally reached a point where the majority of the sysop team is actually active and doing stuff, I hoped we had reached a point where the sysops understood that they actually do have some control of the user base and should act accordingly <small>(In a manner conducive to the administrative nature of the position)</small> but I'll leave that to everyone else to decide, although we certainly are closer than we were when I was promoted.<br />
<br />
I'm putting myself up here as opposed to simply demotion, because I feel that it would be improper for me to leave without at lest giving the community at least one final chance at assessing my treatment and actions as a sysop. Yes, this is a re-promotion bid, It's also probably not as good as it could be wording and information wise I've always sucked at these things. Have at thee.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because he wants to baptise children in acid. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - I like Karek, but it looks like he's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEfzo0q5BxU lost his smile], he's a good guy, and a good for the community.. but if he doesn't want it... he doesn't want it. If you change your mind... I'll happily change my vote.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Question''' - Do ''you'' want to stay on as sysop? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:('''Strong Vouch''' if he wants, '''Against''' if he doesn't.) --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* He's fine and all. I think you should stay. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - As per Anime Sucks. --[[User:Speels|Speels]] 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* <s>'''Vouch''' - If you want to stay on, you would be welcome. I believe you are an excellent sysop.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:'''Abstain''' - I would dearly love it if you carried on, but if you want to leave this god awful place, then go for it. Also, as Anime.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - If you don't want to be sysop, don't do it. Even if the community is overwhelming support of keeping you on, if you don't want to do it then just don't. I find this move to be in somewhat poor taste because the '''last''' thing we need is a sysop who doesn't want to be there.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Very Strong Vouch''' - While I don't always agree with Karek, I very much respect his opinion and I personally find him to be a very able and knowledgeable member of the team. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because I may not agree with what you say much of the time But I will defend with my life your right to say it. Honestly. Furthermore, no community may be properly represented in its administration without at least some representation from <s>all</s>most possible angles. Karek is my counterpoint on many of beleifs I represent as my own. If Karek leaves I would have to change my public visage, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do ''that''.<small> btw if anyone wants to comment on this please do it on my talk page so it doesnt shit up this validation of Kareks service and abilities. </small> [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Shit mate, one of the few people on this wiki I can count on to be intelligent and know what he's doing, and now you're going to leave? Damn. Do what you want to do, but I still say you did an awesome job.--[[User:Suicidalangel|SA]] 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I would like to see him stay, he does a lot of useful work, with a minimum of fuss <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:44 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Vouch''' - As <s>Nubis.</s> err...Suicidalangel. And who will be left to out-lawyer the wikilawyers if you go? DON'T LEAVE US! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
*:Erm...Nubis hasn't posted here yet. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Good work, Team-[[User_talk:Suicidalangel#Team_Angel_Sigs|BFF]] <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:17 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:::Dangint! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I think I said everything on my talk page under Srs Question. I don't think you are as hated by "the community" as it was painted. Hopefully, this will give you the reassurance that people do respect you for taking the hardline on issues.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]-'''[[User:Nubis|+N+]]'''BFF SA--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As others, I don't always agree with Karek... however, he's one of the best sysops we have. He always strives to things ''the right way'', and is probably the single person I've learned the most from on this wiki. The wiki will lose a very good person if you go, karek. Sigh... :( --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - You suck for putting Honest up for promotion, but apart from that you're alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I don't always agree with your opinion, but I think you are as fair and unbiased as anyone will get around here. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - [[A/DM|You want over here]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Btw that's an as anime not a i want you demoted nao.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Karek's a great guy, and what boxy said-he does a lot of work with very little fuss. Although he can attract drama sometimes, that's pretty ''meh'' overall. He's enough of an ass to make hard decisions and get things done, but he's nice enough to not simply piss everyone off for no reason, and create MOAR DRAMAS!!!! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:That said, Karek shouldn't be forced to stay on as sysop if he doesn't want it. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''vouch''' Karek and I disagree on a great many things but he is always willing to explain and defend his position in a fair and logical way rather than just dismiss people as wrong he is also the most likely of all sysops to act without bias. Couple that with his understanding of how things work and i really doubt that we can afford to lose him... Still going to argue with him a lot if he stays though.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Linkthewindow and Honestmistake. You're pretty much the best sysop we have. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Meh''' - I know he has worked very hard as a sysops but the way he handeld a deletion lately was outright terrible, plain undemocratic. --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fair, unbiased and one of the best sysops around :). --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' this is an easy one. as above. perfectly explained... speels go suck a dogs dick.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Bold in desicions but rarely wrong in my opinion. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - While you might not always like they guy, he is necessary.--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 23:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - --[[User:Bullgod|Bullgod]] 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch... OH SHIT BULLGOD ^.^''' - --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - he does an awesome job here.,, dont see a reason why let him go. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Recently Concluded Bids==<br />
===[[User:Honestmistake]]===<br />
<br />
'''terrible timing but...'''' My home internet connection has been down for a few weeks now and is not looking like being fixed for a few weeks more meaning that I am not going to be around when this ends! In fact as I am off work for a for a week I will probably not find out the results until the 24th. Thanks to all that made their opinion known, including Bob and Nubis for their very hurtful comments, and hopefully I will get back to find that I have been awarded ultimate power and AHLG has changed my sig to "Grim_s woz ere" --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
He has more than enough contributions, although the history purge screws with the contributor history. He has been here more than a year now, has taken an active interest in the maintenance duties and policy discussions on this wiki and, while we don't always agree is the kind of user I think should be promoted. He has proven he is able to do the job and more than qualifies. So, assuming he accepts, I think it's about time we gave him a bid.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Very intresting to see the amount of suport (and opposition I have had here) and can only appologize that i am on a restricted interwebz diet at due to someone else breaking my home connection. <br />
:I am flattered by the nomination but don't think I have the skills needed to actually do the real work required for the job. Also, unlike Suicidal Angel, I do still sometimes edit the wiki drunk which goes a long way to explaining why I sometimes go off on tangents.That said, I would like to see this bid go through to the finish but feel it only fair to point out that if promoted I want absolutly nothing to do with any aspect of the job which involves wiki skills, though i will do my best to learn some.<br />
<br />
:Why might i make a good sysop? Well; I do not argue from malice and always with a point. I do not expect to win all (or given this is the internet, any) of those arguments and indeed often become embroiled in them only to make the otherside think. I am always willing to hold my hands up to my own mistakes and would point out that in my 3+ years here I have hardly ever gone a week without editing something and have only once been brought up on vandal charges and that was a pretty stupid and petty case. I am an inclusionist and proud of it and feel that a sysops role should be not just enforcing rules but knowing when doing so is counter productive.<br />
:I have been avoiding A/VB recently and don't look forwards to being dragged back, however, I don't think any sysop should be allowed to not get involved there so would obviously have no choice if promoted.<br />
<br />
:Finally; The Sysops job description includes the phrase "Trusted User" and you can trust me to always listen to both sides of an argument and to always strive to help any users in any way I can (even if its just pointing you at someone who knows what they are doing!) You can trust me not to try any fancy re-organization and not to try to overthrow the wiki... what you can't trust me with is any actual work!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I literally threw up. You've never been able to resist a good bitch in your entire time on the wiki; why the fuck should anyone believe you'd start now? OMG GUIS I'D ROOLY TROOLY CHAENG SRSLY? Bullshit. You don't even know the meaning of the term self-control. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You threw up? Bonus!<br />
::::Seriously though I would like to thank you and Read, Such are your towering reputations for fairness and sincerity that your early support would have doomed this before i even noticed it....--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::DO HO HO. You always were a witty little cunt. What a shame you don't put as much effort into logical thinking (srsly guise - as long as mai harts in teh rite plaec it dun matter wether im rite dus it?) as you do coming up with those shitty jokes. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Also, basically what you're saying here is that promoting you would be completely pointless as you wouldn't do a single fucking thing beyond 'keepan ur hart in teh rite plaece and bein srsly srs aboot discushun'. Lol. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I was going to reply... but honestly, would there even be a point? I mean, its not like you would accept the answer and go away is it!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You were going to reply, but you didn't... then you did anyway. Fail. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::tl;dr. If that's way you type a large message then you just gave me another reason to remain against. Sorry.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I put him up here, it would be strange if I didn't vouch. I believe he would be a good Sysop. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I've known him on the suggestion pages for a while. He's a good guy, doesn't get involved in too much drama and is reasonably level-headed. <s>Not sure if he wants this, though. </s>{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I've been proven wrong. Although it would be nice if you could learn how to use paragraphs :P. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - too fucking serious too much of the time.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Also, this proves what Karek knows about what the community needs.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Not about my view of the community, it's about my view of the user. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Look. 3 vouches. Now he has to accept. Although he might not. Did I mention '''Vouch'''? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - We do not need yet another rules-whoring crybaby on the sysop team. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strongly Against''' This user has shown time and time again that he fails to comprehend basic concepts. His arguments are emotional, weak (at best), nonsensical and off topic. I seriously wonder if someone hacked Karek's account to make him do this. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:The "You Ass" section on Karek's Talk page is more than enough to show what I am talking about. The section where Karek says about HM:''Iscariot and you both has a long history of disliking the sysops and raging against the machine for the sake of it, I deal with Iscariot off of the wiki and know he acts very differently here and I know you can be reasonable but often enough fall into the category of opposing the sysops for the sake of it that I often find myself having to take your comments on something with a grain of salt. '' RAGING VOUCH there Karek! --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::He may be one to argue but he is also willing to admit when he is wrong about something if discussion is actually attempted. He only argues because he actually cares about how the rules are enforced, not like some others who do it simply to cause drama. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Karek, he may admit to being wrong ''when you finally get it through his head'' that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. Look at his comments in the section I mentioned and his comments on the J3D A/M case are frighteningly dense. I don't want another sysop that we will have to babysit or clean up after. He also "splits hairs" on policies by commenting on the wording. He thought the phrase "No Confidence Vote" was too harsh. WTF?<br />
*:::You know, Karek, it really looks like you are trying to get someone in "the new crowd" promoted so that you don't seem like part of the "elite clique" and so that you can answer Iscariot's cries of ''you are out of touch with the community''. Why are you putting him up now? What has HM done in the last 2 months that all of the sudden made you decide ''Damn! this is the fresh blood we need''?--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::It's not a sudden decision. I've been considering this for a long while and it's just now that I happened to get around to it(I don't like multiple bids up at once). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Nubis.... "thank you for your contribution" pretty much sums up my opinion on you and your "vote". {{unsigned|Honestmistake|}}<br />
*::::::Firstly, learn to sign. Secondly, you're displaying the exact same arrogance you so often shout from your soapbox that the sysops supposedly have too much of. Enjoy your hypocrisy, dipshit. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::::Third, it is "Thank you for your input". Your attention to detail is awe inspiring.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::::::Believe it or not I carefully chose that word rather than your version because I feel it fits what I wished to say so much better. That it so closely reflects your own words was deliberate; hence the quote marks. I understand and accept your concerns, I just don't see the point in arguing with you and Bob when all it does is lead to insults. If you must insist on abuse then take it to my talk page rather than Spamming this page.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong 'gainst''' - Done nothinto deserve this, other wise as Cyberbob/Nubis... WTF hae you been smoking Karke?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Sorry. I know Honest is contributive, but I'm not sure he's up to the task. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - ''Pros:'' Honestmistake is a solid user and with a long history of interest and contributions. Usually listens to reason and almost always avoids drama. ''Cons:'' Sometimes comes up with really weird, illogical positions on what seem to be pretty straightforward issues. ''Concusion:'' More time and more active participation in Admin stuff, then he might be an excellent candidate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against'''I don't see him that often, nor do I see any great contributions.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 09:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Free sysops for everybody \õ/ --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:honestmistake is a good and caring contributor. he is not the kind who acts for the lulz, so he wont fuck up with his admin powers --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Given the [[User:Amazing|company you keep]] I'm sure you'll forgive people if they don't find your character reference all that exciting. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Given the candidates i have voted for in the past ( http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Cyberbob240_%283%29 ) I am not sure they should put trust in me either?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::You're doing that arrogance thing again. BTW, I would (and did) make a damn good sysop if I gave a fuck. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He mostly has a point when he disagrees with a decision, and even if I disagree, it's usually a difference of opinion <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:23 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:Should anyone else bother <s>voting</s> then, if he accepts the nomination? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Of course they should. I always take into account other people's opinions <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:13 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::::Hahaha. That's a good one. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::When does cyberbob's trolling cross the border into shitting up an Admin page? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::My comment was considerably more relevant than that attempt, my dear. If you want to go after someone for shitting up admin pages I suggest you take a look at the amount of shit I've moved off A/VB onto the talk page in recent weeks. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::When he stops making good points. I do hope that they at least play out the charade and leave the "what do you think about this promotion bid" comments on each other's pages. We expect the Dog '''and''' Pony at the Show. Or should that be ass? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''<s>Abstain</s>''' '''Against''' <s>i'm on the fence.</s> maybe next time around. don't we have enough users with super powers? and as above i thought HM hated the Sysops?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I do not and have never "hated" the sysops. A few users however seem to think anyone questioning their decision is obviously a sysop hater and screams that loud and often enough that it sticks.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::okay that answers that. For the Record. I do hate sysops. but I fear things i don't understand.... now for my vote, will give me gold in the basket? cookies and milk? and tities and beer?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::How about tickets to Spearmint Rhino and a free bottle of cheap champagne?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::WHO? and I hate fucking champagne... gimmie a good bottle of 12 year old single malt scotch on your next try. so NO.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Spearmint Rhino is a chain of expensive Lapdancing bars and if you prefer a decent malt you should have said... Taliskers suit you?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Don't know him well enough. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouchy vouch''' - He's always been decent, polite and such when I've talked to him. He seems to have a functioning brain and such, so yes, vouch.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:So if he wasn't polite, you'd vote against? And wtf does "decent" mean?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::''Characterized by conformity to recognized standards of propriety or morality.''--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<s>*'''Abstain''' - I haven't seen him much outside several petty squabbles with other users. If/When he accepts his nomination, it would be useful if he would provide some examples of why he should be a sysop. Until then, I will abstain. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)</s> <br />
*:'''Against''' - I've got no problems with him, but I don't want someone who confesses that he is wikincompetent looking up my IP. Sorry. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Because of some of his comments on Jed's last case in A/M remind me that I don't want him judging anything important in that place, or A/VB.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Wow, I thought this was a joke. His past actions speak VOLUMES.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I probably should not ask... but which actions do you have in mind? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 07:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - I think he needs more experience with the administration aspects of the wiki, although he seems nice and has a pretty continuous interest in this place. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Only because I haven't seen him do anything particularly special that makes him seem responsible enough for this. Given, I haven't seen him do anything wrong but I don't believe abstaining should justify that. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Seems to be a nice, decent bloke. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Incorrectness aside, don't you think you should be deciding based on a few more criteria than just personality? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I'm sure Honest is contributive and all, but I don't know him well enough. --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 16:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Unless the results are tied and then its a '''Vouch''' I Don't know Honest well enough to make a distinct vouch but in a close decision I'll give him the benifit of the doubt. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:You absolutely refuse to ''get it'', don't you, Con. ''This is '''not''' a vote'', and there will be no "ties". What you say about him is more important than the bolded word at the begining of the sentence <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:37 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::I choose to ignore your reality and substitute my own. '''OR''' It is in fact a vote, but one of a single entity, the Community. And whereas the single "vote" is determined by the shared perceived value by the community of the candidate. Although you may find my phrasing circumspect, let me assure you I meant what I said to indicate my general ambivalence in the matter, but also included a caveat that expresses my general inclusive nature of the promotions of Honestmistake as a sysop. i.e. I get it a hellova lot more than you could possibly believe sir, its not my fault you don't understand what I'm trying to say. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Voting is like sex. Conn isn't ''really'' abstaining more like he is only going to say 2nd base and groping Honest in the Ops back seat saying ''"Oh yeah, baby, I'll respect you as a sysop in the morning. You just have to A/VB me tonight."'' I think I just made myself throw up a little in my mouth.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::That was just the teeniest bit o' weird.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::roflmao --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He's a good kid.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Would you believe he's in his 30's? Bit rich to be calling him a kid, mental age or no. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against'''I havent heard of him before sorry it seems like he dosent have enough time on here!--[[User:Xela798|Dr. Sinclair]] 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Well I have been active in game since september 2005 and on the wiki within a week of starting the game. Since then i have logged in far more frequently than can be healthy and participate in a great deal of discussions etc and sometimes feel like i live on the suggestions pages... I have stepped away from certain areas recently as the drama levels were beginning to annoy me far too much, no doubt I will be back into the fray again soon though. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:That's kind of ironic, coming from someone who submitted this lovely [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Xela798|bit o' spam]], and garnered ''twenty-nine'' votes that in effect said, "Who the hell are you?" --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - We need some alternate opinions on the sysop team, badly. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 04:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Karek said pretty much. --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*I've been sitting on the fence with this one, but felt I had to comment. While he means well (I swear those words will be on humanity's grave), he freely admits that his wiki skills are lacking, which means he might not be fit to perform the ''essentially janitorial'' duties of a sysop. He certainly has a different view – half the time I really can't work out where the hell he's coming from or going on suggestion votes, and his suggested compromises are baffling in nature. In summary, if he's not competent with the tools we have, I am '''against''' his having the powers to look up IPs, ban people, and permanently delete files – even if it ''is'' a [[User:Honestmistake|honest mistake]]. No hard feelings mate. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' -Perhaps once his Wiki skills have improved, I would feel differently. --[[User:Lois Millard|Lois Millard]] 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Looks like the two weeks are up for discussion on this bid. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 19:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Confiring <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 22:48 13 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
After reading through the bid again, and confiring with the Cheeseman, we both agree that you are a good candidate for the position, however the communities high abstain/against votes, and your own lack of confidence in your suitablity means that I won't be promoting you this time. I would encourage you to consider another bid in the future, after considering what you could contribute to the team, and whether you want to commit to the position. The position '''will''' severly test your patience and suitability sooner rather than later, if you ever do get in. You have to be ready to deal with that <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:50 13 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:"get in". I like your choice of language boxo, it says a lot about your attitude :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Archived Promotions==<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Complete list of Promotion Requests]]<br />
*[[:Category:Successful Promotions Candidacies|Successful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies|Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unaccepted Nominations|Unaccepted Nominations]]<br />
*[[:Category:Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies|Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies]]</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=1388006UDWiki:Administration/Promotions2009-02-14T03:01:31Z<p>Liberty: /* Linkthewindow */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
{{Promotions Intro}}<br />
==Candidates still requiring vouches==<br />
<br />
<br />
===[[User:Jerrel Yokotory]]===<br />
User: Jerrel Yokotory--[[User:Jerrel Yokotory|Jerrel Yokotory]] 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Erm...are you submitting yourself for promotion? -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I umm... think so. I'll ask :/. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::It appears [[User_talk:Linkthewindow#Yes|so]]. :/ {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Questions''': Why do you want to be a sysop? What do you see yourself contributing to the wiki if promoted? What areas of the wiki would you concentrate on if promoted? --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)</s> '''Against''' You are ineligible, as you have not made 250 edits to date. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against X1000''' - Criteria 2 aside, what have you even done that shows that you know how the wiki works? [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADunstan_Smit&diff=1378895&oldid=1374177 Here] is some proof where you say that you know very little about Wikicode which is a big no-no for anyone who wishes to be a sysop.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:And also, the VB case against you a couple of months or so back was quite interesting. I --{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Candidate fails criterion two. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - as Iscariot (and don't edit conflict me, Argo <tt>:D</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - name sounds like anime, and I dont trust that shit--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 00:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:What? --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 00:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' -blink- -blink- who? you must be kidding. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Candidates currently under community discussion==<br />
===[[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]]===<br />
I've been thinking of doing this for a while now as I find Link to be a very useful and helpful member of the community who would make a good sysop. He's been around since before the 26th of July last year (History Purge wiped anything before that) and he's made somewhere in the region of 5-6000 edits. He's active in the administration sections regularly and already performs a lot of maintenance tasks. Either way, I think he would be a good sysop and this nomination has been a long time coming. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Just noting that I've seen this. I'll make up my mind later <tt>:)</tt>. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' - See above. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Hell yeah!''' or in other words, '''Strong Vouch'''. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**'''Third Vouch received at 23:31, 13 February 2009 (GMT)''' -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Works tirelessly in the maintenance of the site. Perfect candidate. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I still think the new suburb massacre template should be a different colour to differentiate it, but hey. Strong candidate. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Most definitely. Been around slightly before my time but unlike me he's worked his ass off around here!--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Fails criterion four. Shouldn't be in this section yet, but Cheese seems to have caught Hagnat's making-shit-up-as-he-goes-along disease. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Vouch''' - A helpful user who will be a great sysop. Unless he's into drunken wiki'ing like some previous sysops have been... :) --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
**That's not aimed at me by any chance? =p -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
***I sure hope not! :) --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' -- I like what he's done so far, and can imagine what he'd do with additional powers. [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 00:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Linkthatshit!--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 00:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Vouch''' - Good guy, resonable, helpful.--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I'm in. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''[[ALiM]]''', i mean vouch ;) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Nubis===<br />
I don't want to steal Karek's thunder, but I think he and the others have a point that sysops shouldn't be afraid of the community opinion. If they are then they probably aren't doing their job correctly. I'm one of the longest standing sysops and it's probably time I put myself up for a review. (to be honest, the majority of the [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] I do doesn't require Sysop powers) but hopefully I have shown that I can be reasonable and fair in A/VB/M matters. <br />
<br />
Besides, if Karek steps down this place may fall into chaos and I don't want to see that. So, again, following his wise lead, I'm submitting a re-promotion bid. <br />
<br />
I don't really know what else to say, but consider it open season on any complaints/issues and I will address them. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - For following Karek's retarded example. If anyone else had put up a case on administration in which a result either way would not change the current status, like putting a deleted page up for deletion or reporting a perma banned user they'd have been escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Apparently not here though with one rule for sysops and one for ever fucker else. If you want to be 're-promoted' you have to be demoted first, basic logic and English. Hagnat may have pulled emo-validate-my-existence-by-saying-nice-things-about-me shit in the past but that doesn't change the basic premise that this is crapping up an admin page (whilst a user who is actually up for promotion has a bid in progress no less) and you should all know better. I'd remove both of these on basic principle that you can't be promoted but we all know you'd use excuse to escalate me in the fair and impartial way you do. If you really want the community's opinion, go submit a demotion request and then go for re-promotion properly. And why are you 'Under Community Discussion' when you haven't received three vouches yet? One rule for sysops.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I think you are missing the point that this could very well change my status. <br />
*:I did, however, put it under the wrong heading because I was posting on my way out the door and worried more about getting the news item right than the placement of this. Sorry. That was an accident. I would move this to the right place, but it has enough to be here now, so that would be pointless. <s>(Actually, I forgot AHLG wasn't a sysop anymore - going to move it. - now) </s> I see SA posted. It can be here now.<br />
*:Mostly this is about giving the users a place where they are expected to vent any and all concerns about a user. A place where (unlike a talk page) I don't have control of the content and where it is public enough that even casual users can respond. I would think that you of all people would welcome this IF the sysops doing it actually agreed to abide by the communities opinion at the end. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Nubis is correct, even if it was triggered by karek's move, it's still a brave move to put yourself up for reevaluation no matter what the circumstances are. Nubis is showing a trust in the community by putting himself in such a position. And Iscariot, stop nitpicking. The discussion has been accepted by the community on both reevaluations, so stop nitpicking and actually say what you think of the abilities of both Sysops, rather then nitpicking on something that doesn't matter.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*No offense, but you sometimes come across as 'biased', although I'll leave it is an assumption since this is the internet and there are no MIND-READING DEVICES. Other than that ''meh'', I don't have any real problems with you, except you're a little odd sometimes... I think you have a good balance on the 'ignore the rules', ie, not going overtop with it. Your [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] is good too. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Abstain for now''' - You are a HUGE asset to the sysop team and I fully support you, but I want to wait until the drama surrounding these promotion bids of you and Karek dies down a little and we get official opinion on it before I officially vote. Yes, I'm weird like that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:'''Vouch''' - Tired of waiting, I'm voting now.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*As Gnome. Does his share of work around here, reasonably fair. Overall an alright guy, if a bit of a hothead sometimes. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* BFFs FOR EVA! Other than the Amberwaves deletion thing, I've never had a problem with Nubis. And besides that, it was almost entirely about opinion that the conflict started at all. He also makes me laugh.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I had to fight for the Amberwaves image "on principle" because I didn't want the Marty Banks pictures deleted. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::I'd have fought to keep those, because a lot of them were well made, not just "Lol fat" wrote in MS paint.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''abstain/borderline vouch''' I don't often see eye to eye with Nubis but I do know that he argues from principle rather than spite/bias. He does a lot of good work around the wiki and my only real issue with him is that a very large amount of the petty and technicality misconducts that are brought against him would be avoided if he followed the rules --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:At least those petty and technical misconduct cases don't involve banning users. That has to be something.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' he sometimes makes me laugh, and has never crossed me yet. gold in basket please.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - "Distinguished quality. A remarkably prime sysop. Thanks. A+!" --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:''Fast shipping! Good Communication! Would bid again A++++++++++''--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As AHLG, you seem a little odd but, I don't see you doing anything wrong which should keep you from being sysop. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Yer ok fer a Goon '';P'' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Dem's fightin' werds...oh, wai---[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' ''He's NEVER been considered a Good sysop.'' and as Wan. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' Nubis is my homeboy. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Damn good Sysop. --{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 10:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Abstain''' - Meh. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - the only issues i had with nubis was during the conflict between some wiki users (such as myself) and the goons. Aside from that, i agree with him most of the time and strongly trust him not to abuse his powers. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Nubis ego +1''' :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Karek===<br />
I was going to wait until the other bid was finished to do this but have decided it's gonna happen now instead.<br />
<br />
I have been a sysop for a while now, there has been much drama relating to some of my actions a lot of various background work done. We've finally reached a point where the majority of the sysop team is actually active and doing stuff, I hoped we had reached a point where the sysops understood that they actually do have some control of the user base and should act accordingly <small>(In a manner conducive to the administrative nature of the position)</small> but I'll leave that to everyone else to decide, although we certainly are closer than we were when I was promoted.<br />
<br />
I'm putting myself up here as opposed to simply demotion, because I feel that it would be improper for me to leave without at lest giving the community at least one final chance at assessing my treatment and actions as a sysop. Yes, this is a re-promotion bid, It's also probably not as good as it could be wording and information wise I've always sucked at these things. Have at thee.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because he wants to baptise children in acid. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - I like Karek, but it looks like he's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEfzo0q5BxU lost his smile], he's a good guy, and a good for the community.. but if he doesn't want it... he doesn't want it. If you change your mind... I'll happily change my vote.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Question''' - Do ''you'' want to stay on as sysop? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:('''Strong Vouch''' if he wants, '''Against''' if he doesn't.) --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* He's fine and all. I think you should stay. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - As per Anime Sucks. --[[User:Speels|Speels]] 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* <s>'''Vouch''' - If you want to stay on, you would be welcome. I believe you are an excellent sysop.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:'''Abstain''' - I would dearly love it if you carried on, but if you want to leave this god awful place, then go for it. Also, as Anime.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - If you don't want to be sysop, don't do it. Even if the community is overwhelming support of keeping you on, if you don't want to do it then just don't. I find this move to be in somewhat poor taste because the '''last''' thing we need is a sysop who doesn't want to be there.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Very Strong Vouch''' - While I don't always agree with Karek, I very much respect his opinion and I personally find him to be a very able and knowledgeable member of the team. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because I may not agree with what you say much of the time But I will defend with my life your right to say it. Honestly. Furthermore, no community may be properly represented in its administration without at least some representation from <s>all</s>most possible angles. Karek is my counterpoint on many of beleifs I represent as my own. If Karek leaves I would have to change my public visage, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do ''that''.<small> btw if anyone wants to comment on this please do it on my talk page so it doesnt shit up this validation of Kareks service and abilities. </small> [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Shit mate, one of the few people on this wiki I can count on to be intelligent and know what he's doing, and now you're going to leave? Damn. Do what you want to do, but I still say you did an awesome job.--[[User:Suicidalangel|SA]] 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I would like to see him stay, he does a lot of useful work, with a minimum of fuss <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:44 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Vouch''' - As <s>Nubis.</s> err...Suicidalangel. And who will be left to out-lawyer the wikilawyers if you go? DON'T LEAVE US! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
*:Erm...Nubis hasn't posted here yet. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Good work, Team-[[User_talk:Suicidalangel#Team_Angel_Sigs|BFF]] <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:17 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:::Dangint! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I think I said everything on my talk page under Srs Question. I don't think you are as hated by "the community" as it was painted. Hopefully, this will give you the reassurance that people do respect you for taking the hardline on issues.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]-'''[[User:Nubis|+N+]]'''BFF SA--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As others, I don't always agree with Karek... however, he's one of the best sysops we have. He always strives to things ''the right way'', and is probably the single person I've learned the most from on this wiki. The wiki will lose a very good person if you go, karek. Sigh... :( --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - You suck for putting Honest up for promotion, but apart from that you're alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I don't always agree with your opinion, but I think you are as fair and unbiased as anyone will get around here. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - [[A/DM|You want over here]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Btw that's an as anime not a i want you demoted nao.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Karek's a great guy, and what boxy said-he does a lot of work with very little fuss. Although he can attract drama sometimes, that's pretty ''meh'' overall. He's enough of an ass to make hard decisions and get things done, but he's nice enough to not simply piss everyone off for no reason, and create MOAR DRAMAS!!!! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:That said, Karek shouldn't be forced to stay on as sysop if he doesn't want it. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''vouch''' Karek and I disagree on a great many things but he is always willing to explain and defend his position in a fair and logical way rather than just dismiss people as wrong he is also the most likely of all sysops to act without bias. Couple that with his understanding of how things work and i really doubt that we can afford to lose him... Still going to argue with him a lot if he stays though.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Linkthewindow and Honestmistake. You're pretty much the best sysop we have. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Meh''' - I know he has worked very hard as a sysops but the way he handeld a deletion lately was outright terrible, plain undemocratic. --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fair, unbiased and one of the best sysops around :). --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' this is an easy one. as above. perfectly explained... speels go suck a dogs dick.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Bold in desicions but rarely wrong in my opinion. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - While you might not always like they guy, he is necessary.--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 23:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - --[[User:Bullgod|Bullgod]] 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch... OH SHIT BULLGOD ^.^''' - --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - he does an awesome job here.,, dont see a reason why let him go. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Recently Concluded Bids==<br />
===[[User:Honestmistake]]===<br />
<br />
'''terrible timing but...'''' My home internet connection has been down for a few weeks now and is not looking like being fixed for a few weeks more meaning that I am not going to be around when this ends! In fact as I am off work for a for a week I will probably not find out the results until the 24th. Thanks to all that made their opinion known, including Bob and Nubis for their very hurtful comments, and hopefully I will get back to find that I have been awarded ultimate power and AHLG has changed my sig to "Grim_s woz ere" --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
He has more than enough contributions, although the history purge screws with the contributor history. He has been here more than a year now, has taken an active interest in the maintenance duties and policy discussions on this wiki and, while we don't always agree is the kind of user I think should be promoted. He has proven he is able to do the job and more than qualifies. So, assuming he accepts, I think it's about time we gave him a bid.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Very intresting to see the amount of suport (and opposition I have had here) and can only appologize that i am on a restricted interwebz diet at due to someone else breaking my home connection. <br />
:I am flattered by the nomination but don't think I have the skills needed to actually do the real work required for the job. Also, unlike Suicidal Angel, I do still sometimes edit the wiki drunk which goes a long way to explaining why I sometimes go off on tangents.That said, I would like to see this bid go through to the finish but feel it only fair to point out that if promoted I want absolutly nothing to do with any aspect of the job which involves wiki skills, though i will do my best to learn some.<br />
<br />
:Why might i make a good sysop? Well; I do not argue from malice and always with a point. I do not expect to win all (or given this is the internet, any) of those arguments and indeed often become embroiled in them only to make the otherside think. I am always willing to hold my hands up to my own mistakes and would point out that in my 3+ years here I have hardly ever gone a week without editing something and have only once been brought up on vandal charges and that was a pretty stupid and petty case. I am an inclusionist and proud of it and feel that a sysops role should be not just enforcing rules but knowing when doing so is counter productive.<br />
:I have been avoiding A/VB recently and don't look forwards to being dragged back, however, I don't think any sysop should be allowed to not get involved there so would obviously have no choice if promoted.<br />
<br />
:Finally; The Sysops job description includes the phrase "Trusted User" and you can trust me to always listen to both sides of an argument and to always strive to help any users in any way I can (even if its just pointing you at someone who knows what they are doing!) You can trust me not to try any fancy re-organization and not to try to overthrow the wiki... what you can't trust me with is any actual work!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I literally threw up. You've never been able to resist a good bitch in your entire time on the wiki; why the fuck should anyone believe you'd start now? OMG GUIS I'D ROOLY TROOLY CHAENG SRSLY? Bullshit. You don't even know the meaning of the term self-control. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You threw up? Bonus!<br />
::::Seriously though I would like to thank you and Read, Such are your towering reputations for fairness and sincerity that your early support would have doomed this before i even noticed it....--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::DO HO HO. You always were a witty little cunt. What a shame you don't put as much effort into logical thinking (srsly guise - as long as mai harts in teh rite plaec it dun matter wether im rite dus it?) as you do coming up with those shitty jokes. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Also, basically what you're saying here is that promoting you would be completely pointless as you wouldn't do a single fucking thing beyond 'keepan ur hart in teh rite plaece and bein srsly srs aboot discushun'. Lol. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I was going to reply... but honestly, would there even be a point? I mean, its not like you would accept the answer and go away is it!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You were going to reply, but you didn't... then you did anyway. Fail. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::tl;dr. If that's way you type a large message then you just gave me another reason to remain against. Sorry.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I put him up here, it would be strange if I didn't vouch. I believe he would be a good Sysop. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I've known him on the suggestion pages for a while. He's a good guy, doesn't get involved in too much drama and is reasonably level-headed. <s>Not sure if he wants this, though. </s>{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I've been proven wrong. Although it would be nice if you could learn how to use paragraphs :P. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - too fucking serious too much of the time.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Also, this proves what Karek knows about what the community needs.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Not about my view of the community, it's about my view of the user. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Look. 3 vouches. Now he has to accept. Although he might not. Did I mention '''Vouch'''? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - We do not need yet another rules-whoring crybaby on the sysop team. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strongly Against''' This user has shown time and time again that he fails to comprehend basic concepts. His arguments are emotional, weak (at best), nonsensical and off topic. I seriously wonder if someone hacked Karek's account to make him do this. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:The "You Ass" section on Karek's Talk page is more than enough to show what I am talking about. The section where Karek says about HM:''Iscariot and you both has a long history of disliking the sysops and raging against the machine for the sake of it, I deal with Iscariot off of the wiki and know he acts very differently here and I know you can be reasonable but often enough fall into the category of opposing the sysops for the sake of it that I often find myself having to take your comments on something with a grain of salt. '' RAGING VOUCH there Karek! --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::He may be one to argue but he is also willing to admit when he is wrong about something if discussion is actually attempted. He only argues because he actually cares about how the rules are enforced, not like some others who do it simply to cause drama. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Karek, he may admit to being wrong ''when you finally get it through his head'' that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. Look at his comments in the section I mentioned and his comments on the J3D A/M case are frighteningly dense. I don't want another sysop that we will have to babysit or clean up after. He also "splits hairs" on policies by commenting on the wording. He thought the phrase "No Confidence Vote" was too harsh. WTF?<br />
*:::You know, Karek, it really looks like you are trying to get someone in "the new crowd" promoted so that you don't seem like part of the "elite clique" and so that you can answer Iscariot's cries of ''you are out of touch with the community''. Why are you putting him up now? What has HM done in the last 2 months that all of the sudden made you decide ''Damn! this is the fresh blood we need''?--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::It's not a sudden decision. I've been considering this for a long while and it's just now that I happened to get around to it(I don't like multiple bids up at once). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Nubis.... "thank you for your contribution" pretty much sums up my opinion on you and your "vote". {{unsigned|Honestmistake|}}<br />
*::::::Firstly, learn to sign. Secondly, you're displaying the exact same arrogance you so often shout from your soapbox that the sysops supposedly have too much of. Enjoy your hypocrisy, dipshit. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::::Third, it is "Thank you for your input". Your attention to detail is awe inspiring.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::::::Believe it or not I carefully chose that word rather than your version because I feel it fits what I wished to say so much better. That it so closely reflects your own words was deliberate; hence the quote marks. I understand and accept your concerns, I just don't see the point in arguing with you and Bob when all it does is lead to insults. If you must insist on abuse then take it to my talk page rather than Spamming this page.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong 'gainst''' - Done nothinto deserve this, other wise as Cyberbob/Nubis... WTF hae you been smoking Karke?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Sorry. I know Honest is contributive, but I'm not sure he's up to the task. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - ''Pros:'' Honestmistake is a solid user and with a long history of interest and contributions. Usually listens to reason and almost always avoids drama. ''Cons:'' Sometimes comes up with really weird, illogical positions on what seem to be pretty straightforward issues. ''Concusion:'' More time and more active participation in Admin stuff, then he might be an excellent candidate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against'''I don't see him that often, nor do I see any great contributions.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 09:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Free sysops for everybody \õ/ --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:honestmistake is a good and caring contributor. he is not the kind who acts for the lulz, so he wont fuck up with his admin powers --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Given the [[User:Amazing|company you keep]] I'm sure you'll forgive people if they don't find your character reference all that exciting. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Given the candidates i have voted for in the past ( http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Cyberbob240_%283%29 ) I am not sure they should put trust in me either?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::You're doing that arrogance thing again. BTW, I would (and did) make a damn good sysop if I gave a fuck. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He mostly has a point when he disagrees with a decision, and even if I disagree, it's usually a difference of opinion <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:23 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:Should anyone else bother <s>voting</s> then, if he accepts the nomination? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Of course they should. I always take into account other people's opinions <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:13 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::::Hahaha. That's a good one. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::When does cyberbob's trolling cross the border into shitting up an Admin page? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::My comment was considerably more relevant than that attempt, my dear. If you want to go after someone for shitting up admin pages I suggest you take a look at the amount of shit I've moved off A/VB onto the talk page in recent weeks. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::When he stops making good points. I do hope that they at least play out the charade and leave the "what do you think about this promotion bid" comments on each other's pages. We expect the Dog '''and''' Pony at the Show. Or should that be ass? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''<s>Abstain</s>''' '''Against''' <s>i'm on the fence.</s> maybe next time around. don't we have enough users with super powers? and as above i thought HM hated the Sysops?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I do not and have never "hated" the sysops. A few users however seem to think anyone questioning their decision is obviously a sysop hater and screams that loud and often enough that it sticks.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::okay that answers that. For the Record. I do hate sysops. but I fear things i don't understand.... now for my vote, will give me gold in the basket? cookies and milk? and tities and beer?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::How about tickets to Spearmint Rhino and a free bottle of cheap champagne?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::WHO? and I hate fucking champagne... gimmie a good bottle of 12 year old single malt scotch on your next try. so NO.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Spearmint Rhino is a chain of expensive Lapdancing bars and if you prefer a decent malt you should have said... Taliskers suit you?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Don't know him well enough. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouchy vouch''' - He's always been decent, polite and such when I've talked to him. He seems to have a functioning brain and such, so yes, vouch.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:So if he wasn't polite, you'd vote against? And wtf does "decent" mean?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::''Characterized by conformity to recognized standards of propriety or morality.''--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<s>*'''Abstain''' - I haven't seen him much outside several petty squabbles with other users. If/When he accepts his nomination, it would be useful if he would provide some examples of why he should be a sysop. Until then, I will abstain. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)</s> <br />
*:'''Against''' - I've got no problems with him, but I don't want someone who confesses that he is wikincompetent looking up my IP. Sorry. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Because of some of his comments on Jed's last case in A/M remind me that I don't want him judging anything important in that place, or A/VB.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Wow, I thought this was a joke. His past actions speak VOLUMES.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I probably should not ask... but which actions do you have in mind? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 07:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - I think he needs more experience with the administration aspects of the wiki, although he seems nice and has a pretty continuous interest in this place. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Only because I haven't seen him do anything particularly special that makes him seem responsible enough for this. Given, I haven't seen him do anything wrong but I don't believe abstaining should justify that. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Seems to be a nice, decent bloke. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Incorrectness aside, don't you think you should be deciding based on a few more criteria than just personality? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I'm sure Honest is contributive and all, but I don't know him well enough. --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 16:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Unless the results are tied and then its a '''Vouch''' I Don't know Honest well enough to make a distinct vouch but in a close decision I'll give him the benifit of the doubt. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:You absolutely refuse to ''get it'', don't you, Con. ''This is '''not''' a vote'', and there will be no "ties". What you say about him is more important than the bolded word at the begining of the sentence <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:37 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::I choose to ignore your reality and substitute my own. '''OR''' It is in fact a vote, but one of a single entity, the Community. And whereas the single "vote" is determined by the shared perceived value by the community of the candidate. Although you may find my phrasing circumspect, let me assure you I meant what I said to indicate my general ambivalence in the matter, but also included a caveat that expresses my general inclusive nature of the promotions of Honestmistake as a sysop. i.e. I get it a hellova lot more than you could possibly believe sir, its not my fault you don't understand what I'm trying to say. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Voting is like sex. Conn isn't ''really'' abstaining more like he is only going to say 2nd base and groping Honest in the Ops back seat saying ''"Oh yeah, baby, I'll respect you as a sysop in the morning. You just have to A/VB me tonight."'' I think I just made myself throw up a little in my mouth.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::That was just the teeniest bit o' weird.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::roflmao --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He's a good kid.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Would you believe he's in his 30's? Bit rich to be calling him a kid, mental age or no. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against'''I havent heard of him before sorry it seems like he dosent have enough time on here!--[[User:Xela798|Dr. Sinclair]] 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Well I have been active in game since september 2005 and on the wiki within a week of starting the game. Since then i have logged in far more frequently than can be healthy and participate in a great deal of discussions etc and sometimes feel like i live on the suggestions pages... I have stepped away from certain areas recently as the drama levels were beginning to annoy me far too much, no doubt I will be back into the fray again soon though. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:That's kind of ironic, coming from someone who submitted this lovely [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Xela798|bit o' spam]], and garnered ''twenty-nine'' votes that in effect said, "Who the hell are you?" --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - We need some alternate opinions on the sysop team, badly. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 04:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Karek said pretty much. --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*I've been sitting on the fence with this one, but felt I had to comment. While he means well (I swear those words will be on humanity's grave), he freely admits that his wiki skills are lacking, which means he might not be fit to perform the ''essentially janitorial'' duties of a sysop. He certainly has a different view – half the time I really can't work out where the hell he's coming from or going on suggestion votes, and his suggested compromises are baffling in nature. In summary, if he's not competent with the tools we have, I am '''against''' his having the powers to look up IPs, ban people, and permanently delete files – even if it ''is'' a [[User:Honestmistake|honest mistake]]. No hard feelings mate. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' -Perhaps once his Wiki skills have improved, I would feel differently. --[[User:Lois Millard|Lois Millard]] 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Looks like the two weeks are up for discussion on this bid. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 19:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Confiring <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 22:48 13 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
After reading through the bid again, and confiring with the Cheeseman, we both agree that you are a good candidate for the position, however the communities high abstain/against votes, and your own lack of confidence in your suitablity means that I won't be promoting you this time. I would encourage you to consider another bid in the future, after considering what you could contribute to the team, and whether you want to commit to the position. The position '''will''' severly test your patience and suitability sooner rather than later, if you ever do get in. You have to be ready to deal with that <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:50 13 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:"get in". I like your choice of language boxo, it says a lot about your attitude :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Archived Promotions==<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Complete list of Promotion Requests]]<br />
*[[:Category:Successful Promotions Candidacies|Successful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies|Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unaccepted Nominations|Unaccepted Nominations]]<br />
*[[:Category:Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies|Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies]]</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02&diff=1384645UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 022009-02-10T23:57:28Z<p>Liberty: /* User:King Leonidas */</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude><br />
{{VBarchivenav}}<br />
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Header}}<br />
</noinclude><br />
<br />
== [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 02|February 2009]] ==<br />
<br />
===[[User:King Leonidas]]===<br />
{{vndl|King Leonidas}}<br />
<br />
Hugely humorous vandalism. If you lived in 2006. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2009_02&diff=1384633&oldid=1384630 ha!] {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Delta Nitroxs LP]]===<br />
{{vndl|Delta Nitroxs LP}} {{verdict|Vandalism|Warned}}<br />
'''Warned''' for below vandalism through sockpuppet. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Newwarship]]===<br />
{{vndl|Newwarship}} {{verdict|Sock Puppet|Permaban}}<br />
<s>'''Warned''' [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Lord_Curton%27s_Gentlemen%27s_Hunting_Club&diff=prev&oldid=1381516 for this edit to a group page]. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:I really should run checkuser before I warn these one edit guys. '''Permabanned''' as a sock of [[User:Delta Nitroxs LP]] and main has been '''warned'''. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Iscariot]]===<br />
{{vndl|Iscariot}} {{verdict}}<br />
For continuing to troll admin pages with [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2009_02&diff=1381126&oldid=1380435 petty cases] and his continued refusal to follow the [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02#Before_Submitting_a_Report|process for submitting a report]]. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Others have ignored process before, and haven't had anything happen to them. And if he gets V/B'd for petty cases, I expect Bob to get an escalation as well. That said, its not like we're too overloaded with work to simply just say NV and be done with it on the petty cases that have no basis. Anyway, Iscariot, please don't put something like that up. If you looked through previous promotion bid archives, you'd see a few other Sysops have put themselves up for a review on it. Precedent doesn't always have to be followed, but sometimes its a good idea.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Pretty sure Bob has been warned for this before himself. Him and J3D had a thing going here once, maybe you heard of it. He's filing a case he knows has no merit, thus why this got reported. Not to mention he's been talked to about such petty cases in the past too. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah, I read through it all. I kinda face palmed. I figured this would serve as a last chance to both of them about this, without screwing other sysops over by giving an actual ruling.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 13:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Well, soft warn him then <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:23 8 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::I'm not going to soft warn him because I didn't soft warn Cyberbob for submitting a petty case either. It was more of a last chance (and being that it was said from my point of view, it would mean it was a last chance for both Iscariot and Cyberbob in ''my'' eyes. Someone else can feel the deserve another chance here or there, but I'm not giving any more slack with these petty cases), as I said. I wasn't ruling because I had just let Bob go unpunished for a petty case, and it'd look like I was showing bias. I am not. I simply stated my opinion, and showed what my further actions will be with cases like this from these users, while leaving other sysops to weigh in how they want, using my opinion how they want to.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 06:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::My point was that in any jump of the imagination he has been given far more chances than he should have, he's been soft warned for this in the past, he's been actually escalated for this type of thing in the past, he knows exactly why he shouldn't be doing it and what will happen if he does. Do we really need to give the guy who threatened to harass a newbie off the wiki if he didn't get his way in an arbitration case more leeway than we already have? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This is one of two things. <br />
# A user ignoring the process and posting a case without talking to the person or<br />
# Another example in an obvious pattern of harassment.<br />
The case is being presented as 1 which probably won't get a vandalism ruling. I would be very curious what results an actual case based on 2 would yield. However, it seems no one either has the desire to start the drama or has reached the point where they think he needs a permaban for the protection of the wiki. Until such time it seems like he will be nickeled and dimed down the VB road.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Karek]]===<br />
{{vndl|Karek}} {{verdict|Not Vandalism|None Required}}<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions#User:Karek|For this action]].<br />
<br />
Karek puts himself up for 're-promotion'. This is quite simply impossible. If we examine the words he uses, 'promotion' - ''"An advancing in rank or position"'' and 're' - ''" meaning back or again"''. Just so we are clear, it is '''impossible''' for Karek to be promoted again as he has never been demoted. He clearly knows and understands this from his opening statement, yet still puts up a completely pointless case. What purpose does the case serve given that Karek cannot be promoted?<br />
<br />
If anyone else had placed a case on an admin page that served no purpose due to the result already being in effect they would be escalated for spamming up the admin pages with a pointless case. This is no different than bringing Amazing here to A/VB over an edit, putting a deleted page up for deletion or J3D going to A/DM and requesting demotion.<br />
<br />
The only thing this serves is to take up space on an admin page, as the result will be meaningless. Karek should be escalated for this and the case immediately removed. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Vandalism''', as he probably means reassessment instead of "re-promotion". Should he come here and say that what he was expecting was a promotion to a higher level other than 'crat, or is wanting to be demoted and re-promoted, I will change my ruling.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I wasn't aware that the title of the page he put the case on was Administration/Reassessment. Also, that sig serious causes a page break when viewing the differences, please to be templating or adding some spaces kthxbi. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
And yet we've done it at least three times in the past. Petty is as petty does and reporting for A/VB for this is pretty petty and appropriately ill-informed for a complaint from you. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:We've also had Wikigate and a coup attempt, should we have them as well? That page is for promotions bids, you cannot be promoted, therefore it has to be a pointless case to spam up the page. Basic logic might not enter in your hypocrisy. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I hope you realize that you've managed to ignore [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02#Before_Submitting_a_Report|all 4 of the 'before submitting a report']] bullets... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Vandalism''' -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:J3D|J3D]]===<br />
{{vndl|J3D}}{{Verdict|Not Vandalismsmsms|None Required}}<br />
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&curid=100788&diff=1379141&oldid=1378428 Shitting up] an admin page with his trolling. I'm happy to move non-trolling comments by uninvolved users, but not this crap. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Look at the case below you and please report everyone for the sake of the wiki and not your bitchfights, Bob. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Vandalism''', as there are less relevant comments on this page that I don't think require any administrative action.<br />
<br />
But a friendly reminder to everyone, while it is only a guideline, the rest (not me or Nubis) of the Sysops team kindly asks you to place your less-than-urgent comments under a relevant header on the talk page. It ''does'' make it easier to sort through everything after all.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:''the rest (not me) of the Sysops team'' You don't speak for me. Please amend that statement to say ''the rest (except Nubis) of the Sysops team''. Thank you in advance.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::You're welcome, my apologies in assuming your views. :) --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You're new. It's ok. Clearly it will take some time for you to learn the ropes and my opinions on adding worthless stupid comments to a conversation that should have ended four posts ago. :)-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Eh, to be frank, when I wrote that, I wasn't thinking of you. I was thinking of when Grim would move ''everything''. Dead thread FTW.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== WOOT ===<br />
{{vndl|WOOT}}<br />
{{verdict|Vandalism|Warned}}<br />
Posting random shit on EVERYONE'S talk pages. Check his contribs, he has to be breaking ''some'' policy.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karek&curid=47195&diff=1378281&oldid=1378247 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMisterGame&diff=1378283&oldid=1369528 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASuicidalangel&diff=1378282&oldid=1378021 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAxe_Hack&diff=1378273&oldid=1376672 here], and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARosslessness&diff=1378272&oldid=1378203 here]. Thats just a few. I ''do'' know that whilst its spam it isnt vandalism, the first one on Karek's page is something that I thought could only constitute spam and hence why I think WOOT should be tried here on VB. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2009_02&diff=1378311&oldid=1378310 VB] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02&diff=prev&oldid=1378309 Spammage] {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::A little more [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2009_02&diff=1378327&oldid=1378321 VB Spam]--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Last one isn't spamage you douche! I was defending myself! --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Neither are the first two! I'm spreading the love of the Uranium ((enter)) :BOMBS --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Desu is relevant to my interests.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I wish I had gotten desu instead of bombs...:'( --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 04:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::I'll SAGE bomb you next time... mkay?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 04:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Oh now I understand what you did on my page. But spamming is fun, so I wouldnt care.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
Not everyone appreciates spammage, so it is '''vandalism'''. Unfortunately for you, you were only a few posts away from getting your last warning struck too <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:34 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:Boo-fucking-hoo--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually there's precedent that says this is OK provided you spammed under 20 talk pages, which you did. If you care enough to track it down feel free, i can't find where it is. I do remember it being referenced in relation to user:nallan spamming people's user pages with invited to the [[Amusing Locations in Malton/ALiM Party|ALiM Party]] but i don't recall where it was discussed...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::I just worked through all of the archives, and I didn't see any cases of Nallan getting V/B'd for it. :/ --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::<3 --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Yeah i did the same, not sure if i'm going crazy or if it was discussed on a talk page. It's come up in relation to other people too, some guy wanting people to join a group or some shit i think...anyway it doesn't really matter. I think karek has something to do with it, then again i could be making up this entire thing... :| --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Probably ruled on it or addressed a ruling on it. I have on similar cases in the past, spamming is against the rules when it's obviously spam. When it's not and more along the lines of mass recruiting the general rule of thumb is ~20. The example that would probably stand out the most for my involvement is WelcomeNewbie, there have been at least two cases, one where I reported it under the ~20 rule and one where I reported a user because he was spamming WelcomeNewbie templates on users who had obviously been gone for a year or more. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::lol airborne.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Yea.... maybe if I cared enough... thanks anyway--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Blackboard ===<br />
{{Verdict|Not Vandalism|None Required}}{{vndl|Blackboard}}<br />
<br />
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:PsychophillKILLER&curid=103275&diff=1377662&oldid=1377648 Vandalizing] the user page of the vandal below. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I plead no contest. Guy below me there wanted people to look at his page to see his weird spam message, so I thought I'd get rid of it; as above, don't wait for a sysop to get involved etc. and just go back to reverting pages - which I did for some others of his, though someone beat me to the punch in a few of the cases. In retrospect, I probably should have just reverted his page to being blank - or course, I'm assuming creating the page was an act of vandalism to begin with. It just didn't occur to me at the time; my priority was getting rid of his vandalism. The fact that it's back there now on "his" page is just plain irritating. Just trying to cut through some red tape and keep the wiki clean-ish. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Purely because it was an active vandal, and '''only''' because it was an active vandal I'm going to rule '''not Vandalism'''. However, please do not do it again otherwise it will result in an escalation. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Since the page was deleted, meaning Midianian's diff link won't work I've copy pasted the page changes due to the ability to see deleted pages so we have a full record on this page. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
{{quote|PsychophillKILLER|I am Sorry for the Vandalism But we now have no choice... Psychophill Must be stopped. He has discovered a way to give himself infinite time on the server and infinite AP. He plans on killing everyone in the city once and for all and destroying this game. We must stop him. I encourage everyone to tune their radios to 27.77 To hear a city wide announcement on Wednesday at 7:00 PM Eastern Standard time. Thank you for you time.<br />
<br />
P.S. I do not encourage vandalism but I was left with no choice. Monitors if you wish you may delete this account just make sure this message reaches as many people as possible. Thank you again --[[User:PsychophillKILLER|PsychophillKILLER]] 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)}}<br />
<br />
*changed to<br />
<br />
{{quote|Blackboard|CRAP. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
Slap me on the wrist for this, I don't give a shit.}}<br />
-- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Getting rid of the spam (that was repeated on many other pages) would count as reverting vandalism, even on the vandals user page (when it's an obvious permban candidate like this), however replacing it with your own message, especially the abuse ("CRAP") was not a wise move, and can indeed be seen as vandalism, as you seem to understand <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:44 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
=== PsychophillKILLER ===<br />
{{Verdict|Vandalism|Permaban}}{{vndl|PsychophillKILLER}}<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/PsychophillKILLER|Vandal spree]]. Oh, and the [[FAQ]] really should be cut into smaller pieces, I had trouble reverting it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Mass vandalage. '''Perma'''. Also, more then three edits, no contribution in any way, shape, or form that betters the wiki. just that same spammy warning.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=1384121UDWiki:Administration/Promotions2009-02-10T10:47:29Z<p>Liberty: /* Candidates still requiring vouches */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
{{Promotions Intro}}<br />
==Candidates still requiring vouches==<br />
<br />
User: Jerrel Yokotory--[[User:Jerrel Yokotory|Jerrel Yokotory]] 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Erm...are you submitting yourself for promotion? -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Candidates currently under community discussion==<br />
===User:Nubis===<br />
I don't want to steal Karek's thunder, but I think he and the others have a point that sysops shouldn't be afraid of the community opinion. If they are then they probably aren't doing their job correctly. I'm one of the longest standing sysops and it's probably time I put myself up for a review. (to be honest, the majority of the [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] I do doesn't require Sysop powers) but hopefully I have shown that I can be reasonable and fair in A/VB/M matters. <br />
<br />
Besides, if Karek steps down this place may fall into chaos and I don't want to see that. So, again, following his wise lead, I'm submitting a re-promotion bid. <br />
<br />
I don't really know what else to say, but consider it open season on any complaints/issues and I will address them. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - For following Karek's retarded example. If anyone else had put up a case on administration in which a result either way would not change the current status, like putting a deleted page up for deletion or reporting a perma banned user they'd have been escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Apparently not here though with one rule for sysops and one for ever fucker else. If you want to be 're-promoted' you have to be demoted first, basic logic and English. Hagnat may have pulled emo-validate-my-existence-by-saying-nice-things-about-me shit in the past but that doesn't change the basic premise that this is crapping up an admin page (whilst a user who is actually up for promotion has a bid in progress no less) and you should all know better. I'd remove both of these on basic principle that you can't be promoted but we all know you'd use excuse to escalate me in the fair and impartial way you do. If you really want the community's opinion, go submit a demotion request and then go for re-promotion properly. And why are you 'Under Community Discussion' when you haven't received three vouches yet? One rule for sysops.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I think you are missing the point that this could very well change my status. <br />
*:I did, however, put it under the wrong heading because I was posting on my way out the door and worried more about getting the news item right than the placement of this. Sorry. That was an accident. I would move this to the right place, but it has enough to be here now, so that would be pointless. <s>(Actually, I forgot AHLG wasn't a sysop anymore - going to move it. - now) </s> I see SA posted. It can be here now.<br />
*:Mostly this is about giving the users a place where they are expected to vent any and all concerns about a user. A place where (unlike a talk page) I don't have control of the content and where it is public enough that even casual users can respond. I would think that you of all people would welcome this IF the sysops doing it actually agreed to abide by the communities opinion at the end. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Nubis is correct, even if it was triggered by karek's move, it's still a brave move to put yourself up for reevaluation no matter what the circumstances are. Nubis is showing a trust in the community by putting himself in such a position. And Iscariot, stop nitpicking. The discussion has been accepted by the community on both reevaluations, so stop nitpicking and actually say what you think of the abilities of both Sysops, rather then nitpicking on something that doesn't matter.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*No offense, but you sometimes come across as 'biased', although I'll leave it is an assumption since this is the internet and there are no MIND-READING DEVICES. Other than that ''meh'', I don't have any real problems with you, except you're a little odd sometimes... I think you have a good balance on the 'ignore the rules', ie, not going overtop with it. Your [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] is good too. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Abstain for now''' - You are a HUGE asset to the sysop team and I fully support you, but I want to wait until the drama surrounding these promotion bids of you and Karek dies down a little and we get official opinion on it before I officially vote. Yes, I'm weird like that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
*:'''Vouch''' - Tired of waiting, I'm voting now.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*As Gnome. Does his share of work around here, reasonably fair. Overall an alright guy, if a bit of a hothead sometimes. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* BFFs FOR EVA! Other than the Amberwaves deletion thing, I've never had a problem with Nubis. And besides that, it was almost entirely about opinion that the conflict started at all. He also makes me laugh.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I had to fight for the Amberwaves image "on principle" because I didn't want the Marty Banks pictures deleted. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::I'd have fought to keep those, because a lot of them were well made, not just "Lol fat" wrote in MS paint.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''abstain/borderline vouch''' I don't often see eye to eye with Nubis but I do know that he argues from principle rather than spite/bias. He does a lot of good work around the wiki and my only real issue with him is that a very large amount of the petty and technicality misconducts that are brought against him would be avoided if he followed the rules --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:At least those petty and technical misconduct cases don't involve banning users. That has to be something.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' he sometimes makes me laugh, and has never crossed me yet. gold in basket please.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - "Distinguished quality. A remarkably prime sysop. Thanks. A+!" --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:''Fast shipping! Good Communication! Would bid again A++++++++++''--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As AHLG, you seem a little odd but, I don't see you doing anything wrong which should keep you from being sysop. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Yer ok fer a Goon '';P'' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Dem's fightin' werds...oh, wai---[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' ''He's NEVER been considered a Good sysop.'' and as Wan. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' Nubis is my homeboy. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Damn good Sysop. --{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 10:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong Abstain''' - Meh. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Karek===<br />
I was going to wait until the other bid was finished to do this but have decided it's gonna happen now instead.<br />
<br />
I have been a sysop for a while now, there has been much drama relating to some of my actions a lot of various background work done. We've finally reached a point where the majority of the sysop team is actually active and doing stuff, I hoped we had reached a point where the sysops understood that they actually do have some control of the user base and should act accordingly <small>(In a manner conducive to the administrative nature of the position)</small> but I'll leave that to everyone else to decide, although we certainly are closer than we were when I was promoted.<br />
<br />
I'm putting myself up here as opposed to simply demotion, because I feel that it would be improper for me to leave without at lest giving the community at least one final chance at assessing my treatment and actions as a sysop. Yes, this is a re-promotion bid, It's also probably not as good as it could be wording and information wise I've always sucked at these things. Have at thee.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because he wants to baptise children in acid. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - I like Karek, but it looks like he's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEfzo0q5BxU lost his smile], he's a good guy, and a good for the community.. but if he doesn't want it... he doesn't want it. If you change your mind... I'll happily change my vote.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Question''' - Do ''you'' want to stay on as sysop? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:('''Strong Vouch''' if he wants, '''Against''' if he doesn't.) --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* He's fine and all. I think you should stay. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - As per Anime Sucks. --[[User:Speels|Speels]] 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* <s>'''Vouch''' - If you want to stay on, you would be welcome. I believe you are an excellent sysop.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:'''Abstain''' - I would dearly love it if you carried on, but if you want to leave this god awful place, then go for it. Also, as Anime.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - If you don't want to be sysop, don't do it. Even if the community is overwhelming support of keeping you on, if you don't want to do it then just don't. I find this move to be in somewhat poor taste because the '''last''' thing we need is a sysop who doesn't want to be there.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Very Strong Vouch''' - While I don't always agree with Karek, I very much respect his opinion and I personally find him to be a very able and knowledgeable member of the team. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because I may not agree with what you say much of the time But I will defend with my life your right to say it. Honestly. Furthermore, no community may be properly represented in its administration without at least some representation from <s>all</s>most possible angles. Karek is my counterpoint on many of beleifs I represent as my own. If Karek leaves I would have to change my public visage, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do ''that''.<small> btw if anyone wants to comment on this please do it on my talk page so it doesnt shit up this validation of Kareks service and abilities. </small> [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Shit mate, one of the few people on this wiki I can count on to be intelligent and know what he's doing, and now you're going to leave? Damn. Do what you want to do, but I still say you did an awesome job.--[[User:Suicidalangel|SA]] 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I would like to see him stay, he does a lot of useful work, with a minimum of fuss <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:44 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Vouch''' - As <s>Nubis.</s> err...Suicidalangel. And who will be left to out-lawyer the wikilawyers if you go? DON'T LEAVE US! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
*:Erm...Nubis hasn't posted here yet. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Good work, Team-[[User_talk:Suicidalangel#Team_Angel_Sigs|BFF]] <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:17 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:::Dangint! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I think I said everything on my talk page under Srs Question. I don't think you are as hated by "the community" as it was painted. Hopefully, this will give you the reassurance that people do respect you for taking the hardline on issues.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]-'''[[User:Nubis|+N+]]'''BFF SA--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As others, I don't always agree with Karek... however, he's one of the best sysops we have. He always strives to things ''the right way'', and is probably the single person I've learned the most from on this wiki. The wiki will lose a very good person if you go, karek. Sigh... :( --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - You suck for putting Honest up for promotion, but apart from that you're alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I don't always agree with your opinion, but I think you are as fair and unbiased as anyone will get around here. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - [[A/DM|You want over here]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Btw that's an as anime not a i want you demoted nao.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Karek's a great guy, and what boxy said-he does a lot of work with very little fuss. Although he can attract drama sometimes, that's pretty ''meh'' overall. He's enough of an ass to make hard decisions and get things done, but he's nice enough to not simply piss everyone off for no reason, and create MOAR DRAMAS!!!! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:That said, Karek shouldn't be forced to stay on as sysop if he doesn't want it. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''vouch''' Karek and I disagree on a great many things but he is always willing to explain and defend his position in a fair and logical way rather than just dismiss people as wrong he is also the most likely of all sysops to act without bias. Couple that with his understanding of how things work and i really doubt that we can afford to lose him... Still going to argue with him a lot if he stays though.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Linkthewindow and Honestmistake. You're pretty much the best sysop we have. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Meh''' - I know he has worked very hard as a sysops but the way he handeld a deletion lately was outright terrible, plain undemocratic. --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fair, unbiased and one of the best sysops around :). --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' this is an easy one. as above. perfectly explained... speels go suck a dogs dick.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Bold in desicions but rarely wrong in my opinion. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - While you might not always like they guy, he is necessary.--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 23:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - --[[User:Bullgod|Bullgod]] 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch... OH SHIT BULLGOD ^.^''' - --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Honestmistake]]===<br />
He has more than enough contributions, although the history purge screws with the contributor history. He has been here more than a year now, has taken an active interest in the maintenance duties and policy discussions on this wiki and, while we don't always agree is the kind of user I think should be promoted. He has proven he is able to do the job and more than qualifies. So, assuming he accepts, I think it's about time we gave him a bid.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Very intresting to see the amount of suport (and opposition I have had here) and can only appologize that i am on a restricted interwebz diet at due to someone else breaking my home connection. <br />
:I am flattered by the nomination but don't think I have the skills needed to actually do the real work required for the job. Also, unlike Suicidal Angel, I do still sometimes edit the wiki drunk which goes a long way to explaining why I sometimes go off on tangents.That said, I would like to see this bid go through to the finish but feel it only fair to point out that if promoted I want absolutly nothing to do with any aspect of the job which involves wiki skills, though i will do my best to learn some.<br />
<br />
:Why might i make a good sysop? Well; I do not argue from malice and always with a point. I do not expect to win all (or given this is the internet, any) of those arguments and indeed often become embroiled in them only to make the otherside think. I am always willing to hold my hands up to my own mistakes and would point out that in my 3+ years here I have hardly ever gone a week without editing something and have only once been brought up on vandal charges and that was a pretty stupid and petty case. I am an inclusionist and proud of it and feel that a sysops role should be not just enforcing rules but knowing when doing so is counter productive.<br />
:I have been avoiding A/VB recently and don't look forwards to being dragged back, however, I don't think any sysop should be allowed to not get involved there so would obviously have no choice if promoted.<br />
<br />
:Finally; The Sysops job description includes the phrase "Trusted User" and you can trust me to always listen to both sides of an argument and to always strive to help any users in any way I can (even if its just pointing you at someone who knows what they are doing!) You can trust me not to try any fancy re-organization and not to try to overthrow the wiki... what you can't trust me with is any actual work!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I literally threw up. You've never been able to resist a good bitch in your entire time on the wiki; why the fuck should anyone believe you'd start now? OMG GUIS I'D ROOLY TROOLY CHAENG SRSLY? Bullshit. You don't even know the meaning of the term self-control. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You threw up? Bonus!<br />
::::Seriously though I would like to thank you and Read, Such are your towering reputations for fairness and sincerity that your early support would have doomed this before i even noticed it....--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::DO HO HO. You always were a witty little cunt. What a shame you don't put as much effort into logical thinking (srsly guise - as long as mai harts in teh rite plaec it dun matter wether im rite dus it?) as you do coming up with those shitty jokes. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Also, basically what you're saying here is that promoting you would be completely pointless as you wouldn't do a single fucking thing beyond 'keepan ur hart in teh rite plaece and bein srsly srs aboot discushun'. Lol. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I was going to reply... but honestly, would there even be a point? I mean, its not like you would accept the answer and go away is it!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You were going to reply, but you didn't... then you did anyway. Fail. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::tl;dr. If that's way you type a large message then you just gave me another reason to remain against. Sorry.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I put him up here, it would be strange if I didn't vouch. I believe he would be a good Sysop. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I've known him on the suggestion pages for a while. He's a good guy, doesn't get involved in too much drama and is reasonably level-headed. <s>Not sure if he wants this, though. </s>{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I've been proven wrong. Although it would be nice if you could learn how to use paragraphs :P. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - too fucking serious too much of the time.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Also, this proves what Karek knows about what the community needs.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Not about my view of the community, it's about my view of the user. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Look. 3 vouches. Now he has to accept. Although he might not. Did I mention '''Vouch'''? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - We do not need yet another rules-whoring crybaby on the sysop team. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strongly Against''' This user has shown time and time again that he fails to comprehend basic concepts. His arguments are emotional, weak (at best), nonsensical and off topic. I seriously wonder if someone hacked Karek's account to make him do this. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:The "You Ass" section on Karek's Talk page is more than enough to show what I am talking about. The section where Karek says about HM:''Iscariot and you both has a long history of disliking the sysops and raging against the machine for the sake of it, I deal with Iscariot off of the wiki and know he acts very differently here and I know you can be reasonable but often enough fall into the category of opposing the sysops for the sake of it that I often find myself having to take your comments on something with a grain of salt. '' RAGING VOUCH there Karek! --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::He may be one to argue but he is also willing to admit when he is wrong about something if discussion is actually attempted. He only argues because he actually cares about how the rules are enforced, not like some others who do it simply to cause drama. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Karek, he may admit to being wrong ''when you finally get it through his head'' that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. Look at his comments in the section I mentioned and his comments on the J3D A/M case are frighteningly dense. I don't want another sysop that we will have to babysit or clean up after. He also "splits hairs" on policies by commenting on the wording. He thought the phrase "No Confidence Vote" was too harsh. WTF?<br />
*:::You know, Karek, it really looks like you are trying to get someone in "the new crowd" promoted so that you don't seem like part of the "elite clique" and so that you can answer Iscariot's cries of ''you are out of touch with the community''. Why are you putting him up now? What has HM done in the last 2 months that all of the sudden made you decide ''Damn! this is the fresh blood we need''?--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::It's not a sudden decision. I've been considering this for a long while and it's just now that I happened to get around to it(I don't like multiple bids up at once). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Nubis.... "thank you for your contribution" pretty much sums up my opinion on you and your "vote". {{unsigned|Honestmistake|}}<br />
*::::::Firstly, learn to sign. Secondly, you're displaying the exact same arrogance you so often shout from your soapbox that the sysops supposedly have too much of. Enjoy your hypocrisy, dipshit. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::::Third, it is "Thank you for your input". Your attention to detail is awe inspiring.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::::::Believe it or not I carefully chose that word rather than your version because I feel it fits what I wished to say so much better. That it so closely reflects your own words was deliberate; hence the quote marks. I understand and accept your concerns, I just don't see the point in arguing with you and Bob when all it does is lead to insults. If you must insist on abuse then take it to my talk page rather than Spamming this page.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong 'gainst''' - Done nothinto deserve this, other wise as Cyberbob/Nubis... WTF hae you been smoking Karke?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Sorry. I know Honest is contributive, but I'm not sure he's up to the task. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - ''Pros:'' Honestmistake is a solid user and with a long history of interest and contributions. Usually listens to reason and almost always avoids drama. ''Cons:'' Sometimes comes up with really weird, illogical positions on what seem to be pretty straightforward issues. ''Concusion:'' More time and more active participation in Admin stuff, then he might be an excellent candidate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against'''I don't see him that often, nor do I see any great contributions.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 09:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Free sysops for everybody \õ/ --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:honestmistake is a good and caring contributor. he is not the kind who acts for the lulz, so he wont fuck up with his admin powers --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Given the [[User:Amazing|company you keep]] I'm sure you'll forgive people if they don't find your character reference all that exciting. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Given the candidates i have voted for in the past ( http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Cyberbob240_%283%29 ) I am not sure they should put trust in me either?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::You're doing that arrogance thing again. BTW, I would (and did) make a damn good sysop if I gave a fuck. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He mostly has a point when he disagrees with a decision, and even if I disagree, it's usually a difference of opinion <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:23 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:Should anyone else bother <s>voting</s> then, if he accepts the nomination? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Of course they should. I always take into account other people's opinions <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:13 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::::Hahaha. That's a good one. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::When does cyberbob's trolling cross the border into shitting up an Admin page? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::My comment was considerably more relevant than that attempt, my dear. If you want to go after someone for shitting up admin pages I suggest you take a look at the amount of shit I've moved off A/VB onto the talk page in recent weeks. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::When he stops making good points. I do hope that they at least play out the charade and leave the "what do you think about this promotion bid" comments on each other's pages. We expect the Dog '''and''' Pony at the Show. Or should that be ass? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''<s>Abstain</s>''' '''Against''' <s>i'm on the fence.</s> maybe next time around. don't we have enough users with super powers? and as above i thought HM hated the Sysops?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I do not and have never "hated" the sysops. A few users however seem to think anyone questioning their decision is obviously a sysop hater and screams that loud and often enough that it sticks.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::okay that answers that. For the Record. I do hate sysops. but I fear things i don't understand.... now for my vote, will give me gold in the basket? cookies and milk? and tities and beer?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::How about tickets to Spearmint Rhino and a free bottle of cheap champagne?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::WHO? and I hate fucking champagne... gimmie a good bottle of 12 year old single malt scotch on your next try. so NO.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Spearmint Rhino is a chain of expensive Lapdancing bars and if you prefer a decent malt you should have said... Taliskers suit you?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Don't know him well enough. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouchy vouch''' - He's always been decent, polite and such when I've talked to him. He seems to have a functioning brain and such, so yes, vouch.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:So if he wasn't polite, you'd vote against? And wtf does "decent" mean?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::''Characterized by conformity to recognized standards of propriety or morality.''--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I haven't seen him much outside several petty squabbles with other users. If/When he accepts his nomination, it would be useful if he would provide some examples of why he should be a sysop. Until then, I will abstain. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Because of some of his comments on Jed's last case in A/M remind me that I don't want him judging anything important in that place, or A/VB.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Wow, I thought this was a joke. His past actions speak VOLUMES.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I probably should not ask... but which actions do you have in mind? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 07:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - I think he needs more experience with the administration aspects of the wiki, although he seems nice and has a pretty continuous interest in this place. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Only because I haven't seen him do anything particularly special that makes him seem responsible enough for this. Given, I haven't seen him do anything wrong but I don't believe abstaining should justify that. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Seems to be a nice, decent bloke. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Incorrectness aside, don't you think you should be deciding based on a few more criteria than just personality? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I'm sure Honest is contributive and all, but I don't know him well enough. --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 16:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Unless the results are tied and then its a '''Vouch''' I Don't know Honest well enough to make a distinct vouch but in a close decision I'll give him the benifit of the doubt. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:You absolutely refuse to ''get it'', don't you, Con. ''This is '''not''' a vote'', and there will be no "ties". What you say about him is more important than the bolded word at the begining of the sentence <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:37 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::I choose to ignore your reality and substitute my own. '''OR''' It is in fact a vote, but one of a single entity, the Community. And whereas the single "vote" is determined by the shared perceived value by the community of the candidate. Although you may find my phrasing circumspect, let me assure you I meant what I said to indicate my general ambivalence in the matter, but also included a caveat that expresses my general inclusive nature of the promotions of Honestmistake as a sysop. i.e. I get it a hellova lot more than you could possibly believe sir, its not my fault you don't understand what I'm trying to say. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Voting is like sex. Conn isn't ''really'' abstaining more like he is only going to say 2nd base and groping Honest in the Ops back seat saying ''"Oh yeah, baby, I'll respect you as a sysop in the morning. You just have to A/VB me tonight."'' I think I just made myself throw up a little in my mouth.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::That was just the teeniest bit o' weird.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::roflmao --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He's a good kid.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Would you believe he's in his 30's? Bit rich to be calling him a kid, mental age or no. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against'''I havent heard of him before sorry it seems like he dosent have enough time on here!--[[User:Xela798|Dr. Sinclair]] 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Well I have been active in game since september 2005 and on the wiki within a week of starting the game. Since then i have logged in far more frequently than can be healthy and participate in a great deal of discussions etc and sometimes feel like i live on the suggestions pages... I have stepped away from certain areas recently as the drama levels were beginning to annoy me far too much, no doubt I will be back into the fray again soon though. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:That's kind of ironic, coming from someone who submitted this lovely [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Xela798|bit o' spam]], and garnered ''twenty-nine'' votes that in effect said, "Who the hell are you?" --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - We need some alternate opinions on the sysop team, badly. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 04:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Karek said pretty much. --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*I've been sitting on the fence with this one, but felt I had to comment. While he means well (I swear those words will be on humanity's grave), he freely admits that his wiki skills are lacking, which means he might not be fit to perform the ''essentially janitorial'' duties of a sysop. He certainly has a different view – half the time I really can't work out where the hell he's coming from or going on suggestion votes, and his suggested compromises are baffling in nature. In summary, if he's not competent with the tools we have, I am '''against''' his having the powers to look up IPs, ban people, and permanently delete files – even if it ''is'' a [[User:Honestmistake|honest mistake]]. No hard feelings mate. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Archived Promotions==<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Complete list of Promotion Requests]]<br />
*[[:Category:Successful Promotions Candidacies|Successful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies|Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unaccepted Nominations|Unaccepted Nominations]]<br />
*[[:Category:Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies|Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies]]</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions&diff=1384120UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions2009-02-10T10:46:36Z<p>Liberty: /* Nubis */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/BP]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
{{TOCright}}<br />
This page is for the election of Bureaucrats.<br />
<br />
=Rules=<br />
; Rules for starting an election.<br />
# When a Bureaucrat resigns, or loses his status due to demotion or inactivity an election is started immediately.<br />
#* A Bureaucrat that hasn't made a single edit in one month is considered as inactive and forfeits his status as bureaucrat.<br />
# After 3 months with no elections on a bureaucrat position, an election is called for the bureaucrat position longest without an election.<br />
# If, for any reason, an individual Bureaucrat position hasn't faced an election after 12 months, then an election is called after that period.<br />
# The election ends after two weeks wiki time counting from the when the election is started.<br />
# The candidate with the most votes wins the election.<br />
# In the event of a tied vote the remaining bureaucrats will decide between the tied candidates.<br />
<br />
; Rules concerning candidates<br />
# All active users with the sysops status are automatically declared candidates for ''any vacant Bureaucrat positions''.<br />
#* Users with at least 12 edits in the 30 days before the election are considered "active" for purposes of the election.<br />
# The Bureaucrat whose position comes up for election if said election is started under rule 2 of '''Rules for starting an election''' is automatically declared a candidate.<br />
#* Unless said otherwise, a bureaucrat who lost its powers through demotion cannot run for bureaucrat on the election that will fill its position<br />
# A candidate can retract his own candidacy at any time.<br />
<br />
; Rules concerning voting.<br />
# All users have only one vote ''per bureaucrat position to be filled''.<br />
# Users vote for a candidate by signing under the preferred candidates name.<br />
#* Users can't cast more than one vote per candidate.<br />
# Users may change their votes for a candidate as long as the election has not ended.<br />
#* Multiple votes at the same time will be struck.<br />
# Sockpuppetry is considered vandalism.<br />
<br />
=Election Space=<br />
Right, I think it's just about that time of the year again. It's my 'crat spot up for grabs this time and this vote will close at '''17:39 on the 21st of February'''. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The current time (depending on caching issues) is'' '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}}'''.<br />
:Your term had another month to run (my promotion ended 4th of December), and given that a couple of the candidates status is... ummm... [[A/PM|undetermined]], it would probably be wise for it to go the full term (unless you are determined to stand down) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:37 8 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FBureaucrat_Promotions&diff=1381412&oldid=1332257 I did the same thing the other day]. Probably because the filler text said it was due in February, and the fact that it ''started'' in November (Nov-Feb=three months), but ''ended'' in December (Dec-Feb=two months,) was a bit confusing too. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Eligible Candidates==<br />
<br />
<br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
#Cuz certain people would have an aneurysm. --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 20:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Karek|Karek]]===<br />
#You're not going anywhere! --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Krazy Monkey|Krazy Monkey]] (Cheese)===<br />
<br />
<br />
===[[User:Nubis|Nubis]]===<br />
# Along with Karek, hands down the best candidate; however, Karek is "retiring". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Not a hard decision to make at all. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 21:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Most definitely.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# From what I know of him, he seems like a good sysop. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 01:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:A good sysop does not a fit crat make.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::You think a ''bad'' sysop makes a better crat?--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::I don't think the two are particularly related.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Bah. Did I didn't want to say "He is the best candidate." That's beginning to get repetitive. :P --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 01:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Pithy phrases do not an intelligent mind make. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 06:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Or do they? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::No, they don't. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::Damn. I thought i had that shit in the bag.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Give the kid a chance!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 09:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# If Karek wasn't going, I would have gone for him, but Nubis is a good choice.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 15:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# someone with experience and kind of a counterpoint to boxy.--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 20:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Im new, but Ive looked at him and he looks like a good choice. -- [[User:Conbar|Conbar]] 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Because of the four people I would have voted for, one appears to be leaving, one is so inactive even Iwitness broke over Christmas, one asked for demotion last week and the last one is Nubis. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# It's a shame Karek is leaving. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Suicidalangel|Suicidal Angel]]===<br />
:'''Comment''': Damnit SA, not everyone watches the talk page. Put it back ;(.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No can do. The discussion was getting a bit ridiculous.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Bold''' Du hast meine stimmme, ich erwarten ein cookie!--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 20:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#He needs a promotion to cover those medical expenses. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#{{*}}ehemhrmmindcontrolmmrmslaveehemempitifulunderling* --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Would have gone Karek or Ross, but SA's a good third choice (BTW, isn't this election a bit early?) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Either Nubis or SA would be my choice, and it looks like Nubis doesn't need any help from me to win, so I'll go with SA. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 21:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# - this vote will end the world. oh yeah BFF4ever!?!.WTF? SA has stroked me on so many occasions. back rubs for everybody!! i expect lots of gooooooold!----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# A voice of reason--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 06:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# - Gore Corps conspiracy! --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 11:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# - One of the more reasonable people I've seen out of the candidates. --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# What's not to love?--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 09:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:The General|The General]]===<br />
<br />
<br />
===[[User:Zombie slay3r|Zombie slay3r]]===<br />
# Never saw him involved in drama and he's a good sysop. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Sometimes being a crat means you have to be involved in drama, are you sure he can handle it?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Only time will tell :P On a serious note, yeah I'm quite sure. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
# A solid candidate who deserves way more votes.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Ineligible Candidates==<br />
*''[[User:Boxy|Boxy]]'' - Current Bureaucrat<br />
*''[[User:Daranz|Daranz]]'' - Only 1 edit in the past 30 days.<br />
*''[[User:Swiers|Swiers]]'' - Only 8 edits in the past 30 days and also [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASwiers&diff=1324552&oldid=1312909 expresses a wish to be considered withdrawn from future 'crat elections].<br />
*''[[User:Thari|Thari]]'' - Only 3 edits in the past 30 days.<br />
<br />
==Withdrawn Candidates==<br />
===[[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]===<br />
''Not my place or time to serve in such capacity even if there was the consensus to put me in.'' [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 10:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=Archived Promotions Rounds=<br />
<br />
{| style="font-size: 11px; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(240, 240, 255); border: solid 1px rgb(215, 215, 240); -moz-border-radius: 12px; padding: 3px; margin: 0 auto;"<br />
! style="background-color: rgb(215,215,240); -moz-border-radius: 6px;" colspan=2 | Bureaucrat Election Archive<br />
|-<br />
! style="padding: 0px 12px;" | 2006<br />
| |<br />
[[UDWiki:Moderation/Bureaucrat Promotions/1 July 2006|July]] |<br />
[[UDWiki:Moderation/Bureaucrat Promotions/19 August 2006|August]] |<br />
[[UDWiki:Moderation/Bureaucrat Promotions/9 September 2006|September]]<br />
|-<br />
! style="padding: 0px 12px;" | 2007<br />
| |<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions/March 2007|March]] |<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions/July_2007|July]] |<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions/September_2007|September]] |<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions/November 2007|November]]<br />
|-<br />
! style="padding: 0px 12px;" | 2008<br />
| |<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions/March 2008|March]] |<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions/June 2008|June]] |<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions/October_2008|October]] |<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions/October_2008_Part_2|October (2)]] |<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promontions/November 2008|November]]<br />
|-<br />
|}</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Iscariot/Archive&diff=1383995User talk:Iscariot/Archive2009-02-10T04:24:46Z<p>Liberty: yaniter</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC____NOEDITSECTION__<br />
{{Custom Title|left|The Talk Page of St. Iscariot, Wiki Martyr }}<br />
{| style="width:850px; font-family: verdana; color: #FFFAFA; font-size:90%" align=center CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0<br />
| style="width:850px; border-top:solid 2px #191970; border-left:solid 2px #191970; border-right:solid 2px #191970;"|[[Image:IzzyImage.jpg|1000px|The Talk Page of St. Iscariot, Wiki Martyr]]<br />
|}<br />
{| style="width:850px; font-family: verdana; color: #FFFAFA; font-size:90%" align=center CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="width:850px; padding:10px; background-color: #B8860B; border-left:solid 2px #191970; border-right:solid 2px #191970; border-top:solid 2px #191970; border-bottom:solid 2px #191970"| <br />
By posting here you agree to and accept the following rules.<br />
<br />
The Rules<nowiki>:</nowiki><br />
:1. Post new comments at '''the top''' using a level 2 header.<br />
:2. Post all comments in correct English. This means ''real'' English, not the bastardised forms from the colonies.<br />
:3. You will use correct grammar.<br />
:4. No member of the Administration team is to post here. The only exception is a post whilst performing a sysop only action. Any sysop posting here, and the comments they make, are considered to be an official act relating to their duties as a sysop. Posting outside of these parameters will result in a misconduct case.<br />
:5. You will not be a moron.<br />
:6. You will sign your posts in the conventional manner.<br />
:7. Using the "'''+'''" button to post a reply will result in your response being deleted out of hand. If you can't work out how to put a response at the top of the page, without breaking the page, then you're not intelligent enough to post on my page.<br />
<br />
Posts not conforming to the above will be removed without response. Having your post removed is a clear sign I do not wish you to post here. Repeat offenders shall be taken to [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning|Vandal Banning]] as per precedent.<br />
<br />
These rules apply without exception to any page in my userspace, that's any page that begins User:Iscariot or User talk:Iscariot.<br />
<br />
'''If you are here to bitch and whine that I've removed your ad from the [[Recruitment|Recruitment page]], don't bother posting at all. Instead, go [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning|here]] and report me as a vandal. If you are too stupid to work out why I've removed your ad, I really don't want to hear anything from you. '''<br />
<br />
== sig help ==<br />
<br />
i saw your code and attempted to make a new sig page here http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/BulldogC6/SIGPAGE however, i'm having issues getting it to appear that way. what would i put in on my preferences? sorry, i'm not quite the wiki whiz-kid :) --{{User:BulldogC6/SIGPAGE}} 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Gaaaaaah==<br />
''* Cliff Spab jabbed you with a fencing foil for 2 damage. <small>(6 hours and 13 minutes ago)</small>'' You know, most people prefer newspapers. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Mall Tour '09==<br />
Are [[Pole_Mall|we]] next? :o --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You might be or you might not be. That depends on the weekly circulars that we subscribed to from all of the malls. Do you have any good upcoming barga!nz? --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Inama Nushif==<br />
What's that about? --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Click the link at the top of the box ;)<br />
<br />
:It translates as ''She is eternal'' from the Fremen language, which in turn is derived from Chakobsa. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Quiz==<br />
Sorry this is a week late. But hey. At least you're a few million dollars richer!<br />
{{Diamond}} --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 15:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
==[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&curid=7625&diff=1373853&oldid=1371730 Nice.]==<br />
I'll admit you had me.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Warning ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Stop_hand.png|left|35px]]Please do not vandalize pages on this wiki. You have been given a 24 hour ban.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Remember children...==<br />
...it's not what you post, the value of your suggestion or criticism, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Krazy_Monkey&curid=15211&diff=1367463&oldid=1367417 but their opinion of you] which is the deciding factor. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Was it really?==<br />
Was the case really in progress? I thought you got everything you wanted out of it with Sgt Raiden saying that he won't make any more edits about the mall tour. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">23:53/19/01/2009</span>]]'''<br />
:He accepted a case that was brought, therefore 'in progress'. Also after his posting of "never wanted to talk about the Mall Tour" (or whatever he said) he still continued to post blatantly false information about the group. Now, whilst I was happy for Link etc. to reason with him, for so long as he continues to edit in such a manner I will continue to seek resolution. Since as you removed the case I am forced to take the only other option open to me. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I'm sorry, but I looked at his edits after his comment on the arbitration case but I don't see which edits you are refering to when you say that he is still posting false information about the group. If you could point out the edit(s) then I'ld be happy to admit that I was wrong. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">00:07/20/01/2009</span>]]'''<br />
:::He posted to arbitration on the 17th. Given that the posts on his talkpage had been up for some days it is ''reasonable'' to assume that he was at least aware of some contention surrounding his edits to the community pages regarding the Mall Tour 2009. Although it is before he posts to the arbitration page, by a hour or so I believe, even with the obvious activity on his talk page he proceeds to place [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:DangerReport/Stickling_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1365476 these lies] on the danger report. At the time I was actively coordinating an extended strike to take the corner we were attacking. As we were at least 70 bodies off the ruin in the NE, the corner we were attacking, I wondered how we'd scored a ruin in another corner. One IRC message later, and I had [http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/01-17-09_2000hrs_PRIVATE/IN_53-23__644-e62-e60.html definitive proof] of his lying. Two days after he continues to post complete shit [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Shearbank&diff=prev&oldid=1366547 like this], although the iwit proof seems to escape me, I did a pass of the mall at that time and only our entry cades in the NE corner were down. Although I appear to have mislaid the screen shots for this incident, given his past behaviour and my proof against it, it is reasonable to take my word for this as well. Simply put, he continues to lie. All of this could have been avoided if [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:DangerReport/St_Dionysius%27s_Hospital&diff=prev&oldid=1362921 this edit] had justifiably been ruled vandalism and the warning issued. There is no good faith reasoning for posting that, especially inside another user's signed comment. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Well you've got what you've said you wanted, he has stopped making edits concerning the Mall Tour (specifically no mention of Mall Tour). Yeah, sure those edits before his comment on arbitration were probably just to annoy you further. By the way, I don't see how [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Shearbank&diff=prev&oldid=1366547 this edit] is "complete shit" considering [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3AMall_Tour_2009%2FMain&diff=1366321&oldid=1365225 this edit] to the mall tour page (who cares if there was a barricade or not, or were you talking about the fire station?). The thing is, newbies do stupid things all of the time, and if you go to [[A/A]] (or [[A/VB]] each and every time without trying to talk to them first then people are going to lose respect for you, fast. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">01:01/20/01/2009</span>]]'''<br />
:::::No he hasn't, demonstratively, he might have stopped mentioning us by name, but he hasn't stopped lying and should he reverse himself and begin talking about the Tour again I have no arbitration ruling to escalate him immediately. I haven't gotten what I wanted by a long shot. The fact is, I started a case, he accepted and you removed it whilst we were in the stage where we would have chosen arbitrators. Given the opinions of the sysops this would not be ruled vandalism but is. If I went and archived cases because I didn't like them I'd be escalated in a heartbeat, hence, double standard. <br />
<br />
:::::I have precisely zero concern for your, or anyone else's, respect on this wiki. My primary concern is towards the integrity to the group. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::I archived the case on 2 grounds, 1) You were in violation of what Arbitration is about; resolving disputes when you can't get to them on your own accord. 2) There was a resolution to the case. He agreed to not post anything about the Mall Tour which is exactly what you asked for. If you don't understand how things work (you know, talk to people, make sure they understand and then report them if they continue any behaviour against the rules) then maybe you should have a good look at how things are done. I can garuntee you that for the majority of things that this is the way it works (even if it is people reporting to A/VB and then sysops explaining to users without escalations). - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">01:31/20/01/2009</span>]]'''<br />
:::::::Violation? Then perhaps you might explain that to the sysop that told me to go directly to arbitration. A resolution is not, as you said in your earlier comment, me "getting what I wanted". I quote from the case ''"seek to prevent the user known as Sgt Raiden from making any further edits on this wiki concerning the Mall Tour 2009"'', he is not prevented from posting about the Tour in any way, an arbitration restraining order would have prevented him. ''A'' resolution in your eyes is not a resolution of the problem. There is still a grievance between him and my group, and since you and others have decided that we are not entitled to a satisfactory resolution on the wiki we are forced to take the matter in game. Who do you think will win? Your actions are causing him nothing but problems, but it's ''a'' resolution, right? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Ahem.==<br />
You might have answered this elsewhere but i cbf tracking it down, so why (actually) did you decline anime's nomination? I wouldn't care except that i'm considering nominating you (as you're fully aware) and your motivation for not accepting his nomination might effect my decision.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 22:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Cat 4, desire to become a sysop. Anime nominated me in bad faith for his own amusement. As we know, bad faith = vandalism, but good luck getting that through A/VB....<br />
<br />
:As it was just for his personal amusement I had to act to remove his trolling from the wiki, because, let's face it none of the other sysops would. Isn't standing by whilst bad faith actions were taking place what they took you to misconduct for? Odd how it doesn't apply to them.<br />
<br />
:It is purely for this reason that I removed it. I have already given Cat 4 authorisation to certain users, yourself included, for the purposes of a serious bid if that is the will of the community. If you are going to go through with it at some point in the future, just give me a heads up so I can take the page off my watchlist for the duration, I have enough to do with the Mall Tour to engage in the drama that certain users would bring to that page. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Can I get some input?==<br />
I've been working on a policy that I believe is sorely needed [[User:Pestolence/001|here]], and I'd appreciate your input on it. How can it be improved, and is it even needed right now? A potential problem is what to do about current sysops: put them all up for review now (leading to a massive backlog of admin page drama), postpone the review until six months from now (simply staving off the inevitable drama till later), or something else glaringly obvious that I've overlooked? See you around. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Why?==<br />
Why do you have to be such an ass? So much of what you claim to stand against is perfectly reasonable and yet you go about it in a way designed to annoy folk. You are a wiki lawyering Fu**er but I have to applaud you for challenging those who so often seem to think they are in charge. If only you could choose your cases with less bias rather than the current sense of self righteous "WTF" i think i could actually find myself on your side... Well, at least some of the time! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
==Awesome..==<br />
..user page! (Also, the 'Wiki Martyr' part made me smile :)). So, do you really want to become a sysop? Or you're just interested in the community/sysops' answers? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 16:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I'm glad someone else can see the humour in my redesign. As far a being a sysop goes, I unfortunately believe it's necessary if this wiki is ever to return to its original purpose. This is the ''only'' official resource for the game and yet a majority of the metagame community avoid it, we should have three times the amount of regular contributers than we do and this should be an important stepping stone for newbies to engage with that wider community. I place the blame for this clearly in the political bias of the current administration team. What we have is a system where no-one can be promoted without being an ally of theirs and cannot be demoted unless they are willing to tow the party line as set down by them (see J3D's demotion). The will of the community, that the sysops are supposed to represent in their position as ''trusted users'', is regarded as insignificant next to their continued hold over what they percieve as an elite or superior status. We have a group of people who cannot be demoted, and that cannot have their bias nullified by promoting others (as they proved by removing J3D as soon as they could force it through, odd how the evidence was 'sysop' only, and that if J3D had made those logs public they'd have removed him anyway citing the Privacy Policy). The community is no longer represented by the administration team and as proven by Nubis today, they no longer work according to the will of the community. This is damaging this resource and ultimately the game. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::What did Nubis do? So, do you think the community doesn't trust our current sysops (and that's the reason why we have very few contributions from them)? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Might have completely forgotten about this due to running the Mall Tour, sorry Janus. The [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FDiscussion&diff=1361041&oldid=1354090 edit in question]. I point directly to ''"We need a system to deal with that or add to the policy that a deletion vote can be overturned by a majority of the sysops"''. That's right, Nubis wants a system where they can summarily dismiss the community consensus as it suits them. Contrast with the current Administration Guidelines ''"As a wiki, for these actions, each user's voice has equal weight, regardless of his or her abilities"''. Even with the entire community against the image, Nubis wants to be able to overrule that consensus. The wishes of the community no longer factor into the primary reasoning of the sysops, they are no longer trusted users, but instead ''empowered'' users, and just as with Nubis' wanted new statute, they cannot be removed regardless of the will of the community. <br />
<br />
:::See also [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FArbitration&diff=1362209&oldid=1362208 this edit by Hagnat]. He removes a case that he's involved with for false reasoning. Now I'd put that back but he'd force it through A/VB as 'spamming the admin pages'. Hagnat said he would take no part in the arbitration, when this has happened in the past other users have been selected to represent the refusing party, also his notion that intermediary edits render the case invalid is patently untrue, see the case of Jorm and MOB versus Extinction, the page in the case had many edits but as Jorm was objecting to the basic content and the act of originally posting such material as content the case continued. The same was true in this case, but Hagnat decides to sweep the case under the carpet without any hint of objection from the rest of the sysops. The case wasn't even archived, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Hagnat&diff=prev&oldid=1362275 here he attempts to justify] his actions by summarily judging the case to be 'trolling' and saying that is not normally what happens. [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Conndraka_vs._St._Iscariot|Odd how easy it is to prove him wrong....]]<br />
<br />
:::You can also look at the general underlying hypocrisy of the sysops. A user asked whether my sig was illegal on Nubis' talk page, rather than leaving that user in suspense, I [[User_talk:SirArgo#My_Signature|went to his page]] and cleared up the confusion. I direct you to Nubis' comment below ''"But as you can plainly see Iscariot has a boner for me and is stalking my talk page"'', yes, indeed, something appears on my watch list because I've posted there before and I'm ''stalking'' him. Contrast to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHagnat&diff=1362643&oldid=1362509 this edit] where he pulls out an old edit summary whilst I was performing routine maintenance on my talk page. Yet, I'm ''stalking'' him, and he's doing nothing wrong. These are your ''trusted users''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Thank you for your answer! But now I'm curious. How can we "fight/solve" this situation in your opinion? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==2nd Warning==<br />
[[Image:Stop hand.png|40px]] - This is an official warning and, as this is a sysop only action, I am obliged to post here to inform you of it. Please do not spam admin pages with trollish and irrelevant comments. You have already been formally warned for this and if you continue to edit in this manner you will have your editing privileges revoked. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 14:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==hmmm==<br />
i just realised that the drama wave that started with your case against nubis (brought after i complained it was too quiet around here) still hasn't broken. That's not a bad effort imho...also, nice page :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Thank you for your praise about my page. I feel the drama will never die down as long as the current administration team are sysops and mods as the situation suits them. Regarding your below comments about sysop candidacy, I too am interested in their reasons for denying promotion. Therefore, if you wish, you may nominate me for promotion, however due to drama reasons I will not participate in the discussion. You make take this comment as an expression of category four, expression of desire to become a sysop and note this on the nomination if you so wish. I will not participate in the discussion due to evidential bias on the part of the sysop team, however I empower yourself, Suicidal Angel and Pestolence to act in my stead, to respond to any questions and to be afforded the same response rights as I would have. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Holy crap==<br />
Your userpage is incredible. Where'd you get the image on the top? --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:My Main Page? The Dune scape? You'll be amazed at what you find when you type Arrakis into a few image sites....;) <br />
<br />
:Thanks for the approval though, it's been driving me insane trying to get the basic page down today, it'll be tweaked when I can take the headache again. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: It is epic win. I was wondering about the Dune reference on DY's page. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Thanks!==<br />
I love my GC page! You are awesome. <3 --[[User:Fifth Element|Fiffy]] 13:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Warning==<br />
[[Image:Stop hand.png|40px]] - This is an official warning and, as this is a sysop only action, I am obliged to post here to inform you of it. Please do not spam admin pages with trollish and irrelevant comments. This is vandalism as has been judged several times in the past. If you continue to edit in this manner you may have your editing privileges revoked. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Mall Tour]]==<br />
Why do you keep removing the '09 Mall Tour from the list? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:It is the desire of the Head Tour Guide not to link to the main wiki in this way until he is happy to take the Tour public. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::After looking over everything, the tour is good to go and ready to start assembling. My thanks to Izzy for helping keeping this private until all of the start up work was complete and ready to be unveiled (nothing worse than half finished work). --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Run for sysop==<br />
yeah.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Why? As was proved by you tenure, if the current team dislike you, the changes you make or your community support they will promptly rally round and force through a demotion regardless of community consensus. The problem isn't the system, it's the people who can't be removed by a community they no longer represent. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 12:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah i'd just like to see their reasons for not promoting you.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::They'd rehash the reason Grim gave for not promoting you the first time even with enough community support, compare that to Hagnat's most recent promotion, you both had the same support from the community, except that you were active and contributing and he conveniently disappeared for most of his promotion bid, leaving three aborted policies that were only for show as no-one in their right mind would pass them. Result? You were told to sod off and he was welcomed back. You'll notice that he was ''specifically'' told to use the admin pages in his most recent promotion, when was he doing that in his recent archiving fiasco? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Deletion==<br />
I see :) Would it be meatpuppetting if a TZH's member was reported on A/VB for [[User_talk:Leroy_Jankens|all those comments]] and found 'guilty'? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 15:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, because normal users do not get a vote on A/VB. The core of meat puppeting something is the use of a mass group of voters to enforce a change. This cannot apply to A/VB because nobody competent gets a vote there. Also they've done nothing wrong. There is no policy or precedent on this wiki that users have to be civil to each other. The case would be dismissed and give them something more to whine about.<br />
<br />
:If someone was to secure enough support from the metagame community and then put all their group pages up for deletion (under a reasoning of no redeemable content), if those pages were deleted and they subsequently recreated them ''then'' they could be escalated under A/VB, and the pages recreated would be speedily deleted. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Your talk page is better than checkuser anyway==<br />
what's the policy on ex-sysops around these parts? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Ex-sysops are fine. Welcome back. I'm sure there'll be some sort of changes planned for the future that will once again make this wiki an unbiased and helpful resource. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I'm inclined to agree there, if you're meaning the Saint's talk is much more amusing than check user.--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 00:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Ex-sysops > sysops pretty much anywhere. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Boxy's Talk Page==<br />
<br />
Thanks for that. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 00:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No probs, although I guarantee they find something to have a go at me for because of it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::They're [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABoxy&diff=1354243&oldid=1354221 conspiring against you!] --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::This is the indication of the same type of bias they used to force J3D out of office, expect Wikigate II sometime soon. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::On second thought, I took the smiley out of my OP, this isn't funny. This is totalitarianism. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::I don't have a problem with totalitarianism, I have a problem with hypocrisy. They're sysops, but want to moderate when they choose regardless of the policies voted in or the wishes of the community. There needs to be an entire changing of the admin team, with the new team understanding that they serve the community by following the policies the community has taken the time to consider and approve. Either that or a conversion to a moderation system as Grim was trying to do, their problem wasn't with Grim's system, but with the fact he removed them from their perceived 'elite' status. I'd actually favour a moderation system, but again we'd need a complete removal of the current crop as they are entirely unsuitable. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== [[A/A]] ==<br />
Done, although please reply to the archive warning note in future. Thanks. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Your Talk Page ==<br />
It is epic and it is 105 kilobytes long, according to the Warning: Internet Meltdown sign at the top. It makes me happy to see so many stupid people fall on their faces here. I just managed to crawl through the SoldierUDW funfest, and the results of it, particularily in regards to people abandoning Soldier, made me giggle like a small child. It also gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside, not unlike Chai Tea with a small amount of Irish Cream. I demand more. Anger more stupid people so that I may get my jollies! --{{User:DT/Signature}} 05:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:I dub it the Vat of Quotations. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 03:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Can you imagine some of the gems that'd be here if I hadn't removed the sysops right to edit here? As shown above however, it looks like they are setting up to randomly ban me, no cause and with the justification of ''"You make us look stupidz!"'', yeah, ''trusted users''.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::More proof that democracy cannot be trusted, as people in large numbers are never right. Hey, people let ''me'' Moderate forums on Brainstock - that's a vote for the infinite quality of human stupidity right there. I know that if you were a Brainstock mod, I'd be conspiring against you. Not for any particular reason, but conspiring nonetheless. Possibly plotting and scheming as well. Mind you, I'm not altogether certain that most Brainstock mods and Admins aren't conspiring to have me banned...--{{User:DT/Signature}} 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Democracy? Where? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::The democracy we'll have to use to set up the Reich of Fuhrer Grimtler! -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::I personally was largely in favor of Grim taking over. Things would have run far more smoothly and efficiently. And he'd been burdened with all the SysOp duties, which would have produced fatal amounts of stress.--{{User:DT/Signature}} 02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::You don't think he would have killed himself after losing his power and getting hit with the banhammer? He lived a pretty sad life - he had some fucked-up condition (I forget what it was) that basically meant he couldn't leave the house. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== MT09'? ==<br />
Two things:<br />
<br />
1. You better not fail this. Mall tours are always fun. Good luck, mate!<br />
<br />
2. Did you draw that picture? EPIC! <br />
<br />
=D --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 03:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:#Shush! No-one knows about it yet.<br />
:#I'm not running it, I'm just coding it.<br />
:#Nope, came from one of my image elves.<br />
:-- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Sorreh! OMG IMAGE ELVES. I CAN HAZ SOME?! --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 03:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Noez, they iz an endangerered speesheez, and I needz them. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::Plox? I iz a good take carer! --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 04:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==RE: Arbitration==<br />
Since I am apparently acceptable to both of you, <br />
the case, [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/St. Iscariot versus Boxy|St. Iscariot vs. Boxy]], has been opened. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Noticed, opening statement construction has begun. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 06:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::You're "on the stand"... a (hopefully) brief cross-examination by the arbitrator. There may or may not be further questions -- for you, and/or boxy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Please make a concluding statement in the Arby versus Boxy. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== /me pokes you with a stick ==<br />
Go look in your No More Heros talky page. --[[User:SexyRexyGrossman|Sexy Rexy Grossman]] 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Oh dear sweet Lord ==<br />
He's back in full force. Seems rather desperate to get away from his past, too... --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's OK, we know he weighs the same as a duck, and therefore floats on water, therefore he's made of wood and will burn like a true witch. Also, he turned me into a newt... I got better. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::And apparently [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Pestolence&curid=98201&diff=1338926&oldid=1338907 he shops for IP addresses at yard sales.] I'm too tired to respond to this idiocy right now, but he's also banned me from his talk page. Sound familiar? --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Apology ==<br />
(Sorry for any grammar mistakes, but I'm writting on a keyboard that lacks half it's keys)<br />
<br />
It may have come to your attention that I have recently killed your character, Damon Young.<br />
I wish to apologize for that, since I didn't do it willingly. Rather, I was ordered to do so by SoldierUDW. Until this point, I had no idea of your previous "argument" with Soldier. Please do not think that I have been deceived into thinking that you have been acting aggressively towards Soldier. I have seen the messages he wrote, and I find them incredibly offending and uncalled for. So, I besides from apologizing for the error I made, I'd like to give you an unofficial apology on behalf of SZES (or, better said, ZEMA)<br />
<br />
'''PS:''' I am no longer part of ZEMA, but I thought you deserved an apolgy anyway. <br />
<br />
--[[User:Shirax|Shirax]] 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I am glad you have seen sense and left this group and moved out from the influence of this idiot. I hope this will not sour you from working with other survivors, the best thing a survivor player can do is to join with other intelligent survivors to help the cause. I personally recommend the [[Mad Craskers]] or the [[Dribbling Beavers]] as excellent groups who will welcome you and help you tremendously in the game. Be sure to research the rules of the Rogues Gallery and get your bounty (when it's processed) removed at the earliest opportunity. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== A reminder ==<br />
<br />
Oh your the f*%#*@# retard Iscarret! Your the one who probably hates "Americans", people keeps telling you they are going to report you to the administrations because of thie insults you gave them. You're the moron, you're the dumb ass, you are even more insane than SillyLillyPilly. This is why nobody woulden't even trust you on this shit because you use your job to attack other users. No duh. <br />
<br />
How about you like it if you tasted your own medicine, like the bullshit you gave to other users? <br />
<br />
-- {{User:Soldier/Sig}} 23:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:You'd think that if you'd watched the Youtube video that's linked on my userpage you'd know that I despise dumb colonials like yourself. I'm insane, am I? Quite possibly, but I can take anti-psychotics, there are no anti-stupid pills, which means you're screwed. By all means, carry on your impotent little rants and ingame activities, they amuse myself and the rest of the audience to the your car crash wiki existence. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::UP YOURS M*#$*@#$%^&!!! :P --{{User:Soldier/Sig}} 18:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This is lol. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Back Off ==<br />
<br />
Do not F*&@% with me Iscariot, I' am warning you. I' am not retarted like what everyone saids and the harrassing has got to stop, so you shut your f*&%@#% mouth shut about whatever I' am doing. Its not your bussiness, so back off or I will stockpile shit on your talk page like you did to me (if you ever did).<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Soldier|Soldier UDW]] 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:HAHAHAHAHA I'd be careful, Iscariot, or he might report you for "harrasment" like he's going to do to me. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 19:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::#Learn to follow page rules. New sections go at the '''top''' of my talk pages.<br />
::#I removed your right to comment in my user spaces a while back. The only reason that your post was not instantly deleted was because Pestolence replied to it.<br />
::#You are retarded.<br />
::#Feel free to bring whatever cases and 'shit' you like against me. I've griefed people off this wiki and out of the game before, you and your zerg army won't be difficult to deal with.<br />
<br />
::Hugs, kisses and fluffy puppies,<br />
<br />
::-- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oops, sorry about that. Go ahead and delete it if you want, Iscariot. But before you do, I think I should let you know that not only are you a psychopath, you're also a [[User_talk:Janus_Abernathy#Soldier_UDW|hypnotist]] who forced Janus Abernathy to leave his "group." You evil, evil man. :D --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 20:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::None of that was in response to you dude, the numbers automatically indent, so it may look that way. Yeah, I've seen the latest episode of my new favourite show, apparently all my evil plans are being unravelled. I'll have to hide away in my secret volcano base, twiddle my moustache and stroke my token evil villain cat and think of a new nefarious plot. Have you noticed that Janus is more conversant in his second language than moron boy is in what's supposed to be the language of his country? I wonder if he's seen the link on my userpage.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::And by the way, he's at 21 health in the Piggott Building. Just FYI. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::So I've just seen, he killed my Knight this morning. I'm already back. I have other things in mind for him though. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hey there. I just wanted to say a few things (yeah, I'm talking a lot today..): <br />
:-I'm sorry for all this drama I contributed to make. <br />
:-Iscariot didn't force me and the AZS to leave the ZEMA; he actually gave me lots of good advices. <br />
:-I'm feeling very sorry for [[User:Cortez250|Cortez]] right now.<br />
:-I happen to be.. a female. Maybe I should have said that before. Sorry about this too :( <br />
--{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::You didn't cause this drama, and we're glad you saw sense and got out of that organisation. Plus the drama is really amusing, we have to make our own fun round here. <br />
<br />
::Also I know you don't mean your apology, you're only making it because I'm forcing you to telepathically, my psychic powers are irresistible. The link in my sig should be to the Psi Corps, not the Gore Corps ;)<br />
<br />
::I also feel sorry for Cortez, but with the wonders of the contributions list, we should be able to save others from his idiotic influence.<br />
<br />
::You can't be female, we all know there are no girls on the internet ;P I'm actually a great admirer of Italian women, mainly due to [http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g298/Saint_Jimmys_Extrodinary_Rebel_Girl/My%20things/famous%20people/Cristina%20Scabbia/Day%20by%20Day%20pictures/CristinaScabbiawithwineglass.jpg this hottie]. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well, it looks like Soldier is in a wiki-coma due to us psychos "sueing his ass." Hopefully he'll stay gone for good. (although I was starting to have fun with him).<br />
<br />
And by the way, not all of us Americans are dumb. We just have more than our fair share of idiots over here, along with highly visible morons like Soldier who perpetuate the stereotype. :) It's guys like him who make me want to join the Philosophe Knights. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh well, shame he wouldn't learn. Have you watched the youtube video that Iscariot has on his page, Pestolence? At the end it says pretty much the same thing as you. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 04:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Oh, I saw that Cortez is safe (luckily). He probably got scared about all the mess on the talk pages.. <br />
<br />
Soldier's in wiki coma, thanks to Iscariot's psychic powers; I wonder what's going to become of the ZEMA, now that his leader and Omega have resigned. Oh well.<br />
<br />
Cristina Scabbia is quite beautiful ;) --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 20:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Yeah, Recruitment page==<br />
Hey there. I'm not here to bitch :) I understand why you removed the [[Anti-zombie squad|AZS]] ad from the recruitment page.. but I don't get why you removed the [[Zombie Emergency Management Agency|ZEMA]] and kept the [[Special Zombie Extermination Squad|SZES]] one. AZS and SZES are both "subgroups" so shouldn't we keep the ZEMA ad?<br />
(I apologies for my bad english. I happen to be italian and a bad student) --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 14:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:The enforcement of the large groups rule on the Recruitment page is based on established precedent (i.e. the way we've done things before). When a group that is deemed a large group has multiple ads on the page priority goes to the ad with the oldest valid timestamp, i.e. the valid ad that was there first. For instance, if the [[RRF]] puts up ads for the Gore Corps, the main RRF and AU10 (in that order), providing the timestamp on all three was valid I'd remove the main RRF and the AU10 ones, even though the remaining ad (the GC) is a sub group of the main group because that advert was first. The precedent is based on ad cycling efficiency and the notion that large groups are entitled to solely advertise their sub groups should they wish. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::I see about the timestamps. I don't understand your last sentence though (yes, I'm dense); does it mean we can put back the ZEMA ad and write the AZS an SZES links in it? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 14:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::If you put the ZEMA ad back in it will be removed as it currently breaks the [[Recruitment#Format_for_Advert_Content|Format Guidelines]]. If the ad is brought back into line with these guidelines, there is no prohibition to mentioning or linking other groups, sub groups or strike teams within a group ad. Simply put you can have ''"ZEMA is an alliance consisting of the [[Anti-zombie squad|AZS]] and [[Special Zombie Extermination Squad|SZES]]."'' in your ad, but the ZEMA ad must still conform to the other page guidelines. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::Oh, I didn't know it was breaking the Format Guidelines. Thanks, I'll fix it. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 14:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you want my advice, you'll take your group and get as far away from [[User:Soldier|this idiot]] as you can. Retarded stuff like placing Hagnat on his group's KOS list after [[User:Soldier/Talk_Archive#knowledge_is_half_the_battle|he tried to help him out]] or putting sysops on the same list for doing their job is so retarded that he might need medical treatment. [[Zombie_Emergency_Management_Agency/Policies#Z.E.M.A._Page_Insubordinate_Editing_Policy|This policy]] of his caused myself and several other players that have seen it great hilarity. For the record I could probably go edit every single one of ZEMA's pages and there's nothing he could do to me. It's this kind of posturing, stupidity and disregard for that is going to get your group attacked and your personal reputation in this game tarnished by association.<br />
<br />
:::::It's not often that Sonny and I agree, but his conduct is very reminiscent of another wiki contributer. That situation ended with the [[Invasion_of_Gibsonton]]. Basically a group annoyed Sonny, he took [[DORIS]] and it took him less than a week to wipe this group out, the only reason that conflict lasted longer was because better more experienced groups got involved. The Imperium was many times the size of your collective alliance and they lasted a week. A sub conflict of this event was the Philosophe Knights against the Necroinquisition. Soldier boy has it listed on your pages that you are at war with the Philosophe Knights, be glad the Order hasn't noticed you. It took us three days to wipe out the Necroinquisition, and we don't mean kill so they had to wait for a revive, we mean kill continuously so those players left the game.<br />
<br />
:::::If you don't want a similar situation to occur with your groups you really need to get away from him, or stop him speaking and acting for your alliance. [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Zombie_Emergency_Management_Agency&diff=prev&oldid=1333849 Edits like this] where he demonstrates that he can't differentiate between a person's characters and their routine maintenence as a wiki citizen are going to get you a lot of grief. He seems to fail to realise that just because someone's character kills other characters does not mean they act exclusively for that character when they are perform tasks on the wiki. That and his actions at adding a pacifist, then level 5, pro survivor to your KOS because he was 'involved in player killing', even though that character has done [[User:Iscariot/Damon_Young/Culture_Tour|more for the survivor cause than your entire alliance]] is simply pathetic. He's a coward, a moron and an idiot. If you want to play this game and gain any sort of respect you need to do something about him. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::::I've.. already tried to tell him about this. I'll talk to my group and try to make him see that he's not doing very good. Thanks for the advices. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC) <br />
<br />
Sorry, I forgot to ask. The ZEMA ad's problem is only the amount of words, right? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:That was the problem that got it removed. I don't know if it breaks any others as well because I don't have a link to it. If it does break any others it will be removed again. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To avoid Soldier putting you (or your survivor character..) on the Psychopaths list again, can I ask you what was wrong with the ad? There were 180 words more or less; did it have another problem? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:He took me off? I doubt it. I put the text into my word program, it told me two hundred words before I put the text under the image in, over two hundred and it goes. The word limit includes all words in the ad, including links, picture commentaries and everything else except your header and signature. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Damn picture commentaries. 199 words now, putting the ad back. I didn't see your name on the list; Drawde and Hagnat are still there though, with no profile links.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 22:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::196 by my count, but no timestamp, put one on or it'll go on the next purge. He's got my characters Cliff Spab, Cloister the Stupid and Damon Young on there. There's no point in removing any of them if you're going to leave things like a declaration of war against the Order or other Knights on there, also leaving Saromu up there is just as bad. My advice, wipe all the KOS lists he's done, including the SZES one and institute a clear rules system for addition and removal from the list i.e. proof using screenshot of any PK, displayed next to the entry. Looking at the rules of the [[Rogues Gallery]] might help you here. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::Sorry, I put the timestamp. Yeah, we usually post a screenshot along with the pker/gker's name&ID in the AZS page. I'd remove the ZEMA and SZES KOS lists but then I'm worried I'd be reported as a psychopath, so I'll tell Soldier first.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 23:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just wanted to say that the [[Anti-zombie squad|AZS]] are not part of the [[Zombie Emergency Management Agency|ZEMA]] anymore, so I'm putting back our ad in the Recruitment Page. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 12:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Neh?==<br />
[http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=User:J._Iscariot&action=edit Coincidence?]--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 04:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Coincidence. I've been offline due to net problems for what seems like an age. Although I find ED funny, most of the pages cause near terminal slowdown to my old laptop, so I don't often frequent the place. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==You're useless==<br />
Hey man I've waited and waited I've asked nicely for all sorts of help from you. I can't even get you to reply to my questions any more. Well here's what's gonna happen over on the recruitment page. I'm gonna write up the policy I like then I'm gonna get it voted through with every person I can possibly get to vote. You might want to help me write it because if you don't your buddies over at the Pk knights might end having to advertise in only 1 section of the wiki like everyone else. So once again. PLEASE HELP ME COME UP WITH A POLCIY FOR THE RECRUITMENT PAGE THAT DOESN"T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE DEM or don't and we'll just leave you out of it entirely--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 00:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Recruitment isn't subject to [[A/PD]], it's change by discussion.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::I have no idea what you're talking about. Reason #32 why the the ud wiki sucks? Obscure rules and pages that nobody understands except the people who are or have been in charge.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::For the second time this week I've managed to get on a computer with net access for five minutes. Did you not think to look at my contributions Kristi? I haven't been on because my internets are broken. I hardly have time to go through this now, when I get back we can continue our discussions. Karek is entirely wrong, if a policy passes by community vote then its subject becomes covered by it, and if anyone then acts contrary to it then their edits are vandalism, a sysop not realising this should be misconduct - but good luck getting that through the circle jerk club.<br />
::::I don't give two shits for your contributions you've been unhelpful, ignorant and generally combative through this entire process. You're useless and I'm tired of dealing with useless wiki people who have an axe to grind against my group. How about we log on a bunch of DEM members and see how bad we can screw with the philosophe knights...just cause we can? You're ignorance of the system is evidenced by Karek as I feel he has way more insight in the system than you have. Get a better connection or leave the page for someone that wants to actually do something.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 03:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Karek, you are well aware of the rules of this page, the only reason your contribution was not removed is because Kristi responded to it. I take your response, given its complete arrogance and incorrectness, to be a poor attempt at trolling. The same type of trollling you warned Nubis and Conndraka against over on Arbitration. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::Actually it was about clarification. The recruitment page is like [[Talk:Suggestions]] in it's creation and maintenance. It means that if a consensus can be reached the rules of the page get changed, that's all there is to it and making a policy page for it is needless excess at the very least. Basically you all need to reach an agreement as to how the page is to be maintained, not pass the buck off because you don't get along.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::::Is it true Karek that I could just say fuck iscariot and have a bunch of DEM members come and change things how we want?--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 03:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
bahahahahahaha kristi don't ever change --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 10:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Die in a fire.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 03:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::love ya too sweetheart --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 03:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
All this love makes me feel funny.--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 03:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Where can I send you a image as proof ==<br />
Can I send you a E-mail or something? --[[User:Matt Aries|Matt Aries]] 05:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:You can PM over at Barhah.com under this user name. However if you are trying to contest page ownership, then doing it straight to me is pointless, you'll have to go through the Arbitration process on the relevant wiki page. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 05:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Do i get a vouch now??==<br />
Since i picked it :P I'd miss posting on your talk page though...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Hey.==<br />
Any chance of buckling to pressure and re-voting on the talking to oneself suggestion? It looks like its going to fail to reach peer reviewed by one vote. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Unfortunately not. I had a valid justification on there, and then received an escalation when even Gnome admits he didn't strike my vote in the manner specified to make it a sysop strikeout. Coupled with the votes that have yet to be struck on [[Suggestion:20081030_Zombies_Stuck_in_Lights|this suggestion]], including such gems as ''"MAH SEX IS AHN FIAH!"'' by one of the sysop team clearly demonstrates sysop bias. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:I just did. You're welcome.--{{User:Suicidalangel/Sig}} 12:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. Congrats on the culture tour. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah, I have to say, that is kind of a big undertaking. Good job mate.--{{User:Suicidalangel/Sig}} 22:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::Thank you both for your kind words. The tour was long and stressful, but ultimately lots of fun, as well as demonstrating that you can go round all of Malton contributing to the survivor cause with just a level 5 character. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Salt the Land]]==<br />
Just noticed this [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Salt_The_Land_Policy&diff=1304177&oldid=1304173 edit of yours]. No biggie for me but what history exactly? Are you claiming old RRF alts don't retire to squat the Blackmore anymore? I know from talking to Murray that RRF doesn't support [[Salt the Land]] as such except in Ridleybank of course so I'm just curious as to your reasoning.--[[User:Zeug|Zeug]] 04:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Simple history. That sentence implied that it had ''always'' been the focus of the RRF's hold on Ridleybank. The focus was Moggridge PD back when Petro founded the Front. The Gray Guard retire there, not Blackmore. The only reason that Blackmore sees so much action in the 'bank is due to survivors constantly focussing on it, see tomorrow's stupidity. Because of the harmans' focus on this, the Praetorian Guard are forced to spend time there, not due to any orriding policy or tactical bias. <br />
<br />
:Only Moggridge holds special significance, Blackmore is just another building. It's just the most popular location for idiots to organise themselves into buffets though. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Dear god==<br />
That ranting Gryphon video was hilarious. I thank yuo deeply for letting me stumble upon its truthful awesomeness,--{{User:Suicidalangel/Sig}} 01:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:You are most welcome, be sure to also watch:<br />
:[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q71cMRGXx9o Global Warming] <br />
:and<br />
:[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dMbKqtjv2vM&feature=related Do your job!]<br />
<br />
:There's other stuff there, but those three are the best. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Your sig==<br />
Can you please deblink it? Feel free to keep the text but it really is irritating. Thanks. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 21:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Compliance. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Tak.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==If I may ask==<br />
Why do you insist on splitting hairs to the degree that you do? This is a serious question. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 10:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Enforceable precedent is the only thing that can guarantee consistent and fair treatment to users in this community. Given that the community has rejected the notion of making sysops into moderators time and again, ''someone'' has to remind everyone when these statutes are ignored.<br />
<br />
:The constant interpretation of simple black and white rules and the inability of sysops to vote misconduct on textbook cases is a form of moderation. It is the changing or selective application of these policies without oversight or censure that is an insidious form of moderation. If a policy is wrong it should still be continued to be enforced until it is changed through the established channels. The resistance to this very simple process by the admin team whilst they continue their ways forces normal users to loudly point this out. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
::You misunderstand me. I agree with the premise that rules should be adhered to, but the degree to which you take it strikes me as... excessive. I mean, take [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_10#User:Iscariot|this example]]. Does it not seem to you that claiming the difference between using {{tl|s}} and <code><nowiki><s></nowiki></code> tags as being sufficient to make one legal and the other not is at all a little ridiculous? They both accomplish the same purpose, only in slightly differing visual ways. I don't think you're going to achieve a great deal apart from the loss of your own credibility in the eyes of most (I know you don't care about what most people think, but if you're serious about your goals then you're going to need other people on your side) and - if you insist on challenging rules in such silly little ways - perhaps even your bannage. <br />I would even go so far as to put it to you that you even lose out to the wording of the rules - there is a clause somewhere (which I can't be bothered finding, but you should know of it given the length of time you've been around) in the guidelines that allows sysops to go against the exact lettering of a rule if it means keeping to its spirit. I don't think any of the things you have accused any sysop of doing in recent times have been in contravention of any rule's spirit. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 10:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Normally the aren't different, but because the template specifically states the method that should be used it overrides that. If a sysop can't strike a vote correctly when the template telling them to do so is on the same page, how can the community trust them to be in charge of banning and deletions. Take my example about deletions, both function to remove the content, but because there is clear procedure about what a deletion means that takes precedence.<br />
<br />
:::Credibility on this wiki is not something I'm concerned about frankly given the conduct of those on the administration team. The policy you quote can be found [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Guidelines_Rehashed#General_Conduct|here]]. The specific section is ''"Moderators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a moderator's best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored."'' There are two immediate problems with this sentence. Firstly the word 'moderators' is still in there. [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Sysops_are_not_Moderators|Policy]], that users took time to debate and vote on, from February 2007 clearly states that ''"Each official document ranging from the System Operator Guidelines to the Suggestions page would have any mention of Moderator replaced with System Operator, and Mod replaced with Sysop."'' Why has this not been done? Twenty months later and this simple maintenance, the raison d'etre of the sysop team has not been done. The second problem is the use of the words 'trusted users', sysops are no longer perceived to be trusted by the community in general, the meta community that is, how many more users do you think we'd have if that was changed?<br />
<br />
:::As for changing the rules, again I don't think it'll allowed to happen by the admin team. Either they'll slander the user to Kevan [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Vote_Striking|until he uses his veto]] or they'll just remove the policy and [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_05#User:Jorm|take (or have someone else) take the author to A/VB]]. It won't happen and will kill this wiki as a community. It'll become an out of date former resource because the admin team wanted to act like Brainstock mods. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::That's the document that was voted on. [[A/G#General_Conduct|Here's]] the official policy document, which is "moderator" free. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::::It's still an 'official document' is it not? Then according to the voted policy that should have also been changed. I did have a link to a different example which demonstrated the selectiveness in application of such changes by the admin team, but I appear to have lost it. I'll see if I can find it when I get off this work computer. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So basically, that whole arbies case is being made because you're "rules lawyering" and because of a rule that technically isn't official in the way that people like it nowadays?--{{User:Suicidalangel/Sig}} 13:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Dunno, all I know is that Iscariot is normally pretty reasonable but acts very strange around the wiki. It confuses me to no end.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Arbies case==<br />
I've ruled on the case, head over and check it out.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey, i've reduced the Southall groups down to one line, please make the entries fit into one line (for the sake of this we'll go on my monitor (17 inch, 180x1024). I'd do it but i'm not sure how to cut down the zookeepers entry or your one (the two that go over the one line measurement) so yeah. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Ahh scrap that, the templates on the right now. It's fine how it is. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Warning==<br />
This is an official warning and, as this is a sysop only action, I am entitled to post here to inform you of it. Please do not unstrike your own struck votes from suggestions which have been struck as trolling votes by a sysop. Attempting to avoid this by claiming that it was blanked rather than struck does not distract from the fact that it was clearly a trolling vote that was removed by a sysop. Please do not repeat this behaviour as you may face a ban from the wiki. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Yet another case of established guidelines not being followed by sysops. The process of a sysop strike is clearly different from a normal user blanking a vote, although Gnome may be a sysop he did not strike it in the correct manner meaning it cannot count as a sysop strike. It would be like a sysop removing all content from a page after receiving a deletion request and instead just removing all content from the page in question. Although functionally similar, they are demonstratively different in that any user could remove all content from a page (or blank a vote) but only a sysop can delete the page in question (or strike a vote).<br />
<br />
:Enforcing the written and provable guidelines seems to be some sort of anathema to our current team of sysops. As shown above they instead decide to invent and twist these very simple to understand rules to persecute users that they are displeased with.<br />
<br />
:I would debate this with you, but you have no right to reply here. That must really suck. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Arbies#St._Iscariot_vs._Cheese Arbies]==<br />
<br />
I would ask that you make a decision as to whether or not the case is going forward, or drop the case entirely. It has gone a long time with no reply, and I wish to know it's status from the starter.--[[User:drawde|<span style=";color:Black">'''Drawde'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:drawde| <span style=";color: Blue">'''Talk To Me!'''</span>]] [[DORIS| <span style=";color: Black">'''DORIS'''</span>]] [[Red Rum|<span style=";color: Red">Яed Яum</span>]] [[Ridleybank Resistance Front|<span style=";color: Green">Defend Ridleybonk!</span>]] [[The Know Nothings|<span style=";color: Brown">I know Nothing!</span>]]</sup> 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[A/D]]==<br />
Regarding your vote on several user redirect pages i have separated the case into individual cases, if you feel so inclined please recast your vote on each page relevant to how you feel about that particular redirect being kept on the wiki. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Monkey editing. ==<br />
<br />
Wow. I got asked to join ages ago and i said i probably would. But then i found out how ridiculous the group was and just ignored it. Nice to see they've included me in my absence. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 11:53, 22 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yep. I'm going to be nice and offer some wiki help, maybe point him at a firefox spellchecker. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:45, 23 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== "Save Monroeville" Spam Vote ==<br />
<br />
The premise for your spam vote on [[Suggestion:20081017 Save Monroeville]] is wrong; quoting the suggester, "''...every two months Monroeville restarts. Basically '''everyone's characters reset to lvl 1''' and all their skills and items removed. ''" No one will have their skills / experience carried over. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 21:42, 17 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Oh wait, I just found the suggestions page of this suggestion; I thought it was deleted. I'll post this there. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 22:00, 17 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::Feel free to delete this. I'm not sure whether or not I'm allowed to delete it myself. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 02:19, 18 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==[[A/A]]==<br />
Post your case, and please hurry it along a little, this shit be dragging out. Post as if you will have no more chances to convince me of your case.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:46, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==[[The_Perriam_Museum_(Judgewood)|the Perriam museum]]==<br />
Shamble down for a revive and [http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/10-11-08_0000hrs_PUBLIC/IN_10-15__113-173-e29.html complete] [[Judgewood]]? <br><br />
:{{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 01:01, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Mrh? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:15, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::Revivificated. Oh, and can I be in the picture? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 01:18, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::If you stick around, I was at 8AP when I arrived, so it'll be tomorrow sometime if I'm online. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::I'm stuck. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:41, 12 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::Yay. Do you frequent NexusWar or any other IRC servers? Also, If you didn't see it, [[User:Dr_Cory_Bjornson/Sandbox/0|your progress]] summarised :d.. Good luck, {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 06:22, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm often on #rrf-ud on the Nexus War server to co-ordinate with my death cultist around 22:00 and 23:30 BST. You're following my progress? STALKER!! ;-) -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:48, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I'll try and catch you there. Indeed. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 17:57, 15 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I'm there. Are you? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 22:08, 17 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Hm, Going to lecture at [[Malton College of Medicine]] after [[Quartly Library]]? I'll attempt to attend the completion ceremony. I suppose if a colleague were attend, that would be akin to multi abuse.. In which case two days to [[Roftwood]], Sounds like a film.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:39, 25 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Where the hell did slavery allegations come from?==<br />
Anyway, about the suggestion. Yep it is a nerf to ruin, but i feel its also of benefit to ruin. Care to explain where ive gone wrong? (Please use the word asshat in your response.)--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:10, 8 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:'''As Shat'''ner never said "Ransack is a two faceted skill". The ruin side (the byproduct of ransack, the destroyed building itself) has recently been buffed by the update, and most suggestions recently, including your own seek to modify this in some way. The other facet is the act of getting to this point, the conflict of clearing the building and damaging it. Your suggestion buffs the first facet whilst nerfing the second. It'll mean that zombies will now have to breach the cades, see off the actives, kill the harmans ''and'' then spend even more AP to gain the damage. Hordes like [[MOB]] or [[The Second Big Bash]] are obviously not going to even notice the difference, however the small feral groups of players who happen to be online at the same time and have a good run with the RNG against the cades are really going to notice this and suffer.<br />
<br />
:It'll increase the possibility of zerging meatshielding (albeit in a tiny proportion) and re-increase mall centric play, which is something I'm against.<br />
<br />
:The gamespace/realspace comparison I was making is obvious, compare a large 5 star hotel's interior space with that of a back street boozer, in game they both require the same amount of AP even though there is a huge difference in their areas. The notion that malls would require more AP to ransack did not appeal to me for this reason. I understand you needed to demonstrate a 'downside' in order for the suggestion to stand a hope of passing, but I thought you picked the wrong one.<br />
<br />
:Don't get me wrong, it's not a ''bad'' or ''broken'' suggestion, it's just one I disagree with, resulting in one of my rare Kill votes rather than a Spam or Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:36, 8 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::Thanks for an informed and reasoned response. Unlike Shatner's singing career.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:46, 8 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==You is creating hostile work environment badz!==<br />
{{leia}}<br />
Why do I encourage you.... Tell me why? --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 17:25, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Because you know I'm made of 100% pure unrefined awesome :D -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:51, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Must be midichlorians. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 18:37, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== policy note ==<br />
lets talk about this before it turns into an edit war. honestly I don't think it needs the note at all, seeing as how it has a handy link at the bottom leading to Category:Policy, and on said page it clearly states "This page is about in-game policies. For official wiki policies, see Category:Policy Documents". having the same info twice just seems redundant.--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 00:35, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I've done more thought on the matter, and I've realised I just don't care....so i put the message back. feel free to ignore/delete these comments.--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 02:53, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Recruitment ideas. ==<br />
<br />
OK, ill go and have a word with the person who created [[The Great Suburb Group Massacre]]. Any idea how i find out who created that page? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:12, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I forgot. It was me. What im asking myself about again? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:13, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Come on Rosslessness, you know the rules of this page, put it in the right place next time.<br />
<br />
::It was questioning whether or not there was a way of connecting the recruitment page and the group listings for each suburb page. Users could then update a timestamp and (optionally) post a recruitment add, keeping both the recruitment page and groups listings up to date. If it's possible it'll cut down on maintenance. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:36, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==[[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot_and_The_Order_of_Philosophe_Knights_versus_Sarah_Aline_and_The_Upper_Left_Corner#Iscariot|Post here]]==<br />
When you're ready.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:36, 27 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==[[UZM]] revisions==<br />
Hi Iscariot, could you leave the page at my revision? If you go down to the zed list of groups you'll find it in there at the top. It actually makes more sense as it's directly connected with the group names, and it doesn't mess with the page design ... ie it looks better. Besides, wan's edit messes with the mod notice of grims which should remain as is. Cheers mate. --[[User:Zeug|Zeug]] 07:29, 22 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Community page. "Looks" do not come into this. You have no 'ownership' claim to the page and must submit to the will of the wiki community. The edit in its status as Wan's edit is the prevailing community consensus. This is the overriding principle of the wiki.<br />
<br />
:I thought you said you wanted a war? Anyway, your right to reply on any page in my name space is hereby revoked. You are not to edit any page or talk page that is preceded by 'User:Iscariot'. I do not want cheating, [[Extinction|zerging]] scum bags polluting my pages.<br />
<br />
:Kind regards,<br />
:-- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 07:51, 22 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No worries, you guys are a riot. I'm fine with the disclaimer but will insist on leaving the mod notice as is and place the former where it belongs, right above the groups. As for scumbags well you sound like a third grader but that's what I've come to expect of the idiots that troll this wiki. You could of course just get a life instead. Cheers --[[User:Zeug|Zeug]] 14:49, 22 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Bug Report==<br />
Just letting you know that I've responded to [[Bug Reports#Adding contacts/logged out/certain people|your bug report]], and that it is most likely a feature, not a bug. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 11:58, 17 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Cheers Revenant, I saw it the same day you responded. This was indeed the problem and following your advice, it has been fixed. Cheers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:19, 19 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Recruitment page==<br />
<br />
[[Category_talk:Recruitment#Please_revisit_the_.22large_group.22_rule|Care to comment?]] - [[User:Whitehouse]] 13:40, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==[[User:Soldier|Soldier]] and the [[Special Zombie Extermination Squad]]==<br />
===The Background===<br />
It is important to remember when reading this the difference between a player and their individual characters.<br />
<br />
I, Iscariot, Patron Saint of Dupes, also maintain the Recruitment page. During routine maintenance I noticed an ad that broke the guidelines. Instead of removing it, as was my right, I decided to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoldier&diff=1263121&oldid=1262320 inform the owner that they should correct their ad]. This user then decided to respond on my talk page with demands. I do not tolerate demands and responded appropriately.<br />
<br />
===The Continuation===<br />
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special_Zombie_Extermination_Squad&diff=prev&oldid=1264220 Soldier then decided to respond ] to his disagreement with myself, the player, by listing one of my characters on his group's enemy and Kill On Sight list. He did not pick my death cultist that actively hurts the survivor cause, he chose to select my Philosophe Knight. For reference my Philosophe Knight is a pacifist, does not harm survivors and is actively moving through the entirety of Malton repairing museums and libraries. [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special_Zombie_Extermination_Squad&diff=1268583&oldid=1268582 Over time he has added a threat rating] to the list in question and has listed my character as a 'Moderate' threat. That is on par with characters that have actually killed other survivors and higher than known and respected PKer group [[SillyLillyPilly]].<br />
<br />
===An Act of Kindness===<br />
Instead of resolving the matter ingame with the murder of his entire group by my death cultist, I was forced to respond from the position of my Knight to avoid breaking the spirit of the anti-zerging rule. Accordingly I tried to be diplomatic and posted terms of surrender for Soldier to accept. Not only did he not agree to these terms, but the response he did give breached many of the terms.<br />
<br />
===Resolution===<br />
Based on the subject's continued actions and attitudes, I am forced to allow my Philosophe Knight to judge him, and his group, based on the [[Philosophe_Knights/Policies|Articles of Ignorance]]<br />
<br />
The subject is found guilty of the following crimes:<br />
:Class A<br />
::Slander<br />
:Class B<br />
::Ignorance<br />
The punishment for such crimes is clear. Repeated education by a Philosophe Knight educator or by an allied group.<br />
<br />
The group is found guilty of:<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_bessette&diff=prev&oldid=1264397 Mass Hindrance]<br />
::Mass Slander<br />
The punishment for these crimes is also clear, addition to the Enemies of Enlightenment list and education on sight for all members<br />
<br />
===The Knowledge===<br />
The following are known profiles of the criminals:<br />
<br />
[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1214138 Soldier]<br />
<br />
[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1324685 Zombie Hunter Recon]<br />
<br />
[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1345960 Reporter John]<br />
<br />
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special_Zombie_Extermination_Squad&diff=prev&oldid=1267778 This edit also implies that SZES uses zerging tactics]<br />
<br />
Their most likely location is [[The Murtaugh Motel]] in [[Penny Heights]]. They are known to restock in [[Giddings Mall]].<br />
<br />
Other locations where they claim as territory are:<br />
<br />
[[Lavor Alley School]] in [[Pitneybank]]<br />
<br />
[[Haydon Auto Repair]] in [[Spicer Hills]]<br />
<br />
[[The Piggott Building]] in [[Spicer Hills]]<br />
<br />
They are known to frequent [[Wasteland 23,97]] in [[Spicer Hills]] as a revive point.<br />
<br />
===In Summation===<br />
Soldier decided to select a non-combatant character to pick on due to a disagreement with that player's owner. He chose this character even though it is well known he is a pacifist and survivor orientated. By doing this Soldier reveals himself and his group as cowardly.<br />
<br />
Soldier refused generous peaceful overtones and responded with hostile acts and words.<br />
<br />
Soldier and his group have been judged enemies of enlightenment and will be added to the Philosophe Knight Kill On Sight list. Their names and profiles will be forwarded to all allied groups and organisations that the Philosophe Knights are associated with.<br />
<br />
'''Soldier's right to reply is hereby revoked. He is no longer welcome to post on any page in Iscariot's namespace. Precedent in Vandal Banning shows that an individual posting on another's namespace after specifically being informed that they are unwelcome constitutes an act of vandalism. Any breach will be reported.'''<br />
<br />
-- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} for [[User:Iscariot/Damon_Young|Damon Young, Knight of the Philosophe Order]] 20:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:"l0l 0wnt"? Loved the links. Also:<br />
:[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1348250 SZES Officer 01]<br />
:[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1348396 SZES Officer 02]<br />
:[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1351306 SZES Officer 03]<br />
: Sorry if you don't want comments posted under this header, {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:10, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::You have followed the page guidelines and provided great assistance, I approve of your post!<br />
<br />
::It also helps prove the question of potential zerging I feel.<br />
<br />
::-- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:29, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::: I wanted to die after reading [[User:Soldier|his page]] x.o..<br />
::: "Avertizement"? Wot? Logs 15, 20, and 21? lawl. It's interesting and maddening, His Incoherency..<br />
:::: {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 22:42, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Cycling Suggestions==<br />
When cycling suggestions, do not remove anything from the top, nor the SugVoteBox template from the voting section. Navigation is just as useful after closing than before it, and the SugVoteBox template keeps the page in Category:Suggestion Pages. Just add the template to the top and remove the things from the bottom. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:53, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I have no idea who did it right or wrong first or last, I just made sure it's done right THIS time. Add the template, and delete everything below the last vote. Every time. Period. And no one will complain. Or shouldn't. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:28, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I remove everything below the last spam when I cycle suggestions, but I don't bother removing the horizontal line if someone left it there. The most important thing here is not to delete {{tl|SugVoteBox}}. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:28, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That shouldn't be getting deleted because it's not at the top or the bottom of the page: the only places that need to be touched when cycling... Now, I honestly thought you knew how to do this, Iscariot. Probably just an oversight, I'll stop harassing you on your Talk page now! ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:44, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Apology ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Okay, I forgive. And just for your sake I will not report about you. But under one rule: If you made a threat to my group or any of my allies' groups, I will had to declare war on your group! And to prove that I'm serious about this, you have 48 Hours to accept my appolgy. Failure would be, I don't know won't be tolerated. So to make a long story short I'm sorry and promise to stop making threats.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Soldier|Soldier]] 23:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Recruitment problem Fixed ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Okay, I've fixed it by removing it. I admit that the flag looks like it has been made by a 8 year old. But I have to warn you, if you insult me at anything else even I don't care I had to report about it. You're lucky I don't know how but insulting will not be tolerated the second time.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Soldier|Soldier]] 19:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Firstly, fuck off! Don't bring demands to my page retard.<br />
:Secondly, go right to Vandal Banning, there's a link above. They'll also tell you to fuck right off, there is no civility policy on this wiki. Grow up.<br />
:Thirdly, read the fucking rules crotch spawn, it's not like I put them at the top so window lickers like you would be able to find them.<br />
:-- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Behold everyone, the stupidity of this moron!<br />
<br />
::He dislikes my response so goes to his group page and lists [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special_Zombie_Extermination_Squad&diff=prev&oldid=1264220 one of my characters as a 'Psycopath'] (evidently English wasn't his best subject in school, nor was using a spell checker).<br />
<br />
::Did he list [[User:Iscariot/Cliff_Spab|my dastardly death cultist]], a member of the renowned [[Gore Corps]]? No, this idiot decides to list my [[Philosophe Knights|Philosophe Knight]], yes, that would be the same character known to groups all over Malton as someone known for [[User:Iscariot/Damon_Young/Culture_Tour|rebuilding Malton and preserving knowledge]]. It's not like it says on his page that he's a pacifist or anything. Picking on a peaceful librarian, how brave of the mighty [[Special Zombie Extermination Squad]].<br />
<br />
::It would be wrong of me to use my death cultist to shoot him for his blatant stupidity, that would be [[zerging]]. Accordingly I'll have to respond from the view of my Philosophe Knight. He doesn't shoot people, so, what shall I do?<br />
<br />
::This idiot has 48 hours from the time of this post to write a grovelling and sincere apology and post it on this page. This apology is to be perfect in its spelling and grammar. He is also to remove my listing from his group's page permanently. The place of my listing is to be taken by an apology directed at every reader of his page apologising for his poor spelling and grammar and continued acts of stupidity on this wiki. This apology is to remain in place for three months.<br />
<br />
::Failure to comply with this benevolent compromise will result in the following action<nowiki>:</nowiki><br />
:::'''1.''' He and his group shall be added to the Philosophe Knights' enemy list. Every Knight coming across himself or his group will execute on site. Unlike the [[Rogues_Gallery_%28Brainstock%29|Rogue's Gallery]], there is no way off this list.<br />
:::'''2.''' The names and profiles of his group shall be passed to all [[Player Killer]] groups allied with the Philosophe Knights. These groups include the [[Spartans]], [[Lebende Tote]] and the [[Flowers of Disease]] amongst others. I trust the consequences are obvious.<br />
:::'''3.''' As before, names and profiles will be passed to the [[PKA]] so that all member groups can add to their target lists. As various groups are in the middle of two large events, the [[Malton Uprising]] and the [[Red_Rum/PK_Olympics|Player Killer Olympics]], this means that idiot boy and his group won't have many hiding places at all.<br />
:::'''4.''' All survivor groups allied with the Philosophe Knights will be asked to restrict aid and contact to this group. Such venerable organisations that would be approached include the [[Quartly Study Group]], [[The Fortress]] and the [[MCM|Malton College of Medicine]].<br />
<br />
::I'd advise against 'fighting back'. The last group that tried fighting a [[Imperium Must Die|PK coalition]] suffered [[Invasion of Gibsonton|crushing defeat and humiliation]].<br />
<br />
::-- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:04, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::Who is this fool? Why does he commit the crime of slander so freely?--{{User:DT/Signature}} 21:39, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==[[User:Iscariot/Damon_Young/Culture_Tour|The Culture Tour 2008]]==<br />
Hello, is there anyway assist in anyway on your humble [[User:Iscariot/Damon_Young/Culture_Tour|quest]]?<br />
<br />
Since I see the suburbs left are, According a [[Suburbs|map]], derelict, You might care for an extra hand?<br />
<br />
As a sidenote, I've been considering attempting to join the [[Philosophe Knights]].<br />
<br />
{{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:59, 19 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:All vetting of potential applicants for the Order takes place on our forum. You can login with 'The Visitor' account and apply for membership for one of your characters.<br />
<br />
:Given that you may consider entry into the group at some point in the near future, being conscious of the spirit of the zerging rules, I must respectfully decline your offer of aid. Even accidentally I, nor the Order, do not not run the risk of multiple alt abuse ever.<br />
<br />
:However, do feel free to follow the progress of the tour and attend the completion celebration at [[Quartly Library]] at the conclusion of my odyssey.<br />
<br />
:-- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:32, 19 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Would you accept a revive? Also, [[Dakerstown]] is survivor held, Atleast in some capacity. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:43, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::I accept random revives all the time, feel free. My next target is Eastonwood, I have intelligence that some of our allied survivor groups have been repairing in that area. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:48, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::Alright, That isn't a large deviation of my course to [[Dakerstown]], After I finish dispatching this [[Zombie|breach]] at [[Southall Mansion]].. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 01:10, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::With your last two postings, 11/9/08 and 12/9/08, Would you accept assistance at this point? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 01:31, 14 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::I will accept any assistance anyone can give me based on publicly available information. I would however still urge you to join the Order, or perhaps one of our affiliated or allied groups. Malton College of Medicine perhaps? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:21, 19 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Internal Header==<br />
Whats an internal header?<br />
:OK, for starters, sign your posts, put <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> after your post to do this.<br />
:Secondly internal headers are the sections surrounded by equals signs. They create a link from the contents box at the top. If you use more than the current section it is in you create an internal section of the preceding one. Such headers are banned from recruitment ads as they screw up the page by doing this. This is why I removed your ad, am about to do it again and will continue to do so for as long they remain in there. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:40, 25 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==My 'brainstorming' page==<br />
Since almost every person who ever voted on one of my suggestions ever has been complaining that I've come up with nothing but crap, I created [[User:Blake_Firedancer/Developing_Suggestions|this brainstorming page]] for me to develop ideas before I put them on Talk:Suggestions. I've got a couple of ideas up there already, and some feedback would be appreciated. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 11:46, 22 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Why dont you tell me what I did wrong?==<br />
When I added the M-BEK pages you deleted it. Im no expert on it and im sure alot of people are so maybe you can help me cause you seem to know what youre doing.--{{User:Doctor Oberman/sig}} 17:40, 17 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:All ads on the recruitment page must conform to the standards set out clearly at the beginning of the page. One of these criteria is that no ad should have any internal headers of any kind. Any ad that does not conform to the guidelines can be deleted immediately. Yours was. <br />
<br />
:If you'll notice, I did put the reasoning in the edit summary. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:51, 17 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Problem with the recrutment Page==<br />
Hi - when I went on to update the timestamp on my recrutment advert I noticed that it was centre allingned. Upon closer inspection I found that everything from the '''C''' section onwards was centre aligned (which I know isnt suppose to be). It appears that "Cheap Ass Survivors : Pro-Survivor" groups recrutment adverticment is whats causeing it. I would sort it myself but I dont want to change anything incase I make a mistake or incase you need permission to edit peoples recrutments (I dont want to get into any trouble) - this is the reason I came to you. I know that you moniter and keep the recrutment page upto date so could you please have a look at it and see if it can be fixed. Many thanks in advance --[[User:Feon Kensai|Feon Kensai]] 10:19, 7 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:No-one needs permission to alter any advert that is breaking any of the guidelines or is breaking the page. I've had a look at the page and ad in question and can't see anything wrong. It might just be the way my screen's set up so I'll get Whitehouse to have a look. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:34, 7 July 2008 (BST)<br />
::No error in your browser, we were just looking at the wrong ad. If you look at the "C" header it was also centre aligned, as such it must have been the last ad in "B" section causing the "C" header and subsequent articles to centre. Appears that Browncoats recruitment ad hadn't closed their tags, causing articles below them to be included as part of their table and as such centred. Fixed now. [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:26, 7 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Cheers dude, I suck at wiki formatting so I thought you'd be able to pick up on it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:31, 7 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==deleted my ad==<br />
i was wondering y you deleted my ad and i request that you dont do it again or i will report you.<br />
--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 15:48, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:He would have deleted your ad because it was out of date. When the timestamp is two weeks old, the ad is removed. He's done nothing wrong. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:49, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
::y would he do that i never knew were were supposed to restamp it?--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 15:51, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:::'''After two weeks as measured from the timestamp the entire advert may be removed for inactivity / non-compliance. It is the group’s responsibility to update the timestamp to avoid having the advertisement deleted.'' <--- It says that at the top of the page in the guidelines. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:53, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
oh ok sorry my Apologys i reupdated it.--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 15:57, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Don't look a gift horse in the template==<br />
{{iscariot}}<br />
It's a shame that George Carlin had to <s>die</s> have a terminal episode for me to come up with this template Play on Names. I just didn't want to make one with a bible picture for you. Too obvious. This is much better. Enjoy. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 18:45, 26 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Please go to http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Deletions and vote Keep so that the Grimch doesn't try to delete the template I made for you (and others). Thank you. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Your services are required==<br />
OK. There's a couple of my suggestions on the Talk:Suggestions page that are getting some good feedback, but before I progress with them any further, I want you to check to see if they're duplicates. Honestly, I'm useless at finding dupes as I can never really figure out where exactly to look for 'em.<br />
<br />
You, on the other hand, seem to be pulling dupes left, right, centre and any other direction one can think of. So, I would like you to search for dupes for my suggestions, to see if they should go up to Suggestions.<br />
<br />
[[Talk:Suggestions#Generator_Efficiency|Find the dupe #1!]]<br />
<br />
[[Talk:Suggestions#Mega-Syringes|Find the dupe #2!]]<br />
<br />
Thank you in advance --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 13:32, 26 June 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'm rushed off my feet with the real world at the moment, so you'll forgive me for not finding the exact links.<br />
<br />
::::Number one (Going on the current 2.0 version on the linked page). This isn't ''a'' suggestion, this is several. That's going to get it killed as a suggestion from the start. Anyone who dislikes any aspect of the many things you are trying to implement is going to kill the whole thing on that basis.<br />
<br />
::::The tuning of generators to run longer (with and without a prerequisite skill) has been done before. It was generally shot down due to the massive factor of the AP balance already in favour of survivors. This will get shot down for the same reason and by trenchies who don't want PKers lighting up their Fortresses of Eternal Darkness for longer to shoot them.<br />
<br />
::::Number two (Going on the current suggested version). The notion of using that survivor's DNA is complex, as well as an open opportunity for zergers to have syringe mules specifically for themselves. Having it cure infection is what's going to get this spammed to death though due to the bigger implications. It means infection is no longer a problem, survivors no longer have to expend APs and revives holding malls and hospitals, this will cause an almost game breaking swing in AP balance from the current pro survivor to ''massively'' pro survivor. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:07, 28 June 2008 (BST)<br />
:Rumor is Iscariot gained his dupe-finding abilities because while on a field trip, he was bitten by a radioactive dupe, and now he has the superpower of being able to find them with a special 'Dupe Sense' --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 16:50, 26 June 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually I use a special superpower call "Common Sense" when it comes to dupes. It works very well.<br />
<br />
::I was once bitten by a radioactive redhead....that was fun :) -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:07, 28 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==RE: The Recruitment Page ==<br />
<br />
I think I cleared up the mess. I used the last revision by you as a basis, then added all the correct changes to that. The only ad I forgot to put back in was the DK one which I'll do now (without destroying the page). - [[User:Whitehouse]] 13:34, 23 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Torches==<br />
Seriously - I want to know.<br><br />
If they call flashlights torches (first successfully commercially produced by Everready in 1899), what do our Brit friends across the puddle call a torch (the fiery kind)?<br><br />
Tell me Tell me Tell me! I need to know now. This question tortures my mind now. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:29, 29 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Flame torches are called torches, flashlights are called Electric torches. Answer your question?--[[User:JustAnotherWebSurfer|PX]] 22:11, 8 September (BST)<br />
<br />
==Talk:Suggestions==<br />
You know I wrote the guidlines for that page right? The intent was for suggestions to be removed once discussion had ceased, the 5 days thing is just to be sure it really is dead, when the author themselves say they have no intention of continuing the discussion the suggestion can and should be removed.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:33, 27 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:Great(!) More rules written one way and then acted on by sysops in a completely different manner. That's just what this wiki needs. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:43, 27 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Your Keep on Triangulation==<br />
'''''Keep''''' - ''This is a dupe, but I like innocent bystanders being murdered, so if someone wants to dupe it they can go find the link themselves. -- Iscariot BB2 PK WTE 18:34, 25 May 2008 (BST)'' - This cracked me up for 2 reasons. (1) it's the second time I've ever seen you vote keep on anything (first time voting keep on something which will actually pass), and (2) the keep reasoning is hilarious :) --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 18:48, 25 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm actually waiting someone to whine and take me to A/VB for it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:53, 25 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not so sure they will - like I said I think this was more about trying to 'get me' than about the structure by which I rsepond to incredibly long winded posts on my user page. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 19:14, 25 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I meant for the keep vote. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:23, 25 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That would be hilarious too. People are way anal about the wiki --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 19:55, 25 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==That Crucifix thing==<br />
Wow... you've never voted keep on a single idea of mine and even I've never had that sort of animosity towards you. There some underlying history between the two of you, like there is with me and some members of the Malton Globetrotters? --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 18:31, 24 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:I tend not to have animosity towards people in general. While I may think certain ideas are bad, it has no bearing on my view of the people making them. However, the hypocrisy of religious dogma gets to me, as do cheating scumbags. That moron is proven to have created alts on the wiki to try and force suggestions through. Accordingly I hope he fucks off and dies. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:36, 24 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::How did they prove he created them? Just curious, because no one's been able to find out who created the stupid sock puppets that ruined my nailgun suggestion. Which I'm still annoyed about. I'm probably going to be holding off on bringing nailgun v2.0 to a vote until the zombie population rises a bit. Can't really make weapon suggestions when the survivor population is doing better - it's self-defeating. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 18:47, 25 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_04#User:Gabdewulf|Proof here]]. There are all sorts of screens and buttons that sysops get to check these things. Send your suggestion up, remember PR actually means nothing, Ankle Grab came from rejected. I'd also like to point out the current stats and the lack of whining from 'my side' as opposed to the amount of whining from 'your side' when the situation was reversed. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:53, 25 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Not that I'm implying that The Dead are 'your side' but they did quite a bit of kvetching. And there was that whole 'On Strike' thing that I've heard a lot about (though it was long before my time). I do agree that survivors acting like trenchies are far more likely to whine than zombies acting like griefers are likely to whine (again - I'm not calling you a griefer, I'm talking about the extremes on both sides). In any case, it's a moot point. I've been playing zombies lately more than survivors, despite my wiki stance, and I think I know which of my alts I am going to turn PKer. Just need to wait until work eases up a bit so I can have time to post on the forums to get advice. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:33, 29 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Giddings Mall Page==<br />
Please stop edit warring and take the issue to Arbitration. I'm leaving the page protected until the case begins so get a move on. This has gone on way too long. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:38, 17 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get off your high horse. Just looking into the History, I can see at least 3 occasions of you being involved in the edit warring. I've put the above comment on because you were one of the 3 involved in it, and protected the page to stop the other two going at it when they come back on. Stop moaning. I'm not picking on you. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:53, 17 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Sorry Sir==<br />
<br />
Hi Iscariot, sorry about my "impersonation" of you, which, while related to temporary feelings of anger at being called a retard, also had a lot to do with a misunderstanding of site policy and a sudden joyous power trip realization of the kinda crap you can get away with over the internet (that suggestion was my first wiki edit evar!) Anyway, I won't do it again even if you severely piss me off, and I hope there's no hard feelings. See you round the wiki ---[[user:Pac8s|Pac8s]]<br />
<br />
BTW, I really like your alternate server idea, although it seems really complex to put into action of course. Do you have resources to do it, or are you talking to anybody about it? Obviously people object to sweeping changes of the existing Malton map, but I agree with you that Urban Dead is really far from feeling in-genre, and I think alternate cities are an excellent solution to that problem. --[[User:Pac8s|Pac8s]] 02:27, 18 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:I do not have any resources to do it, computing is witchcraft to me. The development on version 2.0 stopped after it went on the suggestions page for comment. It really needs version 3.0 doing due to the Monroeville lessons, just I can't be bothered. I have another idea for an alternate server, but....can't be arsed. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:18, 20 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Moderation ==<br />
<br />
cuntdrama was perma banned as a vandal, that's why his comment was removed. Do not revert. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 00:13, 15 May 2008<br />
:#Read the rules of the fucking page, it's not like I put them at the top or anything....<br />
:#Who banned him? And who made the report? And who ruled on that? You better hope I don't find the answer I suspect I'm going to find or you can go ahead and write your next misconduct case yourself. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:18, 15 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::Are you tripping on shrooms kiddo ? First of all, yeah it was me the one who banned him. His user name was a offensive towards a established user from this community, that alone is reason to ban him. Would you like us to take lightly on a Shitcariot user who were only harrasing every edit you make ? He also posted a goatse picture in the wiki, you think that's good faith ? He even dedicated it to conn. Now... put your gun where your mouth is, or STFU... i dont need an ass threatening me every time i do my job in here. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 00:27, 15 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Actually, I think he'd just laugh if somebody named themselves shitcariot. It'd be funny if you asked me. I wish I had a vandal named after me...--{{User:Suicidalangel/Sig}} 00:36, 15 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Pooicidal angel? Shagnat? Smelita? Twitscariot? --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:37, 29 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==OOooOO!==<br />
Is Santlerville the only burb in Malty with no librarys or museums? Or are you boycotting for some other reason? And why doesn't the tour include schools?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:01, 3 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:Unless you can show me otherwise, or I've missed something (possible given the speed with which I made that list) then I believe that [[Santlerville]] is the only [[suburb]] that doesn't play host to a [[library]] or [[museum]]. No wonder the population spend most of their time drunk....<br />
<br />
:I've been meaning to go ask the Beavers for suggestions for an alternative location to visit in order to include Santlerville in the tour.<br />
<br />
:I deliberately kept schools out due to the nature of the school system and teachers to sour peoples' attitudes to education and self betterment. I still need to get confirmation on the layouts of the mansions, studies and libraries there will also be included, but the wiki seems to be lacking. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 12:08, 3 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::Yeah i can't think of one of the top of my head. Us Santlervillians are more the [[Dowdney Mall|shopping]] and drinking type, although we are also quite [[St. Emelia's Church (Santlerville)|religious]] and don't like to travel, with only one railway station in the suburb. [[The Sweatman Motel]] is a great place to go if you're looking to expand your mind. If you didn't think one person being twenty people was possible, just check the pavement outside The Sweatman, it's mind blowing.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:04, 3 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Recruitment Removal==<br />
Hi - I know that yesterday you removed the Deck of 52 recrutment post. I need you to tell me what the date on the time stamp said please because I think I may have made a mistake with timing/schedual for when Im to update the timestamp - can you please get back to me on this and help me out - THANKS in advnace --[[User:Feon Kensai|Feon Kensai]] 16:28, 2 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Thank you for your time a quick responce - I guess I got my timing wrong LOL (will up date it weekly now) - I promiss this wont happen again and sorry. I have to commend you for your quick action of keeping the recrutment page up to date though ;) - nicly done. Thanks again for your time - you helped a lot (I have a bad memmory). Cya around. <br />
P.S: Sorry I put this subject at the bottom of the talk page :( - I will pay more attention next time --[[User:Feon Kensai|Feon Kensai]] 13:46, 3 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==They're asking questions==<br />
Over [[User Talk:Hagnat|here]], just thought you should know *nods and walks off* --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:50, 26 April 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes indeed. It struck me as curious that despite being inactive for two months, you were able to check the PK forum nearly every day. That's why I sent you the private message earlier. (Also because my job as the PK's on-duty librarian is in part to maintain the active member lists and other information in the library reference collection, and I was trying to figure out how to place you.) -- {{User:VI/signature}} 00:43, 30 April 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Ha ha ha! That's hilarious. And to think I've been totally confused all this time. I've seen the sort of window-thing you're talking about before, so I know what you mean. Anyway, sorry about bothering you. Spies are no threat at all to the Knights, but I keep my eyes open regardless, partially because it's fun to find them, and partially because having a the PK riddled with spies would sort of destroy our reputation as mysterious and esoteric. -- {{User:VI/signature}} 00:50, 30 April 2008 (BST)<br />
::::I look forward to it. It seems you have your work quite out out too, what with the state of things these days. Praise Knowledge, as they say. -- {{User:VI/signature}}00:57, 30 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Our Talk==<br />
Iscariot, I think we should continue our talk in your page instead of in Gab's since it no longer has anything to do with anything he was saying :)<br />
<br />
What did you mean by me being a bad luck charm since one of my characters tends to be in the Buttonville area? --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 00:21, 25 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Feel free to move the whole thing over here so it doesn't clutter his page.<br />
<br />
:You? Bad luck? [http://www.barhah.com/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=9846&sid=490b22c469d9ad8730cf43e3a4860f40&start=15#p152753 Have you read the Zombie forecast?] -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:36, 25 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You said: "''Somebody'' has to speak up for zombies on that page otherwise we'd have survivors in mechs. My 'PKer' doesn't kill anyone, and is actually on a tour to visit and repair buildings... yeah, he helps zombies ....:P<br />
<br />
I think you're confusing pure DCing with other things, however you are definitely misunderstanding what I mean by fun! ;) -- Iscariot"<br />
Oh I have no problem with you sticking up for zombies. I actually like when you point out dupes for me so that I don't make a fool of myself in Suggestions. And the comment you made about letting zombies use sledgehammers I think got me a few keep votes when I made sure to make it clear that zombies -can- use sledgehammers. <br />
<br />
:Dupes are easy to point out, just waste some time on the old suggestions. I still don't like that sledgehammer suggestion, but with support like that it's a bit pointless bothering. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:36, 25 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I realize that right now I am basically a pro-survivor suggester (although my not enough shotgun suggestion was definitely not pro-survivor), but that's only because I started playing the game right when The Dead started playing so I have a certain view of things. I do try to make my suggestions balanced though... you never see me suggesting mechs or machine guns or flamethrowers, now do you. <br />
<br />
:There's nothing wrong with being prosurvivor, there's something wrong with being trenchie, you don't want to do that. Go hang out with the classy survivors at Beerhah. You'll notice that the majority also have zombie alts.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:36, 25 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
And if you're a PKer who kills for some actual purpose, rather than wanting to make people who take the game tooooo seriously cry, then I commend you :) <br />
<br />
:Don't kill people full stop. Complete pacifist, wearing the garb and group tag of one of the oldest and well known PK groups in the city. That's fun. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:36, 25 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Actually, my favorite PKer group is Red Rum - I actually have considered making a PKer character and seeing if I could join them. They're one of the few PK groups I've seen who actually look fun. <br />
<br />
:Convert one of your current survivors, it's hell if you start PKing from level 1. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:36, 25 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I just don't find that playing my zombie would be fun if I was being total zombie/Death Cultist, at least while the Dead are on the march. I'd feel like I'm taking advantage of a bunch of cheaters being currently in the game. Even though that wouldn't make me a cheater, i'd feel like one by association. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 00:21, 25 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Some people, even career zombies, don't like DCing. TBH I only use it as a label for shorthand, I've been working on a philosophy of something very different for a potential new group. Playing a zombie doesn't mean you have to associate with The Dead. I recommend RRF or MOB, I know people in both (as well as a few other hordes) and they'll look after you and make you smile in ways you didn't think possible in this game (see Zoey and I singing and dancing in the middle of a safehouse being destroyed). Once you have a zombie alt, you'll realise where the fun is in this game. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:36, 25 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:<br />
<br />
==RE:Recruitment==<br />
<br />
Hey, I'm no longer looking after that page. Had to give it up to deal with real life stuff. It'd be great if you'd be willing to keep it tidy. - [[User:Whitehouse|W]] 23:40, 22 April 2008 (BST)<br />
:14 days and out is correct. I used to edit out ads that had minor flaws (using <nowiki><!-- / --></nowiki>), and I'd delete ads which breached the major rules. Either way works, you should leave a dated comment under the removed ads header explaining what was wrong. If they don't do anything within two weeks of your comment, just remove the header. Good luck. - [[User:Whitehouse|W]] 23:53, 22 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Can I pick your mind?==<br />
Hey, I was reading on the posts and you seem to know every dupe ever posted so could I question you on those grounds?[[User:Gabdewulf|Gabdewulf]] 04:39, 21 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A Zombie respawn, basically when a zombie is killed, they stand up somewhere other than where they were killed, has been already been suggested, right?. Do you remember where or when?<br />
<br />
Also, walls or other means of limiting travel and zombie's human memories of building names, what kind of suggestions have been brought about these? [[User:Gabdewulf|Gabdewulf]] 16:44, 21 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
My focus is strictly on Malton. I didn't get into Monroeville because it seemed purely temporary. <br />
:Yes it was always designed to be temporary.<br />
<br />
While, yes, low levels zombies have to spend a sizeable chunk of the current game day standing up, how many days of game play are lost by pro-suriviors when thier killed? A pro-surivior has to stand up, travel to a rp, and wait and hope that someone is reviving. Also with the current state of the city, a great many of the RP are abandoned. As far as time goes, pro-surivior suffer higher penalties for getting back in the action after death even when compared to a zombie being head shotted every single day. Because at the very least, a zombie gets to play thier character every single day.<br />
:You don't have to just go be a mrh? cow at a RP, you could scout, move about, decade overcaded buildings.<br />
<br />
Also, its been my experience that very few low level zombies worry about the 2ap traveling by zking, unless maybe thier a meat shield, to get the early skills.<br />
:2AP to move hurts, a lot. Also ZKing cuts your XP gain in half, and remaining stationery broadcasts your position to trenchies who then headshot you for more AP loss.<br />
<br />
Creedy fell cus the zombies focused on the fort, while the defenders focused on the nieghborgood. And, even with the entire neighborhood's buildings being pretty heavily secured, the zombies just strolled past and started the seige on the fort. And this is the agruement for walls/movement and/or removal of bulding names. The repeated pattern seems the mass of zombies skiping into green neighborhoods, destroying the resource buildings with meat shield tactics, and letting lower levels finish the suriviors. <br />
:Erm, no. Creedy fell because forts are death traps. The Bash used the same tactics against a mall and were stuck for two weeks. I should know, I was there. Zombies are ''supposed'' to go into green suburbs and eat everyone, that's the point of a zombie apocalypse. You are evidently confusing meat shielding tactics with something else, meat shielding is a survivor tactic. Allowing low levels to gain the kill bonus is entirely legal, survivors could do the same if they got organised.<br />
<br />
But even with the current numbers of s/z, the survivours are being crowded into a smaller area. The majority of the city is at the red level and kept there by alts so the survivours can't escape. The overcrowding causes survivours search rate to increasingly reduce, which will cause the city to shrink further. What happends when the zombies finish destroying the city? How many players will/have left by then?<br />
:What search rates are you on about? Search rates are at the highest they've ever been since I started playing the game. I remember when it took a week to stock up on ammo. I do that now in a day.<br />
<br />
And the agruement about zombie player being a minority is that zombie player, when revive, are PKing. When surivours die, they either zombie or are waiting to revive. [[User:Gabdewulf|gabdewulf]] 22:56, 22 April 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, your point? Also, not all zombies PK, the major hordes actually have rules against it. There should be a downside to dying as a survivor, otherwise everyone would have instant revives and we'd be playing Urban PK. And how are you having trouble finding a revive? I have The Big Bash in my group heading and have no problems. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:11, 22 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Hey Iscariot? ==<br />
Hope you realize that I don't actually hold anything against you personally, despite that we might have... spirited... arguments and debates on talk:discussion, k?<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*pause*</nowiki><br />
<br />
Oh and 28 days later is a hard science fiction zombie movie, and zombies are dead, not undead. :) --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 20:36, 19 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:If you think those are spirited arguments then you live a very sheltered life <nowiki>:P</nowiki><br />
<br />
:Zombies are undead, dead things don't move around, zombies do. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:45, 19 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
(gasp) Iscariot.... Are you... are you no longer the ultimate dupe finding machine? Gatehouse View? I rely on your counsel in all matters dupe-finding! :) Or did you not feel that was a dupe because of the lack of suicide ability? Did you fail me because I haven't gotten you the Doomsday girl yet - I'm trying, I swear. She isn't returning any of the calls. Thanks :) --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 15:09, 22 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:You doubt me? The Patron Saint of Dupes? I shall smite thee with terrible vengeance and furious spamming, and ye shall know that I am Iscariot!<br />
<br />
:I've had a busy week at work and most of my spare time has been spent watching Jericho. It's also a dupe of something in PR, I don't go there by and large, it's full of either sensible ideas, or ones more retarded than the ones in Rejected. Yes, keep working on my pretty thing, you aren't trying hard enough. :P You may substitute Cristina Scabbia if that's easier for you. <br />
<br />
:On the subject of films, the new Indiana Jones is ''god awful'', avoid at all costs. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:29, 24 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Group Deletion ==<br />
<br />
Hey. We no longer delete defunt group pages. As long as no one claims that name for themselves, these group pages can stay there forever. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 20:02, 15 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Re: Keep Votes==<br />
There is a small box next to the votes that says:<br/><br />
''Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.''<br/><br />
No matter if it's a keep, kill or spam, "THIS GIVES ME A GIRLBONER" doesn't really count as a justification and (as I also put in my reasoning) inane. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 19:54, 15 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Mall Tunes==<br />
Hey Iscariot, I realize that this has been an issue in the past, but is there any way that we could keep the Mall Tunes section on the giddings page?[[User:William Joel|William Joel]] 21:07, 13 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
are you refering to the whole happykook thing?[[User:William Joel|William Joel]] 00:19, 16 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Ok you win==<br />
I am not going to post anymore on the Bayonet Suggestion. Reading back over everything I think I have been too defensive. So, I came here to say I was sorry. I was incorrect that a "blood groove" assists in the removal of a bayonet from a target. Ok, I was wrong. It is there to reduce the weight of the blade. I am not looking to have problems with you, so I am dropping this issue. As I see it, we had a difference of opinions and that is it. From here on out, I have no issues with you. --{{:User:Airborne88/sig}} 01:26, 8 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Thanks!==<br />
That little rat is sooo cute! And thanks for the message =) That video is hilarious, Rex Manning....total douchebag! Actually, kinda reminds me of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbk6kExKf2Q Gunther], ooooh you touch my tra la la --[[User:Fifth Element|Fifth Element]] 09:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Monroeville==<br />
Dear Iscariot , first i would like to thank you for fixing the PPD wiki page. I'm a newbie when it comes to editing the pages but am trying my best . Concerning the target list for WTE our scouts have been in certain areas witnessing and takeing survivor evidence of attacks . I ADMIT we have no proof of it being you guys . It has been speculation so far, as you guys are the most organized in this burb. Concerning this and pov, i will try and tone down the messages left on the burb page . But if you'd like to just tell us where you are to confirm our sightings we will gladly bring donuts ,coffee and little tents for when you are sieging buildings .Hope to keep in touch.--[[User:Flub|Flub]] 13:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
==Your arby against happykook==<br />
please, plenty of arbitrators hav offered to arbitrate your case. Please, list all those whom you would agree to arbitrate the case. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:yeah, totally missed it. Next time move the arbitration to the proper page once you have decided on an arbitrator. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 23:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
::The case has started. Please prepare your opening statement.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 09:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Giddings==<br />
I've locked the page to stop the revert war that has sprung up and I request that you and Happykook take the matter to arbitration to sort this out. Until it is sorted, after I unlock the page, neither of you is to restore or remove the tunes until a ruling is reached on the matter. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:I'm going to ask that you leave Happykooks edits alone for just now. I don't want this to boil over. Please could one of you bring an arby case so we can begin getting this mess sorted out. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Please leave his edit to the Danger Report stand for now. This needs to be sorted out as I can tell that if it's not, this is going to turn into an all out flame war, which we really don't need. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::I know. I'm asking this so that we can avoid name calling and accusations for the time being. Could one of you please make an Arby case so that an arbitrator can get this sorted out. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
You have been served an Arbitration Case by Happykook. I personally will be willing to arbitrate (if you are willing) as I have a clear knowledge of the case and know the grievances of both sides. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:You'll need to pick another arbitrator as Karek has withdrawn an offer. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 20:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Aye I'm off the table, however I do recommend you reconsider both Hagnat and Seventythree, they are two users that I would trust to arbitrate a case I'm involved in and I have little doubt they would attempt to settle the dispute in a neutral and proper manner.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Have a template==<br />
<br />
{{Template:Killitforward}}<br />
<br />
Thought Id return the favour. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Damn the Man! ==<br />
<br />
are you perhaps an Empire fan? ;) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:'shock me shock me shock me with that consistent behaviour'. you said it regarding survivors voting on some suggestion... :P good to find a fellow lover. There's a complete script someone on the net that i occasionally flick through just to amuse myself. We should def get an empire template going...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah i used to think that SexyRexy was named after THE sexy rexy, not some random nfl player...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::{{Empire Records}}<br />
:::And don't thank me, thank [[User:Fifth Element|Gina]] ;) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==More A/VB==<br />
A few points:<br />
#Sign your posts<br />
#Present accurate diff comparisons. Skipping revisions in diffs without providing a damned good explaination as to why is extremely deceptive and is usually an attempt to get another person in trouble for impersonation when none has happened.<br />
#A/VB is not for asking about things. Go to the talk page of another sysop, or the A/VB '''talk page''' to make requests, otherwise it will be seen as a charge and dealt with appropriately. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==A/VB==<br />
"''I'm asking for nothing short of a perma-ban.''"... seeing we didn't permban him, does that mean you refuse to accept the warning? ;) Just a little tip, don't tell the sysops what their decisions should be, or you'll end up being called a back seat mod. BTW, what's happening with the arby case? Chimera gone into hiding or summit? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 08:20 31 January 2008 (BST)</small><br />
:It was late over here, and in typical zed style I was eating harmans and washing it down with a brew of known provenance (Caffery's if you're interested). I just hate sore losers who go for juvenile insults when they've got nothing else. Did you see us doing the same when the Bash stalled? <br />
<br />
:I haven't heard anything from Chimera, I shall check the precedent in such circumstance tonight and try and get this moving again. -- [[User:Iscariot|Iscariot]] 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Arbitration==<br />
Thanks for your message. I am a new wiki user, and I am totally unfamiliar with the arbitration process. Could you possibly provide a little guidance for me? I'm not sure where to find the rules and policies. I'm also not sure how I'm supposed to go about choosing the best arbitrator, for all I have to go on right now are user profiles. Is there a way for me to access their past decisions? Thanks! --[[User:Chimera|Chimera]] 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Looks like Chimera has accepted you, as have I <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:08 25 January 2008 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
==Sorry.==<br />
<br />
I was looking at those proposals, really liked what I saw, but was put off by the bad use of punctuation. As such, I corrected them in order to make the page look more presentable. I was unaware that this was considered vandalism, and therefore apologise for my actions. [[User:Magnum Odus|Magnum Odus]] 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for the rat! ==<br />
<br />
I appreciate it. --[[User:SexyRexyGrossman|Sexy Rexy Grossman]] 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== An alternative point of view. ==<br />
<br />
Just reading your comments on siege descriptions.<br />
<br />
Shaun of the dead. None to start with, but when david says there was only a couple before you came here, how many are there here now and di says "lots". You CAN hear moaning and some glass breaking.<br />
<br />
Also how about in the winchester after Ed wins the jackpot on Ooh Aah Dracula, and you hear all the zombies groaning before they attack, or before they break through into the celler?<br />
<br />
28 days later is not a zombie film. Sorry.<br />
<br />
Resident evil. Can't hear the zombies inside the red queens control area. An underground bunker, with laser defences, where even the glass walls of the flooded lab let through only a dull thump and are strong enough to hold back the weight of an entire room of water.. Thats a secret base, under the ground. Designed specially to stop outbreaks moving between sections. So I assume soundproof.<br />
<br />
Day of the dead. When outside you can hear them. When down a lift, across a car park and into an underground lab. No sound. That isnt the same kind of distance as the otherside of a hastily barricaded door to a mall.<br />
<br />
I of course understand your no x ray vision argument and in all honestly its probably a bad time to suggest it 38% zombies and all that. But hey. opinions.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
:OK, let's see:<br />
:SOTD - I'd be putting that down to him just having gotten in with the window still open, how many can you hear when Shaun and Liz are talking things over or when they're talking about Shaun getting them satellite?<br />
:28 Days Later - Really? I'd love to hear your explanations for this one, as, not to put too fine a point on it, I know film scholars who disagree with you.<br />
:Resident Evil - If it was designed to stop infection spreading, RQ wouldn't have killed everyone in the entire base. Also you can't hear the zombies 'sneak up' on them in the underground walkway until they attack.<br />
:Day of The Dead - Exactly, you're outside, if survivors go outside in UD they get the information this gives for free, I have no problem, but the action of going outside costs AP. Also in Dawn they are on the other side of a hastily barricaded door in a mall and can't hear a thing....<br />
<br />
:Barring us disagreeing on our definition of hastily, a fine reposte sir. Good to see that discussion is still alive.<br />
<br />
28 days later is not a zombie film because.<br />
<br />
* No one says zombie<br />
* Headshots are not required, see various machete attacks, land mines.<br />
* The infected are not dead. Otherwise why would they starve "to death".<br />
* Its a blood transmitted infection, and spit and vomit. Its seems strange to me that the blood of the infected would be so fresh. Are the hearts still pumping?<br />
* The zombie soldier was knocked out, before being tied up. Ever see a zombie knocked out?<br />
* Look at the corpses in the film. The heros parents, those in the cafe, nothing like the infected who barring their eyes, have a very alive appearance.<br />
* As the taxi driver is infected, he slowly looses control of his actions. Hes not alive, then dead and then back, its a gradual process as the virus takes over his body. <br />
* The infected dont consume flesh, they are only infected with rage, the need to infect others, there is no feeding dynamic. Biting is not key.<br />
* The animal welfare people seeing the monkeys believe them to be fine.<br />
* In the sequel theres a women who has the disease, but appears normal. How can she be dead? <br />
* The Infected? Does that imply dead? Or an active carrier?<br />
<br />
Have a present. {{Template:Zombie Nazi}}<br />
<br />
Now, you can argue its a very zombieish film. But its really a viral outbreak film like quatermass or outbreak. I love monkeys.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh and do you have the DVD? Look at the alternative storyboard ending. where cillian murphy undergoes a complete blood transfusion with the taxi driver to bring him bank and condemn cillian to the life of an infected. That shows he isnt dead. No dead = no zombie.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I need to mention that actually, 28 Days Later (and the sequel, 28 Weeks Later) -are- zombie films .... but only in the same way that I am Legend is a zombie film. It's a 'hard science' version of the zombie film genre, where they are not actually referred to 'as' zombies and they don't share one Romero zombie similarity - ie, they are not dead. Hard Science Fiction tends to try to do things in a way which is scientifically still plausible - having the dead actually come back to life is not plausible in a realistic setting, but having a population being in a state that mimics a zombified state for all practical purposes IS plausible, hence hard science fiction. It's worth noting that real life cases of 'zombies' in the carribean are also not dead, but rather 'bereft of any will of their own'. But other than the not being dead part, the infected in 28 days later (and I am Legend, and The Omega Man) are zombies, and all three movies are still classified as zombie movies (even the authors of the books which those movies were based on stated that it fell into the zombie genre).--[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 18:15, 8 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==REing==<br />
Hey. Listen. Next time the discussion gets moved to the talk page, can you just continue it there? --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
:I was expanding my vote, as allowed, for when Kevan would ready that since unfortunately it's heading into PR. It wasn't really discussion, just an expansion and clarification of what I'd already said. But cheers for the multiple fixes. -- [[User:Iscariot|Iscariot]] 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
==Congrats!==<br />
[[A.L.I.C.E.]] has promoted you to Rank 2 (Recon Scout), as you have posted over 25 scans to date for [[NecroWatch]] since January 1st, 2007! You are free to update your NecroBadges template to Rank=2. Also, as the members listed is sorted by rank, and then user name's alphabetically, you user name is currently at the top of the list. Enjoy. :) --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Extra congrats are in order. Your report from the Latrobe Building has earned you the "Labtrobe Honorary" ribbon medal. Be sure to set NW-LH=X to display your new ribbon. Enjoy. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Welcome!==<br />
As per your interest in joining NecroWatch, please place the following templates on your userpage (or one specific to your character helping collect scans, your choice):<br />
<br />
<nowiki>{{NecroWatch|Name=Iscariot}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>{{NecroBadges|Name=Iscariot|Rank=1|ReconRank=|NW-ASE=X|NW-GR=|NW-LH=|NW-EV=|NW-BW=|NW-BTD=|NW-ETD=|NW-MHTD=X|NW-MTD=|NW-PTD=|NW-MR=}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
As per your recent accomplishments, you have earned 2 ribbon medals so far (the "All-Seeing Eye" & the "Millen Hills Tour of Duty" medals) and are on your way to earning NecroTechnician - Rank 2. Good luck. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[NecroWatch|Project NecroWatch]]==<br />
{| style="border:solid #CC0000 3px; width:750px; background-color:#000000"<br />
|-<br />
| rowspan=2 valign="top"| [[Image:ALICE.png|100px]] || style="background:#CC0000; color:#E1A201; font-size: 125%; font-family: Courier New" align="center"| '''A.L.I.C.E. - NecroNet 2.0'''<br />
|-<br />
| style="font-size: small; font-family: Courier New; color:#E1A201" |Greetings {{PAGENAME}}. I have observed your recent interest in '''Project NecroWatch'''. Do not be alarmed. I have analyzed your potential and determined that you would make a perfect test subj<<ERROR>> NecroTechnician. As an organization, NecroWatch requires absolutely no "group" affiliation or commitments, thus freeing you to act according to your own motives, desires, and goals. The only requirement from you as a NecroTechnician is the task of reporting NecroNet scans from facilities within your suburb(s). Even then you would have the choice of how often you complete this task or which facilities you would prefer to work with. If you are interested in joining all you need to do is confirm your membership by [[Talk:NecroWatch/Team#Join_NecroWatch..._NOW!|<font color="#E1A201">signing up here</font>]]. Starting on January 1st 2008 all NecroNet scans reported to NecroWatch by licensed NecroTechnicians will count towards [[NecroWatch/Team#Ranks|<font color="#E1A201">ranks</font>]] with the ultimate prize of earning [[:Template:Cake4Me|<font color="#E1A201">delicious cake</font>]].<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Welcomenewbie}}--[[User:Druuuuu|Druuuuu]] <sup style="font-size:70%">[[User:Druuuuu/Ocular|Oc]][[User talk:Druuuuu|T]][[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 18:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&diff=1383994UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct2009-02-10T04:24:02Z<p>Liberty: /* Helpful Access Header */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here. <br />
<br />
==Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting==<br />
The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct '''must''' be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.<br />
<br />
Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that ''is'' misconduct, and should be reported to this page. <br />
<br />
There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.<br />
<br />
All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, ''not'' the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
==Administrative Abilities==<br />
For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):<br />
<br />
* Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.<br />
* Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct<br />
* Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.<br />
* Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).<br />
* Warning users reported in [[A/VB|Vandal Banning]].<br />
* Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.<br />
* Editing of Protected pages by any means.<br />
* Research IP activity using the [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]] extension.<br />
* (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.<br />
<br />
If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]] or [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]].<br />
<br />
==Example of Misconduct Proceedings==<br />
<br />
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|Logs]] show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:::I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::::As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==<br />
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|Administration Staff]] has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over [[UDWiki:Misconduct]] and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.<br />
<br />
Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.<br />
<br />
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==<br />
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. --><br />
===[[User:Boxy|Boxy]]===<br />
Clearly showed on [[User_talk:Suicidalangel#Team_Angel_Sigs|SA's talk page]] that he's fine with SA's current sig which is just as repetitive as reads, and actually violates the sig policy by linking to another user. Read never reverted his sig to it's previous form, always altering it and engaged in discussion to see how he could fit it in to make all users happy, this he didn't actually need to do as '''at no point did his sig violate policy'''. Instead of having this chance he was banned by hagnat, twice. Now a user boxy likes comes along and does the same thing, however he is given a chance to alter his sig and is even allowed to remain with a policy violating sig. Boxy is showing clear bias towards someone he is chummy with which is not ok for a trusted user.<br />
<br />
From this i want read's ban reverted and hagnat misconducted for issuing a ban against someone for doing something that boxy has clearly demonstrated he feels is okay. Failing that i want to see SA alter his sig so that it is not repetitive, long or linking to Nubis. Either way boxy should be warned to demonstrate the community will not tolerate bias in its sysops.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====First Response====<br />
This isn't arbies J3d. If Boxy is guilty of Misconduct he'll be judged so and any punishment therein will be to affect Boxy exclusively. If you beleive the Nubis/SA sig to be vandalism you'll have to address that there. As of this moment I beleive the actions to be questionable but won't rule either way until I've seen some discussion on the issue. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 04:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I removed those spaces, but them back if you want them but i didn't see why they were there...i don't think the sig is vandalism, however by boxy showing he is aware of the sig and not reporting it he is saying he thinks SAs and by extension reads sigs are both fine. Classic catch 22.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
Sigh. In both cases, the person reverting the sig did the same thing, fixed a sig that was a significantly confusing to others, and asked the person with the offending sig not to do it again. Reads response was to make his sig shorter, but still with the same level of confusion... only after he had been escalated and taken to A/VB did Read decide to make his user page link easy to find amongst the other junk links. Angels first response was to bold the link to his user page so that it stood out from the rest of the sig. If Angels first response was further use of his obviously, and deliberately confusing sig, my next stop would indeed have been A/VB.<br />What J3D sees as bias caused by me, is in fact a bias caused by Read's behaviour. He gets in A/VB trouble more often, not because I'm out to "get him", but because of his actions in deliberately seeking out such drama <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 07:22 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:If you admit that Read willingly changed to make it clear it was him signing once it was apparently most of the community found it confusing then why exactly did you support him being banned for a week? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Because he only did it ''after'' it got sent to A/VB. He was being a totally unreasonable wikilawyer up to that point. Too late being reasonable, showing his bad faith <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 07:32 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::It seems likely to me read not unreasonably thought you were targeting him and thus was reluctant to change his sig substantially, the a/vb case drew his attn to the fact that the community as a whole thought it was too confusing. Then he tried to change it but was banned before he was given a proper chance as per the sig policy. The point is the basic right of one week to get it in line afforded to SA was not afforded to read. Furthermore you seem to think the line for what is okay for each of them is totally different, hence bias.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::J3D don't be a fucking retard: ''the a/vb case drew his attn to the fact that the community as a whole thought it was too confusing'' the case was posted by '''Hagnuts''' not some random member of the community complaining about about it. It was posted by a sysop that decided he wanted to ban him over it and then did so. If some random schmuck had posted the case and a few people said "yeah, his sig bugs me" then your comment would be true. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::SA didn't get a week to change it, I did it immediately on the promotions page, and then within minutes he'd made his userpage link stand out <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:04 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::What's missing here is the relevance of the previous case which shows him exactly what is up to the standard. You assuming SA was simply more reasonable shining Read in a worse light because he had less information, information that arises directly from the case you're disparaging him for. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Enough of this merde. If Read's sig is "broken", so is SA's. I think that's a reasonable consistency to expect. However, there is/has been a HUGE difference in ''attitude'' and ''behavior'' between SLR and SA. The latter was trolling, pure and simple... the boy has a history of doing such thing... and that's why he was "picked on" and "singled out"... But if you think SA's sig is out of line, J3D, then report it to VB. Kay? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::And that right there is the huge difference between SA's case and Read's. Read was actually reported to VB. SA was not. <br />
:::::::J3D, I sympathize with you. I clearly think Read's ban was misconduct and he should have been given the full week to change his sig regardless of his actions. However, boxy isn't doing anything "wrong" here that involves his ''sysop powers'', therefor no misconduct case. No one reported SA on A/VB so he wasn't being biased in a decision. If anything he may have been negligent by not reporting him, except that that isn't misconduct any more than not reporting vandalism is vandalism. <br />
:::::::You should have made a VB case and watched to see how he ruled before leaping here to A/M.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::The reason that isn't an option for me is that i believe the 2 sigs are very similar and that neither are vandalism. As boxy thinks the first one was vandalism i would expect him to think the same of the second, hence this case and not A/VB.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Also, even if SA had been reported he would have only gotten a warning.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
''"What J3D sees as bias caused by me, '''is in fact a bias caused by Read's behaviour'''."'' - Admission of bias. There should be no bias for or against any user on this wiki. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You're one to talk about being biased! You have zero trust in the sysop team based on their past actions and even when they attempt to defuse the situation with you, you just can't let the past go. And if you attempt to come back at me with the ''they're trusted users, we must hold them to higher standards'' bullshit, then you will just acknowledge your bias.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Bias doesn't just mean the way you behave towards users that don't kiss your ass Iscariot but you know that, you also know that Boxy means that Read has shown a predilection towards abuse in this manner and that was being taken into consideration. I'm also pretty sure we've talked to you about trolling admin pages and yet here you are doing it with an argument a 5th grader could see through. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature. <br />
<br />
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature". <br />
<br />
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from. <br />
::And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.<br />
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.<br />
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--{{User:The General/sig}} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::So now redundant links are against policy? When did ''that'' happen? There is nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.<br />
<br />
::::::Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the only ''crime'' i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "''1/6 of the links to his user page''" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of ''punishment'' for when i come back. Até mais. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Conndraka Break====<br />
'''Not Misconduct''' Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) <sub> who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely) </sub><br />
<br />
All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a ''vandalism case'' will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.<br />
<br />
Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig ''is'' vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB ''properly''. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually, see [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned]]. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per [[UDWiki:Vandalism]]. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, '''a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct''', provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It also says that ''The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals.'' Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you feel this way, perhaps you will find [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Introduction|this section]] of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: ''"Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it"''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Karek Break====<br />
'''Misconduct''' - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he ''does'' have a lot of cases.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_March_21|This one]], in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with ''a "real" escalation''. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007#2007.2C_September_15|Also]] this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case ''if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism'' because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
''What is this?!'' I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule ''Not Misconduct'' just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was '''nothing''' that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned|Yes, they can]]. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Notice how the guidelines specifically negate the whole of Kareks reason for misconducting, I quote "''a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]], as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''". Report/warning is not ground for misconduct, as long as the case is put on A/VB for review <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:22 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Because why the rule exists stops mattering when you can use it justify an argument that is otherwise baseless apparently. [[wikipedia:WP:GAME#Examples|#4]] Boxy, #4. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about "''system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''", and you've done nothing to show that the spirit of the policy is to only apply it to active vandals (other than to state that it's your opinion that it's so). Given your usual hard arsed attitude to Hagnat sticking to the letter of the policy, it's rather ironic that you want to burn him here when he did follow the letter of the policy (and was willing to reverse even that decision, something few sysops do) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Cute, if you want to play dumb to justify your stance I can deal with that, make me do more work to dig up discussion about the relevance of a rule along with it's use historically will take some time, like when I had to make that point with arbitration <small><small>Although we both know that I already made this point last time hagnat report warned a user and you dismissed it on the grounds of "I don't care we do it anyway" so I guess more links won't make you do anything but continue the stance of Fuck Due Process</small></small>. But, maybe you should keep in mind that he didn't follow the letter of the policy and that you're arguing he did on a completely unrelated policy as opposed to the one he actually ignored but was relevant to the case(Signature policy). I have no problem with Hagnat and I couldn't care less about the letter of policy if it is contrary to the purpose, I was with Grim before because Hagnat ignored both and it frequently led to him screwing stuff up, this time though it's irrelevant that it's Hagnat, what ''is'' relevant is that he banned a user illigitimately and you're covering his ass for it becuase you think the user is bad for the wiki and happen to be using every half assed trick in the book to back up your argument. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Actually you know what, Fuck it. If you're too stupid to realize that you don't ban a user without discussion then it's not worth my time and I can only say that the only good thing for this wiki you could do is put in for demotion. If this is seriously the learning curve here for generally good practice I think I'm about done with this place. It doesn't take an idiot to see that you couldn't care less about giving users a chance or that you're refusing to understand that just because he was a troll does not mean he doesn't deserve as much leway as the rest of the user base. I can only hope for future users sake that you do eventually realize that it is abuse of the position and policy to attempt to use vague "loopholes" in one policy to justify ignoring another policy, especially in cases where the sysop is obviously acting in a petty manner. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Zombie Slayer/Suicidalangel Break====<br />
'''Misconduct''' - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct'''. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read '''didn't''' revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban ''after'' it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Verdict====<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - by a 4 to 3 vote. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::He's done this "one thing" multiple times, and to mention he's been misconducted and "punished" over 7 times in the past three years, and not to mention he's been in this place for cases against him 20 or so times.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You can't count the 20 cases against him due to the fact that anything posted on here is considered a case and there are/were some post happy people that thought file Misconduct first, ask about it later. However, I will give you the 7 cases. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Oh, Iw asn;t counting them against him. I was just saying he's on this page ''a lot'', whether he deserved it or not.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::One thing this time. In true hagnat fashion he's only done one thing wrong at a time. A quick flick over his record shows a trend towards getting ahead of himself. Not that i actually want hagnat demoted of course.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::then why did you call for his demotion?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::coz i think he should be demoted, but at the same time i don't want the entire sysop team to be teamboxy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Am I teamboxy? Because I don't really know who I'm teamed up with these days. Everyone seems to be pissing me off lately. :) Except for you and Bob and your undying love for each other. That's my beautiful oasis in this wiki desert. [[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Can I have a teamangel?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I'll join Team Angel. But we need cool matching sigs or something.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::You pick the sigs. Team Angel, ASSEMBLE!--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::You can't have nubis, he's in teamboxy along with karek and err, boxy. Together they control teh wikiz! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::"teamboxy" doesn't even think Hags did anything wrong from the start.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::teamboxy don't want hagnat off the team and neither do i. teamboxy and 2 special in this instance are in agreeance. In regards to misconduct occuring here, they aren't.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<s>'''Misconduct''' because he jumped the gun. He definitely should have waited till the week had passed. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s> Actually, I've changed my mind. '''Not Misconduct'''. I've re-read both the vandal case and this case a couple of times and come to the conclusion that Hagnat was within his right to ban SLR for the week. The main reason is that because Hagnat provided Read with a polite request to fix his sig, which was then ignored and Read replaced the policy breaking sig. If a user breaks a polite warning, they show they are acting in bad faith (in this case ruled Vandalism by the majority of the sysop team) and receive the next vandal escalation which is what Hagnat did. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I'm sorry, but '''where the fuck are you people getting the idea that he replaced his policy breaking sig?''' Do I have to spell it out for you all, edit by edit, where he tried multiple times to bring it into the rules? The first time, he shortened it, trying to bring it into the rules, makign it easier to find his user page in the links. The second time, he made his user link very noticable. Trying to bring it within the rules. He '''never''' reverted it back to its original form, always showed good faith in trying to brign it within the boundries, while still having the sig he wanted. He even fixed the problem Hagnat used as banning him. Come the fuck on people, don't let Hagnat get away scot free because he's part of your damned in-crowd. He fucked up, you all know it. Now fucking admit it. Jesus.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376689&oldid=1374198 This is the only edit] that is relevant to the warning (the one where he did make it somewhat obvious came ''after'' hagnat unbanned him). That is an absolutely minor improvement. You still have to mouseover heaps of individual letters to find the user page link. Read admitted he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system gaming the system] ("''you are all fags who cant handle anyone who [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 finds a policy loophole and exploits it]''") <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:32 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Yeah? Minor improvement or not, he ''still'' tried to fix the problem (albeit smaller chunks at a time), and Hagnat ''still'' was trigger happy with the banhammer. That fact is still there.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It went through [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Sexylegsread|A/VB]], and was found to be vandalism, and the ban was reinstated. You might have a point if Hagnat had actually got it wrong. You may feel it was a harsh punishment for such a minor piece of vandalism, but the next escalation had to be the ban, regardless of severity. Perhaps it's time for Read to put in a few months of contributative edits and wash off a few of his escalations, eh, instead of simply coming here to get involved in drama <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:01 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Reinstated. Right. Not to mention the fact that the ban is still illegitimate as ''SLR never got his one week to fix it''. Sig policy: "warned once and asked to change it. The user has '''one week to comply'''". He ''tried''. Honestly, if this wasn't SLR, you guys would have been helping the user figure out exactly what to do with his sig to bring it in-line, and yet still keep as close to as the original as possible. But it's him, especially on a somewhat vague part of the guidelines, and even though he tries to rectify his mistake while still trying to keep as much of his sig as possible (like '''most''' users would) he gets pwnt for a week, with no consultation from anyone else from the admin team. But its cool. Let Hagnat just keep getting away with shit, when you said it your self in his last promotions bid that he's not doing the job like it's supposed to be done.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::'''Boxy:''' Funny thing about that boxy. You just made the point why ''this is misconduct''. Hagnat acted recklessly with the early ban before there were legitimate grounds to view the edit as bad faith, he acted unnecessairally and had Sexylegsread never been unbanned he would never have been punished. Hagnat's actions show exaclty why report-escalations are misconduct when used in cases where the user is not actively vandalising the wiki. Hagnat got it wrong because he acted preemptively and ''we can not do that'', especially when there is an actual attempt to follow the policies as exist as there was with Read(his talk page is where the case should have stayed for at least the week). The sig policy outlines how we are supposed to treat cases like this, it was currently being discussed on Reads talk page<sub>(a discussion which you participated in and took his side on if you do remember)</sub>, Hagnat saw people complaining and proactively reverted it <sub>(something that could easily have led to a semi-legitimate VB case had Read not responded)</sub>, Read altered his sig reducing the number of ds in an attempt to fit it through the "loophole", Hagnat, instead of telling him that it still wasn't OK and furthering the discussion ''that was already taking place'' <underline>assumed</underline> any disagreement with his preemptive and improper actions to be in bad faith instead of an attempt to remain in the rules while being annoying and banned him. ''Even though'' the discussion on his talk page made it clear it wasn't a simple straight forward case by any means, ''even though'' Read was already being talked to about it and given the chance to resolve it without an escalation, and ''even though'' Hagnat himself was overstepping the bounds of courtesy on the wiki in the first place. In the process it led to a case where Hagnat himself decided that the ban was improper and was followed up by unbanning him(although poorly) in addition to at least two Not Vandalism verdicts. ''The only reason this ended up being a Vandalism Verdict is Read shot himself in the foot during the legitimate process that should have taken place in the first place''. You can't logically argue that this is in any way incorrect because Read was found after the fact to be acting in bad faith, that's a logical fallacy, he never would have been found to be acting in bad faith if he hadn't been unbanned, this case ''was made before he was found to be a vandal'', this action is misconduct. The more ironic bit is you're arguing the purpose of the week for the Sig policy on the A/VB page as justification for the ban but aruging ''against'' what we know to be the purpose of the report-escalate policy for the same reason. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::'''Cheese:''' Incorrect, ''I'' provided Read with a polite request and [[User_talk:Sexylegsread#Ugh|some discussion as to what was wrong with the sig]], Hagnat just came by and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376612&oldid=1374198 edited it without discussion]. The difference? Well, if someone did the same to me I would do the same thing Read did because an actual discussion was going on, it's not only rude but it's completely against everything that we always do when dealing with this stuff. The only times someone is justified in doing something like that is in a case where it is actually breaking wiki pages or crashing them entirely<sub>(''both'' things have happend)</sub>. You also need to keep in mind that Read's actions that lead to the ban in question here ''were in fact ruled Not Vandalism by a majority at the time'', he wasn't punished for having a sig that breaks policy but rather why he made the sig, he also wasn't punished for reverting the sig because he was completely in his rights to do that and anything different shows altered treatment of a vandal after the fact. He wasn't a vandal when this case was made, he wasn't escalated for what Hagnat banned him for, and for that matter Hagnat did the equivalent of the O'Reilly Mic Cut, he reverted, Read tried to bring it within policy(even though he was still breaking the policy), and instead of discussing what was wrong with the new sig Hagnat simply banned him. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Sure is butthurt around here. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I assume that everyone is at the very least in agreement that he should serve at the very least a ban in equal time to the pre-emptive ban read served? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:A ban, plus a reminder that this behavior is definitely bad, and can lead to his sysops powers being removed. Also, this is the reminder. :). Is Team Angel (Consists of me. Nubis nevar made our official bff sigs. :'(...)in agreement with the ten hour ban?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Umm If I'm counting corectly, with Cheese Changing his mindits 4-3 for Not Misconduct therefore no Ban at all for Hagnat. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:As long as no more sysops vote misconduct - which looks unlikely that they will. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:''Me waits for the expected fastarchive attempt from Conndraka''. And even then are you seriously of the mind that Hagnat shouldn't even serve the initial ban that he himself repealed to allow for the case to actually take place? Even I would expect better than that from you.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::1st I wouldn't do a fast archive of anything I try to wait 24 hours after the last constructive edit to archive...and I rarely archive anything anymore. 2nd If the case comes down to misconduct then yea, I agree that a ban equal to the one issued to read before would be an appropriate punishment...IF I agreed that it was misconduct, which I don't for previously stated reasons. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
:::Really though there are two problems with that. The first being that you're not taking into account Hagnat's actions when saying he was acting in good faith as a sysop. Acting in good faith would be through the rational and common channels all users are expected to go through in a process like this, he bypassed those to simply revert the edit with no attempt at explanation as to why and then to ban when Read did what any reasonable user would do. Hagnat actually did something we normally dismiss cases of but beacuse he was a sysop he abused a loophole so that the case wouldn't be dismissed by whoever ruled. Second is that your using a rule that exists completely and exclusively for dealing with [[User:3pwv|this]] to be used to deal with [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:Conndraka|this]]. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's actually '''4/4'''. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::He's not counthing nubis because nubis made the case. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Could it be unbolded then? I dare not do it myself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::He wasn't actually voting, he was summarizing what was the verdict of the case at that time. Although I can certainly see where the confusion comes from. Unbolding for now. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Isn't Nubis the 4th Misconduct? Boxy '''NM''', The General '''NM''', Con '''NM''', Karek '''M''', ZS '''M''', SA '''M''', Nubis '''M''', Cheese '''NM''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::I should be since I clearly consider this Misconduct. There is nothing that says I can't rule on a case I brought up either otherwise why would any sysop ever post a case? I understand that you can't vote on a case against you (even though it isn't spelled out in the rules) but to preclude a sysop from voting on case because they made it is stupid. If we can rule on VB cases that we post then I sure as hell can vote on this. Otherwise, I'll hijack Wiki Martyr and post cases.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Yes, that's why I counted you (or were you talking to Karek?) :p <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:18 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::::After 3 colons my counting gets off. Sorry. :) It was directed at Karek. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::I threw the bold back in then. Sorry Karek. And Nubis of course. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::Because we pretty much never count the reporter if they're a sysop. A quick jaunt through Hagnat's A/M archive would show as much. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::But that doesn't make any sense not to count the reporter if they are a sysop. I know Grim would make a big show about ''I'm not going to vote because I brought the case'' but you know he only brought the case because he didn't want it to get missed and he was too proud to have an alt account to post it. Not to mention he was trying to seem like he was taking the high road even though he was the petty one that jumped on all mistakes. (I'm still bitter)[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::As much as it will mean Hagnat will get away with yet another account of misconduct, I don't think there's any justification to allow the party that starts the case to rule on its outcome. Such rulings are inherently biased (you brought the case so must think it's misconduct) and lead to mechanics in the system that allow for easy witch hunts to occur. I was about to bring this case myself before you did Nubis, so we do agree, however ruling on a case you have brought is fundamentally wrong. I also added an extra header to break up the case as the file size warning was in effect when I clicked edit. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::: ''Holy shit..Hell's freezing over. I agree with Iscariot (damned edit conflicted me too)''If I recall...we have always assumed a vested interest caveat when considering the reporter. i.e. If we as sysops report misconduct we don't typically count the vote of the filer unless there is a tie among the other sysops...its sort of like considering whom ever files the case is the prosecutor. Can't be both prosecutor and Jury at the same time...normally. I'm thinking this is something we need to codify though for future reference. Its been a while since we did one of those sysop only-vote/determinations. I nominate Karek to come up with the wording. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::Not allowing the reporting sysop to vote is just plain stupid. It's remarkably stupid in a case like this which was going to be brought here anyway. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::Surely Sysops are often in a better position to spot misconduct than regular users.. after all they do (supposedly) know what standards they are meant to abide by and many seem to be logged on more often than they sleep. Barring a sysop from ruling on cases like this could well encourage them to wait for others to report things or even worse to use stooges to make reports for them and neither of those is going to give the community the impression that the sysops are doing their job well.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::::I got to agree here with Honest and Mid, guys. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::::Me also. There is little difference between Nubis posting this case and a regular user, it is idiotic to forbid him from voting in it. We know if he didn't post this then J3D most certainly would have anyway. And when should such a little difference as reporting, become such a big difference as the whole outcome of the case? {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::::::Whne the rest of the Sysops team is trying their hardest to let their friend go unpunished. :) --BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 06:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
I would like to point out that Zinker was given multiple chances to change his templated sig even when it broke the rules harder than Reads did. Hell, Boxy even let him have another chance even though his next step would have been a 48 hour ban I think.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Even if Nubis' vote is counted that still leaves the case at a tie. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Helpful Access Header====<br />
So...when is an official verdict going to be made here?--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 08:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:By the look of it... never. Unless the Crats care to step in and rule? Actually is that allowed?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, bureaucrats don't have any power over sysops aside from the ability to promote/demote users. Nice try though. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::: ''"Bureaucrats can do everything that sysops can do, but can, in addition, promote and demote users to sysop status."'' That is from the Admin Guidelines is it such a leap to say that they cannot interfere here, after all they can demote so i can see an argument for them being able to act as tie breakers.?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It is "such a leap". --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::If Crats were able to "interfere" in here then there would HAVE to be a special procedure for bringing cases against them since the other Crat could just step in and say not misconduct. There isn't. They can't. Don't give them any more ideas. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Oh, and nice try at what? I don't think I have said which way I think this should go.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:The vote is tied, therefore nothing can happen; in effect a Not Misconduct ruling. It's what's happened in every previous case where this has happened before, I see no reason why this one should be any different. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::And how many times has a tie happened before? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::There were a few that on skimming I couldn't determine an actual outcome when I was re-organizing. <br />
:::Why not have Rosslessness cast the deciding vote since he was sysop when the case started? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Interesting idea, but we could be waiting a while. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:The_PKer_Kers&diff=1382732Talk:The PKer Kers2009-02-08T08:43:56Z<p>Liberty: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Pls dont K me ==<br />
<br />
This would have to be the most amusing group name I've read since I've been here. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not to mention this line:<br />
<br />
{{Quote|The pker kers|honor to help you get revenge on those who do not follow the game rules}}<br />
<br />
Where does the game rules say that Pking is illegal-outside of zerging ''nothing'' is illegal (as in, can be banned for.) Things like [[Text Rape|text rape]] are <u>strongly</u> discouraged by the community-and [[Ban_In-Game_Rape#Official_response|Kevan]] (as well as zerging and impersonation.<br />
<br />
However, outside of paranoid survivors, Pking is just another part of the game, along with zombies and survivors.<br />
<br />
Now, just to clear this up (before I get called *gasp* a Pker,) I'm not against bounty hunting. Along with Pkers, they are part of a game. But having lines like the above will just get you drama. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== woop ==<br />
What's up, guyz? How's everything? {{User:Met fan/sig}} 04:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Is Linkthewindow giving you a hard time? He's just mad because he can't be as cool as you guys are. Also, he didn't have his daily helping of [[N00dles]] today. {{User:Met fan/sig}} 04:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::This group is so cool that the only reason you want to talk to them is to shamelessly advertise your webcomic? {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&diff=1381917UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct2009-02-07T05:10:31Z<p>Liberty: /* Hagnat */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here. <br />
<br />
==Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting==<br />
The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct '''must''' be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.<br />
<br />
Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that ''is'' misconduct, and should be reported to this page. <br />
<br />
There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.<br />
<br />
All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, ''not'' the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
==Administrative Abilities==<br />
For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):<br />
<br />
* Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.<br />
* Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct<br />
* Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.<br />
* Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).<br />
* Warning users reported in [[A/VB|Vandal Banning]].<br />
* Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.<br />
* Editing of Protected pages by any means.<br />
* Research IP activity using the [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]] extension.<br />
* (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.<br />
<br />
If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]] or [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]].<br />
<br />
==Example of Misconduct Proceedings==<br />
<br />
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|Logs]] show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:::I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::::As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==<br />
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|Administration Staff]] has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over [[UDWiki:Misconduct]] and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.<br />
<br />
Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.<br />
<br />
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==<br />
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. --><br />
===[[User:Boxy|Boxy]]===<br />
Clearly showed on [[User_talk:Suicidalangel#Team_Angel_Sigs|SA's talk page]] that he's fine with SA's current sig which is just as repetitive as reads, and actually violates the sig policy by linking to another user. Read never reverted his sig to it's previous form, always altering it and engaged in discussion to see how he could fit it in to make all users happy, this he didn't actually need to do as '''at no point did his sig violate policy'''. Instead of having this chance he was banned by hagnat, twice. Now a user boxy likes comes along and does the same thing, however he is given a chance to alter his sig and is even allowed to remain with a policy violating sig. Boxy is showing clear bias towards someone he is chummy with which is not ok for a trusted user.<br />
<br />
From this i want read's ban reverted and hagnat misconducted for issuing a ban against someone for doing something that boxy has clearly demonstrated he feels is okay. Failing that i want to see SA alter his sig so that it is not repetitive, long or linking to Nubis. Either way boxy should be warned to demonstrate the community will not tolerate bias in its sysops.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====First Response====<br />
This isn't arbies J3d. If Boxy is guilty of Misconduct he'll be judged so and any punishment therein will be to affect Boxy exclusively. If you beleive the Nubis/SA sig to be vandalism you'll have to address that there. As of this moment I beleive the actions to be questionable but won't rule either way until I've seen some discussion on the issue. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 04:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I removed those spaces, but them back if you want them but i didn't see why they were there...i don't think the sig is vandalism, however by boxy showing he is aware of the sig and not reporting it he is saying he thinks SAs and by extension reads sigs are both fine. Classic catch 22.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<br />
Sigh. In both cases, the person reverting the sig did the same thing, fixed a sig that was a significantly confusing to others, and asked the person with the offending sig not to do it again. Reads response was to make his sig shorter, but still with the same level of confusion... only after he had been escalated and taken to A/VB did Read decide to make his user page link easy to find amongst the other junk links. Angels first response was to bold the link to his user page so that it stood out from the rest of the sig. If Angels first response was further use of his obviously, and deliberately confusing sig, my next stop would indeed have been A/VB.<br />What J3D sees as bias caused by me, is in fact a bias caused by Read's behaviour. He gets in A/VB trouble more often, not because I'm out to "get him", but because of his actions in deliberately seeking out such drama <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 07:22 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:If you admit that Read willingly changed to make it clear it was him signing once it was apparently most of the community found it confusing then why exactly did you support him being banned for a week? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Because he only did it ''after'' it got sent to A/VB. He was being a totally unreasonable wikilawyer up to that point. Too late being reasonable, showing his bad faith <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 07:32 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::It seems likely to me read not unreasonably thought you were targeting him and thus was reluctant to change his sig substantially, the a/vb case drew his attn to the fact that the community as a whole thought it was too confusing. Then he tried to change it but was banned before he was given a proper chance as per the sig policy. The point is the basic right of one week to get it in line afforded to SA was not afforded to read. Furthermore you seem to think the line for what is okay for each of them is totally different, hence bias.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::SA didn't get a week to change it, I did it immediately on the promotions page, and then within minutes he'd made his userpage link stand out <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:04 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
''"What J3D sees as bias caused by me, '''is in fact a bias caused by Read's behaviour'''."'' - Admission of bias. There should be no bias for or against any user on this wiki. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You're one to talk about being biased! You have zero trust in the sysop team based on their past actions and even when they attempt to defuse the situation with you, you just can't let the past go. And if you attempt to come back at me with the ''they're trusted users, we must hold them to higher standards'' bullshit, then you will just acknowledge your bias.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Bias doesn't just mean the way you behave towards users that don't kiss your ass Iscariot but you know that, you also know that Boxy means that Read has shown a predilection towards abuse in this manner and that was being taken into consideration. I'm also pretty sure we've talked to you about trolling admin pages and yet here you are doing it with an argument a 5th grader could see through. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature. <br />
<br />
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature". <br />
<br />
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from. <br />
::And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.<br />
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.<br />
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--{{User:The General/sig}} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::So now redundant links are against policy? When did ''that'' happen? There is nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.<br />
<br />
::::::Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the only ''crime'' i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "''1/6 of the links to his user page''" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of ''punishment'' for when i come back. Até mais. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Conndraka Break====<br />
'''Not Misconduct''' Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) <sub> who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely) </sub><br />
<br />
All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a ''vandalism case'' will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.<br />
<br />
Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig ''is'' vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB ''properly''. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually, see [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned]]. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per [[UDWiki:Vandalism]]. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, '''a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct''', provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It also says that ''The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals.'' Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you feel this way, perhaps you will find [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Introduction|this section]] of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: ''"Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it"''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Karek Break====<br />
'''Misconduct''' - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he ''does'' have a lot of cases.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_March_21|This one]], in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with ''a "real" escalation''. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007#2007.2C_September_15|Also]] this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case ''if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism'' because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
''What is this?!'' I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule ''Not Misconduct'' just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was '''nothing''' that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned|Yes, they can]]. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Notice how the guidelines specifically negate the whole of Kareks reason for misconducting, I quote "''a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]], as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''". Report/warning is not ground for misconduct, as long as the case is put on A/VB for review <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:22 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Because why the rule exists stops mattering when you can use it justify an argument that is otherwise baseless apparently. [[wikipedia:WP:GAME#Examples|#4]] Boxy, #4. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about "''system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''", and you've done nothing to show that the spirit of the policy is to only apply it to active vandals (other than to state that it's your opinion that it's so). Given your usual hard arsed attitude to Hagnat sticking to the letter of the policy, it's rather ironic that you want to burn him here when he did follow the letter of the policy (and was willing to reverse even that decision, something few sysops do) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Cute, if you want to play dumb to justify your stance I can deal with that, make me do more work to dig up discussion about the relevance of a rule along with it's use historically will take some time, like when I had to make that point with arbitration <small><small>Although we both know that I already made this point last time hagnat report warned a user and you dismissed it on the grounds of "I don't care we do it anyway" so I guess more links won't make you do anything but continue the stance of Fuck Due Process</small></small>. But, maybe you should keep in mind that he didn't follow the letter of the policy and that you're arguing he did on a completely unrelated policy as opposed to the one he actually ignored but was relevant to the case(Signature policy). I have no problem with Hagnat and I couldn't care less about the letter of policy if it is contrary to the purpose, I was with Grim before because Hagnat ignored both and it frequently led to him screwing stuff up, this time though it's irrelevant that it's Hagnat, what ''is'' relevant is that he banned a user illigitimately and you're covering his ass for it becuase you think the user is bad for the wiki and happen to be using every half assed trick in the book to back up your argument. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Actually you know what, Fuck it. If you're too stupid to realize that you don't ban a user without discussion then it's not worth my time and I can only say that the only good thing for this wiki you could do is put in for demotion. If this is seriously the learning curve here for generally good practice I think I'm about done with this place. It doesn't take an idiot to see that you couldn't care less about giving users a chance or that you're refusing to understand that just because he was a troll does not mean he doesn't deserve as much leway as the rest of the user base. I can only hope for future users sake that you do eventually realize that it is abuse of the position and policy to attempt to use vague "loopholes" in one policy to justify ignoring another policy, especially in cases where the sysop is obviously acting in a petty manner. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Zombie Slayer/Suicidalangel Break====<br />
'''Misconduct''' - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct'''. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read '''didn't''' revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban ''after'' it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
====Verdict====<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - by a 4 to 3 vote. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::He's done this "one thing" multiple times, and to mention he's been misconducted and "punished" over 7 times in the past three years, and not to mention he's been in this place for cases against him 20 or so times.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You can't count the 20 cases against him due to the fact that anything posted on here is considered a case and there are/were some post happy people that thought file Misconduct first, ask about it later. However, I will give you the 7 cases. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Oh, Iw asn;t counting them against him. I was just saying he's on this page ''a lot'', whether he deserved it or not.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::One thing this time. In true hagnat fashion he's only done one thing wrong at a time. A quick flick over his record shows a trend towards getting ahead of himself. Not that i actually want hagnat demoted of course.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::then why did you call for his demotion?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::coz i think he should be demoted, but at the same time i don't want the entire sysop team to be teamboxy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Am I teamboxy? Because I don't really know who I'm teamed up with these days. Everyone seems to be pissing me off lately. :) Except for you and Bob and your undying love for each other. That's my beautiful oasis in this wiki desert. [[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Can I have a teamangel?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I'll join Team Angel. But we need cool matching sigs or something.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::You pick the sigs. Team Angel, ASSEMBLE!--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::You can't have nubis, he's in teamboxy along with karek and err, boxy. Together they control teh wikiz! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::"teamboxy" doesn't even think Hags did anything wrong from the start.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::teamboxy don't want hagnat off the team and neither do i. teamboxy and 2 special in this instance are in agreeance. In regards to misconduct occuring here, they aren't.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<s>'''Misconduct''' because he jumped the gun. He definitely should have waited till the week had passed. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s> Actually, I've changed my mind. '''Not Misconduct'''. I've re-read both the vandal case and this case a couple of times and come to the conclusion that Hagnat was within his right to ban SLR for the week. The main reason is that because Hagnat provided Read with a polite request to fix his sig, which was then ignored and Read replaced the policy breaking sig. If a user breaks a polite warning, they show they are acting in bad faith (in this case ruled Vandalism by the majority of the sysop team) and receive the next vandal escalation which is what Hagnat did. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I'm sorry, but '''where the fuck are you people getting the idea that he replaced his policy breaking sig?''' Do I have to spell it out for you all, edit by edit, where he tried multiple times to bring it into the rules? The first time, he shortened it, trying to bring it into the rules, makign it easier to find his user page in the links. The second time, he made his user link very noticable. Trying to bring it within the rules. He '''never''' reverted it back to its original form, always showed good faith in trying to brign it within the boundries, while still having the sig he wanted. He even fixed the problem Hagnat used as banning him. Come the fuck on people, don't let Hagnat get away scot free because he's part of your damned in-crowd. He fucked up, you all know it. Now fucking admit it. Jesus.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376689&oldid=1374198 This is the only edit] that is relevant to the warning (the one where he did make it somewhat obvious came ''after'' hagnat unbanned him). That is an absolutely minor improvement. You still have to mouseover heaps of individual letters to find the user page link. Read admitted he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system gaming the system] ("''you are all fags who cant handle anyone who [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 finds a policy loophole and exploits it]''") <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:32 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Yeah? Minor improvement or not, he ''still'' tried to fix the problem (albeit smaller chunks at a time), and Hagnat ''still'' was trigger happy with the banhammer. That fact is still there.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It went through [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Sexylegsread|A/VB]], and was found to be vandalism, and the ban was reinstated. You might have a point if Hagnat had actually got it wrong. You may feel it was a harsh punishment for such a minor piece of vandalism, but the next escalation had to be the ban, regardless of severity. Perhaps it's time for Read to put in a few months of contributative edits and wash off a few of his escalations, eh, instead of simply coming here to get involved in drama <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:01 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Reinstated. Right. Not to mention the fact that the ban is still illegitimate as ''SLR never got his one week to fix it''. Sig policy: "warned once and asked to change it. The user has '''one week to comply'''". He ''tried''. Honestly, if this wasn't SLR, you guys would have been helping the user figure out exactly what to do with his sig to bring it in-line, and yet still keep as close to as the original as possible. But it's him, especially on a somewhat vague part of the guidelines, and even though he tries to rectify his mistake while still trying to keep as much of his sig as possible (like '''most''' users would) he gets pwnt for a week, with no consultation from anyone else from the admin team. But its cool. Let Hagnat just keep getting away with shit, when you said it your self in his last promotions bid that he's not doing the job like it's supposed to be done.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::'''Boxy:''' Funny thing about that boxy. You just made the point why ''this is misconduct''. Hagnat acted recklessly with the early ban before there were legitimate grounds to view the edit as bad faith, he acted unnecessairally and had Sexylegsread never been unbanned he would never have been punished. Hagnat's actions show exaclty why report-escalations are misconduct when used in cases where the user is not actively vandalising the wiki. Hagnat got it wrong because he acted preemptively and ''we can not do that'', especially when there is an actual attempt to follow the policies as exist as there was with Read(his talk page is where the case should have stayed for at least the week). The sig policy outlines how we are supposed to treat cases like this, it was currently being discussed on Reads talk page<sub>(a discussion which you participated in and took his side on if you do remember)</sub>, Hagnat saw people complaining and proactively reverted it <sub>(something that could easily have led to a semi-legitimate VB case had Read not responded)</sub>, Read altered his sig reducing the number of ds in an attempt to fit it through the "loophole", Hagnat, instead of telling him that it still wasn't OK and furthering the discussion ''that was already taking place'' <underline>assumed</underline> any disagreement with his preemptive and improper actions to be in bad faith instead of an attempt to remain in the rules while being annoying and banned him. ''Even though'' the discussion on his talk page made it clear it wasn't a simple straight forward case by any means, ''even though'' Read was already being talked to about it and given the chance to resolve it without an escalation, and ''even though'' Hagnat himself was overstepping the bounds of courtesy on the wiki in the first place. In the process it led to a case where Hagnat himself decided that the ban was improper and was followed up by unbanning him(although poorly) in addition to at least two Not Vandalism verdicts. ''The only reason this ended up being a Vandalism Verdict is Read shot himself in the foot during the legitimate process that should have taken place in the first place''. You can't logically argue that this is in any way incorrect because Read was found after the fact to be acting in bad faith, that's a logical fallacy, he never would have been found to be acting in bad faith if he hadn't been unbanned, this case ''was made before he was found to be a vandal'', this action is misconduct. The more ironic bit is you're arguing the purpose of the week for the Sig policy on the A/VB page as justification for the ban but aruging ''against'' what we know to be the purpose of the report-escalate policy for the same reason. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::'''Cheese:''' Incorrect, ''I'' provided Read with a polite request and [[User_talk:Sexylegsread#Ugh|some discussion as to what was wrong with the sig]], Hagnat just came by and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376612&oldid=1374198 edited it without discussion]. The difference? Well, if someone did the same to me I would do the same thing Read did because an actual discussion was going on, it's not only rude but it's completely against everything that we always do when dealing with this stuff. The only times someone is justified in doing something like that is in a case where it is actually breaking wiki pages or crashing them entirely<sub>(''both'' things have happend)</sub>. You also need to keep in mind that Read's actions that lead to the ban in question here ''were in fact ruled Not Vandalism by a majority at the time'', he wasn't punished for having a sig that breaks policy but rather why he made the sig, he also wasn't punished for reverting the sig because he was completely in his rights to do that and anything different shows altered treatment of a vandal after the fact. He wasn't a vandal when this case was made, he wasn't escalated for what Hagnat banned him for, and for that matter Hagnat did the equivalent of the O'Reilly Mic Cut, he reverted, Read tried to bring it within policy(even though he was still breaking the policy), and instead of discussing what was wrong with the new sig Hagnat simply banned him. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Sure is butthurt around here. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I assume that everyone is at the very least in agreement that he should serve at the very least a ban in equal time to the pre-emptive ban read served? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:A ban, plus a reminder that this behavior is definitely bad, and can lead to his sysops powers being removed. Also, this is the reminder. :). Is Team Angel (Consists of me. Nubis nevar made our official bff sigs. :'(...)in agreement with the ten hour ban?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Umm If I'm counting corectly, with Cheese Changing his mindits 4-3 for Not Misconduct therefore no Ban at all for Hagnat. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:As long as no more sysops vote misconduct - which looks unlikely that they will. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:''Me waits for the expected fastarchive attempt from Conndraka''. And even then are you seriously of the mind that Hagnat shouldn't even serve the initial ban that he himself repealed to allow for the case to actually take place? Even I would expect better than that from you.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::1st I wouldn't do a fast archive of anything I try to wait 24 hours after the last constructive edit to archive...and I rarely archive anything anymore. 2nd If the case comes down to misconduct then yea, I agree that a ban equal to the one issued to read before would be an appropriate punishment...IF I agreed that it was misconduct, which I don't for previously stated reasons. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
:::Really though there are two problems with that. The first being that you're not taking into account Hagnat's actions when saying he was acting in good faith as a sysop. Acting in good faith would be through the rational and common channels all users are expected to go through in a process like this, he bypassed those to simply revert the edit with no attempt at explanation as to why and then to ban when Read did what any reasonable user would do. Hagnat actually did something we normally dismiss cases of but beacuse he was a sysop he abused a loophole so that the case wouldn't be dismissed by whoever ruled. Second is that your using a rule that exists completely and exclusively for dealing with [[User:3pwv|this]] to be used to deal with [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:Conndraka|this]]. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's actually '''4/4'''. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::He's not counthing nubis because nubis made the case. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Could it be unbolded then? I dare not do it myself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::He wasn't actually voting, he was summarizing what was the verdict of the case at that time. Although I can certainly see where the confusion comes from. Unbolding for now. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Isn't Nubis the 4th Misconduct? Boxy '''NM''', The General '''NM''', Con '''NM''', Karek '''M''', ZS '''M''', SA '''M''', Nubis '''M''', Cheese '''NM''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::I should be since I clearly consider this Misconduct. There is nothing that says I can't rule on a case I brought up either otherwise why would any sysop ever post a case? I understand that you can't vote on a case against you (even though it isn't spelled out in the rules) but to preclude a sysop from voting on case because they made it is stupid. If we can rule on VB cases that we post then I sure as hell can vote on this. Otherwise, I'll hijack Wiki Martyr and post cases.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Yes, that's why I counted you (or were you talking to Karek?) :p <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:18 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::::After 3 colons my counting gets off. Sorry. :) It was directed at Karek. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::I threw the bold back in then. Sorry Karek. And Nubis of course. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::Because we pretty much never count the reporter if they're a sysop. A quick jaunt through Hagnat's A/M archive would show as much. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::But that doesn't make any sense not to count the reporter if they are a sysop. I know Grim would make a big show about ''I'm not going to vote because I brought the case'' but you know he only brought the case because he didn't want it to get missed and he was too proud to have an alt account to post it. Not to mention he was trying to seem like he was taking the high road even though he was the petty one that jumped on all mistakes. (I'm still bitter)[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::As much as it will mean Hagnat will get away with yet another account of misconduct, I don't think there's any justification to allow the party that starts the case to rule on its outcome. Such rulings are inherently biased (you brought the case so must think it's misconduct) and lead to mechanics in the system that allow for easy witch hunts to occur. I was about to bring this case myself before you did Nubis, so we do agree, however ruling on a case you have brought is fundamentally wrong. I also added an extra header to break up the case as the file size warning was in effect when I clicked edit. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::: ''Holy shit..Hell's freezing over. I agree with Iscariot (damned edit conflicted me too)''If I recall...we have always assumed a vested interest caveat when considering the reporter. i.e. If we as sysops report misconduct we don't typically count the vote of the filer unless there is a tie among the other sysops...its sort of like considering whom ever files the case is the prosecutor. Can't be both prosecutor and Jury at the same time...normally. I'm thinking this is something we need to codify though for future reference. Its been a while since we did one of those sysop only-vote/determinations. I nominate Karek to come up with the wording. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::Not allowing the reporting sysop to vote is just plain stupid. It's remarkably stupid in a case like this which was going to be brought here anyway. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::Surely Sysops are often in a better position to spot misconduct than regular users.. after all they do (supposedly) know what standards they are meant to abide by and many seem to be logged on more often than they sleep. Barring a sysop from ruling on cases like this could well encourage them to wait for others to report things or even worse to use stooges to make reports for them and neither of those is going to give the community the impression that the sysops are doing their job well.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::::I got to agree here with Honest and Mid, guys. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::::Me also. There is little difference between Nubis posting this case and a regular user, it is idiotic to forbid him from voting in it. We know if he didn't post this then J3D most certainly would have anyway. And when should such a little difference as reporting, become such a big difference as the whole outcome of the case? {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
I would like to point out that Zinker was given multiple chances to change his templated sig even when it broke the rules harder than Reads did. Hell, Boxy even let him have another chance even though his next step would have been a 48 hour ban I think.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Even if Nubis' vote is counted that still leaves the case at a tie. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=1381742UDWiki:Administration/Promotions2009-02-06T23:25:16Z<p>Liberty: /* User:Nubis */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
{{Promotions Intro}}<br />
==Candidates still requiring vouches==<br />
<!-- ''Place all new promotion bids under this header'' --><br />
''Place all new promotion bids under this header''<br />
<br />
==Candidates currently under community discussion==<br />
===User:Nubis===<br />
I don't want to steal Karek's thunder, but I think he and the others have a point that sysops shouldn't be afraid of the community opinion. If they are then they probably aren't doing their job correctly. I'm one of the longest standing sysops and it's probably time I put myself up for a review. (to be honest, the majority of the [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] I do doesn't require Sysop powers) but hopefully I have shown that I can be reasonable and fair in A/VB/M matters. <br />
<br />
Besides, if Karek steps down this place may fall into chaos and I don't want to see that. So, again, following his wise lead, I'm submitting a re-promotion bid. <br />
<br />
I don't really know what else to say, but consider it open season on any complaints/issues and I will address them. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - For following Karek's retarded example. If anyone else had put up a case on administration in which a result either way would not change the current status, like putting a deleted page up for deletion or reporting a perma banned user they'd have been escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Apparently not here though with one rule for sysops and one for ever fucker else. If you want to be 're-promoted' you have to be demoted first, basic logic and English. Hagnat may have pulled emo-validate-my-existence-by-saying-nice-things-about-me shit in the past but that doesn't change the basic premise that this is crapping up an admin page (whilst a user who is actually up for promotion has a bid in progress no less) and you should all know better. I'd remove both of these on basic principle that you can't be promoted but we all know you'd use excuse to escalate me in the fair and impartial way you do. If you really want the community's opinion, go submit a demotion request and then go for re-promotion properly. And why are you 'Under Community Discussion' when you haven't received three vouches yet? One rule for sysops.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I think you are missing the point that this could very well change my status. <br />
*:I did, however, put it under the wrong heading because I was posting on my way out the door and worried more about getting the news item right than the placement of this. Sorry. That was an accident. I would move this to the right place, but it has enough to be here now, so that would be pointless. <s>(Actually, I forgot AHLG wasn't a sysop anymore - going to move it. - now) </s> I see SA posted. It can be here now.<br />
*:Mostly this is about giving the users a place where they are expected to vent any and all concerns about a user. A place where (unlike a talk page) I don't have control of the content and where it is public enough that even casual users can respond. I would think that you of all people would welcome this IF the sysops doing it actually agreed to abide by the communities opinion at the end. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*No offense, but you sometimes come across as 'biased', although I'll leave it is an assumption since this is the internet and there are no MIND-READING DEVICES. Other than that ''meh'', I don't have any real problems with you, except you're a little odd sometimes... I think you have a good balance on the 'ignore the rules', ie, not going overtop with it. Your [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] is good too. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain for now''' - You are a HUGE asset to the sysop team and I fully support you, but I want to wait until the drama surrounding these promotion bids of you and Karek dies down a little and we get official opinion on it before I officially vote. Yes, I'm weird like that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*As Gnome. Does his share of work around here, reasonably fair. Overall an alright guy, if a bit of a hothead sometimes. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* BFFs FOR EVA! Other than the Amberwaves deletion thing, I've never had a problem with Nubis. And besides that, it was almost entirely about opinion that the conflict started at all. He also makes me laugh.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I had to fight for the Amberwaves image "on principle" because I didn't want the Marty Banks pictures deleted. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::I'd have fought to keep those, because a lot of them were well made, not just "Lol fat" wrote in MS paint.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''abstain/borderline vouch''' I don't often see eye to eye with Nubis but I do know that he argues from principle rather than spite/bias. He does a lot of good work around the wiki and my only real issue with him is that a very large amount of the petty and technicality misconducts that are brought against him would be avoided if he followed the rules --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' he sometimes makes me laugh, and has never crossed me yet. gold in basket please.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - "Distinguished quality. A remarkably prime sysop. Thanks. A+!" --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As AHLG, you seem a little odd but, I don't see you doing anything wrong which should keep you from being sysop. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Karek===<br />
I was going to wait until the other bid was finished to do this but have decided it's gonna happen now instead.<br />
<br />
I have been a sysop for a while now, there has been much drama relating to some of my actions a lot of various background work done. We've finally reached a point where the majority of the sysop team is actually active and doing stuff, I hoped we had reached a point where the sysops understood that they actually do have some control of the user base and should act accordingly <small>(In a manner conducive to the administrative nature of the position)</small> but I'll leave that to everyone else to decide, although we certainly are closer than we were when I was promoted.<br />
<br />
I'm putting myself up here as opposed to simply demotion, because I feel that it would be improper for me to leave without at lest giving the community at least one final chance at assessing my treatment and actions as a sysop. Yes, this is a re-promotion bid, It's also probably not as good as it could be wording and information wise I've always sucked at these things. Have at thee.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because he wants to baptise children in acid. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - I like Karek, but it looks like he's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEfzo0q5BxU lost his smile], he's a good guy, and a good for the community.. but if he doesn't want it... he doesn't want it. If you change your mind... I'll happily change my vote.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Question''' - Do ''you'' want to stay on as sysop? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* He's fine and all. I think you should stay. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - As per Anime Sucks. --[[User:Speels|Speels]] 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* <s>'''Vouch''' - If you want to stay on, you would be welcome. I believe you are an excellent sysop.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:'''Abstain''' - I would dearly love it if you carried on, but if you want to leave this god awful place, then go for it. Also, as Anime.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - If you don't want to be sysop, don't do it. Even if the community is overwhelming support of keeping you on, if you don't want to do it then just don't. I find this move to be in somewhat poor taste because the '''last''' thing we need is a sysop who doesn't want to be there.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Very Strong Vouch''' - While I don't always agree with Karek, I very much respect his opinion and I personally find him to be a very able and knowledgeable member of the team. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because I may not agree with what you say much of the time But I will defend with my life your right to say it. Honestly. Furthermore, no community may be properly represented in its administration without at least some representation from <s>all</s>most possible angles. Karek is my counterpoint on many of beleifs I represent as my own. If Karek leaves I would have to change my public visage, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do ''that''.<small> btw if anyone wants to comment on this please do it on my talk page so it doesnt shit up this validation of Kareks service and abilities. </small> [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Shit mate, one of the few people on this wiki I can count on to be intelligent and know what he's doing, and now you're going to leave? Damn. Do what you want to do, but I still say you did an awesome job.--[[User:Suicidalangel|SA]] 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I would like to see him stay, he does a lot of useful work, with a minimum of fuss <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:44 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Vouch''' - As <s>Nubis.</s> err...Suicidalangel. And who will be left to out-lawyer the wikilawyers if you go? DON'T LEAVE US! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
*:Erm...Nubis hasn't posted here yet. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Good work, Team-[[User_talk:Suicidalangel#Team_Angel_Sigs|BFF]] <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:17 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:::Dangint! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I think I said everything on my talk page under Srs Question. I don't think you are as hated by "the community" as it was painted. Hopefully, this will give you the reassurance that people do respect you for taking the hardline on issues.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]-'''[[User:Nubis|+N+]]'''BFF SA--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As others, I don't always agree with Karek... however, he's one of the best sysops we have. He always strives to things ''the right way'', and is probably the single person I've learned the most from on this wiki. The wiki will lose a very good person if you go, karek. Sigh... :( --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - You suck for putting Honest up for promotion, but apart from that you're alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I don't always agree with your opinion, but I think you are as fair and unbiased as anyone will get around here. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - [[A/DM|You want over here]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Btw that's an as anime not a i want you demoted nao.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Karek's a great guy, and what boxy said-he does a lot of work with very little fuss. Although he can attract drama sometimes, that's pretty ''meh'' overall. He's enough of an ass to make hard decisions and get things done, but he's nice enough to not simply piss everyone off for no reason, and create MOAR DRAMAS!!!! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''vouch''' Karek and I disagree on a great many things but he is always willing to explain and defend his position in a fair and logical way rather than just dismiss people as wrong he is also the most likely of all sysops to act without bias. Couple that with his understanding of how things work and i really doubt that we can afford to lose him... Still going to argue with him a lot if he stays though.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Linkthewindow and Honestmistake. You're pretty much the best sysop we have. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Meh''' - I know he has worked very hard as a sysops but the way he handeld a deletion lately was outright terrible, plain undemocratic. --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fair, unbiased and one of the best sysops around :). --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' this is an easy one. as above. perfectly explained... speels go suck a dogs dick.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Bold in desicions but rarely wrong in my opinion. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Honestmistake]]===<br />
He has more than enough contributions, although the history purge screws with the contributor history. He has been here more than a year now, has taken an active interest in the maintenance duties and policy discussions on this wiki and, while we don't always agree is the kind of user I think should be promoted. He has proven he is able to do the job and more than qualifies. So, assuming he accepts, I think it's about time we gave him a bid.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Very intresting to see the amount of suport (and opposition I have had here) and can only appologize that i am on a restricted interwebz diet at due to someone else breaking my home connection. <br />
:I am flattered by the nomination but don't think I have the skills needed to actually do the real work required for the job. Also, unlike Suicidal Angel, I do still sometimes edit the wiki drunk which goes a long way to explaining why I sometimes go off on tangents.That said, I would like to see this bid go through to the finish but feel it only fair to point out that if promoted I want absolutly nothing to do with any aspect of the job which involves wiki skills, though i will do my best to learn some.<br />
<br />
:Why might i make a good sysop? Well; I do not argue from malice and always with a point. I do not expect to win all (or given this is the internet, any) of those arguments and indeed often become embroiled in them only to make the otherside think. I am always willing to hold my hands up to my own mistakes and would point out that in my 3+ years here I have hardly ever gone a week without editing something and have only once been brought up on vandal charges and that was a pretty stupid and petty case. I am an inclusionist and proud of it and feel that a sysops role should be not just enforcing rules but knowing when doing so is counter productive.<br />
:I have been avoiding A/VB recently and don't look forwards to being dragged back, however, I don't think any sysop should be allowed to not get involved there so would obviously have no choice if promoted.<br />
<br />
:Finally; The Sysops job description includes the phrase "Trusted User" and you can trust me to always listen to both sides of an argument and to always strive to help any users in any way I can (even if its just pointing you at someone who knows what they are doing!) You can trust me not to try any fancy re-organization and not to try to overthrow the wiki... what you can't trust me with is any actual work!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I literally threw up. You've never been able to resist a good bitch in your entire time on the wiki; why the fuck should anyone believe you'd start now? OMG GUIS I'D ROOLY TROOLY CHAENG SRSLY? Bullshit. You don't even know the meaning of the term self-control. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You threw up? Bonus!<br />
::::Seriously though I would like to thank you and Read, Such are your towering reputations for fairness and sincerity that your early support would have doomed this before i even noticed it....--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::DO HO HO. You always were a witty little cunt. What a shame you don't put as much effort into logical thinking (srsly guise - as long as mai harts in teh rite plaec it dun matter wether im rite dus it?) as you do coming up with those shitty jokes. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Also, basically what you're saying here is that promoting you would be completely pointless as you wouldn't do a single fucking thing beyond 'keepan ur hart in teh rite plaece and bein srsly srs aboot discushun'. Lol. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I was going to reply... but honestly, would there even be a point? I mean, its not like you would accept the answer and go away is it!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You were going to reply, but you didn't... then you did anyway. Fail. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::tl;dr. If that's way you type a large message then you just gave me another reason to remain against. Sorry.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I put him up here, it would be strange if I didn't vouch. I believe he would be a good Sysop. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I've known him on the suggestion pages for a while. He's a good guy, doesn't get involved in too much drama and is reasonably level-headed. <s>Not sure if he wants this, though. </s>{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I've been proven wrong. Although it would be nice if you could learn how to use paragraphs :P. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - too fucking serious too much of the time.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Also, this proves what Karek knows about what the community needs.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Not about my view of the community, it's about my view of the user. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Look. 3 vouches. Now he has to accept. Although he might not. Did I mention '''Vouch'''? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - We do not need yet another rules-whoring crybaby on the sysop team. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strongly Against''' This user has shown time and time again that he fails to comprehend basic concepts. His arguments are emotional, weak (at best), nonsensical and off topic. I seriously wonder if someone hacked Karek's account to make him do this. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:The "You Ass" section on Karek's Talk page is more than enough to show what I am talking about. The section where Karek says about HM:''Iscariot and you both has a long history of disliking the sysops and raging against the machine for the sake of it, I deal with Iscariot off of the wiki and know he acts very differently here and I know you can be reasonable but often enough fall into the category of opposing the sysops for the sake of it that I often find myself having to take your comments on something with a grain of salt. '' RAGING VOUCH there Karek! --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::He may be one to argue but he is also willing to admit when he is wrong about something if discussion is actually attempted. He only argues because he actually cares about how the rules are enforced, not like some others who do it simply to cause drama. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Karek, he may admit to being wrong ''when you finally get it through his head'' that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. Look at his comments in the section I mentioned and his comments on the J3D A/M case are frighteningly dense. I don't want another sysop that we will have to babysit or clean up after. He also "splits hairs" on policies by commenting on the wording. He thought the phrase "No Confidence Vote" was too harsh. WTF?<br />
*:::You know, Karek, it really looks like you are trying to get someone in "the new crowd" promoted so that you don't seem like part of the "elite clique" and so that you can answer Iscariot's cries of ''you are out of touch with the community''. Why are you putting him up now? What has HM done in the last 2 months that all of the sudden made you decide ''Damn! this is the fresh blood we need''?--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::It's not a sudden decision. I've been considering this for a long while and it's just now that I happened to get around to it(I don't like multiple bids up at once). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Nubis.... "thank you for your contribution" pretty much sums up my opinion on you and your "vote". {{unsigned|Honestmistake|}}<br />
*::::::Firstly, learn to sign. Secondly, you're displaying the exact same arrogance you so often shout from your soapbox that the sysops supposedly have too much of. Enjoy your hypocrisy, dipshit. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::::Third, it is "Thank you for your input". Your attention to detail is awe inspiring.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::::::Believe it or not I carefully chose that word rather than your version because I feel it fits what I wished to say so much better. That it so closely reflects your own words was deliberate; hence the quote marks. I understand and accept your concerns, I just don't see the point in arguing with you and Bob when all it does is lead to insults. If you must insist on abuse then take it to my talk page rather than Spamming this page.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong 'gainst''' - Done nothinto deserve this, other wise as Cyberbob/Nubis... WTF hae you been smoking Karke?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Sorry. I know Honest is contributive, but I'm not sure he's up to the task. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - ''Pros:'' Honestmistake is a solid user and with a long history of interest and contributions. Usually listens to reason and almost always avoids drama. ''Cons:'' Sometimes comes up with really weird, illogical positions on what seem to be pretty straightforward issues. ''Concusion:'' More time and more active participation in Admin stuff, then he might be an excellent candidate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against'''I don't see him that often, nor do I see any great contributions.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 09:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Free sysops for everybody \õ/ --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:honestmistake is a good and caring contributor. he is not the kind who acts for the lulz, so he wont fuck up with his admin powers --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Given the [[User:Amazing|company you keep]] I'm sure you'll forgive people if they don't find your character reference all that exciting. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Given the candidates i have voted for in the past ( http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Cyberbob240_%283%29 ) I am not sure they should put trust in me either?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::You're doing that arrogance thing again. BTW, I would (and did) make a damn good sysop if I gave a fuck. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He mostly has a point when he disagrees with a decision, and even if I disagree, it's usually a difference of opinion <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:23 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:Should anyone else bother <s>voting</s> then, if he accepts the nomination? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Of course they should. I always take into account other people's opinions <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:13 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::::Hahaha. That's a good one. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::When does cyberbob's trolling cross the border into shitting up an Admin page? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::My comment was considerably more relevant than that attempt, my dear. If you want to go after someone for shitting up admin pages I suggest you take a look at the amount of shit I've moved off A/VB onto the talk page in recent weeks. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::When he stops making good points. I do hope that they at least play out the charade and leave the "what do you think about this promotion bid" comments on each other's pages. We expect the Dog '''and''' Pony at the Show. Or should that be ass? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''<s>Abstain</s>''' '''Against''' <s>i'm on the fence.</s> maybe next time around. don't we have enough users with super powers? and as above i thought HM hated the Sysops?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I do not and have never "hated" the sysops. A few users however seem to think anyone questioning their decision is obviously a sysop hater and screams that loud and often enough that it sticks.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::okay that answers that. For the Record. I do hate sysops. but I fear things i don't understand.... now for my vote, will give me gold in the basket? cookies and milk? and tities and beer?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::How about tickets to Spearmint Rhino and a free bottle of cheap champagne?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::WHO? and I hate fucking champagne... gimmie a good bottle of 12 year old single malt scotch on your next try. so NO.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Don't know him well enough. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouchy vouch''' - He's always been decent, polite and such when I've talked to him. He seems to have a functioning brain and such, so yes, vouch.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I haven't seen him much outside several petty squabbles with other users. If/When he accepts his nomination, it would be useful if he would provide some examples of why he should be a sysop. Until then, I will abstain. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Because of some of his comments on Jed's last case in A/M remind me that I don't want him judging anything important in that place, or A/VB.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Wow, I thought this was a joke. His past actions speak VOLUMES.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I probably should not ask... but which actions do you have in mind? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 07:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - I think he needs more experience with the administration aspects of the wiki, although he seems nice and has a pretty continuous interest in this place. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Only because I haven't seen him do anything particularly special that makes him seem responsible enough for this. Given, I haven't seen him do anything wrong but I don't believe abstaining should justify that. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Seems to be a nice, decent bloke. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Incorrectness aside, don't you think you should be deciding based on a few more criteria than just personality? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I'm sure Honest is contributive and all, but I don't know him well enough. --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 16:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Unless the results are tied and then its a '''Vouch''' I Don't know Honest well enough to make a distinct vouch but in a close decision I'll give him the benifit of the doubt. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:You absolutely refuse to ''get it'', don't you, Con. ''This is '''not''' a vote'', and there will be no "ties". What you say about him is more important than the bolded word at the begining of the sentence <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:37 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::I choose to ignore your reality and substitute my own. '''OR''' It is in fact a vote, but one of a single entity, the Community. And whereas the single "vote" is determined by the shared perceived value by the community of the candidate. Although you may find my phrasing circumspect, let me assure you I meant what I said to indicate my general ambivalence in the matter, but also included a caveat that expresses my general inclusive nature of the promotions of Honestmistake as a sysop. i.e. I get it a hellova lot more than you could possibly believe sir, its not my fault you don't understand what I'm trying to say. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He's a good kid.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Would you believe he's in his 30's? Bit rich to be calling him a kid, mental age or no. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Against'''I havent heard of him before sorry it seems like he dosent have enough time on here!--[[User:Xela798|Dr. Sinclair]] 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Well I have been active in game since september 2005 and on the wiki within a week of starting the game. Since then i have logged in far more frequently than can be healthy and participate in a great deal of discussions etc and sometimes feel like i live on the suggestions pages... I have stepped away from certain areas recently as the drama levels were beginning to annoy me far too much, no doubt I will be back into the fray again soon though. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - We need some alternate opinions on the sysop team, badly. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 04:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Archived Promotions==<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Complete list of Promotion Requests]]<br />
*[[:Category:Successful Promotions Candidacies|Successful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies|Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unaccepted Nominations|Unaccepted Nominations]]<br />
*[[:Category:Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies|Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies]]</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=1381740UDWiki:Administration/Promotions2009-02-06T23:21:42Z<p>Liberty: /* User:Karek */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
{{Promotions Intro}}<br />
==Candidates still requiring vouches==<br />
<!-- ''Place all new promotion bids under this header'' --><br />
''Place all new promotion bids under this header''<br />
<br />
==Candidates currently under community discussion==<br />
===User:Nubis===<br />
I don't want to steal Karek's thunder, but I think he and the others have a point that sysops shouldn't be afraid of the community opinion. If they are then they probably aren't doing their job correctly. I'm one of the longest standing sysops and it's probably time I put myself up for a review. (to be honest, the majority of the [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] I do doesn't require Sysop powers) but hopefully I have shown that I can be reasonable and fair in A/VB/M matters. <br />
<br />
Besides, if Karek steps down this place may fall into chaos and I don't want to see that. So, again, following his wise lead, I'm submitting a re-promotion bid. <br />
<br />
I don't really know what else to say, but consider it open season on any complaints/issues and I will address them. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - For following Karek's retarded example. If anyone else had put up a case on administration in which a result either way would not change the current status, like putting a deleted page up for deletion or reporting a perma banned user they'd have been escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Apparently not here though with one rule for sysops and one for ever fucker else. If you want to be 're-promoted' you have to be demoted first, basic logic and English. Hagnat may have pulled emo-validate-my-existence-by-saying-nice-things-about-me shit in the past but that doesn't change the basic premise that this is crapping up an admin page (whilst a user who is actually up for promotion has a bid in progress no less) and you should all know better. I'd remove both of these on basic principle that you can't be promoted but we all know you'd use excuse to escalate me in the fair and impartial way you do. If you really want the community's opinion, go submit a demotion request and then go for re-promotion properly. And why are you 'Under Community Discussion' when you haven't received three vouches yet? One rule for sysops.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I think you are missing the point that this could very well change my status. <br />
*:I did, however, put it under the wrong heading because I was posting on my way out the door and worried more about getting the news item right than the placement of this. Sorry. That was an accident. I would move this to the right place, but it has enough to be here now, so that would be pointless. <s>(Actually, I forgot AHLG wasn't a sysop anymore - going to move it. - now) </s> I see SA posted. It can be here now.<br />
*:Mostly this is about giving the users a place where they are expected to vent any and all concerns about a user. A place where (unlike a talk page) I don't have control of the content and where it is public enough that even casual users can respond. I would think that you of all people would welcome this IF the sysops doing it actually agreed to abide by the communities opinion at the end. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*No offense, but you sometimes come across as 'biased', although I'll leave it is an assumption since this is the internet and there are no MIND-READING DEVICES. Other than that ''meh'', I don't have any real problems with you, except you're a little odd sometimes... I think you have a good balance on the 'ignore the rules', ie, not going overtop with it. Your [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] is good too. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain for now''' - You are a HUGE asset to the sysop team and I fully support you, but I want to wait until the drama surrounding these promotion bids of you and Karek dies down a little and we get official opinion on it before I officially vote. Yes, I'm weird like that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*As Gnome. Does his share of work around here, reasonably fair. Overall an alright guy, if a bit of a hothead sometimes. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* BFFs FOR EVA! Other than the Amberwaves deletion thing, I've never had a problem with Nubis. And besides that, it was almost entirely about opinion that the conflict started at all. He also makes me laugh.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I had to fight for the Amberwaves image "on principle" because I didn't want the Marty Banks pictures deleted. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::I'd have fought to keep those, because a lot of them were well made, not just "Lol fat" wrote in MS paint.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''abstain/borderline vouch''' I don't often see eye to eye with Nubis but I do know that he argues from principle rather than spite/bias. He does a lot of good work around the wiki and my only real issue with him is that a very large amount of the petty and technicality misconducts that are brought against him would be avoided if he followed the rules --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' he sometimes makes me laugh, and has never crossed me yet. gold in basket please.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - "Distinguished quality. A remarkably prime sysop. Thanks. A+!" --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Karek===<br />
I was going to wait until the other bid was finished to do this but have decided it's gonna happen now instead.<br />
<br />
I have been a sysop for a while now, there has been much drama relating to some of my actions a lot of various background work done. We've finally reached a point where the majority of the sysop team is actually active and doing stuff, I hoped we had reached a point where the sysops understood that they actually do have some control of the user base and should act accordingly <small>(In a manner conducive to the administrative nature of the position)</small> but I'll leave that to everyone else to decide, although we certainly are closer than we were when I was promoted.<br />
<br />
I'm putting myself up here as opposed to simply demotion, because I feel that it would be improper for me to leave without at lest giving the community at least one final chance at assessing my treatment and actions as a sysop. Yes, this is a re-promotion bid, It's also probably not as good as it could be wording and information wise I've always sucked at these things. Have at thee.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because he wants to baptise children in acid. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - I like Karek, but it looks like he's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEfzo0q5BxU lost his smile], he's a good guy, and a good for the community.. but if he doesn't want it... he doesn't want it. If you change your mind... I'll happily change my vote.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Question''' - Do ''you'' want to stay on as sysop? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* He's fine and all. I think you should stay. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - As per Anime Sucks. --[[User:Speels|Speels]] 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* <s>'''Vouch''' - If you want to stay on, you would be welcome. I believe you are an excellent sysop.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:'''Abstain''' - I would dearly love it if you carried on, but if you want to leave this god awful place, then go for it. Also, as Anime.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - If you don't want to be sysop, don't do it. Even if the community is overwhelming support of keeping you on, if you don't want to do it then just don't. I find this move to be in somewhat poor taste because the '''last''' thing we need is a sysop who doesn't want to be there.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Very Strong Vouch''' - While I don't always agree with Karek, I very much respect his opinion and I personally find him to be a very able and knowledgeable member of the team. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because I may not agree with what you say much of the time But I will defend with my life your right to say it. Honestly. Furthermore, no community may be properly represented in its administration without at least some representation from <s>all</s>most possible angles. Karek is my counterpoint on many of beleifs I represent as my own. If Karek leaves I would have to change my public visage, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do ''that''.<small> btw if anyone wants to comment on this please do it on my talk page so it doesnt shit up this validation of Kareks service and abilities. </small> [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Shit mate, one of the few people on this wiki I can count on to be intelligent and know what he's doing, and now you're going to leave? Damn. Do what you want to do, but I still say you did an awesome job.--[[User:Suicidalangel|SA]] 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I would like to see him stay, he does a lot of useful work, with a minimum of fuss <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:44 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Vouch''' - As <s>Nubis.</s> err...Suicidalangel. And who will be left to out-lawyer the wikilawyers if you go? DON'T LEAVE US! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
*:Erm...Nubis hasn't posted here yet. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Good work, Team-[[User_talk:Suicidalangel#Team_Angel_Sigs|BFF]] <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:17 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:::Dangint! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I think I said everything on my talk page under Srs Question. I don't think you are as hated by "the community" as it was painted. Hopefully, this will give you the reassurance that people do respect you for taking the hardline on issues.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]-'''[[User:Nubis|+N+]]'''BFF SA--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As others, I don't always agree with Karek... however, he's one of the best sysops we have. He always strives to things ''the right way'', and is probably the single person I've learned the most from on this wiki. The wiki will lose a very good person if you go, karek. Sigh... :( --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - You suck for putting Honest up for promotion, but apart from that you're alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I don't always agree with your opinion, but I think you are as fair and unbiased as anyone will get around here. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - [[A/DM|You want over here]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Btw that's an as anime not a i want you demoted nao.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Karek's a great guy, and what boxy said-he does a lot of work with very little fuss. Although he can attract drama sometimes, that's pretty ''meh'' overall. He's enough of an ass to make hard decisions and get things done, but he's nice enough to not simply piss everyone off for no reason, and create MOAR DRAMAS!!!! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''vouch''' Karek and I disagree on a great many things but he is always willing to explain and defend his position in a fair and logical way rather than just dismiss people as wrong he is also the most likely of all sysops to act without bias. Couple that with his understanding of how things work and i really doubt that we can afford to lose him... Still going to argue with him a lot if he stays though.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Linkthewindow and Honestmistake. You're pretty much the best sysop we have. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Meh''' - I know he has worked very hard as a sysops but the way he handeld a deletion lately was outright terrible, plain undemocratic. --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fair, unbiased and one of the best sysops around :). --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' this is an easy one. as above. perfectly explained... speels go suck a dogs dick.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Bold in desicions but rarely wrong in my opinion. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Honestmistake]]===<br />
He has more than enough contributions, although the history purge screws with the contributor history. He has been here more than a year now, has taken an active interest in the maintenance duties and policy discussions on this wiki and, while we don't always agree is the kind of user I think should be promoted. He has proven he is able to do the job and more than qualifies. So, assuming he accepts, I think it's about time we gave him a bid.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Very intresting to see the amount of suport (and opposition I have had here) and can only appologize that i am on a restricted interwebz diet at due to someone else breaking my home connection. <br />
:I am flattered by the nomination but don't think I have the skills needed to actually do the real work required for the job. Also, unlike Suicidal Angel, I do still sometimes edit the wiki drunk which goes a long way to explaining why I sometimes go off on tangents.That said, I would like to see this bid go through to the finish but feel it only fair to point out that if promoted I want absolutly nothing to do with any aspect of the job which involves wiki skills, though i will do my best to learn some.<br />
<br />
:Why might i make a good sysop? Well; I do not argue from malice and always with a point. I do not expect to win all (or given this is the internet, any) of those arguments and indeed often become embroiled in them only to make the otherside think. I am always willing to hold my hands up to my own mistakes and would point out that in my 3+ years here I have hardly ever gone a week without editing something and have only once been brought up on vandal charges and that was a pretty stupid and petty case. I am an inclusionist and proud of it and feel that a sysops role should be not just enforcing rules but knowing when doing so is counter productive.<br />
:I have been avoiding A/VB recently and don't look forwards to being dragged back, however, I don't think any sysop should be allowed to not get involved there so would obviously have no choice if promoted.<br />
<br />
:Finally; The Sysops job description includes the phrase "Trusted User" and you can trust me to always listen to both sides of an argument and to always strive to help any users in any way I can (even if its just pointing you at someone who knows what they are doing!) You can trust me not to try any fancy re-organization and not to try to overthrow the wiki... what you can't trust me with is any actual work!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I literally threw up. You've never been able to resist a good bitch in your entire time on the wiki; why the fuck should anyone believe you'd start now? OMG GUIS I'D ROOLY TROOLY CHAENG SRSLY? Bullshit. You don't even know the meaning of the term self-control. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You threw up? Bonus!<br />
::::Seriously though I would like to thank you and Read, Such are your towering reputations for fairness and sincerity that your early support would have doomed this before i even noticed it....--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::DO HO HO. You always were a witty little cunt. What a shame you don't put as much effort into logical thinking (srsly guise - as long as mai harts in teh rite plaec it dun matter wether im rite dus it?) as you do coming up with those shitty jokes. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Also, basically what you're saying here is that promoting you would be completely pointless as you wouldn't do a single fucking thing beyond 'keepan ur hart in teh rite plaece and bein srsly srs aboot discushun'. Lol. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I was going to reply... but honestly, would there even be a point? I mean, its not like you would accept the answer and go away is it!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You were going to reply, but you didn't... then you did anyway. Fail. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::tl;dr. If that's way you type a large message then you just gave me another reason to remain against. Sorry.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I put him up here, it would be strange if I didn't vouch. I believe he would be a good Sysop. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I've known him on the suggestion pages for a while. He's a good guy, doesn't get involved in too much drama and is reasonably level-headed. <s>Not sure if he wants this, though. </s>{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I've been proven wrong. Although it would be nice if you could learn how to use paragraphs :P. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - too fucking serious too much of the time.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Also, this proves what Karek knows about what the community needs.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Not about my view of the community, it's about my view of the user. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Look. 3 vouches. Now he has to accept. Although he might not. Did I mention '''Vouch'''? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - We do not need yet another rules-whoring crybaby on the sysop team. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strongly Against''' This user has shown time and time again that he fails to comprehend basic concepts. His arguments are emotional, weak (at best), nonsensical and off topic. I seriously wonder if someone hacked Karek's account to make him do this. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:The "You Ass" section on Karek's Talk page is more than enough to show what I am talking about. The section where Karek says about HM:''Iscariot and you both has a long history of disliking the sysops and raging against the machine for the sake of it, I deal with Iscariot off of the wiki and know he acts very differently here and I know you can be reasonable but often enough fall into the category of opposing the sysops for the sake of it that I often find myself having to take your comments on something with a grain of salt. '' RAGING VOUCH there Karek! --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::He may be one to argue but he is also willing to admit when he is wrong about something if discussion is actually attempted. He only argues because he actually cares about how the rules are enforced, not like some others who do it simply to cause drama. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Karek, he may admit to being wrong ''when you finally get it through his head'' that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. Look at his comments in the section I mentioned and his comments on the J3D A/M case are frighteningly dense. I don't want another sysop that we will have to babysit or clean up after. He also "splits hairs" on policies by commenting on the wording. He thought the phrase "No Confidence Vote" was too harsh. WTF?<br />
*:::You know, Karek, it really looks like you are trying to get someone in "the new crowd" promoted so that you don't seem like part of the "elite clique" and so that you can answer Iscariot's cries of ''you are out of touch with the community''. Why are you putting him up now? What has HM done in the last 2 months that all of the sudden made you decide ''Damn! this is the fresh blood we need''?--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::It's not a sudden decision. I've been considering this for a long while and it's just now that I happened to get around to it(I don't like multiple bids up at once). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Nubis.... "thank you for your contribution" pretty much sums up my opinion on you and your "vote". {{unsigned|Honestmistake|}}<br />
*::::::Firstly, learn to sign. Secondly, you're displaying the exact same arrogance you so often shout from your soapbox that the sysops supposedly have too much of. Enjoy your hypocrisy, dipshit. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::::Third, it is "Thank you for your input". Your attention to detail is awe inspiring.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::::::Believe it or not I carefully chose that word rather than your version because I feel it fits what I wished to say so much better. That it so closely reflects your own words was deliberate; hence the quote marks. I understand and accept your concerns, I just don't see the point in arguing with you and Bob when all it does is lead to insults. If you must insist on abuse then take it to my talk page rather than Spamming this page.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong 'gainst''' - Done nothinto deserve this, other wise as Cyberbob/Nubis... WTF hae you been smoking Karke?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Sorry. I know Honest is contributive, but I'm not sure he's up to the task. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - ''Pros:'' Honestmistake is a solid user and with a long history of interest and contributions. Usually listens to reason and almost always avoids drama. ''Cons:'' Sometimes comes up with really weird, illogical positions on what seem to be pretty straightforward issues. ''Concusion:'' More time and more active participation in Admin stuff, then he might be an excellent candidate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against'''I don't see him that often, nor do I see any great contributions.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 09:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Free sysops for everybody \õ/ --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:honestmistake is a good and caring contributor. he is not the kind who acts for the lulz, so he wont fuck up with his admin powers --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Given the [[User:Amazing|company you keep]] I'm sure you'll forgive people if they don't find your character reference all that exciting. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Given the candidates i have voted for in the past ( http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Cyberbob240_%283%29 ) I am not sure they should put trust in me either?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::You're doing that arrogance thing again. BTW, I would (and did) make a damn good sysop if I gave a fuck. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He mostly has a point when he disagrees with a decision, and even if I disagree, it's usually a difference of opinion <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:23 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:Should anyone else bother <s>voting</s> then, if he accepts the nomination? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Of course they should. I always take into account other people's opinions <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:13 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::::Hahaha. That's a good one. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::When does cyberbob's trolling cross the border into shitting up an Admin page? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::My comment was considerably more relevant than that attempt, my dear. If you want to go after someone for shitting up admin pages I suggest you take a look at the amount of shit I've moved off A/VB onto the talk page in recent weeks. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::When he stops making good points. I do hope that they at least play out the charade and leave the "what do you think about this promotion bid" comments on each other's pages. We expect the Dog '''and''' Pony at the Show. Or should that be ass? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''<s>Abstain</s>''' '''Against''' <s>i'm on the fence.</s> maybe next time around. don't we have enough users with super powers? and as above i thought HM hated the Sysops?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I do not and have never "hated" the sysops. A few users however seem to think anyone questioning their decision is obviously a sysop hater and screams that loud and often enough that it sticks.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::okay that answers that. For the Record. I do hate sysops. but I fear things i don't understand.... now for my vote, will give me gold in the basket? cookies and milk? and tities and beer?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::How about tickets to Spearmint Rhino and a free bottle of cheap champagne?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::WHO? and I hate fucking champagne... gimmie a good bottle of 12 year old single malt scotch on your next try. so NO.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Don't know him well enough. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouchy vouch''' - He's always been decent, polite and such when I've talked to him. He seems to have a functioning brain and such, so yes, vouch.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I haven't seen him much outside several petty squabbles with other users. If/When he accepts his nomination, it would be useful if he would provide some examples of why he should be a sysop. Until then, I will abstain. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Because of some of his comments on Jed's last case in A/M remind me that I don't want him judging anything important in that place, or A/VB.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Wow, I thought this was a joke. His past actions speak VOLUMES.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I probably should not ask... but which actions do you have in mind? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 07:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - I think he needs more experience with the administration aspects of the wiki, although he seems nice and has a pretty continuous interest in this place. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Only because I haven't seen him do anything particularly special that makes him seem responsible enough for this. Given, I haven't seen him do anything wrong but I don't believe abstaining should justify that. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Seems to be a nice, decent bloke. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Incorrectness aside, don't you think you should be deciding based on a few more criteria than just personality? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I'm sure Honest is contributive and all, but I don't know him well enough. --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 16:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Unless the results are tied and then its a '''Vouch''' I Don't know Honest well enough to make a distinct vouch but in a close decision I'll give him the benifit of the doubt. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:You absolutely refuse to ''get it'', don't you, Con. ''This is '''not''' a vote'', and there will be no "ties". What you say about him is more important than the bolded word at the begining of the sentence <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:37 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::I choose to ignore your reality and substitute my own. '''OR''' It is in fact a vote, but one of a single entity, the Community. And whereas the single "vote" is determined by the shared perceived value by the community of the candidate. Although you may find my phrasing circumspect, let me assure you I meant what I said to indicate my general ambivalence in the matter, but also included a caveat that expresses my general inclusive nature of the promotions of Honestmistake as a sysop. i.e. I get it a hellova lot more than you could possibly believe sir, its not my fault you don't understand what I'm trying to say. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He's a good kid.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Would you believe he's in his 30's? Bit rich to be calling him a kid, mental age or no. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Against'''I havent heard of him before sorry it seems like he dosent have enough time on here!--[[User:Xela798|Dr. Sinclair]] 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Well I have been active in game since september 2005 and on the wiki within a week of starting the game. Since then i have logged in far more frequently than can be healthy and participate in a great deal of discussions etc and sometimes feel like i live on the suggestions pages... I have stepped away from certain areas recently as the drama levels were beginning to annoy me far too much, no doubt I will be back into the fray again soon though. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - We need some alternate opinions on the sysop team, badly. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 04:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Archived Promotions==<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Complete list of Promotion Requests]]<br />
*[[:Category:Successful Promotions Candidacies|Successful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies|Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unaccepted Nominations|Unaccepted Nominations]]<br />
*[[:Category:Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies|Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies]]</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=1381739UDWiki:Administration/Promotions2009-02-06T23:19:23Z<p>Liberty: /* User:Karek */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
{{Promotions Intro}}<br />
==Candidates still requiring vouches==<br />
<!-- ''Place all new promotion bids under this header'' --><br />
''Place all new promotion bids under this header''<br />
<br />
==Candidates currently under community discussion==<br />
===User:Nubis===<br />
I don't want to steal Karek's thunder, but I think he and the others have a point that sysops shouldn't be afraid of the community opinion. If they are then they probably aren't doing their job correctly. I'm one of the longest standing sysops and it's probably time I put myself up for a review. (to be honest, the majority of the [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] I do doesn't require Sysop powers) but hopefully I have shown that I can be reasonable and fair in A/VB/M matters. <br />
<br />
Besides, if Karek steps down this place may fall into chaos and I don't want to see that. So, again, following his wise lead, I'm submitting a re-promotion bid. <br />
<br />
I don't really know what else to say, but consider it open season on any complaints/issues and I will address them. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - For following Karek's retarded example. If anyone else had put up a case on administration in which a result either way would not change the current status, like putting a deleted page up for deletion or reporting a perma banned user they'd have been escalated for shitting up the admin pages. Apparently not here though with one rule for sysops and one for ever fucker else. If you want to be 're-promoted' you have to be demoted first, basic logic and English. Hagnat may have pulled emo-validate-my-existence-by-saying-nice-things-about-me shit in the past but that doesn't change the basic premise that this is crapping up an admin page (whilst a user who is actually up for promotion has a bid in progress no less) and you should all know better. I'd remove both of these on basic principle that you can't be promoted but we all know you'd use excuse to escalate me in the fair and impartial way you do. If you really want the community's opinion, go submit a demotion request and then go for re-promotion properly. And why are you 'Under Community Discussion' when you haven't received three vouches yet? One rule for sysops.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I think you are missing the point that this could very well change my status. <br />
*:I did, however, put it under the wrong heading because I was posting on my way out the door and worried more about getting the news item right than the placement of this. Sorry. That was an accident. I would move this to the right place, but it has enough to be here now, so that would be pointless. <s>(Actually, I forgot AHLG wasn't a sysop anymore - going to move it. - now) </s> I see SA posted. It can be here now.<br />
*:Mostly this is about giving the users a place where they are expected to vent any and all concerns about a user. A place where (unlike a talk page) I don't have control of the content and where it is public enough that even casual users can respond. I would think that you of all people would welcome this IF the sysops doing it actually agreed to abide by the communities opinion at the end. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*No offense, but you sometimes come across as 'biased', although I'll leave it is an assumption since this is the internet and there are no MIND-READING DEVICES. Other than that ''meh'', I don't have any real problems with you, except you're a little odd sometimes... I think you have a good balance on the 'ignore the rules', ie, not going overtop with it. Your [[User:Nubis/WikiMe|work]] is good too. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain for now''' - You are a HUGE asset to the sysop team and I fully support you, but I want to wait until the drama surrounding these promotion bids of you and Karek dies down a little and we get official opinion on it before I officially vote. Yes, I'm weird like that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*As Gnome. Does his share of work around here, reasonably fair. Overall an alright guy, if a bit of a hothead sometimes. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* BFFs FOR EVA! Other than the Amberwaves deletion thing, I've never had a problem with Nubis. And besides that, it was almost entirely about opinion that the conflict started at all. He also makes me laugh.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I had to fight for the Amberwaves image "on principle" because I didn't want the Marty Banks pictures deleted. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::I'd have fought to keep those, because a lot of them were well made, not just "Lol fat" wrote in MS paint.--BFFs [[User:Suicidalangel|'''+SA+''']][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]][[User:Suicidalangel|SA]][[User:Nubis|N]] 4 EVA!!! 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''abstain/borderline vouch''' I don't often see eye to eye with Nubis but I do know that he argues from principle rather than spite/bias. He does a lot of good work around the wiki and my only real issue with him is that a very large amount of the petty and technicality misconducts that are brought against him would be avoided if he followed the rules --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' he sometimes makes me laugh, and has never crossed me yet. gold in basket please.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - "Distinguished quality. A remarkably prime sysop. Thanks. A+!" --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===User:Karek===<br />
I was going to wait until the other bid was finished to do this but have decided it's gonna happen now instead.<br />
<br />
I have been a sysop for a while now, there has been much drama relating to some of my actions a lot of various background work done. We've finally reached a point where the majority of the sysop team is actually active and doing stuff, I hoped we had reached a point where the sysops understood that they actually do have some control of the user base and should act accordingly <small>(In a manner conducive to the administrative nature of the position)</small> but I'll leave that to everyone else to decide, although we certainly are closer than we were when I was promoted.<br />
<br />
I'm putting myself up here as opposed to simply demotion, because I feel that it would be improper for me to leave without at lest giving the community at least one final chance at assessing my treatment and actions as a sysop. Yes, this is a re-promotion bid, It's also probably not as good as it could be wording and information wise I've always sucked at these things. Have at thee.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because he wants to baptise children in acid. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - I like Karek, but it looks like he's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEfzo0q5BxU lost his smile], he's a good guy, and a good for the community.. but if he doesn't want it... he doesn't want it. If you change your mind... I'll happily change my vote.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Question''' - Do ''you'' want to stay on as sysop? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* He's fine and all. I think you should stay. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Against''' - As per Anime Sucks. --[[User:Speels|Speels]] 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* <s>'''Vouch''' - If you want to stay on, you would be welcome. I believe you are an excellent sysop.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
:'''Abstain''' - I would dearly love it if you carried on, but if you want to leave this god awful place, then go for it. Also, as Anime.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - If you don't want to be sysop, don't do it. Even if the community is overwhelming support of keeping you on, if you don't want to do it then just don't. I find this move to be in somewhat poor taste because the '''last''' thing we need is a sysop who doesn't want to be there.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Very Strong Vouch''' - While I don't always agree with Karek, I very much respect his opinion and I personally find him to be a very able and knowledgeable member of the team. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
* '''Vouch''' Because I may not agree with what you say much of the time But I will defend with my life your right to say it. Honestly. Furthermore, no community may be properly represented in its administration without at least some representation from <s>all</s>most possible angles. Karek is my counterpoint on many of beleifs I represent as my own. If Karek leaves I would have to change my public visage, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do ''that''.<small> btw if anyone wants to comment on this please do it on my talk page so it doesnt shit up this validation of Kareks service and abilities. </small> [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Shit mate, one of the few people on this wiki I can count on to be intelligent and know what he's doing, and now you're going to leave? Damn. Do what you want to do, but I still say you did an awesome job.--[[User:Suicidalangel|SA]] 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I would like to see him stay, he does a lot of useful work, with a minimum of fuss <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:44 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Vouch''' - As <s>Nubis.</s> err...Suicidalangel. And who will be left to out-lawyer the wikilawyers if you go? DON'T LEAVE US! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
*:Erm...Nubis hasn't posted here yet. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Good work, Team-[[User_talk:Suicidalangel#Team_Angel_Sigs|BFF]] <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:17 6 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:::Dangint! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' I think I said everything on my talk page under Srs Question. I don't think you are as hated by "the community" as it was painted. Hopefully, this will give you the reassurance that people do respect you for taking the hardline on issues.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]-'''[[User:Nubis|+N+]]'''BFF SA--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As others, I don't always agree with Karek... however, he's one of the best sysops we have. He always strives to things ''the right way'', and is probably the single person I've learned the most from on this wiki. The wiki will lose a very good person if you go, karek. Sigh... :( --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - You suck for putting Honest up for promotion, but apart from that you're alright. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I don't always agree with your opinion, but I think you are as fair and unbiased as anyone will get around here. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - [[A/DM|You want over here]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Btw that's an as anime not a i want you demoted nao.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*Karek's a great guy, and what boxy said-he does a lot of work with very little fuss. Although he can attract drama sometimes, that's pretty ''meh'' overall. He's enough of an ass to make hard decisions and get things done, but he's nice enough to not simply piss everyone off for no reason, and create MOAR DRAMAS!!!! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''vouch''' Karek and I disagree on a great many things but he is always willing to explain and defend his position in a fair and logical way rather than just dismiss people as wrong he is also the most likely of all sysops to act without bias. Couple that with his understanding of how things work and i really doubt that we can afford to lose him... Still going to argue with him a lot if he stays though.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - As Linkthewindow and Honestmistake. You're pretty much the best sysop we have. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Meh''' - I know he has worked very hard as a sysops but the way he handeld a deletion lately was outright terrible, plain undemocratic. --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Fair, unbiased and one of the best sysops around :). --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' this is an easy one. as above. perfectly explained... speels go suck a dogs dick.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Simply the best that I've seen. Bold in desicions but rarely wrong in my opinion. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:Honestmistake]]===<br />
He has more than enough contributions, although the history purge screws with the contributor history. He has been here more than a year now, has taken an active interest in the maintenance duties and policy discussions on this wiki and, while we don't always agree is the kind of user I think should be promoted. He has proven he is able to do the job and more than qualifies. So, assuming he accepts, I think it's about time we gave him a bid.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Very intresting to see the amount of suport (and opposition I have had here) and can only appologize that i am on a restricted interwebz diet at due to someone else breaking my home connection. <br />
:I am flattered by the nomination but don't think I have the skills needed to actually do the real work required for the job. Also, unlike Suicidal Angel, I do still sometimes edit the wiki drunk which goes a long way to explaining why I sometimes go off on tangents.That said, I would like to see this bid go through to the finish but feel it only fair to point out that if promoted I want absolutly nothing to do with any aspect of the job which involves wiki skills, though i will do my best to learn some.<br />
<br />
:Why might i make a good sysop? Well; I do not argue from malice and always with a point. I do not expect to win all (or given this is the internet, any) of those arguments and indeed often become embroiled in them only to make the otherside think. I am always willing to hold my hands up to my own mistakes and would point out that in my 3+ years here I have hardly ever gone a week without editing something and have only once been brought up on vandal charges and that was a pretty stupid and petty case. I am an inclusionist and proud of it and feel that a sysops role should be not just enforcing rules but knowing when doing so is counter productive.<br />
:I have been avoiding A/VB recently and don't look forwards to being dragged back, however, I don't think any sysop should be allowed to not get involved there so would obviously have no choice if promoted.<br />
<br />
:Finally; The Sysops job description includes the phrase "Trusted User" and you can trust me to always listen to both sides of an argument and to always strive to help any users in any way I can (even if its just pointing you at someone who knows what they are doing!) You can trust me not to try any fancy re-organization and not to try to overthrow the wiki... what you can't trust me with is any actual work!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I literally threw up. You've never been able to resist a good bitch in your entire time on the wiki; why the fuck should anyone believe you'd start now? OMG GUIS I'D ROOLY TROOLY CHAENG SRSLY? Bullshit. You don't even know the meaning of the term self-control. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You threw up? Bonus!<br />
::::Seriously though I would like to thank you and Read, Such are your towering reputations for fairness and sincerity that your early support would have doomed this before i even noticed it....--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::DO HO HO. You always were a witty little cunt. What a shame you don't put as much effort into logical thinking (srsly guise - as long as mai harts in teh rite plaec it dun matter wether im rite dus it?) as you do coming up with those shitty jokes. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Also, basically what you're saying here is that promoting you would be completely pointless as you wouldn't do a single fucking thing beyond 'keepan ur hart in teh rite plaece and bein srsly srs aboot discushun'. Lol. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I was going to reply... but honestly, would there even be a point? I mean, its not like you would accept the answer and go away is it!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You were going to reply, but you didn't... then you did anyway. Fail. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::tl;dr. If that's way you type a large message then you just gave me another reason to remain against. Sorry.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I put him up here, it would be strange if I didn't vouch. I believe he would be a good Sysop. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I've known him on the suggestion pages for a while. He's a good guy, doesn't get involved in too much drama and is reasonably level-headed. <s>Not sure if he wants this, though. </s>{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I've been proven wrong. Although it would be nice if you could learn how to use paragraphs :P. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - too fucking serious too much of the time.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Also, this proves what Karek knows about what the community needs.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Not about my view of the community, it's about my view of the user. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Look. 3 vouches. Now he has to accept. Although he might not. Did I mention '''Vouch'''? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - We do not need yet another rules-whoring crybaby on the sysop team. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strongly Against''' This user has shown time and time again that he fails to comprehend basic concepts. His arguments are emotional, weak (at best), nonsensical and off topic. I seriously wonder if someone hacked Karek's account to make him do this. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:The "You Ass" section on Karek's Talk page is more than enough to show what I am talking about. The section where Karek says about HM:''Iscariot and you both has a long history of disliking the sysops and raging against the machine for the sake of it, I deal with Iscariot off of the wiki and know he acts very differently here and I know you can be reasonable but often enough fall into the category of opposing the sysops for the sake of it that I often find myself having to take your comments on something with a grain of salt. '' RAGING VOUCH there Karek! --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::He may be one to argue but he is also willing to admit when he is wrong about something if discussion is actually attempted. He only argues because he actually cares about how the rules are enforced, not like some others who do it simply to cause drama. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Karek, he may admit to being wrong ''when you finally get it through his head'' that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. Look at his comments in the section I mentioned and his comments on the J3D A/M case are frighteningly dense. I don't want another sysop that we will have to babysit or clean up after. He also "splits hairs" on policies by commenting on the wording. He thought the phrase "No Confidence Vote" was too harsh. WTF?<br />
*:::You know, Karek, it really looks like you are trying to get someone in "the new crowd" promoted so that you don't seem like part of the "elite clique" and so that you can answer Iscariot's cries of ''you are out of touch with the community''. Why are you putting him up now? What has HM done in the last 2 months that all of the sudden made you decide ''Damn! this is the fresh blood we need''?--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::It's not a sudden decision. I've been considering this for a long while and it's just now that I happened to get around to it(I don't like multiple bids up at once). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::Nubis.... "thank you for your contribution" pretty much sums up my opinion on you and your "vote". {{unsigned|Honestmistake|}}<br />
*::::::Firstly, learn to sign. Secondly, you're displaying the exact same arrogance you so often shout from your soapbox that the sysops supposedly have too much of. Enjoy your hypocrisy, dipshit. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::::Third, it is "Thank you for your input". Your attention to detail is awe inspiring.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::::::Believe it or not I carefully chose that word rather than your version because I feel it fits what I wished to say so much better. That it so closely reflects your own words was deliberate; hence the quote marks. I understand and accept your concerns, I just don't see the point in arguing with you and Bob when all it does is lead to insults. If you must insist on abuse then take it to my talk page rather than Spamming this page.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong 'gainst''' - Done nothinto deserve this, other wise as Cyberbob/Nubis... WTF hae you been smoking Karke?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Sorry. I know Honest is contributive, but I'm not sure he's up to the task. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - ''Pros:'' Honestmistake is a solid user and with a long history of interest and contributions. Usually listens to reason and almost always avoids drama. ''Cons:'' Sometimes comes up with really weird, illogical positions on what seem to be pretty straightforward issues. ''Concusion:'' More time and more active participation in Admin stuff, then he might be an excellent candidate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against'''I don't see him that often, nor do I see any great contributions.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 09:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Free sysops for everybody \õ/ --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:honestmistake is a good and caring contributor. he is not the kind who acts for the lulz, so he wont fuck up with his admin powers --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Given the [[User:Amazing|company you keep]] I'm sure you'll forgive people if they don't find your character reference all that exciting. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Given the candidates i have voted for in the past ( http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Cyberbob240_%283%29 ) I am not sure they should put trust in me either?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::You're doing that arrogance thing again. BTW, I would (and did) make a damn good sysop if I gave a fuck. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He mostly has a point when he disagrees with a decision, and even if I disagree, it's usually a difference of opinion <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:23 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:Should anyone else bother <s>voting</s> then, if he accepts the nomination? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Of course they should. I always take into account other people's opinions <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:13 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::::Hahaha. That's a good one. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::When does cyberbob's trolling cross the border into shitting up an Admin page? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::My comment was considerably more relevant than that attempt, my dear. If you want to go after someone for shitting up admin pages I suggest you take a look at the amount of shit I've moved off A/VB onto the talk page in recent weeks. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::When he stops making good points. I do hope that they at least play out the charade and leave the "what do you think about this promotion bid" comments on each other's pages. We expect the Dog '''and''' Pony at the Show. Or should that be ass? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''<s>Abstain</s>''' '''Against''' <s>i'm on the fence.</s> maybe next time around. don't we have enough users with super powers? and as above i thought HM hated the Sysops?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I do not and have never "hated" the sysops. A few users however seem to think anyone questioning their decision is obviously a sysop hater and screams that loud and often enough that it sticks.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::okay that answers that. For the Record. I do hate sysops. but I fear things i don't understand.... now for my vote, will give me gold in the basket? cookies and milk? and tities and beer?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::How about tickets to Spearmint Rhino and a free bottle of cheap champagne?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::WHO? and I hate fucking champagne... gimmie a good bottle of 12 year old single malt scotch on your next try. so NO.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Don't know him well enough. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouchy vouch''' - He's always been decent, polite and such when I've talked to him. He seems to have a functioning brain and such, so yes, vouch.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I haven't seen him much outside several petty squabbles with other users. If/When he accepts his nomination, it would be useful if he would provide some examples of why he should be a sysop. Until then, I will abstain. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Because of some of his comments on Jed's last case in A/M remind me that I don't want him judging anything important in that place, or A/VB.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Wow, I thought this was a joke. His past actions speak VOLUMES.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:I probably should not ask... but which actions do you have in mind? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 07:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - I think he needs more experience with the administration aspects of the wiki, although he seems nice and has a pretty continuous interest in this place. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Only because I haven't seen him do anything particularly special that makes him seem responsible enough for this. Given, I haven't seen him do anything wrong but I don't believe abstaining should justify that. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Seems to be a nice, decent bloke. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 09:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Incorrectness aside, don't you think you should be deciding based on a few more criteria than just personality? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I'm sure Honest is contributive and all, but I don't know him well enough. --{{User:Dr Eddie Ashford/Sig}} 16:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Unless the results are tied and then its a '''Vouch''' I Don't know Honest well enough to make a distinct vouch but in a close decision I'll give him the benifit of the doubt. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:You absolutely refuse to ''get it'', don't you, Con. ''This is '''not''' a vote'', and there will be no "ties". What you say about him is more important than the bolded word at the begining of the sentence <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:37 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::I choose to ignore your reality and substitute my own. '''OR''' It is in fact a vote, but one of a single entity, the Community. And whereas the single "vote" is determined by the shared perceived value by the community of the candidate. Although you may find my phrasing circumspect, let me assure you I meant what I said to indicate my general ambivalence in the matter, but also included a caveat that expresses my general inclusive nature of the promotions of Honestmistake as a sysop. i.e. I get it a hellova lot more than you could possibly believe sir, its not my fault you don't understand what I'm trying to say. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He's a good kid.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Would you believe he's in his 30's? Bit rich to be calling him a kid, mental age or no. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Against'''I havent heard of him before sorry it seems like he dosent have enough time on here!--[[User:Xela798|Dr. Sinclair]] 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Well I have been active in game since september 2005 and on the wiki within a week of starting the game. Since then i have logged in far more frequently than can be healthy and participate in a great deal of discussions etc and sometimes feel like i live on the suggestions pages... I have stepped away from certain areas recently as the drama levels were beginning to annoy me far too much, no doubt I will be back into the fray again soon though. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - We need some alternate opinions on the sysop team, badly. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 04:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Archived Promotions==<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Complete list of Promotion Requests]]<br />
*[[:Category:Successful Promotions Candidacies|Successful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies|Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unaccepted Nominations|Unaccepted Nominations]]<br />
*[[:Category:Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies|Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies]]</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&diff=1380716UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct2009-02-05T10:37:31Z<p>Liberty: /* Hagnat */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here. <br />
<br />
==Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting==<br />
The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct '''must''' be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.<br />
<br />
Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that ''is'' misconduct, and should be reported to this page. <br />
<br />
There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.<br />
<br />
All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, ''not'' the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
==Administrative Abilities==<br />
For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):<br />
<br />
* Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.<br />
* Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct<br />
* Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.<br />
* Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).<br />
* Warning users reported in [[A/VB|Vandal Banning]].<br />
* Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.<br />
* Editing of Protected pages by any means.<br />
* Research IP activity using the [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]] extension.<br />
* (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.<br />
<br />
If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]] or [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]].<br />
<br />
==Example of Misconduct Proceedings==<br />
<br />
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|Logs]] show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:::I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::::As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==<br />
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|Administration Staff]] has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over [[UDWiki:Misconduct]] and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.<br />
<br />
Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.<br />
<br />
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==<br />
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. --><br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature. <br />
<br />
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature". <br />
<br />
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from. <br />
::And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.<br />
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.<br />
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--{{User:The General/sig}} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::So now redundant links are against policy? When did ''that'' happen? There is nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.<br />
<br />
::::::Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the only ''crime'' i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "''1/6 of the links to his user page''" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of ''punishment'' for when i come back. Até mais. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Misconduct''' Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) <sub> who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely) </sub><br />
<br />
All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a ''vandalism case'' will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.<br />
<br />
Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig ''is'' vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB ''properly''. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually, see [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned]]. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per [[UDWiki:Vandalism]]. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, '''a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct''', provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It also says that ''The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals.'' Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you feel this way, perhaps you will find [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Introduction|this section]] of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: ''"Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it"''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he ''does'' have a lot of cases.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_March_21|This one]], in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with ''a "real" escalation''. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007#2007.2C_September_15|Also]] this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case ''if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism'' because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
''What is this?!'' I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule ''Not Misconduct'' just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was '''nothing''' that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned|Yes, they can]]. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Notice how the guidelines specifically negate the whole of Kareks reason for misconducting, I quote "''a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]], as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''". Report/warning is not ground for misconduct, as long as the case is put on A/VB for review <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:22 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Because why the rule exists stops mattering when you can use it justify an argument that is otherwise baseless apparently. [[wikipedia:WP:GAME#Examples|#4]] Boxy, #4. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about "''system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''", and you've done nothing to show that the spirit of the policy is to only apply it to active vandals (other than to state that it's your opinion that it's so). Given your usual hard arsed attitude to Hagnat sticking to the letter of the policy, it's rather ironic that you want to burn him here when he did follow the letter of the policy (and was willing to reverse even that decision, something few sysops do) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct'''. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read '''didn't''' revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban ''after'' it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - by a 4 to 3 vote. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::He's done this "one thing" multiple times, and to mention he's been misconducted and "punished" over 7 times in the past three years, and not to mention he's been in this place for cases against him 20 or so times.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You can't count the 20 cases against him due to the fact that anything posted on here is considered a case and there are/were some post happy people that thought file Misconduct first, ask about it later. However, I will give you the 7 cases. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Oh, Iw asn;t counting them against him. I was just saying he's on this page ''a lot'', whether he deserved it or not.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::One thing this time. In true hagnat fashion he's only done one thing wrong at a time. A quick flick over his record shows a trend towards getting ahead of himself. Not that i actually want hagnat demoted of course.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::then why did you call for his demotion?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::coz i think he should be demoted, but at the same time i don't want the entire sysop team to be teamboxy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Am I teamboxy? Because I don't really know who I'm teamed up with these days. Everyone seems to be pissing me off lately. :) Except for you and Bob and your undying love for each other. That's my beautiful oasis in this wiki desert. [[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Can I have a teamangel?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I'll join Team Angel. But we need cool matching sigs or something.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::You pick the sigs. Team Angel, ASSEMBLE!--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::You can't have nubis, he's in teamboxy along with karek and err, boxy. Together they control teh wikiz! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::"teamboxy" doesn't even think Hags did anything wrong from the start.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::teamboxy don't want hagnat off the team and neither do i. teamboxy and 2 special in this instance are in agreeance. In regards to misconduct occuring here, they aren't.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<s>'''Misconduct''' because he jumped the gun. He definitely should have waited till the week had passed. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s> Actually, I've changed my mind. '''Not Misconduct'''. I've re-read both the vandal case and this case a couple of times and come to the conclusion that Hagnat was within his right to ban SLR for the week. The main reason is that because Hagnat provided Read with a polite request to fix his sig, which was then ignored and Read replaced the policy breaking sig. If a user breaks a polite warning, they show they are acting in bad faith (in this case ruled Vandalism by the majority of the sysop team) and receive the next vandal escalation which is what Hagnat did. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I'm sorry, but '''where the fuck are you people getting the idea that he replaced his policy breaking sig?''' Do I have to spell it out for you all, edit by edit, where he tried multiple times to bring it into the rules? The first time, he shortened it, trying to bring it into the rules, makign it easier to find his user page in the links. The second time, he made his user link very noticable. Trying to bring it within the rules. He '''never''' reverted it back to its original form, always showed good faith in trying to brign it within the boundries, while still having the sig he wanted. He even fixed the problem Hagnat used as banning him. Come the fuck on people, don't let Hagnat get away scot free because he's part of your damned in-crowd. He fucked up, you all know it. Now fucking admit it. Jesus.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376689&oldid=1374198 This is the only edit] that is relevant to the warning (the one where he did make it somewhat obvious came ''after'' hagnat unbanned him). That is an absolutely minor improvement. You still have to mouseover heaps of individual letters to find the user page link. Read admitted he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system gaming the system] ("''you are all fags who cant handle anyone who [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 finds a policy loophole and exploits it]''") <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:32 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Yeah? Minor improvement or not, he ''still'' tried to fix the problem (albeit smaller chunks at a time), and Hagnat ''still'' was trigger happy with the banhammer. That fact is still there.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It went through [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Sexylegsread|A/VB]], and was found to be vandalism, and the ban was reinstated. You might have a point if Hagnat had actually got it wrong. You may feel it was a harsh punishment for such a minor piece of vandalism, but the next escalation had to be the ban, regardless of severity. Perhaps it's time for Read to put in a few months of contributative edits and wash off a few of his escalations, eh, instead of simply coming here to get involved in drama <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:01 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Reinstated. Right. Not to mention the fact that the ban is still illegitimate as ''SLR never got his one week to fix it''. Sig policy: "warned once and asked to change it. The user has '''one week to comply'''". He ''tried''. Honestly, if this wasn't SLR, you guys would have been helping the user figure out exactly what to do with his sig to bring it in-line, and yet still keep as close to as the original as possible. But it's him, especially on a somewhat vague part of the guidelines, and even though he tries to rectify his mistake while still trying to keep as much of his sig as possible (like '''most''' users would) he gets pwnt for a week, with no consultation from anyone else from the admin team. But its cool. Let Hagnat just keep getting away with shit, when you said it your self in his last promotions bid that he's not doing the job like it's supposed to be done.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::'''Boxy:''' Funny thing about that boxy. You just made the point why ''this is misconduct''. Hagnat acted recklessly with the early ban before there were legitimate grounds to view the edit as bad faith, he acted unnecessairally and had Sexylegsread never been unbanned he would never have been punished. Hagnat's actions show exaclty why report-escalations are misconduct when used in cases where the user is not actively vandalising the wiki. Hagnat got it wrong because he acted preemptively and ''we can not do that'', especially when there is an actual attempt to follow the policies as exist as there was with Read(his talk page is where the case should have stayed for at least the week). The sig policy outlines how we are supposed to treat cases like this, it was currently being discussed on Reads talk page<sub>(a discussion which you participated in and took his side on if you do remember)</sub>, Hagnat saw people complaining and proactively reverted it <sub>(something that could easily have led to a semi-legitimate VB case had Read not responded)</sub>, Read altered his sig reducing the number of ds in an attempt to fit it through the "loophole", Hagnat, instead of telling him that it still wasn't OK and furthering the discussion ''that was already taking place'' <underline>assumed</underline> any disagreement with his preemptive and improper actions to be in bad faith instead of an attempt to remain in the rules while being annoying and banned him. ''Even though'' the discussion on his talk page made it clear it wasn't a simple straight forward case by any means, ''even though'' Read was already being talked to about it and given the chance to resolve it without an escalation, and ''even though'' Hagnat himself was overstepping the bounds of courtesy on the wiki in the first place. In the process it led to a case where Hagnat himself decided that the ban was improper and was followed up by unbanning him(although poorly) in addition to at least two Not Vandalism verdicts. ''The only reason this ended up being a Vandalism Verdict is Read shot himself in the foot during the legitimate process that should have taken place in the first place''. You can't logically argue that this is in any way incorrect because Read was found after the fact to be acting in bad faith, that's a logical fallacy, he never would have been found to be acting in bad faith if he hadn't been unbanned, this case ''was made before he was found to be a vandal'', this action is misconduct. The more ironic bit is you're arguing the purpose of the week for the Sig policy on the A/VB page as justification for the ban but aruging ''against'' what we know to be the purpose of the report-escalate policy for the same reason. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::'''Cheese:''' Incorrect, ''I'' provided Read with a polite request and [[User_talk:Sexylegsread#Ugh|some discussion as to what was wrong with the sig]], Hagnat just came by and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376612&oldid=1374198 edited it without discussion]. The difference? Well, if someone did the same to me I would do the same thing Read did because an actual discussion was going on, it's not only rude but it's completely against everything that we always do when dealing with this stuff. The only times someone is justified in doing something like that is in a case where it is actually breaking wiki pages or crashing them entirely<sub>(''both'' things have happend)</sub>. You also need to keep in mind that Read's actions that lead to the ban in question here ''were in fact ruled Not Vandalism by a majority at the time'', he wasn't punished for having a sig that breaks policy but rather why he made the sig, he also wasn't punished for reverting the sig because he was completely in his rights to do that and anything different shows altered treatment of a vandal after the fact. He wasn't a vandal when this case was made, he wasn't escalated for what Hagnat banned him for, and for that matter Hagnat did the equivalent of the O'Reilly Mic Cut, he reverted, Read tried to bring it within policy(even though he was still breaking the policy), and instead of discussing what was wrong with the new sig Hagnat simply banned him. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Sure is butthurt around here. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I assume that everyone is at the very least in agreement that he should serve at the very least a ban in equal time to the pre-emptive ban read served? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:A ban, plus a reminder that this behavior is definitely bad, and can lead to his sysops powers being removed. Also, this is the reminder. :). Is Team Angel (Consists of me. Nubis nevar made our official bff sigs. :'(...)in agreement with the ten hour ban?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Umm If I'm counting corectly, with Cheese Changing his mindits 4-3 for Not Misconduct therefore no Ban at all for Hagnat. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:As long as no more sysops vote misconduct - which looks unlikely that they will. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:''Me waits for the expected fastarchive attempt from Conndraka''. And even then are you seriously of the mind that Hagnat shouldn't even serve the initial ban that he himself repealed to allow for the case to actually take place? Even I would expect better than that from you.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::1st I wouldn't do a fast archive of anything I try to wait 24 hours after the last constructive edit to archive...and I rarely archive anything anymore. 2nd If the case comes down to misconduct then yea, I agree that a ban equal to the one issued to read before would be an appropriate punishment...IF I agreed that it was misconduct, which I don't for previously stated reasons. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
:::Really though there are two problems with that. The first being that you're not taking into account Hagnat's actions when saying he was acting in good faith as a sysop. Acting in good faith would be through the rational and common channels all users are expected to go through in a process like this, he bypassed those to simply revert the edit with no attempt at explanation as to why and then to ban when Read did what any reasonable user would do. Hagnat actually did something we normally dismiss cases of but beacuse he was a sysop he abused a loophole so that the case wouldn't be dismissed by whoever ruled. Second is that your using a rule that exists completely and exclusively for dealing with [[User:3pwv|this]] to be used to deal with [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:Conndraka|this]]. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's actually '''4/4'''. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::He's not counthing nubis because nubis made the case. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Could it be unbolded then? I dare not do it myself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::He wasn't actually voting, he was summarizing what was the verdict of the case at that time. Although I can certainly see where the confusion comes from. Unbolding for now. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Isn't Nubis the 4th Misconduct? Boxy '''NM''', The General '''NM''', Con '''NM''', Karek '''M''', ZS '''M''', SA '''M''', Nubis '''M''', Cheese '''NM''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::I should be since I clearly consider this Misconduct. There is nothing that says I can't rule on a case I brought up either otherwise why would any sysop ever post a case? I understand that you can't vote on a case against you (even though it isn't spelled out in the rules) but to preclude a sysop from voting on case because they made it is stupid. If we can rule on VB cases that we post then I sure as hell can vote on this. Otherwise, I'll hijack Wiki Martyr and post cases.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Yes, that's why I counted you (or were you talking to Karek?) :p <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:18 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::::After 3 colons my counting gets off. Sorry. :) It was directed at Karek. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::I threw the bold back in then. Sorry Karek. And Nubis of course. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&diff=1380715UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct2009-02-05T10:35:39Z<p>Liberty: /* Hagnat */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here. <br />
<br />
==Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting==<br />
The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct '''must''' be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.<br />
<br />
Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that ''is'' misconduct, and should be reported to this page. <br />
<br />
There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.<br />
<br />
All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, ''not'' the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
==Administrative Abilities==<br />
For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):<br />
<br />
* Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.<br />
* Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct<br />
* Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.<br />
* Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).<br />
* Warning users reported in [[A/VB|Vandal Banning]].<br />
* Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.<br />
* Editing of Protected pages by any means.<br />
* Research IP activity using the [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]] extension.<br />
* (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.<br />
<br />
If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]] or [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]].<br />
<br />
==Example of Misconduct Proceedings==<br />
<br />
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|Logs]] show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:::I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::::As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==<br />
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|Administration Staff]] has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over [[UDWiki:Misconduct]] and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.<br />
<br />
Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.<br />
<br />
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==<br />
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. --><br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature. <br />
<br />
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature". <br />
<br />
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from. <br />
::And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.<br />
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.<br />
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--{{User:The General/sig}} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::So now redundant links are against policy? When did ''that'' happen? There is nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.<br />
<br />
::::::Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the only ''crime'' i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "''1/6 of the links to his user page''" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of ''punishment'' for when i come back. Até mais. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Misconduct''' Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) <sub> who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely) </sub><br />
<br />
All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a ''vandalism case'' will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.<br />
<br />
Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig ''is'' vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB ''properly''. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually, see [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned]]. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per [[UDWiki:Vandalism]]. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, '''a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct''', provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It also says that ''The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals.'' Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you feel this way, perhaps you will find [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Introduction|this section]] of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: ''"Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it"''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he ''does'' have a lot of cases.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_March_21|This one]], in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with ''a "real" escalation''. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007#2007.2C_September_15|Also]] this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case ''if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism'' because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
''What is this?!'' I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule ''Not Misconduct'' just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was '''nothing''' that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned|Yes, they can]]. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Notice how the guidelines specifically negate the whole of Kareks reason for misconducting, I quote "''a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]], as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''". Report/warning is not ground for misconduct, as long as the case is put on A/VB for review <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:22 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Because why the rule exists stops mattering when you can use it justify an argument that is otherwise baseless apparently. [[wikipedia:WP:GAME#Examples|#4]] Boxy, #4. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about "''system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''", and you've done nothing to show that the spirit of the policy is to only apply it to active vandals (other than to state that it's your opinion that it's so). Given your usual hard arsed attitude to Hagnat sticking to the letter of the policy, it's rather ironic that you want to burn him here when he did follow the letter of the policy (and was willing to reverse even that decision, something few sysops do) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct'''. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read '''didn't''' revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban ''after'' it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - by a 4 to 3 vote. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::He's done this "one thing" multiple times, and to mention he's been misconducted and "punished" over 7 times in the past three years, and not to mention he's been in this place for cases against him 20 or so times.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You can't count the 20 cases against him due to the fact that anything posted on here is considered a case and there are/were some post happy people that thought file Misconduct first, ask about it later. However, I will give you the 7 cases. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Oh, Iw asn;t counting them against him. I was just saying he's on this page ''a lot'', whether he deserved it or not.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::One thing this time. In true hagnat fashion he's only done one thing wrong at a time. A quick flick over his record shows a trend towards getting ahead of himself. Not that i actually want hagnat demoted of course.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::then why did you call for his demotion?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::coz i think he should be demoted, but at the same time i don't want the entire sysop team to be teamboxy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Am I teamboxy? Because I don't really know who I'm teamed up with these days. Everyone seems to be pissing me off lately. :) Except for you and Bob and your undying love for each other. That's my beautiful oasis in this wiki desert. [[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Can I have a teamangel?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I'll join Team Angel. But we need cool matching sigs or something.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::You pick the sigs. Team Angel, ASSEMBLE!--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::You can't have nubis, he's in teamboxy along with karek and err, boxy. Together they control teh wikiz! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::"teamboxy" doesn't even think Hags did anything wrong from the start.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::teamboxy don't want hagnat off the team and neither do i. teamboxy and 2 special in this instance are in agreeance. In regards to misconduct occuring here, they aren't.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<s>'''Misconduct''' because he jumped the gun. He definitely should have waited till the week had passed. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s> Actually, I've changed my mind. '''Not Misconduct'''. I've re-read both the vandal case and this case a couple of times and come to the conclusion that Hagnat was within his right to ban SLR for the week. The main reason is that because Hagnat provided Read with a polite request to fix his sig, which was then ignored and Read replaced the policy breaking sig. If a user breaks a polite warning, they show they are acting in bad faith (in this case ruled Vandalism by the majority of the sysop team) and receive the next vandal escalation which is what Hagnat did. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I'm sorry, but '''where the fuck are you people getting the idea that he replaced his policy breaking sig?''' Do I have to spell it out for you all, edit by edit, where he tried multiple times to bring it into the rules? The first time, he shortened it, trying to bring it into the rules, makign it easier to find his user page in the links. The second time, he made his user link very noticable. Trying to bring it within the rules. He '''never''' reverted it back to its original form, always showed good faith in trying to brign it within the boundries, while still having the sig he wanted. He even fixed the problem Hagnat used as banning him. Come the fuck on people, don't let Hagnat get away scot free because he's part of your damned in-crowd. He fucked up, you all know it. Now fucking admit it. Jesus.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376689&oldid=1374198 This is the only edit] that is relevant to the warning (the one where he did make it somewhat obvious came ''after'' hagnat unbanned him). That is an absolutely minor improvement. You still have to mouseover heaps of individual letters to find the user page link. Read admitted he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system gaming the system] ("''you are all fags who cant handle anyone who [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 finds a policy loophole and exploits it]''") <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:32 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Yeah? Minor improvement or not, he ''still'' tried to fix the problem (albeit smaller chunks at a time), and Hagnat ''still'' was trigger happy with the banhammer. That fact is still there.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It went through [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Sexylegsread|A/VB]], and was found to be vandalism, and the ban was reinstated. You might have a point if Hagnat had actually got it wrong. You may feel it was a harsh punishment for such a minor piece of vandalism, but the next escalation had to be the ban, regardless of severity. Perhaps it's time for Read to put in a few months of contributative edits and wash off a few of his escalations, eh, instead of simply coming here to get involved in drama <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:01 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Reinstated. Right. Not to mention the fact that the ban is still illegitimate as ''SLR never got his one week to fix it''. Sig policy: "warned once and asked to change it. The user has '''one week to comply'''". He ''tried''. Honestly, if this wasn't SLR, you guys would have been helping the user figure out exactly what to do with his sig to bring it in-line, and yet still keep as close to as the original as possible. But it's him, especially on a somewhat vague part of the guidelines, and even though he tries to rectify his mistake while still trying to keep as much of his sig as possible (like '''most''' users would) he gets pwnt for a week, with no consultation from anyone else from the admin team. But its cool. Let Hagnat just keep getting away with shit, when you said it your self in his last promotions bid that he's not doing the job like it's supposed to be done.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::'''Boxy:''' Funny thing about that boxy. You just made the point why ''this is misconduct''. Hagnat acted recklessly with the early ban before there were legitimate grounds to view the edit as bad faith, he acted unnecessairally and had Sexylegsread never been unbanned he would never have been punished. Hagnat's actions show exaclty why report-escalations are misconduct when used in cases where the user is not actively vandalising the wiki. Hagnat got it wrong because he acted preemptively and ''we can not do that'', especially when there is an actual attempt to follow the policies as exist as there was with Read(his talk page is where the case should have stayed for at least the week). The sig policy outlines how we are supposed to treat cases like this, it was currently being discussed on Reads talk page<sub>(a discussion which you participated in and took his side on if you do remember)</sub>, Hagnat saw people complaining and proactively reverted it <sub>(something that could easily have led to a semi-legitimate VB case had Read not responded)</sub>, Read altered his sig reducing the number of ds in an attempt to fit it through the "loophole", Hagnat, instead of telling him that it still wasn't OK and furthering the discussion ''that was already taking place'' <underline>assumed</underline> any disagreement with his preemptive and improper actions to be in bad faith instead of an attempt to remain in the rules while being annoying and banned him. ''Even though'' the discussion on his talk page made it clear it wasn't a simple straight forward case by any means, ''even though'' Read was already being talked to about it and given the chance to resolve it without an escalation, and ''even though'' Hagnat himself was overstepping the bounds of courtesy on the wiki in the first place. In the process it led to a case where Hagnat himself decided that the ban was improper and was followed up by unbanning him(although poorly) in addition to at least two Not Vandalism verdicts. ''The only reason this ended up being a Vandalism Verdict is Read shot himself in the foot during the legitimate process that should have taken place in the first place''. You can't logically argue that this is in any way incorrect because Read was found after the fact to be acting in bad faith, that's a logical fallacy, he never would have been found to be acting in bad faith if he hadn't been unbanned, this case ''was made before he was found to be a vandal'', this action is misconduct. The more ironic bit is you're arguing the purpose of the week for the Sig policy on the A/VB page as justification for the ban but aruging ''against'' what we know to be the purpose of the report-escalate policy for the same reason. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::'''Cheese:''' Incorrect, ''I'' provided Read with a polite request and [[User_talk:Sexylegsread#Ugh|some discussion as to what was wrong with the sig]], Hagnat just came by and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376612&oldid=1374198 edited it without discussion]. The difference? Well, if someone did the same to me I would do the same thing Read did because an actual discussion was going on, it's not only rude but it's completely against everything that we always do when dealing with this stuff. The only times someone is justified in doing something like that is in a case where it is actually breaking wiki pages or crashing them entirely<sub>(''both'' things have happend)</sub>. You also need to keep in mind that Read's actions that lead to the ban in question here ''were in fact ruled Not Vandalism by a majority at the time'', he wasn't punished for having a sig that breaks policy but rather why he made the sig, he also wasn't punished for reverting the sig because he was completely in his rights to do that and anything different shows altered treatment of a vandal after the fact. He wasn't a vandal when this case was made, he wasn't escalated for what Hagnat banned him for, and for that matter Hagnat did the equivalent of the O'Reilly Mic Cut, he reverted, Read tried to bring it within policy(even though he was still breaking the policy), and instead of discussing what was wrong with the new sig Hagnat simply banned him. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Sure is butthurt around here. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I assume that everyone is at the very least in agreement that he should serve at the very least a ban in equal time to the pre-emptive ban read served? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:A ban, plus a reminder that this behavior is definitely bad, and can lead to his sysops powers being removed. Also, this is the reminder. :). Is Team Angel (Consists of me. Nubis nevar made our official bff sigs. :'(...)in agreement with the ten hour ban?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Umm If I'm counting corectly, with Cheese Changing his mindits 4-3 for Not Misconduct therefore no Ban at all for Hagnat. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:As long as no more sysops vote misconduct - which looks unlikely that they will. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:''Me waits for the expected fastarchive attempt from Conndraka''. And even then are you seriously of the mind that Hagnat shouldn't even serve the initial ban that he himself repealed to allow for the case to actually take place? Even I would expect better than that from you.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::1st I wouldn't do a fast archive of anything I try to wait 24 hours after the last constructive edit to archive...and I rarely archive anything anymore. 2nd If the case comes down to misconduct then yea, I agree that a ban equal to the one issued to read before would be an appropriate punishment...IF I agreed that it was misconduct, which I don't for previously stated reasons. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
:::Really though there are two problems with that. The first being that you're not taking into account Hagnat's actions when saying he was acting in good faith as a sysop. Acting in good faith would be through the rational and common channels all users are expected to go through in a process like this, he bypassed those to simply revert the edit with no attempt at explanation as to why and then to ban when Read did what any reasonable user would do. Hagnat actually did something we normally dismiss cases of but beacuse he was a sysop he abused a loophole so that the case wouldn't be dismissed by whoever ruled. Second is that your using a rule that exists completely and exclusively for dealing with [[User:3pwv|this]] to be used to deal with [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:Conndraka|this]]. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's actually '''4/4'''. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::He's not counthing nubis because nubis made the case. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Could it be unbolded then? I dare not do it myself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::He wasn't actually voting, he was summarizing what was the verdict of the case at that time. Although I can certainly see where the confusion comes from. Unbolding for now. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Isn't Nubis the 4th Misconduct? Boxy '''NM''', The General '''NM''', Con '''NM''', Karek '''M''', ZS '''M''', SA '''M''', Nubis '''M''', Cheese '''NM''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::I should be since I clearly consider this Misconduct. There is nothing that says I can't rule on a case I brought up either otherwise why would any sysop ever post a case? I understand that you can't vote on a case against you (even though it isn't spelled out in the rules) but to preclude a sysop from voting on case because they made it is stupid. If we can rule on VB cases that we post then I sure as hell can vote on this. Otherwise, I'll hijack Wiki Martyr and post cases.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Yes, that's why I counted you (or were you talking to Karek?) :p <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:18 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::::After 3 colons my counting gets off. Sorry. :) It was directed at Karek. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::I threw the bold back in then. Sorry Karek. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&diff=1380714UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct2009-02-05T10:35:11Z<p>Liberty: /* Hagnat */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here. <br />
<br />
==Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting==<br />
The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct '''must''' be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.<br />
<br />
Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that ''is'' misconduct, and should be reported to this page. <br />
<br />
There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.<br />
<br />
All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, ''not'' the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
==Administrative Abilities==<br />
For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):<br />
<br />
* Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.<br />
* Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct<br />
* Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.<br />
* Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).<br />
* Warning users reported in [[A/VB|Vandal Banning]].<br />
* Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.<br />
* Editing of Protected pages by any means.<br />
* Research IP activity using the [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]] extension.<br />
* (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.<br />
<br />
If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]] or [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]].<br />
<br />
==Example of Misconduct Proceedings==<br />
<br />
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|Logs]] show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:::I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::::As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==<br />
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|Administration Staff]] has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over [[UDWiki:Misconduct]] and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.<br />
<br />
Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.<br />
<br />
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==<br />
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. --><br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature. <br />
<br />
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature". <br />
<br />
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from. <br />
::And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.<br />
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.<br />
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--{{User:The General/sig}} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::So now redundant links are against policy? When did ''that'' happen? There is nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.<br />
<br />
::::::Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the only ''crime'' i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "''1/6 of the links to his user page''" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of ''punishment'' for when i come back. Até mais. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Misconduct''' Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) <sub> who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely) </sub><br />
<br />
All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a ''vandalism case'' will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.<br />
<br />
Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig ''is'' vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB ''properly''. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually, see [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned]]. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per [[UDWiki:Vandalism]]. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, '''a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct''', provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It also says that ''The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals.'' Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you feel this way, perhaps you will find [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Introduction|this section]] of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: ''"Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it"''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he ''does'' have a lot of cases.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_March_21|This one]], in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with ''a "real" escalation''. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007#2007.2C_September_15|Also]] this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case ''if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism'' because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
''What is this?!'' I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule ''Not Misconduct'' just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was '''nothing''' that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned|Yes, they can]]. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Notice how the guidelines specifically negate the whole of Kareks reason for misconducting, I quote "''a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]], as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''". Report/warning is not ground for misconduct, as long as the case is put on A/VB for review <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:22 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Because why the rule exists stops mattering when you can use it justify an argument that is otherwise baseless apparently. [[wikipedia:WP:GAME#Examples|#4]] Boxy, #4. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about "''system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''", and you've done nothing to show that the spirit of the policy is to only apply it to active vandals (other than to state that it's your opinion that it's so). Given your usual hard arsed attitude to Hagnat sticking to the letter of the policy, it's rather ironic that you want to burn him here when he did follow the letter of the policy (and was willing to reverse even that decision, something few sysops do) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct'''. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read '''didn't''' revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban ''after'' it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - by a 4 to 3 vote. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::He's done this "one thing" multiple times, and to mention he's been misconducted and "punished" over 7 times in the past three years, and not to mention he's been in this place for cases against him 20 or so times.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You can't count the 20 cases against him due to the fact that anything posted on here is considered a case and there are/were some post happy people that thought file Misconduct first, ask about it later. However, I will give you the 7 cases. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Oh, Iw asn;t counting them against him. I was just saying he's on this page ''a lot'', whether he deserved it or not.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::One thing this time. In true hagnat fashion he's only done one thing wrong at a time. A quick flick over his record shows a trend towards getting ahead of himself. Not that i actually want hagnat demoted of course.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::then why did you call for his demotion?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::coz i think he should be demoted, but at the same time i don't want the entire sysop team to be teamboxy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Am I teamboxy? Because I don't really know who I'm teamed up with these days. Everyone seems to be pissing me off lately. :) Except for you and Bob and your undying love for each other. That's my beautiful oasis in this wiki desert. [[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Can I have a teamangel?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I'll join Team Angel. But we need cool matching sigs or something.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::You pick the sigs. Team Angel, ASSEMBLE!--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::You can't have nubis, he's in teamboxy along with karek and err, boxy. Together they control teh wikiz! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::"teamboxy" doesn't even think Hags did anything wrong from the start.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::teamboxy don't want hagnat off the team and neither do i. teamboxy and 2 special in this instance are in agreeance. In regards to misconduct occuring here, they aren't.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<s>'''Misconduct''' because he jumped the gun. He definitely should have waited till the week had passed. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s> Actually, I've changed my mind. '''Not Misconduct'''. I've re-read both the vandal case and this case a couple of times and come to the conclusion that Hagnat was within his right to ban SLR for the week. The main reason is that because Hagnat provided Read with a polite request to fix his sig, which was then ignored and Read replaced the policy breaking sig. If a user breaks a polite warning, they show they are acting in bad faith (in this case ruled Vandalism by the majority of the sysop team) and receive the next vandal escalation which is what Hagnat did. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I'm sorry, but '''where the fuck are you people getting the idea that he replaced his policy breaking sig?''' Do I have to spell it out for you all, edit by edit, where he tried multiple times to bring it into the rules? The first time, he shortened it, trying to bring it into the rules, makign it easier to find his user page in the links. The second time, he made his user link very noticable. Trying to bring it within the rules. He '''never''' reverted it back to its original form, always showed good faith in trying to brign it within the boundries, while still having the sig he wanted. He even fixed the problem Hagnat used as banning him. Come the fuck on people, don't let Hagnat get away scot free because he's part of your damned in-crowd. He fucked up, you all know it. Now fucking admit it. Jesus.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376689&oldid=1374198 This is the only edit] that is relevant to the warning (the one where he did make it somewhat obvious came ''after'' hagnat unbanned him). That is an absolutely minor improvement. You still have to mouseover heaps of individual letters to find the user page link. Read admitted he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system gaming the system] ("''you are all fags who cant handle anyone who [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 finds a policy loophole and exploits it]''") <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:32 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Yeah? Minor improvement or not, he ''still'' tried to fix the problem (albeit smaller chunks at a time), and Hagnat ''still'' was trigger happy with the banhammer. That fact is still there.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It went through [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Sexylegsread|A/VB]], and was found to be vandalism, and the ban was reinstated. You might have a point if Hagnat had actually got it wrong. You may feel it was a harsh punishment for such a minor piece of vandalism, but the next escalation had to be the ban, regardless of severity. Perhaps it's time for Read to put in a few months of contributative edits and wash off a few of his escalations, eh, instead of simply coming here to get involved in drama <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:01 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Reinstated. Right. Not to mention the fact that the ban is still illegitimate as ''SLR never got his one week to fix it''. Sig policy: "warned once and asked to change it. The user has '''one week to comply'''". He ''tried''. Honestly, if this wasn't SLR, you guys would have been helping the user figure out exactly what to do with his sig to bring it in-line, and yet still keep as close to as the original as possible. But it's him, especially on a somewhat vague part of the guidelines, and even though he tries to rectify his mistake while still trying to keep as much of his sig as possible (like '''most''' users would) he gets pwnt for a week, with no consultation from anyone else from the admin team. But its cool. Let Hagnat just keep getting away with shit, when you said it your self in his last promotions bid that he's not doing the job like it's supposed to be done.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::'''Boxy:''' Funny thing about that boxy. You just made the point why ''this is misconduct''. Hagnat acted recklessly with the early ban before there were legitimate grounds to view the edit as bad faith, he acted unnecessairally and had Sexylegsread never been unbanned he would never have been punished. Hagnat's actions show exaclty why report-escalations are misconduct when used in cases where the user is not actively vandalising the wiki. Hagnat got it wrong because he acted preemptively and ''we can not do that'', especially when there is an actual attempt to follow the policies as exist as there was with Read(his talk page is where the case should have stayed for at least the week). The sig policy outlines how we are supposed to treat cases like this, it was currently being discussed on Reads talk page<sub>(a discussion which you participated in and took his side on if you do remember)</sub>, Hagnat saw people complaining and proactively reverted it <sub>(something that could easily have led to a semi-legitimate VB case had Read not responded)</sub>, Read altered his sig reducing the number of ds in an attempt to fit it through the "loophole", Hagnat, instead of telling him that it still wasn't OK and furthering the discussion ''that was already taking place'' <underline>assumed</underline> any disagreement with his preemptive and improper actions to be in bad faith instead of an attempt to remain in the rules while being annoying and banned him. ''Even though'' the discussion on his talk page made it clear it wasn't a simple straight forward case by any means, ''even though'' Read was already being talked to about it and given the chance to resolve it without an escalation, and ''even though'' Hagnat himself was overstepping the bounds of courtesy on the wiki in the first place. In the process it led to a case where Hagnat himself decided that the ban was improper and was followed up by unbanning him(although poorly) in addition to at least two Not Vandalism verdicts. ''The only reason this ended up being a Vandalism Verdict is Read shot himself in the foot during the legitimate process that should have taken place in the first place''. You can't logically argue that this is in any way incorrect because Read was found after the fact to be acting in bad faith, that's a logical fallacy, he never would have been found to be acting in bad faith if he hadn't been unbanned, this case ''was made before he was found to be a vandal'', this action is misconduct. The more ironic bit is you're arguing the purpose of the week for the Sig policy on the A/VB page as justification for the ban but aruging ''against'' what we know to be the purpose of the report-escalate policy for the same reason. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::'''Cheese:''' Incorrect, ''I'' provided Read with a polite request and [[User_talk:Sexylegsread#Ugh|some discussion as to what was wrong with the sig]], Hagnat just came by and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376612&oldid=1374198 edited it without discussion]. The difference? Well, if someone did the same to me I would do the same thing Read did because an actual discussion was going on, it's not only rude but it's completely against everything that we always do when dealing with this stuff. The only times someone is justified in doing something like that is in a case where it is actually breaking wiki pages or crashing them entirely<sub>(''both'' things have happend)</sub>. You also need to keep in mind that Read's actions that lead to the ban in question here ''were in fact ruled Not Vandalism by a majority at the time'', he wasn't punished for having a sig that breaks policy but rather why he made the sig, he also wasn't punished for reverting the sig because he was completely in his rights to do that and anything different shows altered treatment of a vandal after the fact. He wasn't a vandal when this case was made, he wasn't escalated for what Hagnat banned him for, and for that matter Hagnat did the equivalent of the O'Reilly Mic Cut, he reverted, Read tried to bring it within policy(even though he was still breaking the policy), and instead of discussing what was wrong with the new sig Hagnat simply banned him. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Sure is butthurt around here. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I assume that everyone is at the very least in agreement that he should serve at the very least a ban in equal time to the pre-emptive ban read served? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:A ban, plus a reminder that this behavior is definitely bad, and can lead to his sysops powers being removed. Also, this is the reminder. :). Is Team Angel (Consists of me. Nubis nevar made our official bff sigs. :'(...)in agreement with the ten hour ban?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Umm If I'm counting corectly, with Cheese Changing his mindits 4-3 for Not Misconduct therefore no Ban at all for Hagnat. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:As long as no more sysops vote misconduct - which looks unlikely that they will. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:''Me waits for the expected fastarchive attempt from Conndraka''. And even then are you seriously of the mind that Hagnat shouldn't even serve the initial ban that he himself repealed to allow for the case to actually take place? Even I would expect better than that from you.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::1st I wouldn't do a fast archive of anything I try to wait 24 hours after the last constructive edit to archive...and I rarely archive anything anymore. 2nd If the case comes down to misconduct then yea, I agree that a ban equal to the one issued to read before would be an appropriate punishment...IF I agreed that it was misconduct, which I don't for previously stated reasons. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) <br />
:::Really though there are two problems with that. The first being that you're not taking into account Hagnat's actions when saying he was acting in good faith as a sysop. Acting in good faith would be through the rational and common channels all users are expected to go through in a process like this, he bypassed those to simply revert the edit with no attempt at explanation as to why and then to ban when Read did what any reasonable user would do. Hagnat actually did something we normally dismiss cases of but beacuse he was a sysop he abused a loophole so that the case wouldn't be dismissed by whoever ruled. Second is that your using a rule that exists completely and exclusively for dealing with [[User:3pwv|this]] to be used to deal with [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:Conndraka|this]]. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's actually '''4/4'''. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::He's not counthing nubis because nubis made the case. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Could it be unbolded then? I dare not do it myself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::He wasn't actually voting, he was summarizing what was the verdict of the case at that time. Although I can certainly see where the confusion comes from. Unbolding for now. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Isn't Nubis the 4th Misconduct? Boxy '''NM''', The General '''NM''', Con '''NM''', Karek '''M''', ZS '''M''', SA '''M''', Nubis '''M''', Cheese '''NM''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::I should be since I clearly consider this Misconduct. There is nothing that says I can't rule on a case I brought up either otherwise why would any sysop ever post a case? I understand that you can't vote on a case against you (even though it isn't spelled out in the rules) but to preclude a sysop from voting on case because they made it is stupid. If we can rule on VB cases that we post then I sure as hell can vote on this. Otherwise, I'll hijack Wiki Martyr and post cases.[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Yes, that's why I counted you (or were you talking to Karek?) :p <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:18 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::::After 3 colons my counting gets off. Sorry. :) It was directed at Karek. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::I threw in the bold back then. Sorry Karek. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Liberty&diff=1380635User:Liberty2009-02-05T05:45:14Z<p>Liberty: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi. I'm Liberty. I don't think there is much more to say about me or my personality.<br />
<br />
<br />
===wiki===<br />
What do I do on the wiki? I mainly just vote on small things, and read around on the game. I also follow everything on the wiki's administration section.<br />
<br />
<br />
===game===<br />
<br />
My character ended up in Malton from a helicopter crash, or something like that.<br />
<br />
The helicopter was also apparently transporting a million rounds of SMG ammo, which due to the culture in Malton, my character eagerly used to start wasting thousands of zombie scum.<br />
<br />
Feel free to talk to her, she is friendly.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1434365 http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1434365]<br />
<br />
===etc===<br />
<br />
{{Too Strong|thing=humans|is/are=are}}<br />
{{Buddhist}}</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed_Group_Trial&diff=1380632UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group Trial2009-02-05T05:40:53Z<p>Liberty: /* Voting Section */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The "problem"==<br />
Due to bad faith use by vandals, the ability to move pages is restricted to sysops. This effectively removes the ability for page moves to be used as a means to harm the wiki. At the same time, it also delegates yet more routine maintenance tasks to Sysops and takes powers away from the community.<br />
<br />
==The suggestion==<br />
The suggestion is to make use of the wiki's inbuilt "Autoconfirmed" group for the purpose of filtering those users who have tools with greater potential to harm the wiki. Autoconfirmed status is assigned to anyone who makes a certain number of edits and has been registered for a certain time period. Wikipedia assigns it after 4 days and 10 edits; on this wiki it has been indicated that a time period of '''2 months and 200 edits''' would be more appropriate.<br />
<br />
Autoconfirmed users would have the ability to move pages. It is also possible to protect a page so that only autoconfirmed accounts can edit them, this would afford frequently vandalised pages some level of protection while still allowing good-faith edits from established users.<br />
<br />
This policy has had two [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group|previous]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group 2|incarnations]] only the later of which made it to voting. From comments from the community, it might be a beneficial idea to trial this change for a period of time and then after that period has ended ask for community opinion on whether this should become a permanent feature of the wiki.<br />
<br />
The proposed trial period will be '''2 months''' followed by a two week community discussion and a two week vote. If this policy is accepted it will run from the date it is activated by [[Kevan]] rather than the date the voting closes.<br />
<br />
==Protections==<br />
===Move protections===<br />
High profile pages can still be protected from movement by anyone except for sysops. This will allow a two tiered protection, normal pages can be protected from single use vandal alts, while still allowing autoconfirmed users access, and at the same time high profile pages, and pages important to the wiki's administrative integrity can be protected from movement by all but sysops.<br />
<br />
If a "move war" occurs over a specific page, the page can be protected from moving similar to regular page protection in the case of edit wars.<br />
<br />
===Semi-protection===<br />
Would be requested via the current A/P page, the same rules apply and any protections made by Sysops without a request must be listed on the page for future posterity.<br />
<br />
===Technical Implementation===<br />
This policy would be implemented by making the following changes to the configuration file:<br />
<br />
Adding:<br />
<tt>$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['move'] = true;</tt><br />
<br />
changing:<br />
<tt>$wgAutoConfirmAge = 0;</tt> to <tt>$wgAutoConfirmAge = 3600*24*56</tt><br />
<br />
and: <tt>$wgAutoConfirmCount = 0;</tt> to <tt>$wgAutoConfirmCount = 200;</tt><br />
<br />
===Abuse===<br />
Misuse of move privileges is considered vandalism and would be handled through the current vandal escalation system.<br />
<br />
===Scheduled Protections===<br />
Upon passing, the following pages can be move-protected immediately by any sysop without having to go through [[A/PT]]<br />
*Suburb pages<br />
*Administration pages <br />
*"Informational" pages (such as [[:Category:Guides]] and [[Survivor Skills]])<br />
*Every [[Special:Popularpages|page]] with over one hundred thousand views<br />
<br />
==Community Evaluation==<br />
After 2 months have passed, a discussion will be opened and the community as a whole will be able to voice their opinions of this feature. This can include problems, suggestions for improvement, criticisms and other opinions that the user may have. After two weeks of discussion to allow all community members to give their views, a new vote will be opened to decide whether to keep the Auto-confirmed group or to remove it. The vote will last two weeks and all users will be encouraged to vote on it.<br />
<br />
Depending on the views gathered from the discussion, at least 3 options will be available in this vote:<br />
#To keep the auto-confirmed group and the move and semi-protection abilities as permanent features on the wiki.<br />
#To keep the auto-confirmed group and semi-protection ability as permanent features on the wiki but remove the move ability.<br />
#To completely remove the auto-confirmed group and the move and semi-protection abilities from the wiki.<br />
<br />
The option that has gathered the most support will be the one that shall be carried out.<br />
<br />
==The Official Response==<br />
Kevan has been contacted about this and asked if he would be willing to implement this trial if it passes voting. His response follows:<br />
:{{quote|Kevan|No problem. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)}} <br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
*Adds an Auto-confirmed group to the Urban Dead wiki.<br />
*Any user that has been on the wiki for longer than 2 months and has contributed more than 200 edits will automatically be placed into this user group.<br />
*This group will allow auto-confirmed users to move pages that are set to allow movement by that particular group.<br />
*High risk pages, such as the Main Page and the Administration pages can be protected from movement, can be protected from movement similar to the current ability to protect from editing. <br />
*Semi-protection will be enabled. This allows high risk pages to be protected so that established users can still edit them, while preventing vandalism from just registered accounts.<br />
*Abuse of move privileges will be treated as an act of vandalism and will result in vandal escalations according to the current escalation system.<br />
*There will be a 2 month trial of this feature from the date it is implemented by [[Kevan]], after this time a community discussion will be held and a vote will be carried out to decide if this should be made permanent.<br />
<br />
==Voting Section==<br />
{{PolicyVotingRules}}<br />
<br />
===For===<br />
# From the last version of this policy it was apparent that several people would prefer if this was trialled before it was made a permanent feature. Personally, I feel we should be able to restore the move ability to the community as it was in the past. If people misuse it, we take action. They keep messing about, the higher up the vandal scale they get. Easy as. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 12:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Once more, and for the last time. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 13:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#It's a good idea, and I voted for the last one. People who vandalize can be escalated, semi-protection can/would be useful on high-profile pages, and being able to move pages would safe effort for regular uses (although we should keep A/MR-both for the obvious and so people who may move a page can request comments.) --{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Wikipedia has it and it works bloody well. No-one use it for vandalism.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Meh, worth trying. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Several people suggested a trial period so here it is. This system works fine on Wikipedia and I personally believe that we should be able to trust regular users with the move privilege.--{{User:The General/sig}} 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Please make sure to add the phrase "the will of the Community" there <s>Iscar</s> I mean, General.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make with this comment. Could you elaborate?--{{User:The General/sig}} 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# It gets booted if it doesn't work, and there could still be some gain with option 2. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# On the principle that the trial period will give us more experience and information, and that in turn will help improve the choice at the end. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Regular users will never be able to use this, but hey, I'll vote for it anyway. --[[User:Jasonjason|dgw]] 08:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Am I to assume that that is a bad faith vote then? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::No. What I mean is that I think this would be could be good for casual wiki users who maintain group pages and such. 200 edits is a lot. I think it would be good if it required fewer edits, but only counted edits that aren't in the userspace. I know that wouldn't pass though, so I'm voting for this. This is a real vote. --[[User:Jasonjason|dgw]] 13:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Azathoth wills it so. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# I am very ambivalent on this. Nubis' comment almost swayed me to vote No. And, do sysops ''really'' have such a massive work load with moves? However, in my dreams I can hear the cacaphonous piping of the blind, idiot gods at the centre of universe..... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# I suppose it's alright --[[User:Brian eetar|Brian Eetar]] <sup>[[User:Brian eetar/Day To Day|DTD]]|[[CFT]]|[[Golden Machine Gun|GMG]]</sup> 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#If this passes i get at least 3 months without having to vote on a damned autoconfirmed group policy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:You could also vote Against and rest in the knowledge that if it fails any more will be able to be counted as spam and thus be vandalism. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I wouldn't count on it <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:03 26 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#:::It would be rather hypocritical of you to rule Not Vandalism on such a case... unless of course you're talking about other sysops. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Not really. You can be against a policy without believing it to be vandalism, it's a distinction that you don't quite seem to understand.--{{User:The General/sig}} 09:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::Not what I was talking about, it's a distinction that you don't quite seem to understand. Probably a life experience thing. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::Then what exactly were you talking about?--{{User:The General/sig}} 11:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::::Fuck should I tell you for? You aren't the one the comment was directed at, you nosy prick. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#God ''damn'' I cannot pro vote this enough. Being able to move pages around on the wiki will add a whole new dimension of awesome, especially for me. {{User:Katthew/Sig}} 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#More useful than not, problems from this will get taken care of in A/VB pretty quickly but issues with one sysop or another overextending their power are most likely going to last as long as this wiki. --[[User:Riseabove|Riseabove]] 05:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Hope, Change, closing GITMO, and stimulus packages. --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 06:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Anything is worth a go. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:How far would you prepared to go to back up that use of the word "anything"? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::To the stars. I'm a petty user like you Bob, responsibilities mean nothing to me. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::LOL IT TOOKED YOU LYK 8 DAYS 2 CUM UP WID THAT CUM BAK!!!elvn --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::I wish I could have known he was trying to kick up a stink earlier but I don't venture onto voting pages once I've voted. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#I'm not a great fan of the idea, but I can see both sides to the idea. A trial period is worth a try.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 16:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Sure, why not --[[User:Thekooks|Kooks]] 12:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Against===<br />
#Just let it die already. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#In the name of most unholy Shoggoth, NO! [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#There's quite a bit of trouble that can be caused with this.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Don't say I didn't warn ya'll when this blows in your faces.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Not only is this a bad idea the fact that a twice failed policy gets a "trial period" vote should make this Vandalism as Policy Spamming. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:<sub>Discussion moved to [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed_Group_Trial#Moved_from_main_page|talk]] {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)</sub><br />
#I would have to vote against. For one thing, the Wikipedia version has failed on a massive scale to prevent vandalism (check the histories of the entries for Uwe Boll and Evolution to see this), but this just adds a needless complication.--[[User:MorriganH|MorriganH]] 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#I voted against the last one, and my opinion hasn't changed. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#I know exactly what I plan on doing with this if it passes. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:And what, exactly, would that be?--{{User:The General/sig}} 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::YUS BECOZ HES SOOOOO GOING TO REVEAL ALL TEH SPECIFICS AND INCRIMININATUN DETAYLS OF HIS PLANED VNADALISM (also see katthew's vote in the For section). WHAT A CUNNING PLAN YOU HAVE THERE --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::meh, I didn't think anyone would care enough to deliberately get themselves banned over a policy so I thought it worth asking before making an assumption.--{{User:The General/sig}} 19:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Among other things, you clearly don't know the goons. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#as above and if it does pass i'm going to do the same #99 has in mind me thinks.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 16:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Is it really needed?--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]]<sup>[[User:Kevan|'the true enemy']]</sup> 17:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Pointless, and the semi-protection is fucking gay.... people that have been registered for a month can't edit some pages? Totally fair.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 19:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Currently no one other than sysops can edit those pages, this is at least fair''er''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::This policy in no way changes the ability to edit pages, it only deals with people ''moving'' some of them around. The protection applies only to ''that''. Take some literacy classes, Rak. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::"It is also possible to protect a page so that only autoconfirmed accounts can edit them" get the '''fuck''' off yer high horse and... take some mother fucking literacy classes you douche.<br />
#:::And the General, that might be true, but this will probably bring about much more "semi-protected" pages since it would allow most to edit, but noobies would be denied. If you have no clue what I'm saying, doesn't matter, either do I.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#The community seems to have made it clear a number of times that it has legitimate and significant concerns about the page move ability being available without a prior review process. The protections part of this would be useful, but it needs to ditch the move ability from being an autoconfirmed ability <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:03 26 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#If I had a child this flawed, I'd drown it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed_Group_Trial&diff=1380621UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group Trial2009-02-05T05:32:09Z<p>Liberty: /* For */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The "problem"==<br />
Due to bad faith use by vandals, the ability to move pages is restricted to sysops. This effectively removes the ability for page moves to be used as a means to harm the wiki. At the same time, it also delegates yet more routine maintenance tasks to Sysops and takes powers away from the community.<br />
<br />
==The suggestion==<br />
The suggestion is to make use of the wiki's inbuilt "Autoconfirmed" group for the purpose of filtering those users who have tools with greater potential to harm the wiki. Autoconfirmed status is assigned to anyone who makes a certain number of edits and has been registered for a certain time period. Wikipedia assigns it after 4 days and 10 edits; on this wiki it has been indicated that a time period of '''2 months and 200 edits''' would be more appropriate.<br />
<br />
Autoconfirmed users would have the ability to move pages. It is also possible to protect a page so that only autoconfirmed accounts can edit them, this would afford frequently vandalised pages some level of protection while still allowing good-faith edits from established users.<br />
<br />
This policy has had two [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group|previous]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group 2|incarnations]] only the later of which made it to voting. From comments from the community, it might be a beneficial idea to trial this change for a period of time and then after that period has ended ask for community opinion on whether this should become a permanent feature of the wiki.<br />
<br />
The proposed trial period will be '''2 months''' followed by a two week community discussion and a two week vote. If this policy is accepted it will run from the date it is activated by [[Kevan]] rather than the date the voting closes.<br />
<br />
==Protections==<br />
===Move protections===<br />
High profile pages can still be protected from movement by anyone except for sysops. This will allow a two tiered protection, normal pages can be protected from single use vandal alts, while still allowing autoconfirmed users access, and at the same time high profile pages, and pages important to the wiki's administrative integrity can be protected from movement by all but sysops.<br />
<br />
If a "move war" occurs over a specific page, the page can be protected from moving similar to regular page protection in the case of edit wars.<br />
<br />
===Semi-protection===<br />
Would be requested via the current A/P page, the same rules apply and any protections made by Sysops without a request must be listed on the page for future posterity.<br />
<br />
===Technical Implementation===<br />
This policy would be implemented by making the following changes to the configuration file:<br />
<br />
Adding:<br />
<tt>$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['move'] = true;</tt><br />
<br />
changing:<br />
<tt>$wgAutoConfirmAge = 0;</tt> to <tt>$wgAutoConfirmAge = 3600*24*56</tt><br />
<br />
and: <tt>$wgAutoConfirmCount = 0;</tt> to <tt>$wgAutoConfirmCount = 200;</tt><br />
<br />
===Abuse===<br />
Misuse of move privileges is considered vandalism and would be handled through the current vandal escalation system.<br />
<br />
===Scheduled Protections===<br />
Upon passing, the following pages can be move-protected immediately by any sysop without having to go through [[A/PT]]<br />
*Suburb pages<br />
*Administration pages <br />
*"Informational" pages (such as [[:Category:Guides]] and [[Survivor Skills]])<br />
*Every [[Special:Popularpages|page]] with over one hundred thousand views<br />
<br />
==Community Evaluation==<br />
After 2 months have passed, a discussion will be opened and the community as a whole will be able to voice their opinions of this feature. This can include problems, suggestions for improvement, criticisms and other opinions that the user may have. After two weeks of discussion to allow all community members to give their views, a new vote will be opened to decide whether to keep the Auto-confirmed group or to remove it. The vote will last two weeks and all users will be encouraged to vote on it.<br />
<br />
Depending on the views gathered from the discussion, at least 3 options will be available in this vote:<br />
#To keep the auto-confirmed group and the move and semi-protection abilities as permanent features on the wiki.<br />
#To keep the auto-confirmed group and semi-protection ability as permanent features on the wiki but remove the move ability.<br />
#To completely remove the auto-confirmed group and the move and semi-protection abilities from the wiki.<br />
<br />
The option that has gathered the most support will be the one that shall be carried out.<br />
<br />
==The Official Response==<br />
Kevan has been contacted about this and asked if he would be willing to implement this trial if it passes voting. His response follows:<br />
:{{quote|Kevan|No problem. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)}} <br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
*Adds an Auto-confirmed group to the Urban Dead wiki.<br />
*Any user that has been on the wiki for longer than 2 months and has contributed more than 200 edits will automatically be placed into this user group.<br />
*This group will allow auto-confirmed users to move pages that are set to allow movement by that particular group.<br />
*High risk pages, such as the Main Page and the Administration pages can be protected from movement, can be protected from movement similar to the current ability to protect from editing. <br />
*Semi-protection will be enabled. This allows high risk pages to be protected so that established users can still edit them, while preventing vandalism from just registered accounts.<br />
*Abuse of move privileges will be treated as an act of vandalism and will result in vandal escalations according to the current escalation system.<br />
*There will be a 2 month trial of this feature from the date it is implemented by [[Kevan]], after this time a community discussion will be held and a vote will be carried out to decide if this should be made permanent.<br />
<br />
==Voting Section==<br />
{{PolicyVotingRules}}<br />
<br />
===For===<br />
# From the last version of this policy it was apparent that several people would prefer if this was trialled before it was made a permanent feature. Personally, I feel we should be able to restore the move ability to the community as it was in the past. If people misuse it, we take action. They keep messing about, the higher up the vandal scale they get. Easy as. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 12:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Once more, and for the last time. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 13:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#It's a good idea, and I voted for the last one. People who vandalize can be escalated, semi-protection can/would be useful on high-profile pages, and being able to move pages would safe effort for regular uses (although we should keep A/MR-both for the obvious and so people who may move a page can request comments.) --{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Wikipedia has it and it works bloody well. No-one use it for vandalism.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Meh, worth trying. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Several people suggested a trial period so here it is. This system works fine on Wikipedia and I personally believe that we should be able to trust regular users with the move privilege.--{{User:The General/sig}} 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Please make sure to add the phrase "the will of the Community" there <s>Iscar</s> I mean, General.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make with this comment. Could you elaborate?--{{User:The General/sig}} 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# It gets booted if it doesn't work, and there could still be some gain with option 2. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# On the principle that the trial period will give us more experience and information, and that in turn will help improve the choice at the end. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Regular users will never be able to use this, but hey, I'll vote for it anyway. --[[User:Jasonjason|dgw]] 08:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Am I to assume that that is a bad faith vote then? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::No. What I mean is that I think this would be could be good for casual wiki users who maintain group pages and such. 200 edits is a lot. I think it would be good if it required fewer edits, but only counted edits that aren't in the userspace. I know that wouldn't pass though, so I'm voting for this. This is a real vote. --[[User:Jasonjason|dgw]] 13:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Azathoth wills it so. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# I am very ambivalent on this. Nubis' comment almost swayed me to vote No. And, do sysops ''really'' have such a massive work load with moves? However, in my dreams I can hear the cacaphonous piping of the blind, idiot gods at the centre of universe..... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# I suppose it's alright --[[User:Brian eetar|Brian Eetar]] <sup>[[User:Brian eetar/Day To Day|DTD]]|[[CFT]]|[[Golden Machine Gun|GMG]]</sup> 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#If this passes i get at least 3 months without having to vote on a damned autoconfirmed group policy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:You could also vote Against and rest in the knowledge that if it fails any more will be able to be counted as spam and thus be vandalism. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I wouldn't count on it <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:03 26 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#:::It would be rather hypocritical of you to rule Not Vandalism on such a case... unless of course you're talking about other sysops. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Not really. You can be against a policy without believing it to be vandalism, it's a distinction that you don't quite seem to understand.--{{User:The General/sig}} 09:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::Not what I was talking about, it's a distinction that you don't quite seem to understand. Probably a life experience thing. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::Then what exactly were you talking about?--{{User:The General/sig}} 11:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::::Fuck should I tell you for? You aren't the one the comment was directed at, you nosy prick. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#God ''damn'' I cannot pro vote this enough. Being able to move pages around on the wiki will add a whole new dimension of awesome, especially for me. {{User:Katthew/Sig}} 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#More useful than not, problems from this will get taken care of in A/VB pretty quickly but issues with one sysop or another overextending their power are most likely going to last as long as this wiki. --[[User:Riseabove|Riseabove]] 05:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Hope, Change, closing GITMO, and stimulus packages. --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 06:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Anything is worth a go. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:How far would you prepared to go to back up that use of the word "anything"? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::To the stars. I'm a petty user like you Bob, responsibilities mean nothing to me. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#I'm not a great fan of the idea, but I can see both sides to the idea. A trial period is worth a try.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 16:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Sure, why not --[[User:Thekooks|Kooks]] 12:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Against===<br />
#Just let it die already. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#In the name of most unholy Shoggoth, NO! [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#There's quite a bit of trouble that can be caused with this.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Don't say I didn't warn ya'll when this blows in your faces.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Not only is this a bad idea the fact that a twice failed policy gets a "trial period" vote should make this Vandalism as Policy Spamming. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:<sub>Discussion moved to [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed_Group_Trial#Moved_from_main_page|talk]] {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)</sub><br />
#I would have to vote against. For one thing, the Wikipedia version has failed on a massive scale to prevent vandalism (check the histories of the entries for Uwe Boll and Evolution to see this), but this just adds a needless complication.--[[User:MorriganH|MorriganH]] 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#I voted against the last one, and my opinion hasn't changed. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#I know exactly what I plan on doing with this if it passes. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:And what, exactly, would that be?--{{User:The General/sig}} 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::YUS BECOZ HES SOOOOO GOING TO REVEAL ALL TEH SPECIFICS AND INCRIMININATUN DETAYLS OF HIS PLANED VNADALISM (also see katthew's vote in the For section). WHAT A CUNNING PLAN YOU HAVE THERE --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::meh, I didn't think anyone would care enough to deliberately get themselves banned over a policy so I thought it worth asking before making an assumption.--{{User:The General/sig}} 19:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Among other things, you clearly don't know the goons. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#as above and if it does pass i'm going to do the same #99 has in mind me thinks.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 16:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Is it really needed?--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]]<sup>[[User:Kevan|'the true enemy']]</sup> 17:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Pointless, and the semi-protection is fucking gay.... people that have been registered for a month can't edit some pages? Totally fair.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 19:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Currently no one other than sysops can edit those pages, this is at least fair''er''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::This policy in no way changes the ability to edit pages, it only deals with people ''moving'' some of them around. The protection applies only to ''that''. Take some literacy classes, Rak. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::"It is also possible to protect a page so that only autoconfirmed accounts can edit them" get the '''fuck''' off yer high horse and... take some mother fucking literacy classes you douche.<br />
#:::And the General, that might be true, but this will probably bring about much more "semi-protected" pages since it would allow most to edit, but noobies would be denied. If you have no clue what I'm saying, doesn't matter, either do I.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#The community seems to have made it clear a number of times that it has legitimate and significant concerns about the page move ability being available without a prior review process. The protections part of this would be useful, but it needs to ditch the move ability from being an autoconfirmed ability <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:03 26 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#If I had a child this flawed, I'd drown it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&diff=1380619UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct2009-02-05T05:29:40Z<p>Liberty: /* Hagnat */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here. <br />
<br />
==Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting==<br />
The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct '''must''' be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.<br />
<br />
Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that ''is'' misconduct, and should be reported to this page. <br />
<br />
There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.<br />
<br />
All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, ''not'' the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
==Administrative Abilities==<br />
For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):<br />
<br />
* Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.<br />
* Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct<br />
* Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.<br />
* Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).<br />
* Warning users reported in [[A/VB|Vandal Banning]].<br />
* Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.<br />
* Editing of Protected pages by any means.<br />
* Research IP activity using the [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]] extension.<br />
* (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.<br />
<br />
If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]] or [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]].<br />
<br />
==Example of Misconduct Proceedings==<br />
<br />
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|Logs]] show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:::I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::::As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==<br />
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|Administration Staff]] has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over [[UDWiki:Misconduct]] and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.<br />
<br />
Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.<br />
<br />
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==<br />
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. --><br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature. <br />
<br />
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature". <br />
<br />
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from. <br />
::And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.<br />
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.<br />
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--{{User:The General/sig}} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::So now redundant links are against policy? When did ''that'' happen? There is nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.<br />
<br />
::::::Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the only ''crime'' i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "''1/6 of the links to his user page''" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of ''punishment'' for when i come back. Até mais. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Misconduct''' Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) <sub> who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely) </sub><br />
<br />
All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a ''vandalism case'' will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.<br />
<br />
Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig ''is'' vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB ''properly''. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually, see [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned]]. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per [[UDWiki:Vandalism]]. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, '''a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct''', provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It also says that ''The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals.'' Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you feel this way, perhaps you will find [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Introduction|this section]] of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: ''"Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it"''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he ''does'' have a lot of cases.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_March_21|This one]], in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with ''a "real" escalation''. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007#2007.2C_September_15|Also]] this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case ''if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism'' because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
''What is this?!'' I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule ''Not Misconduct'' just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was '''nothing''' that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned|Yes, they can]]. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Notice how the guidelines specifically negate the whole of Kareks reason for misconducting, I quote "''a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]], as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''". Report/warning is not ground for misconduct, as long as the case is put on A/VB for review <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:22 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct'''. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read '''didn't''' revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban ''after'' it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - by a 4 to 3 vote. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::He's done this "one thing" multiple times, and to mention he's been misconducted and "punished" over 7 times in the past three years, and not to mention he's been in this place for cases against him 20 or so times.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You can't count the 20 cases against him due to the fact that anything posted on here is considered a case and there are/were some post happy people that thought file Misconduct first, ask about it later. However, I will give you the 7 cases. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Oh, Iw asn;t counting them against him. I was just saying he's on this page ''a lot'', whether he deserved it or not.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::One thing this time. In true hagnat fashion he's only done one thing wrong at a time. A quick flick over his record shows a trend towards getting ahead of himself. Not that i actually want hagnat demoted of course.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::then why did you call for his demotion?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::coz i think he should be demoted, but at the same time i don't want the entire sysop team to be teamboxy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Am I teamboxy? Because I don't really know who I'm teamed up with these days. Everyone seems to be pissing me off lately. :) Except for you and Bob and your undying love for each other. That's my beautiful oasis in this wiki desert. [[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Can I have a teamangel?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I'll join Team Angel. But we need cool matching sigs or something.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::You pick the sigs. Team Angel, ASSEMBLE!--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::You can't have nubis, he's in teamboxy along with karek and err, boxy. Together they control teh wikiz! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::"teamboxy" doesn't even think Hags did anything wrong from the start.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::teamboxy don't want hagnat off the team and neither do i. teamboxy and 2 special in this instance are in agreeance. In regards to misconduct occuring here, they aren't.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<s>'''Misconduct''' because he jumped the gun. He definitely should have waited till the week had passed. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s> Actually, I've changed my mind. '''Not Misconduct'''. I've re-read both the vandal case and this case a couple of times and come to the conclusion that Hagnat was within his right to ban SLR for the week. The main reason is that because Hagnat provided Read with a polite request to fix his sig, which was then ignored and Read replaced the policy breaking sig. If a user breaks a polite warning, they show they are acting in bad faith (in this case ruled Vandalism by the majority of the sysop team) and receive the next vandal escalation which is what Hagnat did. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I'm sorry, but '''where the fuck are you people getting the idea that he replaced his policy breaking sig?''' Do I have to spell it out for you all, edit by edit, where he tried multiple times to bring it into the rules? The first time, he shortened it, trying to bring it into the rules, makign it easier to find his user page in the links. The second time, he made his user link very noticable. Trying to bring it within the rules. He '''never''' reverted it back to its original form, always showed good faith in trying to brign it within the boundries, while still having the sig he wanted. He even fixed the problem Hagnat used as banning him. Come the fuck on people, don't let Hagnat get away scot free because he's part of your damned in-crowd. He fucked up, you all know it. Now fucking admit it. Jesus.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376689&oldid=1374198 This is the only edit] that is relevant to the warning (the one where he did make it somewhat obvious came ''after'' hagnat unbanned him). That is an absolutely minor improvement. You still have to mouseover heaps of individual letters to find the user page link. Read admitted he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system gaming the system] ("''you are all fags who cant handle anyone who [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 finds a policy loophole and exploits it]''") <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:32 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Yeah? Minor improvement or not, he ''still'' tried to fix the problem (albeit smaller chunks at a time), and Hagnat ''still'' was trigger happy with the banhammer. That fact is still there.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It went through [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Sexylegsread|A/VB]], and was found to be vandalism, and the ban was reinstated. You might have a point if Hagnat had actually got it wrong. You may feel it was a harsh punishment for such a minor piece of vandalism, but the next escalation had to be the ban, regardless of severity. Perhaps it's time for Read to put in a few months of contributative edits and wash off a few of his escalations, eh, instead of simply coming here to get involved in drama <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:01 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Reinstated. Right. Not to mention the fact that the ban is still illegitimate as ''SLR never got his one week to fix it''. Sig policy: "warned once and asked to change it. The user has '''one week to comply'''". He ''tried''. Honestly, if this wasn't SLR, you guys would have been helping the user figure out exactly what to do with his sig to bring it in-line, and yet still keep as close to as the original as possible. But it's him, especially on a somewhat vague part of the guidelines, and even though he tries to rectify his mistake while still trying to keep as much of his sig as possible (like '''most''' users would) he gets pwnt for a week, with no consultation from anyone else from the admin team. But its cool. Let Hagnat just keep getting away with shit, when you said it your self in his last promotions bid that he's not doing the job like it's supposed to be done.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::'''Boxy:''' Funny thing about that boxy. You just made the point why ''this is misconduct''. Hagnat acted recklessly with the early ban before there were legitimate grounds to view the edit as bad faith, he acted unnecessairally and had Sexylegsread never been unbanned he would never have been punished. Hagnat's actions show exaclty why report-escalations are misconduct when used in cases where the user is not actively vandalising the wiki. Hagnat got it wrong because he acted preemptively and ''we can not do that'', especially when there is an actual attempt to follow the policies as exist as there was with Read(his talk page is where the case should have stayed for at least the week). The sig policy outlines how we are supposed to treat cases like this, it was currently being discussed on Reads talk page<sub>(a discussion which you participated in and took his side on if you do remember)</sub>, Hagnat saw people complaining and proactively reverted it <sub>(something that could easily have led to a semi-legitimate VB case had Read not responded)</sub>, Read altered his sig reducing the number of ds in an attempt to fit it through the "loophole", Hagnat, instead of telling him that it still wasn't OK and furthering the discussion ''that was already taking place'' <underline>assumed</underline> any disagreement with his preemptive and improper actions to be in bad faith instead of an attempt to remain in the rules while being annoying and banned him. ''Even though'' the discussion on his talk page made it clear it wasn't a simple straight forward case by any means, ''even though'' Read was already being talked to about it and given the chance to resolve it without an escalation, and ''even though'' Hagnat himself was overstepping the bounds of courtesy on the wiki in the first place. In the process it led to a case where Hagnat himself decided that the ban was improper and was followed up by unbanning him(although poorly) in addition to at least two Not Vandalism verdicts. ''The only reason this ended up being a Vandalism Verdict is Read shot himself in the foot during the legitimate process that should have taken place in the first place''. You can't logically argue that this is in any way incorrect because Read was found after the fact to be acting in bad faith, that's a logical fallacy, he never would have been found to be acting in bad faith if he hadn't been unbanned, this case ''was made before he was found to be a vandal'', this action is misconduct. The more ironic bit is you're arguing the purpose of the week for the Sig policy on the A/VB page as justification for the ban but aruging ''against'' what we know to be the purpose of the report-escalate policy for the same reason. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::'''Cheese:''' Incorrect, ''I'' provided Read with a polite request and [[User_talk:Sexylegsread#Ugh|some discussion as to what was wrong with the sig]], Hagnat just came by and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376612&oldid=1374198 edited it without discussion]. The difference? Well, if someone did the same to me I would do the same thing Read did because an actual discussion was going on, it's not only rude but it's completely against everything that we always do when dealing with this stuff. The only times someone is justified in doing something like that is in a case where it is actually breaking wiki pages or crashing them entirely<sub>(''both'' things have happend)</sub>. You also need to keep in mind that Read's actions that lead to the ban in question here ''were in fact ruled Not Vandalism by a majority at the time'', he wasn't punished for having a sig that breaks policy but rather why he made the sig, he also wasn't punished for reverting the sig because he was completely in his rights to do that and anything different shows altered treatment of a vandal after the fact. He wasn't a vandal when this case was made, he wasn't escalated for what Hagnat banned him for, and for that matter Hagnat did the equivalent of the O'Reilly Mic Cut, he reverted, Read tried to bring it within policy(even though he was still breaking the policy), and instead of discussing what was wrong with the new sig Hagnat simply banned him. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I assume that everyone is at the very least in agreement that he should serve at the very least a ban in equal time to the pre-emptive ban read served? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:A ban, plus a reminder that this behavior is definitely bad, and can lead to his sysops powers being removed. Also, this is the reminder. :). Is Team Angel (Consists of me. Nubis nevar made our official bff sigs. :'(...)in agreement with the ten hour ban?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Umm If I'm counting corectly, with Cheese Changing his mindits 4-3 for Not Misconduct therefore no Ban at all for Hagnat. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:As long as no more sysops vote misconduct - which looks unlikely that they will. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:''Me waits for the expected fastarchive attempt from Conndraka''. And even then are you seriously of the mind that Hagnat shouldn't even serve the initial ban that he himself repealed to allow for the case to actually take place? Even I would expect better than that from you.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:It's actually '''4/4'''. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::He's not counthing nubis because nubis made the case. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Could it be unbolded then? I dare not do it myself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&diff=1380616UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct2009-02-05T05:26:14Z<p>Liberty: /* Hagnat */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here. <br />
<br />
==Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting==<br />
The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct '''must''' be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.<br />
<br />
Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that ''is'' misconduct, and should be reported to this page. <br />
<br />
There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.<br />
<br />
All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, ''not'' the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
==Administrative Abilities==<br />
For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):<br />
<br />
* Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.<br />
* Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct<br />
* Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.<br />
* Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).<br />
* Warning users reported in [[A/VB|Vandal Banning]].<br />
* Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.<br />
* Editing of Protected pages by any means.<br />
* Research IP activity using the [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]] extension.<br />
* (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.<br />
<br />
If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]] or [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]].<br />
<br />
==Example of Misconduct Proceedings==<br />
<br />
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|Logs]] show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:::I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::::As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==<br />
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|Administration Staff]] has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over [[UDWiki:Misconduct]] and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.<br />
<br />
Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.<br />
<br />
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==<br />
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. --><br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature. <br />
<br />
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature". <br />
<br />
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from. <br />
::And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.<br />
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.<br />
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--{{User:The General/sig}} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::So now redundant links are against policy? When did ''that'' happen? There is nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.<br />
<br />
::::::Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the only ''crime'' i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "''1/6 of the links to his user page''" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of ''punishment'' for when i come back. Até mais. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Misconduct''' Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) <sub> who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely) </sub><br />
<br />
All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a ''vandalism case'' will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.<br />
<br />
Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig ''is'' vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB ''properly''. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually, see [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned]]. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per [[UDWiki:Vandalism]]. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, '''a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct''', provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It also says that ''The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals.'' Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you feel this way, perhaps you will find [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Introduction|this section]] of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: ''"Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it"''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he ''does'' have a lot of cases.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_March_21|This one]], in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with ''a "real" escalation''. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007#2007.2C_September_15|Also]] this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case ''if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism'' because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
''What is this?!'' I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule ''Not Misconduct'' just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was '''nothing''' that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned|Yes, they can]]. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Notice how the guidelines specifically negate the whole of Kareks reason for misconducting, I quote "''a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]], as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''". Report/warning is not ground for misconduct, as long as the case is put on A/VB for review <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:22 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct'''. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read '''didn't''' revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban ''after'' it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - by a 4 to 3 vote. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::He's done this "one thing" multiple times, and to mention he's been misconducted and "punished" over 7 times in the past three years, and not to mention he's been in this place for cases against him 20 or so times.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You can't count the 20 cases against him due to the fact that anything posted on here is considered a case and there are/were some post happy people that thought file Misconduct first, ask about it later. However, I will give you the 7 cases. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Oh, Iw asn;t counting them against him. I was just saying he's on this page ''a lot'', whether he deserved it or not.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::One thing this time. In true hagnat fashion he's only done one thing wrong at a time. A quick flick over his record shows a trend towards getting ahead of himself. Not that i actually want hagnat demoted of course.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::then why did you call for his demotion?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::coz i think he should be demoted, but at the same time i don't want the entire sysop team to be teamboxy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Am I teamboxy? Because I don't really know who I'm teamed up with these days. Everyone seems to be pissing me off lately. :) Except for you and Bob and your undying love for each other. That's my beautiful oasis in this wiki desert. [[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Can I have a teamangel?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I'll join Team Angel. But we need cool matching sigs or something.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::You pick the sigs. Team Angel, ASSEMBLE!--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::You can't have nubis, he's in teamboxy along with karek and err, boxy. Together they control teh wikiz! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::"teamboxy" doesn't even think Hags did anything wrong from the start.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::teamboxy don't want hagnat off the team and neither do i. teamboxy and 2 special in this instance are in agreeance. In regards to misconduct occuring here, they aren't.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<s>'''Misconduct''' because he jumped the gun. He definitely should have waited till the week had passed. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s> Actually, I've changed my mind. '''Not Misconduct'''. I've re-read both the vandal case and this case a couple of times and come to the conclusion that Hagnat was within his right to ban SLR for the week. The main reason is that because Hagnat provided Read with a polite request to fix his sig, which was then ignored and Read replaced the policy breaking sig. If a user breaks a polite warning, they show they are acting in bad faith (in this case ruled Vandalism by the majority of the sysop team) and receive the next vandal escalation which is what Hagnat did. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I'm sorry, but '''where the fuck are you people getting the idea that he replaced his policy breaking sig?''' Do I have to spell it out for you all, edit by edit, where he tried multiple times to bring it into the rules? The first time, he shortened it, trying to bring it into the rules, makign it easier to find his user page in the links. The second time, he made his user link very noticable. Trying to bring it within the rules. He '''never''' reverted it back to its original form, always showed good faith in trying to brign it within the boundries, while still having the sig he wanted. He even fixed the problem Hagnat used as banning him. Come the fuck on people, don't let Hagnat get away scot free because he's part of your damned in-crowd. He fucked up, you all know it. Now fucking admit it. Jesus.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376689&oldid=1374198 This is the only edit] that is relevant to the warning (the one where he did make it somewhat obvious came ''after'' hagnat unbanned him). That is an absolutely minor improvement. You still have to mouseover heaps of individual letters to find the user page link. Read admitted he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system gaming the system] ("''you are all fags who cant handle anyone who [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 finds a policy loophole and exploits it]''") <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:32 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Yeah? Minor improvement or not, he ''still'' tried to fix the problem (albeit smaller chunks at a time), and Hagnat ''still'' was trigger happy with the banhammer. That fact is still there.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It went through [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Sexylegsread|A/VB]], and was found to be vandalism, and the ban was reinstated. You might have a point if Hagnat had actually got it wrong. You may feel it was a harsh punishment for such a minor piece of vandalism, but the next escalation had to be the ban, regardless of severity. Perhaps it's time for Read to put in a few months of contributative edits and wash off a few of his escalations, eh, instead of simply coming here to get involved in drama <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:01 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Reinstated. Right. Not to mention the fact that the ban is still illegitimate as ''SLR never got his one week to fix it''. Sig policy: "warned once and asked to change it. The user has '''one week to comply'''". He ''tried''. Honestly, if this wasn't SLR, you guys would have been helping the user figure out exactly what to do with his sig to bring it in-line, and yet still keep as close to as the original as possible. But it's him, especially on a somewhat vague part of the guidelines, and even though he tries to rectify his mistake while still trying to keep as much of his sig as possible (like '''most''' users would) he gets pwnt for a week, with no consultation from anyone else from the admin team. But its cool. Let Hagnat just keep getting away with shit, when you said it your self in his last promotions bid that he's not doing the job like it's supposed to be done.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::'''Boxy:''' Funny thing about that boxy. You just made the point why ''this is misconduct''. Hagnat acted recklessly with the early ban before there were legitimate grounds to view the edit as bad faith, he acted unnecessairally and had Sexylegsread never been unbanned he would never have been punished. Hagnat's actions show exaclty why report-escalations are misconduct when used in cases where the user is not actively vandalising the wiki. Hagnat got it wrong because he acted preemptively and ''we can not do that'', especially when there is an actual attempt to follow the policies as exist as there was with Read(his talk page is where the case should have stayed for at least the week). The sig policy outlines how we are supposed to treat cases like this, it was currently being discussed on Reads talk page<sub>(a discussion which you participated in and took his side on if you do remember)</sub>, Hagnat saw people complaining and proactively reverted it <sub>(something that could easily have led to a semi-legitimate VB case had Read not responded)</sub>, Read altered his sig reducing the number of ds in an attempt to fit it through the "loophole", Hagnat, instead of telling him that it still wasn't OK and furthering the discussion ''that was already taking place'' <underline>assumed</underline> any disagreement with his preemptive and improper actions to be in bad faith instead of an attempt to remain in the rules while being annoying and banned him. ''Even though'' the discussion on his talk page made it clear it wasn't a simple straight forward case by any means, ''even though'' Read was already being talked to about it and given the chance to resolve it without an escalation, and ''even though'' Hagnat himself was overstepping the bounds of courtesy on the wiki in the first place. In the process it led to a case where Hagnat himself decided that the ban was improper and was followed up by unbanning him(although poorly) in addition to at least two Not Vandalism verdicts. ''The only reason this ended up being a Vandalism Verdict is Read shot himself in the foot during the legitimate process that should have taken place in the first place''. You can't logically argue that this is in any way incorrect because Read was found after the fact to be acting in bad faith, that's a logical fallacy, he never would have been found to be acting in bad faith if he hadn't been unbanned, this case ''was made before he was found to be a vandal'', this action is misconduct. The more ironic bit is you're arguing the purpose of the week for the Sig policy on the A/VB page as justification for the ban but aruging ''against'' what we know to be the purpose of the report-escalate policy for the same reason. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::'''Cheese:''' Incorrect, ''I'' provided Read with a polite request and [[User_talk:Sexylegsread#Ugh|some discussion as to what was wrong with the sig]], Hagnat just came by and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376612&oldid=1374198 edited it without discussion]. The difference? Well, if someone did the same to me I would do the same thing Read did because an actual discussion was going on, it's not only rude but it's completely against everything that we always do when dealing with this stuff. The only times someone is justified in doing something like that is in a case where it is actually breaking wiki pages or crashing them entirely<sub>(''both'' things have happend)</sub>. You also need to keep in mind that Read's actions that lead to the ban in question here ''were in fact ruled Not Vandalism by a majority at the time'', he wasn't punished for having a sig that breaks policy but rather why he made the sig, he also wasn't punished for reverting the sig because he was completely in his rights to do that and anything different shows altered treatment of a vandal after the fact. He wasn't a vandal when this case was made, he wasn't escalated for what Hagnat banned him for, and for that matter Hagnat did the equivalent of the O'Reilly Mic Cut, he reverted, Read tried to bring it within policy(even though he was still breaking the policy), and instead of discussing what was wrong with the new sig Hagnat simply banned him. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I assume that everyone is at the very least in agreement that he should serve at the very least a ban in equal time to the pre-emptive ban read served? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:A ban, plus a reminder that this behavior is definitely bad, and can lead to his sysops powers being removed. Also, this is the reminder. :). Is Team Angel (Consists of me. Nubis nevar made our official bff sigs. :'(...)in agreement with the ten hour ban?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Umm If I'm counting corectly, with Cheese Changing his mindits 4-3 for Not Misconduct therefore no Ban at all for Hagnat. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:As long as no more sysops vote misconduct - which looks unlikely that they will. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:''Me waits for the expected fastarchive attempt from Conndraka''. And even then are you seriously of the mind that Hagnat shouldn't even serve the initial ban that he himself repealed to allow for the case to actually take place? Even I would expect better than that from you.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:It's actually '''4/4'''. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&diff=1380614UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct2009-02-05T05:24:28Z<p>Liberty: /* Hagnat */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here. <br />
<br />
==Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting==<br />
The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct '''must''' be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.<br />
<br />
Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that ''is'' misconduct, and should be reported to this page. <br />
<br />
There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.<br />
<br />
All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, ''not'' the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
==Administrative Abilities==<br />
For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):<br />
<br />
* Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.<br />
* Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct<br />
* Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.<br />
* Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).<br />
* Warning users reported in [[A/VB|Vandal Banning]].<br />
* Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.<br />
* Editing of Protected pages by any means.<br />
* Research IP activity using the [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]] extension.<br />
* (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.<br />
<br />
If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]] or [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]].<br />
<br />
==Example of Misconduct Proceedings==<br />
<br />
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|Logs]] show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:::I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::::As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==<br />
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|Administration Staff]] has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over [[UDWiki:Misconduct]] and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.<br />
<br />
Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.<br />
<br />
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==<br />
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. --><br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature. <br />
<br />
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature". <br />
<br />
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from. <br />
::And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.<br />
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.<br />
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--{{User:The General/sig}} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::So now redundant links are against policy? When did ''that'' happen? There is nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.<br />
<br />
::::::Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the only ''crime'' i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "''1/6 of the links to his user page''" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of ''punishment'' for when i come back. Até mais. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Misconduct''' Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) <sub> who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely) </sub><br />
<br />
All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a ''vandalism case'' will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.<br />
<br />
Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig ''is'' vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB ''properly''. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually, see [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned]]. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per [[UDWiki:Vandalism]]. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, '''a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct''', provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It also says that ''The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals.'' Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you feel this way, perhaps you will find [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Introduction|this section]] of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: ''"Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it"''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he ''does'' have a lot of cases.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_March_21|This one]], in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with ''a "real" escalation''. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007#2007.2C_September_15|Also]] this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case ''if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism'' because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
''What is this?!'' I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule ''Not Misconduct'' just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was '''nothing''' that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned|Yes, they can]]. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Notice how the guidelines specifically negate the whole of Kareks reason for misconducting, I quote "''a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]], as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user''". Report/warning is not ground for misconduct, as long as the case is put on A/VB for review <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:22 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct'''. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read '''didn't''' revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban ''after'' it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - by a 4 to 3 vote. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::He's done this "one thing" multiple times, and to mention he's been misconducted and "punished" over 7 times in the past three years, and not to mention he's been in this place for cases against him 20 or so times.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You can't count the 20 cases against him due to the fact that anything posted on here is considered a case and there are/were some post happy people that thought file Misconduct first, ask about it later. However, I will give you the 7 cases. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Oh, Iw asn;t counting them against him. I was just saying he's on this page ''a lot'', whether he deserved it or not.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::One thing this time. In true hagnat fashion he's only done one thing wrong at a time. A quick flick over his record shows a trend towards getting ahead of himself. Not that i actually want hagnat demoted of course.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::then why did you call for his demotion?--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::coz i think he should be demoted, but at the same time i don't want the entire sysop team to be teamboxy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Am I teamboxy? Because I don't really know who I'm teamed up with these days. Everyone seems to be pissing me off lately. :) Except for you and Bob and your undying love for each other. That's my beautiful oasis in this wiki desert. [[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Can I have a teamangel?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I'll join Team Angel. But we need cool matching sigs or something.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::You pick the sigs. Team Angel, ASSEMBLE!--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::You can't have nubis, he's in teamboxy along with karek and err, boxy. Together they control teh wikiz! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::"teamboxy" doesn't even think Hags did anything wrong from the start.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::teamboxy don't want hagnat off the team and neither do i. teamboxy and 2 special in this instance are in agreeance. In regards to misconduct occuring here, they aren't.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<s>'''Misconduct''' because he jumped the gun. He definitely should have waited till the week had passed. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s> Actually, I've changed my mind. '''Not Misconduct'''. I've re-read both the vandal case and this case a couple of times and come to the conclusion that Hagnat was within his right to ban SLR for the week. The main reason is that because Hagnat provided Read with a polite request to fix his sig, which was then ignored and Read replaced the policy breaking sig. If a user breaks a polite warning, they show they are acting in bad faith (in this case ruled Vandalism by the majority of the sysop team) and receive the next vandal escalation which is what Hagnat did. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I'm sorry, but '''where the fuck are you people getting the idea that he replaced his policy breaking sig?''' Do I have to spell it out for you all, edit by edit, where he tried multiple times to bring it into the rules? The first time, he shortened it, trying to bring it into the rules, makign it easier to find his user page in the links. The second time, he made his user link very noticable. Trying to bring it within the rules. He '''never''' reverted it back to its original form, always showed good faith in trying to brign it within the boundries, while still having the sig he wanted. He even fixed the problem Hagnat used as banning him. Come the fuck on people, don't let Hagnat get away scot free because he's part of your damned in-crowd. He fucked up, you all know it. Now fucking admit it. Jesus.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376689&oldid=1374198 This is the only edit] that is relevant to the warning (the one where he did make it somewhat obvious came ''after'' hagnat unbanned him). That is an absolutely minor improvement. You still have to mouseover heaps of individual letters to find the user page link. Read admitted he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system gaming the system] ("''you are all fags who cant handle anyone who [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 finds a policy loophole and exploits it]''") <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:32 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::Yeah? Minor improvement or not, he ''still'' tried to fix the problem (albeit smaller chunks at a time), and Hagnat ''still'' was trigger happy with the banhammer. That fact is still there.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It went through [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Sexylegsread|A/VB]], and was found to be vandalism, and the ban was reinstated. You might have a point if Hagnat had actually got it wrong. You may feel it was a harsh punishment for such a minor piece of vandalism, but the next escalation had to be the ban, regardless of severity. Perhaps it's time for Read to put in a few months of contributative edits and wash off a few of his escalations, eh, instead of simply coming here to get involved in drama <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:01 5 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Reinstated. Right. Not to mention the fact that the ban is still illegitimate as ''SLR never got his one week to fix it''. Sig policy: "warned once and asked to change it. The user has '''one week to comply'''". He ''tried''. Honestly, if this wasn't SLR, you guys would have been helping the user figure out exactly what to do with his sig to bring it in-line, and yet still keep as close to as the original as possible. But it's him, especially on a somewhat vague part of the guidelines, and even though he tries to rectify his mistake while still trying to keep as much of his sig as possible (like '''most''' users would) he gets pwnt for a week, with no consultation from anyone else from the admin team. But its cool. Let Hagnat just keep getting away with shit, when you said it your self in his last promotions bid that he's not doing the job like it's supposed to be done.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::'''Boxy:''' Funny thing about that boxy. You just made the point why ''this is misconduct''. Hagnat acted recklessly with the early ban before there were legitimate grounds to view the edit as bad faith, he acted unnecessairally and had Sexylegsread never been unbanned he would never have been punished. Hagnat's actions show exaclty why report-escalations are misconduct when used in cases where the user is not actively vandalising the wiki. Hagnat got it wrong because he acted preemptively and ''we can not do that'', especially when there is an actual attempt to follow the policies as exist as there was with Read(his talk page is where the case should have stayed for at least the week). The sig policy outlines how we are supposed to treat cases like this, it was currently being discussed on Reads talk page<sub>(a discussion which you participated in and took his side on if you do remember)</sub>, Hagnat saw people complaining and proactively reverted it <sub>(something that could easily have led to a semi-legitimate VB case had Read not responded)</sub>, Read altered his sig reducing the number of ds in an attempt to fit it through the "loophole", Hagnat, instead of telling him that it still wasn't OK and furthering the discussion ''that was already taking place'' <underline>assumed</underline> any disagreement with his preemptive and improper actions to be in bad faith instead of an attempt to remain in the rules while being annoying and banned him. ''Even though'' the discussion on his talk page made it clear it wasn't a simple straight forward case by any means, ''even though'' Read was already being talked to about it and given the chance to resolve it without an escalation, and ''even though'' Hagnat himself was overstepping the bounds of courtesy on the wiki in the first place. In the process it led to a case where Hagnat himself decided that the ban was improper and was followed up by unbanning him(although poorly) in addition to at least two Not Vandalism verdicts. ''The only reason this ended up being a Vandalism Verdict is Read shot himself in the foot during the legitimate process that should have taken place in the first place''. You can't logically argue that this is in any way incorrect because Read was found after the fact to be acting in bad faith, that's a logical fallacy, he never would have been found to be acting in bad faith if he hadn't been unbanned, this case ''was made before he was found to be a vandal'', this action is misconduct. The more ironic bit is you're arguing the purpose of the week for the Sig policy on the A/VB page as justification for the ban but aruging ''against'' what we know to be the purpose of the report-escalate policy for the same reason. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::'''Cheese:''' Incorrect, ''I'' provided Read with a polite request and [[User_talk:Sexylegsread#Ugh|some discussion as to what was wrong with the sig]], Hagnat just came by and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1376612&oldid=1374198 edited it without discussion]. The difference? Well, if someone did the same to me I would do the same thing Read did because an actual discussion was going on, it's not only rude but it's completely against everything that we always do when dealing with this stuff. The only times someone is justified in doing something like that is in a case where it is actually breaking wiki pages or crashing them entirely<sub>(''both'' things have happend)</sub>. You also need to keep in mind that Read's actions that lead to the ban in question here ''were in fact ruled Not Vandalism by a majority at the time'', he wasn't punished for having a sig that breaks policy but rather why he made the sig, he also wasn't punished for reverting the sig because he was completely in his rights to do that and anything different shows altered treatment of a vandal after the fact. He wasn't a vandal when this case was made, he wasn't escalated for what Hagnat banned him for, and for that matter Hagnat did the equivalent of the O'Reilly Mic Cut, he reverted, Read tried to bring it within policy(even though he was still breaking the policy), and instead of discussing what was wrong with the new sig Hagnat simply banned him. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I assume that everyone is at the very least in agreement that he should serve at the very least a ban in equal time to the pre-emptive ban read served? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:A ban, plus a reminder that this behavior is definitely bad, and can lead to his sysops powers being removed. Also, this is the reminder. :). Is Team Angel (Consists of me. Nubis nevar made our official bff sigs. :'(...)in agreement with the ten hour ban?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Umm If I'm counting corectly, with Cheese Changing his mindits 4-3 for Not Misconduct therefore no Ban at all for Hagnat. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:As long as no more sysops vote misconduct - which looks unlikely that they will. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:''Me waits for the expected fastarchive attempt from Conndraka''. And even then are you seriously of the mind that Hagnat shouldn't even serve the initial ban that he himself repealed to allow for the case to actually take place? Even I would expect better than that from you.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:It's actually 4/4. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:DangerReport/Pennville&diff=1380412User:DangerReport/Pennville2009-02-05T00:18:19Z<p>Liberty: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{mapDangerous}}<noinclude><br />
[[:Category:Danger Reports|How to update a suburb danger report?]]<br />
[[Category:Danger Reports|Pennville]]</noinclude></div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Bulldog_C6&diff=1379948User talk:Bulldog C62009-02-04T11:44:58Z<p>Liberty: /* Sig */</p>
<hr />
<div>== I wouldn't brag if I were you... ==<br />
<br />
Admitting to giving tools like the FOD the time of day is pretty weak sauce. AP are better spent engaging yourself with anyone who has any style. By "Dealing" with them, you only proved that they were worth dealing with. I assure you, they're not. Just look at how they stopped harassing you guys a month ago. Yeah, real cool. But hey, you guys at DHPD seem pretty cool, keep rocking. And remember, you're better than them. You HAVE to be haha. --[[User:Dhavid Grohl|Dhavid Grohl]] 00:02, 20 June 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Testing --{{User:Bulldog C6/Sig}} 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
: testing my new sig. --[[User:Bulldog C6|<span style="color: white;background:red;padding-right:8px;padding-left:7px">&nbsp;'''BULLDOG''']][[User talk:Bulldog C6|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-left:5px;padding-right:2px">'''C''']][[DHPD link|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-right:5px;padding-left:2px">'''6'''</span>]] 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::: Testing my sig AGAIN--[[User:Bulldog C6|<span style="color: white;background:red;padding-right:8px;padding-left:7px">&nbsp;'''BULLDOG''']][[User talk:Bulldog C6|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-left:5px;padding-right:2px">'''C''']][[DHPD link|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-right:5px;padding-left:2px">'''6'''</span>]] 05:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Brother ==<br />
<br />
So I see that you are a Corpseman in Delta Squad of the DHPD. Is that a new Zombie wing of the DHPD? --{{User:Gardenator/sig}} 04:13, 29 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm around. just getting shot and thrown out of buildings in other places for a change . :) --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:07, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No way am I going to the new one! I was banned from the last one. It wasn't like I was hiding. I would think the name DCC kind of gave me away. :) --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
[[User:Bulldog C6|<span style="color: white;background:red;padding-right:8px;padding-left:7px">&nbsp;'''BULLDOG''']][[User talk:Bulldog C6|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-left:5px;padding-right:2px">'''C''']][[DHPD link|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-right:5px;padding-left:2px">'''6'''</span>]]<br />
<br />
yes ? no?<br />
<br />
Make a User:Bulldog C6/Sig page. Copy the code above on it. (changing the one link to something that will work) Go to your preferences - paste this <nowiki>{{SUBST:User:Bulldog C6/Sig}}</nowiki> in the box that says Nickname - click the raw signatures box and Voila!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:30, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
FIXED IT! FINALLY !!! I almost panicked.--[[User:Bulldog C6|<span style="color: white;background:red;padding-right:8px;padding-left:7px">&nbsp;'''BULLDOG''']][[User talk:Bulldog C6|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-left:5px;padding-right:2px">'''C''']][[DHPD link|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-right:5px;padding-left:2px">'''6'''</span>]] 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Sig help #3 ==<br />
<br />
Just so you know, you can make your sig alot easier for both you to put on, and for people not having to go past it. Make a [[User:Bulldog C6/Sig]] page, and put this code in "My Preferences" under nickname. Make sure the "Raw Signatures" box is checked:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>{{SUBST:Nosubst|User:Bulldog C6/Sig}}</nowiki> --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Now enter that code in "My preferences," and then check the raw sig box. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Do you want me to try playing around with your code to see if I can get rid of that sig problem you have? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Sig ==<br />
<br />
Check your sig's talk page. I made a fixed version of it. The DHPD link didn't work. Better now? --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Your [[:Category_talk:Mall_Tour_2009#Caiger_Mall|signature doesn't work.]] It cuts the timestamp off into a new line. Try getting rid of extra code or lines/spaces that come after the original signature code. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Way ahead of you. There's a new version on his sig's talk page that ''should'' fix it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Justice! {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 11:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Bulldog_C6&diff=1379864User talk:Bulldog C62009-02-04T08:59:44Z<p>Liberty: /* Sig */</p>
<hr />
<div>== I wouldn't brag if I were you... ==<br />
<br />
Admitting to giving tools like the FOD the time of day is pretty weak sauce. AP are better spent engaging yourself with anyone who has any style. By "Dealing" with them, you only proved that they were worth dealing with. I assure you, they're not. Just look at how they stopped harassing you guys a month ago. Yeah, real cool. But hey, you guys at DHPD seem pretty cool, keep rocking. And remember, you're better than them. You HAVE to be haha. --[[User:Dhavid Grohl|Dhavid Grohl]] 00:02, 20 June 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Testing --{{User:Bulldog C6/Sig}} 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
: testing my new sig. --[[User:Bulldog C6|<span style="color: white;background:red;padding-right:8px;padding-left:7px">&nbsp;'''BULLDOG''']][[User talk:Bulldog C6|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-left:5px;padding-right:2px">'''C''']][[DHPD link|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-right:5px;padding-left:2px">'''6'''</span>]] 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::: Testing my sig AGAIN--[[User:Bulldog C6|<span style="color: white;background:red;padding-right:8px;padding-left:7px">&nbsp;'''BULLDOG''']][[User talk:Bulldog C6|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-left:5px;padding-right:2px">'''C''']][[DHPD link|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-right:5px;padding-left:2px">'''6'''</span>]] 05:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Brother ==<br />
<br />
So I see that you are a Corpseman in Delta Squad of the DHPD. Is that a new Zombie wing of the DHPD? --{{User:Gardenator/sig}} 04:13, 29 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm around. just getting shot and thrown out of buildings in other places for a change . :) --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:07, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No way am I going to the new one! I was banned from the last one. It wasn't like I was hiding. I would think the name DCC kind of gave me away. :) --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
[[User:Bulldog C6|<span style="color: white;background:red;padding-right:8px;padding-left:7px">&nbsp;'''BULLDOG''']][[User talk:Bulldog C6|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-left:5px;padding-right:2px">'''C''']][[DHPD link|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-right:5px;padding-left:2px">'''6'''</span>]]<br />
<br />
yes ? no?<br />
<br />
Make a User:Bulldog C6/Sig page. Copy the code above on it. (changing the one link to something that will work) Go to your preferences - paste this <nowiki>{{SUBST:User:Bulldog C6/Sig}}</nowiki> in the box that says Nickname - click the raw signatures box and Voila!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:30, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
FIXED IT! FINALLY !!! I almost panicked.--[[User:Bulldog C6|<span style="color: white;background:red;padding-right:8px;padding-left:7px">&nbsp;'''BULLDOG''']][[User talk:Bulldog C6|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-left:5px;padding-right:2px">'''C''']][[DHPD link|<span style="color:snow;background:black;padding-right:5px;padding-left:2px">'''6'''</span>]] 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Sig help #3 ==<br />
<br />
Just so you know, you can make your sig alot easier for both you to put on, and for people not having to go past it. Make a [[User:Bulldog C6/Sig]] page, and put this code in "My Preferences" under nickname. Make sure the "Raw Signatures" box is checked:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>{{SUBST:Nosubst|User:Bulldog C6/Sig}}</nowiki> --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Now enter that code in "My preferences," and then check the raw sig box. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Do you want me to try playing around with your code to see if I can get rid of that sig problem you have? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Sig ==<br />
<br />
Check your sig's talk page. I made a fixed version of it. The DHPD link didn't work. Better now? --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Your [[:Category_talk:Mall_Tour_2009#Caiger_Mall|signature doesn't work.]] It cuts the timestamp off into a new line. Try getting rid of extra code or lines/spaces that come after the original signature code. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mall_Tour_2009&diff=1379862Talk:Mall Tour 20092009-02-04T08:55:51Z<p>Liberty: reverting comment to original state</p>
<hr />
<div>=Please place all new topics at the bottom, utilising a level two header,<br> or just press the "+" at the top=<br />
<br />
==== youre kidding ====<br />
this shit again?<br />
lol i remember mall tour 08<br />
is this going to be a tradition?--[[User:Officer tommy|Officer tommy]] 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I don't see why they shouldn't. It's a good opportunity for the zombie younguns to get some decent experience, rather than fighting over the scraps silly enough to get stuck outside the barricades. Good for bored survivors, too, maybe they can organize and try to set up ''[[The_Battle_of_Santlerville|Battle of Santlerville]] 2''. --[[User:Shaken Unfairly|Shaken Unfairly]] 15:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:seeing that no mall tour occured in 2008, i doubt you remember a mall tour in said year. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 15:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Oh snap! I was just thinking that as well...--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 16:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::wo sorry dude , i ment 07 , i remember that year , me and my dad used to play this i maxed out so i started a new acc officer tommy which im going to stick with :) my dad quit playing because of bordom tho , he used to be with zombie squad or what ever there name was that hung out with dhpd--[[User:Officer tommy|Officer tommy]] 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==re: mcd's drive thru gun shop franchise offer? ==<br />
<br />
i just sent an alt to join the tour... dragged my first victim out of an NT ''GRAAAAGH!'' and i might be interested in leading a strike sometime on or around 10 PM EST. i don't think i saw that time as being filled. we can talk. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I don't speak Yank time WY, but I'm sure Head Tour Guide Johnny Bass does, contact him via Barhah or join us on IRC. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 06:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::be in touch on barhah, then... as i said, it's a maybe. if i took on a tram, i'd want a "co-leader" or "lieutentant", because i may not be able to make it on consistently... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Pro Survivour Mall tour defence group thingy==<br />
Ask around for the forum, pro-survivour groups have be notified not all so ask your allies. Let's kill some ZEDS! (unsigned comment by [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Athur_birling Athur_birling])<br />
:Mmmmmmmmm group bra!n barga!nz? NAHM NAHM NAHM NAHM! --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 22:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
Gone due to lack of interest maybe communication is survivours weakness...--[[User:Athur birling|Athur birling]] 15:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Missing a mall? ==<br />
<br />
Thought you would be hitting all the malls. Not saying anything just.....Dulstun?<br />
:Apparently, they never bothered figuring out how to fix it while we were nearby.... Oh well, we'll get it later.--[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 02:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think you should do a Uturn that will allow you to hit all malls in 1 lap.<br />
:Rethink that statement so it makes more sense. Why would we make a u turn to visit a ruined mall? --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Blink blink ==<br />
<br />
Oh my god, please get rid of that horrible blink-blink. My eyes are hurting! --[[User:KinderFresser|KinderFresser]] 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Giddings Mall == <br />
<br />
Thought I'd bring this up while I had my question still fresh on my mind. So, I noticed that in your long hauled rampage through Malton that you came through Pimbank and then proceeded to Tynte. Giddings Mall in Pitneybank was kinda overlooked and we were only one suburb away. I guess my question is as to how you pick your targets? Is it random, fly by the seat of your pants? Or is a coordinated strategic plan formed by the masterminds of the Mall Tour? :P --[[User:Michael Becket|Michael Becket]] 14:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Coordinated and picked in advance to varying degrees depending on the situation. We heard that Tynte Mall had better barga!nz inside, but were in short supply when we passed through it. :p --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I like this breather, he called me a 'mastermind'! Seriously though, we consider all sorts of things when planning targets, strength of opposition, numbers, management of the feral cloud, proximity of other large hordes and a whole load more. Although it looks like a chaotic random choice, we (and all those who help and scout for us) do a lot of work. Still, I'm sure we'll eat you soon. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
Haha. Thanks Iscariot, Johnny. I didn't figure you guys were flying by the seat of your pants. And I look forward to reviving all those whom you eat. :) --[[User:Michael Becket|Michael Becket]] 02:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Caiger Mall ==<br />
Do you guys make characters and sit them inside the mall to view what's going on? I spotted a "Caiger Watchdog" in one of the corners here. Just wondering if that's you guys just checking on your targets before you get there or what? If that's the case, we won't take him out for the time being.--{{User:Bulldog C6/Sig}} 04:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, a "caiger watchdog" wouldn't really our style tbh. --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:: Ok, just checking. It's an extremely odd name for a level 1 scout... especially when we've got a minor siege going on. thanks for getting back to me so soon! --{{User:Bulldog C6/Sig}} 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Keep it Classy Malton ==<br />
<br />
I see in your conduct policies you mention the following <br><br />
* ''"The Mall Tour follows the legacy of classy events and classy players. The tourists are expected to behave in a similarly classy manner and encourage both side's enjoyment."''.<br><br />
For that I must say, '''YOU ROCK!!''' You have my respect and gratitude for approaching the game with such a positive attitude and style =) I'm looking forward to rocking you in battle. <br><br />
{{Civility}}<br />
Love,<br><br />
--[[User:Giles Sednik|Giles Sednik]] <sup>[[CAPD]][[SWA]]</sup> 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&diff=1379858UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct2009-02-04T08:50:52Z<p>Liberty: /* Hagnat */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here. <br />
<br />
==Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting==<br />
The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct '''must''' be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.<br />
<br />
Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that ''is'' misconduct, and should be reported to this page. <br />
<br />
There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.<br />
<br />
All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, ''not'' the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
==Administrative Abilities==<br />
For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):<br />
<br />
* Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.<br />
* Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct<br />
* Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.<br />
* Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).<br />
* Warning users reported in [[A/VB|Vandal Banning]].<br />
* Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.<br />
* Editing of Protected pages by any means.<br />
* Research IP activity using the [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]] extension.<br />
* (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.<br />
<br />
If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]] or [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]].<br />
<br />
==Example of Misconduct Proceedings==<br />
<br />
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|Logs]] show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:::I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::::As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==<br />
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|Administration Staff]] has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over [[UDWiki:Misconduct]] and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.<br />
<br />
Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.<br />
<br />
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==<br />
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. --><br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature. <br />
<br />
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature". <br />
<br />
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from. <br />
::And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.-[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.<br />
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.<br />
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--{{User:The General/sig}} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::So now redundant links are against policy? When did ''that'' happen? There is nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.<br />
<br />
::::::Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the only ''crime'' i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "''1/6 of the links to his user page''" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of ''punishment'' for when i come back. Até mais. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Misconduct''' Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) <sub> who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely) </sub><br />
<br />
All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a ''vandalism case'' will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.<br />
<br />
Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig ''is'' vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB ''properly''. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Actually, see [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned]]. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per [[UDWiki:Vandalism]]. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, '''a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct''', provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::It also says that ''The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals.'' Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you feel this way, perhaps you will find [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Introduction|this section]] of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: ''"Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it"''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he ''does'' have a lot of cases.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_March_21|This one]], in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with ''a "real" escalation''. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007#2007.2C_September_15|Also]] this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case ''if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism'' because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
''What is this?!'' I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule ''Not Misconduct'' just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was '''nothing''' that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned|Yes, they can]]. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
'''Misconduct''' - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct'''. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read '''didn't''' revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban ''after'' it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - by a 4 to 3 vote. -[[Image:Emot-argh.gif]]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02&diff=1379615UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 022009-02-03T22:58:48Z<p>Liberty: /* J3D */</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude><br />
{{VBarchivenav}}<br />
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Header}}<br />
</noinclude><br />
<br />
== [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 02|February 2009]] ==<br />
===Edge of Extinction===<br />
I would like to bring this group to the attention of the Sysops for a few reasons. I will start with the smallest first:<br />
*Harassment at our forums. Members from this group are continually visiting our forums to spam and make vulgar remarks to members. They have been repeatedly banned and posts deleted in vein attempts to keep them from coming back.<br />
*Supposed editing of our wiki pages. This is yet to be confirmed since I do not know how to track I.P. addresses.<br />
*Hacking, coinciding with their re-appearance there have been attempted hackings of both my U.D. accounts and personal accounts non-related to Urban Dead, this includes my AIM account and e-mail. Fortunately my AIM account is old so it appears they got little out of it other than changing my password.<br />
<br />
Indeed I cannot link the hacker(s) to EoE, but, since the coincides fit so well, being that these jerks hate UC so much and apparently me in particular, with the hackers connection to U.D., I thought it warranted such actions.--{{User:Jackson/Sig}} 14:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[[A/A|arbies]] {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[User:J3D|J3D]]===<br />
{{vndl|J3D}}{{Verdict}}<br />
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&curid=100788&diff=1379141&oldid=1378428 Shitting up] an admin page with his trolling. I'm happy to move non-trolling comments by uninvolved users, but not this crap. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Look at the case below you and please report everyone for the sake of the wiki and not your bitchfights, Bob. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== WOOT ===<br />
{{vndl|WOOT}}<br />
{{verdict|Vandalism|Warned}}<br />
Posting random shit on EVERYONE'S talk pages. Check his contribs, he has to be breaking ''some'' policy.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karek&curid=47195&diff=1378281&oldid=1378247 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMisterGame&diff=1378283&oldid=1369528 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASuicidalangel&diff=1378282&oldid=1378021 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAxe_Hack&diff=1378273&oldid=1376672 here], and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARosslessness&diff=1378272&oldid=1378203 here]. Thats just a few. I ''do'' know that whilst its spam it isnt vandalism, the first one on Karek's page is something that I thought could only constitute spam and hence why I think WOOT should be tried here on VB. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2009_02&diff=1378311&oldid=1378310 VB] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02&diff=prev&oldid=1378309 Spammage] {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::A little more [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2009_02&diff=1378327&oldid=1378321 VB Spam]--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Last one isn't spamage you douche! I was defending myself! --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Neither are the first two! I'm spreading the love of the Uranium ((enter)) :BOMBS --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Desu is relevant to my interests.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I wish I had gotten desu instead of bombs...:'( --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 04:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::I'll SAGE bomb you next time... mkay?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 04:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Oh now I understand what you did on my page. But spamming is fun, so I wouldnt care.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
Not everyone appreciates spammage, so it is '''vandalism'''. Unfortunately for you, you were only a few posts away from getting your last warning struck too <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:34 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:Boo-fucking-hoo--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually there's precedent that says this is OK provided you spammed under 20 talk pages, which you did. If you care enough to track it down feel free, i can't find where it is. I do remember it being referenced in relation to user:nallan spamming people's user pages with invited to the [[Amusing Locations in Malton/ALiM Party|ALiM Party]] but i don't recall where it was discussed...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Blackboard ===<br />
{{Verdict|Not Vandalism|None Required}}{{vndl|Blackboard}}<br />
<br />
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:PsychophillKILLER&curid=103275&diff=1377662&oldid=1377648 Vandalizing] the user page of the vandal below. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I plead no contest. Guy below me there wanted people to look at his page to see his weird spam message, so I thought I'd get rid of it; as above, don't wait for a sysop to get involved etc. and just go back to reverting pages - which I did for some others of his, though someone beat me to the punch in a few of the cases. In retrospect, I probably should have just reverted his page to being blank - or course, I'm assuming creating the page was an act of vandalism to begin with. It just didn't occur to me at the time; my priority was getting rid of his vandalism. The fact that it's back there now on "his" page is just plain irritating. Just trying to cut through some red tape and keep the wiki clean-ish. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Purely because it was an active vandal, and '''only''' because it was an active vandal I'm going to rule '''not Vandalism'''. However, please do not do it again otherwise it will result in an escalation. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Since the page was deleted, meaning Midianian's diff link won't work I've copy pasted the page changes due to the ability to see deleted pages so we have a full record on this page. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
{{quote|PsychophillKILLER|I am Sorry for the Vandalism But we now have no choice... Psychophill Must be stopped. He has discovered a way to give himself infinite time on the server and infinite AP. He plans on killing everyone in the city once and for all and destroying this game. We must stop him. I encourage everyone to tune their radios to 27.77 To hear a city wide announcement on Wednesday at 7:00 PM Eastern Standard time. Thank you for you time.<br />
<br />
P.S. I do not encourage vandalism but I was left with no choice. Monitors if you wish you may delete this account just make sure this message reaches as many people as possible. Thank you again --[[User:PsychophillKILLER|PsychophillKILLER]] 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)}}<br />
<br />
*changed to<br />
<br />
{{quote|Blackboard|CRAP. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
Slap me on the wrist for this, I don't give a shit.}}<br />
-- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Getting rid of the spam (that was repeated on many other pages) would count as reverting vandalism, even on the vandals user page (when it's an obvious permban candidate like this), however replacing it with your own message, especially the abuse ("CRAP") was not a wise move, and can indeed be seen as vandalism, as you seem to understand <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:44 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
=== PsychophillKILLER ===<br />
{{Verdict|Vandalism|Permaban}}{{vndl|PsychophillKILLER}}<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/PsychophillKILLER|Vandal spree]]. Oh, and the [[FAQ]] really should be cut into smaller pieces, I had trouble reverting it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Mass vandalage. '''Perma'''. Also, more then three edits, no contribution in any way, shape, or form that betters the wiki. just that same spammy warning.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Sexylegsread&diff=1379026User talk:Sexylegsread2009-02-03T01:00:03Z<p>Liberty: /* New Sig */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{User:Sexylegsread/nav}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
''All posts that were here, that now aren't here, can be found in the Archives.'' [[User:Sexylegsread/Archive2007|2007]] or [[User:Sexylegsread/Archive2008|2008]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== New Posts/Rules ==<br />
*New posts at the bottom of the page, use that little + button at the top of your screen. <br />
*Always sign your posts.<br />
*Remember that I enjoy wiki wars, so if you have a problem, please tell.<br />
*Refer to me as "Sir" or I will delete your posts. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*kidding, btw.<br />
<br />
<br />
== hai ==<br />
<br />
update your user page, and check this [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_03#User:NIGGERS_MALONE|lol]], a/vb archives are classic. Shame the histories don't work though. Also, are you at fingallol?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ugh ==<br />
<br />
Why does your signature hurt so much? {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It also happens to break the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Required_Link|signature policy]]. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Please explain how, and I will oblige. The sig doesn't break the page on this browser, if it does on yours, send me a screenie and we will sort it out.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 10:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::It should be obvious from his link, that he doesn't think it links to your user page... it does, it's just hidden by all the crap you've included, multiple times, to make it hard to find who's signature it is. It doesn't break the letter of the policy, but it does break the spirit pretty blatantly.<br />Thankfully you never say anything worth knowing who the author is <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:32 29 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::OH SNAP. Boxeh u r teh kulest--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 10:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
{{Divquote||The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages '''so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature.'''|[[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signature Policy]]}}<br />
:::::It needs to be obvious who the author is. Hiding it among a gazillion other links doesn't do that. It needs to clearly link to your user page. Not doing that means it not only breaks the letter of the policy but the spirit as well. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::It isn't a gazillion it is 16. It is repeated 3 or 4 times. Policy isn't strict enough on sigs tbh.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 01:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Can you at least use more than the letter d?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 01:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::Nah, I like d, its my letter.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Did you guys ever stop to think maybe instead of bitching and coming down like a hardass you could just ask if he would mind moving the user link to the first d and shaving off a few of the extra ds? You could at least try talking to him first.<br />
When you guys rewrite the sig policy be sure to include no blinking text and no spoilers. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:How is this any of those things? I came here to let him know that it was breaking the policy and was explaining how so that he could alter it and have the information for the future. Being a hardass would have been instantly reverting it and escalating him and then calling him an idiot for breaking my user page and making a sig full of ds, the point is I'd actually have to mind the sig and not the fact that it isn't clear who is signing(which was the ''only'' problem with it). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Didn't mean that at you, Karek. I was just annoyed with the whole way Hag treated the case. I was venting.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Administration ==<br />
<br />
Your signature breaks the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy|Signature Policy]] and was changed to make it easy for people a) to identify you as the author of your edits b) have an easily identifiable link to your user page. Further edits of this kind will be seen as vandalism, and dealt accordingly. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:what isn't easily identifiable as scrolling over the fucking D's until you find the link to the userpage? Wiki bullshit, you cant stand anyone that makes your policies look like shit. You're all fucking retarded no life mother fuckers who wont fuck anything with a definable hole until your own fucking carcass erodes into itself and you spasm in a fucking motion towards the corroded hole in the front of your graves you pathetic wastes of human space. Except Hagnat. I don't mind you sometimes.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::You swear like a 12 year old on Xbox Live, fyi. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You would know. Yeah, I've seen your Xbox live profile online. I email searched it. "OMG I TOTALY HEDSHOT THAT GUY B4 I SHUD JOIN MLG YA TLTW?!"--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 13:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::moar cyberstalking? you're a sad, sad child. also, that stuff is pretty obviously bullshit as a) I haven't played halo in months, b) even when I did play it was kind of meh anc c) funny third thing. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Lol. You should commend me, it was hard to find that halo profile through the abundance of fail that came up while searching for you. And unless someone shares your email, it can't be bullshit. Gtfo my talk page, it's a halofag fanboy free zone.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:: You are creating needless drama over something that is bothering several users in this wiki... for teh lulz. You have been asked to change your sig by several users, and even after an unofficial warning was given you still went ahead and reverted your sig for what it looked like. You were given links to the signature policy, and even admits to be abusing it. You leave me no choice but to warn you for vandalism, thus banning you for a week. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 16:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC) <br />
:::Why don't you give him five more days the policy says he gets before an escalation? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 16:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You could also protect his signature page after reverting back to a more sensible version. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 16:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I've never been so proud of you, hagnat. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 16:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wow, I thought we got along rather well. :'( --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== New Sig ==<br />
<br />
If there is an issue, say so here before you go all wiki warrior on it.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 15:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Still annoying, but I find no problem with it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:It's ~4k of html code every time that appears on a page. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I'm tired, but if I'm not mistaken, for a wiki page, that's quite large isn't it? Could be a problem, huh?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::If your surfing the net with a Nintendo DS, on a net connection from a Vietnamese provider. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/2011_06&diff=1379023UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/2011 062009-02-03T00:56:02Z<p>Liberty: /* Zombykiller user page */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/D]]}}<br />
<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style="margin-bottom: .5em; float: right; padding: .5em 0 .8em 1.4em; width: 33%"<br />
|__TOC__<br />
|}<br />
<br />
This page is for the request of page deletions within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to concerns about loss of data, the ability to delete pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request a deletion from the system operators. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here.<br />
<br />
==Guidelines for Deletion Requests==<br />
<br />
All Deletion Requests '''must''' contain the following information in order to be considered:<br />
<br />
* '''A link to the page in question.''' Preferably bolded for visibility. Note that Category and Image links need a colon at the front to turn them into links (ie <code><nowiki>[[:Category:Category]]</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>[[:Image:Image.jpg]]</nowiki></code>).<br />
* '''A reason for deletion.''' This should be short and to the point.<br />
* '''A signed datestamp.''' This can be easily done by adding <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to the end of your request.<br />
<br />
In addition to placing a request on this page, please place the '''''<nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>''''' tag on the top of the page that is being recommended for deletion. Please make sure that the original content remains on the page, so that others can judge whether the page is worthy of deletion.<br />
<br />
Any deletion request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.<br />
<br />
Once the deletion request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be voted on for a period of two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. At the conclusion of this two weeks, the appropriate action will be taken by a system operator, and at the end of that day the request will be moved into the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
Certain types of pages may be better being scheduled for deletion in order to reduce the amount of red tape and stop this page getting too cluttered. To lodge a request for scheduled deletions, head for [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling]].<br />
<br />
Deletion of pages that match a certain criteria may be better serviced by a request for a Speedy Deletion. Speedy Deletions are for removal of pages that are clearly of no value to the wiki, and do not incur the two week voting requirement. Speedy Deletion requests can be lodged at [[UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions]].<br />
<br />
{{speedydeletioncriteria}}<br />
<br />
==Guidelines for Voting on Deletion Requests==<br />
<br />
* One vote per user.<br />
* Voting should take place underneath the request, and each vote should be started with a {{CodeInline|#}} with no empty lines inbetween votes.<br />
* There are four vote types:<br />
** '''Delete'''. For agreement with the deletion request<br />
** '''Merge'''. For indication that the content on the page should be merged with another page (includes an implicit '''Delete''').<br />
** '''Speedy Delete'''. For indication that the page meets one of the [[UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions|Speedy Deletions]] Criteria (includes an implicit '''Delete''').<br />
** '''Keep'''. For disagreement with the deletion request.<br />
<br />
* The specific vote keyword should be bolded within the lodged vote. Any relevant comments are also allowed, but these should not be bolded.<br />
* At least one '''Delete''' vote must be entered by the deadline in order for a page to be deleted. System operators may not use their own vote after the deadline to delete a page.<br />
* If more '''Delete''' votes are entered than '''Keep''' votes, the page will be deleted. In any other circumstance, the page is kept.<br />
* If 3 '''Speedy Delete'''s are lodged, and there are no '''Keep''' Votes, the page will be deleted as per [[UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions|Speedy Deletions]].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Deletion Queue==<br />
<br />
=== Zombykiller user page ===<br />
<br />
[[User:zombykiller]]<br />
<br />
Reason - I have created a new wiki account with exact same info as this one [[User:Bhuwannabe]]<br />
--[[User:Zombykiller|bhuwannabe]] 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - crit 7 (You'll notice that he posted under that name in the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FDeletions&diff=1379007&oldid=1378193 history].) Please use [[A/SD|speedy deletions]] in future if you are requesting a deletion for your own page. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''SD''' - {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 00:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[Grayside Civil War]]===<br />
A pointless page about a non-event which provides not a whit of useful, informative, factual or even ''entertaining'' information. It doesn't approach anywhere near NPOV: it's just a collage of POV rants which don't even make sense. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
#'''Delete''' - Has no "potential". Except for spastics to make drama amongst each other. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]]<br />
#'''Delete''' - See above, excluding the "spastics" --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:"Except for to make drama amongst each other." sounds stupid though. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Doesn't really matter in this case I guess. --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' to avoid further drama concerning it. Replace "spastics" with "people" then to avoid illogical fallacy. My brain hurts :/ --[[User:Ryzak Black|Ryzak Black]] 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Wow. {{User:Met fan/sig}} 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Dammit Wan, you beat me to it! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Just remembered [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/2008_12#Liberation_Day_and_Ironfist|these]] from last month. If I remember correctly, the content is quite different (but one could argue that this page still is breaking the ''spirit'' of the policy-although it would be a bit of a long shot, tbh.) This silly little bout of drama has been going on for a while, it seems. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 12:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' post-haste. Saying "opinion" is not a way to make POV okay on a public page. {{User:Blackboard/sig}} 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - It seems to be an active page and maybe with more work it won't suck so hard. Is there anyway we can move it to a group or user subpage?--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:ScouterTX_and_User:Ryzak_Black You should lurk more]--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Blue_Aegis_Group%2FHistory%2FGrayside_Conflict&diff=1360699&oldid=1360461 You should have a VB warning for editing a subpage of a group you aren't in.]--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Um, what the hell did that prove? I have read that before and I merely agree that is should be moved to the group namespace.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::You mean like [[Blue Aegis Group/History/Grayside Conflict|last time]]? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:43 29 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#::::Oh yeah, that was really hardcore vandalism! How could I! --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 14:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - about 3 people will care when this goes. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Let them get it all out <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:42 29 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#:Meh, there's no potential here. It's too big a mess, and everything I have seen of the contributors points to the fact that they don't possess the skill set to turn it into a coherent page. Furthermore, I object to the name. STARS, who are probably the single most important group in E Grayside, weren't involved in this.... Therefore to call it a "civil war" when the largest, longest-standing, most important group in the suburb had nothing to do with it is misleading. If someone wants to create a REAL page, with a legit title and REAL content on this conflict -- fine. But this page belongs in the trash. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - While I think it's a laugh, I agree with WanYao that it isn't really a civil war, otherwise STARS would have been involved, which we wasn't. --[[User:The Cop|The Cop]] 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Kill with fire. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 03:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Move''' A cute little page, but needs to be in a different namespace [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - and move to group subspace. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Merge''' - Send it to one of the groups' userspaces. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Recent Actions==<br />
<br />
===[[:Image:Cyberfag and rackoon.jpg]]===<br />
Speaking of attack images... I just noticed this little gem. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You just noticed? [[User_talk:J3D/Archive3#Misconduct|Oh really?]] --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
#'''Delete''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - lol. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Yeah, figured you might swing that way. Good to see that skim of sophistication you've been so desperately trying to build up since your demotion is indeed a sham after all. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::lol?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:[[User_talk:J3D/Archive3#Misconduct|Proof Bob knew about this image 3 months ago.]]--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Wow. Also, its been up for [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread&diff=1304107&oldid=1302082 months] and you just noticed, haha [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:I'm not really that interested in keeping tabs on people. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::What the fucks that even mean? You had obviously already seen it because you commented on it months ago.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Yeah, i'd say [[User_talk:J3D/Archive3#Misconduct|you are interested in keeping tabs on people, or just lying :P]] --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Any similarities between my comment and one that might be directed at the image are purely coincidental. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Ahhh Clever ;) {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 12:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Oh so you were just talking shit, kkk.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Why? This is about as blatant as it gets, and I see you voted delete on the other attack image below. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Agenda... it's all agendas... ... ... **shakes it off** sorry, must have been channeling J3D there for a second <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 07:33 20 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#::::haha, shush you. But if you look i think you'll find it's read who says agenda, although i might have said it once or twice.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::Didn't he mean he was channeling ''your'' agenda?? {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 12:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::Nah, read always claims everything boxy does is furthering his agenda. Basically everytime boxy calls vandalism on something i've done that clearly isn't vandalism read calls agenda. Some call it paranoia, most call it being realistic. Anyhoo you weren't really expected to understand the reference :P --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::::'''Jed: ''"Some'' call it paranoia, ''most'' call it being realistic."'''<br />
#:::::::lol --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::::i am pretty awesome.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' -- Really?--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:What do you mean? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - Obvious attack image. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">02:37/19/01/2009</span>]]'''<br />
#'''Delete''' - While better made than the TZH one, it still implies that Cyberbob is into the "cyber-sex" thing, and he still won't accept my offers. Also, cocks, read the page a bit more: "Voting should take place underneath the request, and each vote should be started with a # with no empty lines inbetween votes". Jesus, how do you people confuse this stuffs? :/ --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - *sigh* Not porn and in use. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Meh. It's an attack image and I voted delete on the other one. This one's a lot better made, but still delete. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As SA. It's not as bad as the TZH one, but it does nothing but attack a user. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:...although it should be stated that images that attack a user or group are quite common around here. However, these last few (this and the Amber Waves one,) are basically just YOU SUCK lololololol, and have no merit whatsoever. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 12:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I disagree with that, i mean its no awesome satire but its not just you suck, it doesn't actually say that anywhere. It's just the way it's interpreted. It even includes a pun as well as rampant characterisation, not too bad for an MSpaint job.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Crap. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 07:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - ''any similarities to anybody in real life or on wiki are purely coincidental'' Yeah, right. Delete, just like the Amber one. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 08:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''delete''' wavering but clearly has no purpose but to attack Bob + it's crap! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 08:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:And Woot, although it might be hard to spot. I actually slightly enjoy this image but since me and read live together and he's stuck it on the fridge i can see it anytime i want.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::EDIT: if Someone provides the link Read refers to which explicitly shows Bob was aware of this months ago then feel free to change my vote... then again, its been there that long that the joke is stale and you 2 should at least come up with something a bit better. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Firstly, why does it make a difference? Secondly, I like the implication that if the insult was a clever one you would vote Keep. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 15:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::first, It makes a difference in that if true you didn't care then so I have to wonder why you do now? Second, the implication should be that if it was a funny and harmless insult then yes, I would be fine with it... Insulting folk with words isn't banned here so why should it be with pictures? I will vote against a good many extreme variations on such themes but such cartoons have been an accepted (and valued) form of criticism for millenia in the real world and certainly since the start of this wiki. This particular one falls on the wrong side of funny/clever for my tastes and so does the one below... just not far enough below for me to have real strong feelings on.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::[[User_talk:J3D/Archive3#Misconduct|thar you go]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::You guys live together (in after buttsecks)? What happened to "no srsly we live in liek totally different states yo"? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 15:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::I was utilising sarcasm lol, sorry 4 teh confushun.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Link shows Bob knew about it so it his "just noticed" thing is a bit disingenuous but at the end of the day it is clearly an image designed to attack him and if he has since decided that he wants it gone then its clearly valid to ask for its removal. As for should it be, I really don't care either way anymore.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''delete''' - nowhere near as offensive as the amber waves one, it's borderline. but as honestmistake, yeah, it's pointless garbage that i can't even define as "art" -- as much as i'd like to. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Basically, I am not against images attacking or satirising users/players, per se. If it has some degree of "artistic merit" so to speak, and/or clear satirical acumen, i.e. it's actually funny, then I'd probably keep it. But if it's basically just "YOU'RE FAT AND GAI AND YOU FUXXX GOATS!!!elven!" then get rid of it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Actually, "YOU'RE FAT AND GAI AND YOU FUXXX GOATS!!!elven!" is funnier than any of these attack ads. Which is, like, my point. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' Stfu Wan, Bob and any of you other self-righteous cunts. Wan, you dont need to make 6 million edits and timestamp them all to give your shitty opinion, and opinion that doesn't even matter beyond your initial keep or delete, about a paint drawing that bob noticed months ago (if you skim through the edit wars at the time, he commends me on my "mspaint skills bro". Also, any of you who think it is a serious attempt at art need to take a long hard look at yourselves. It is nothing but an expression of opinion.....of cyberfag and rackoon. In conclusion, Wan, I come in to contact with you like once a month. And each time you are a total faggot and I hate you more. You do not need to make 1mil edits to a vote on the deletions page. Nobody gives two shits.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:It's a pointless attack. The only reason it has for being on the wiki is to create drama.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 16:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Obviously....--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Get a life, cretin. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Deary me. Michael, it is clearly an attack that has no place on the wiki, unless you enjoy creating drama. Drama = Bad, m'kay?--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::I think it is pretty obvious that I like drama.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 03:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 12:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Pointless attack. I voted delete on the other, so it's fair to vote the same here.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - I voted delete on the other image. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - cyberbob whining because of an attack image ? sudden change of roles in here --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:When have I ever made an attack image, you hopeless shit? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::This has produced everything I wanted + more.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As Drawde --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 18:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' and cry about it on your own time. {{User:Blackboard/sig}} 20:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - If the thing was clever I might vote keep. As is it's pointless and kinda sad. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 15:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:I am curious to know, do you people really believe I intended to make it look anything more than a quick piece of shit drawing on mspaint? It was created during an edit war and I haven't cared enough about my user page to edit it in a couple of months now. It is more sad that you judge the quality of an obvious attempt at being deliberately shit, and use it as some sort of insult. Ffs seriously your all fucking gay--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::<nowiki>*</nowiki>you're. lal. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I am curious to know, do you people actually try to understand what your talking about before failing miserably? Lawl cawks amarite? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::"Do you people". Also, you aren't too good at arguments are you Karek? You basically just said NO U but you dressed it up a little. Fail.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 13:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::You're really bad at recognizing patterns and similarities. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 14:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::lol, k then.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Töten Sie es mit ein wohnwagon!!''' - Für große Gerechtigkeit! -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 16:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:For those of us who can't speak German - {{CodeInline|'''Kill it also wohnwagon!!''' - For large justice}}-damn Bablefish doesn't know what wohnwagon means, although google says it's "living wagon" :/. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::'For those of you who can't speak German, neither can I, but I'll give you an equally confusing sentence, to remember instead of the original German one'. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 11:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::"mit" likely means "with". "whonwagon" is still a bit of a mystery. A more sensible translation might be {{CodeInline|'''Kill it with whonwagon!!''' - For great justice}}.--{{User:The General/sig}} 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Pretty sure he spelled wohnwagen wrong. And I'm pretty sure he was meaning something along the lines of "Killing it with a bandwagon", or something to that effect. I don't know, I'm still tired.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::That would make sense, and it would be why a dictionary wouldn't understand it ("bandwagon" isn't exactly standard vocab anyway).--{{User:The General/sig}} 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::If I'm remembering my Standard Grade German properly, wohnwagen is actually supposed to be Caravan. Might have spelt it wrong though. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::Nope. I am right. =D Wohnwagen run by itself through babelfish comes back as Camper which is pretty much a caravan. So it actually says: Kill it with a Caravan!! -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::Well, if you were going for caravan, then alright, you had it right. But I figured you were using it as another way to say bandwagon, or a similar meaning. Killing something with a caravan doesn't seem to make sense here. Also, you still spelt wohnwagen wrong. You gave it an o instead of an e. :P --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete'''-Not because it's an attack page but because it's stupid and crap.--{{User:The General/sig}} 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - lol --[[User:Shakey60|Shakey]] <sup>[[Beatbox_Kids|BBK]] </sup> 11:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:You are a valued member of this community. Thank you for your ongoing contribution. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::In short: ''Thank you for your input.'' --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 20:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Let me set the scene, "Shakey" is a dark coloured kettle, and bobby is a similar shaded pot. Bob:"Hey kettle, you're black".--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 12:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - "OH YEA WELL! UR A MINION" Kick ass argument was kick ass --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 02:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - At least use Paint Shop Pro.--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Deleted'''. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Umbrella Zerg ===<br />
[[Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service/Umbrella/Zerg]]<br />
<br />
This contributes nothing more then malicious text. I wouldn't know the exact policy or guideline but this does not belong on the wiki.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC) <br />
:<small>[[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Deletions#Umbrella_Zerg_Discussion|Extraneous discussion moved to talk page]] -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</small><br />
<br />
#'''Keep''' - Interesting.--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#<s>'''Delete''' - Little more than a barely concealed attempt to provoke the other side to edit the page and get taken to [[A/VB]] -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</s> '''Keep''' - Meh. The other guys have done the same. Let them have it. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:<small>[[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Deletions#Cheese.27s_vote_discussion|Extraneous discussion moved to talk page]] -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</small><br />
#'''Keep''' - Viable info. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete'''--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Jackson threatened to put up zerg-related info about UBCS first anyway.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#<s>'''Keep''' - Umbrella threatened to do the same. I also don't buy into this whole "page created only to provoke the other side into vandalizing it" conspiracy.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
#:'''Delete''' - Now that the other page is gone, I say that this one gets deleted as well to avoid future fighting between the Umbrellas.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group subpage, they can say what they want in it. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group subpage --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group subpage, It's their property.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#<s>'''Keep''' - but only just. It's a group subpage, but it is bordering on trolling to make A/VB cases. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
#:'''Delete''' - As Argo. Move it off-site if you want the data kept. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' -This is a group sub page, you can write whatever you want about other groups on your own group pages and they can do nothing to stop you short of arbitration. The A/VB case in question was simple and ruled incorrectly, flame/A/VB bait or not, this group is entitled to have this page and deserves the protection afforded to all other group pages. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - or we'd have to get rid of classic pages like [[User:DanceDanceRevolution/Fenis|this one]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Kay, I get how this works. Will put a similar page up by tomorrow, no worries.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Kthzbye. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Done. Jackson's old report back up. Long live the freedom of speech.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::When will you understand that my report is an actual report, while yours is just circumstantial evidence and personal assaults with fake ass chats and shopped shots. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' Our page, our space. --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete'''That proves that it was created by the UBCS to discredit and to be used as a weapon against umbrella! I hope you know Lithedarkangel's comment will be exploited as the defence!--[[User:Beau Dece|Beau Dece]] 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#: Then Haliman's vote also shows the same... >_> --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:: More to use! This can be handy for my STARS problem! {{Unsigned|Beau Dece}}<br />
#::: Beau, the creator has a right to vote on this page. --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#<s>'''Keep''' - Its obvious that it is a POV page and does not violate any terms, though it may be full of half-truths it should be respected like OUR PAGES should be respected in the same way.</s> If Haliman can sport his page of half-truths then Umbrella Corporation should be able to display a page full of facts created by Haliman himself.--{{User:Jackson/Sig}} 01:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:'''DELETE''' - No viable "keep" option granted to for the Umbrella Report.--{{User:Jackson/Sig}} 23:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - it's in the groupspace, it's relevant information, even if the level of "proof" leaves a lot to be desired <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:14 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#'''Keep''' - POV, unfortunately. --[[User:Skouth|Skouth]] 06:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Redundant Keep is Redundant''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep'''. It's in their groupspace; it's part of their raison d'etre, not just random drivel. They're allowed POV. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group Subpage, POV. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group subpage. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 16:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Kepp''' - I'm starting to enjoy the talk page it has where i can post proof of his team zerging --[[User:Colonel Krauser|Colonel Krauser]] 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' I hate both these fucking groups.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Propaganda is acceptable. However, you wankers need to grow the fuck up. All of you. FAST. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As a firm loyalist to Umbrella, I believe it's too much drivel. [[User:Nemesis645|Nemesis645]] 08:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:As a Republican (in the English Civil War / French Revolutionary sense of the word) firmly on the side of the United Anti-drivel Front, I think both your groups need to grow up and get lives. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::That should mean a lot when it comes from you!--{{User:Jackson/Sig}} 02:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - It's nothing more than group propaganda, offensive or not, true or not.[[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group subpage. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
Kept. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 04:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Old Protection Archive===<br />
<br />
Requesting deletion for the following pages, as they no longer have use (a new protection archive was created)<br />
<br />
* [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive]]<br />
* [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive2005]]<br />
* [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive2006]]<br />
* [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive2007]]<br />
* [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive2008]]<br />
<br />
Any links to these pages should be changed to their new locations, whenever possible. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Delete''' - Two weeks is more then enough time to sort out the archives (hence why it's not a speedy.) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
**Hmm... on second thought, a lot of pages link to those pages, a lot (naturally,) protected. Why not just leave them as a disambiguation? {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - The new system sucks and will be scrapped for a modified version of the old system which currently has more functionality. Any protect page with {{tl|Protect}} will show you as much. There should have been discussion on this before the change was done.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - New, bad. Old, good. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep'''; having redundant systems can't hurt. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - as above. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Kept for the above mostly good reasons. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
===[[:Image:Amberwaves.jpeg]]===<br />
Crit 2 I guess. All in all, just another rather pathetic attempt by the TZH to trump someone they don't like.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <br />
:Not deleted. Image is in use. --– TANK! Nubis 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<sub>From [[UDWiki:Administration/Speedy_Deletions#Image:Amberwaves.jpeg|A/SD]].</sub><br />
<br />
#'''Delete''' - Because I wanted to sign. At the top. Because I'm cool.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As Suicidalangel. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Because I don't have to give a reason, hmmmm, I wonder if we can meatpuppet through everything of TZH while we're at it? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Why should we meatpuppet? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Meatpuppeting is the use of many users that have the same opinion to force through something that would not normally pass a vote if it was not the subject of their group opinion. It should not be confused with sockpuppetry where one or few users create multiple 'sock puppet' alts to subvert the community consensus. Sockpuppeting is illegal on this wiki, meatpuppeting is not. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::I see. What I don't understand is, are we ''meatpuppetting'' now? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 18:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Baleet''' - Yup. Meatpuppeting is awesome. Especially when you're running for sysop and users from Brainstock who never use the wiki are told to go on and vote against you en masse. That's awesome. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As SA, and especially Iscariot! {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As Iscariot. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' unless you argue its a scheduled deletion under 22 July 2008 vote. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:'''No, it isn't scheduled.''' Attack images and pages were both up for votes and only pages passed. Images didn't get enough votes.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Ew. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Insta-remove''' - Thats a personal attack image--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - No speedy crit, unfortunately. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' Not porn, not copyrighted, and in use. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Worthless shite. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Töten Sie es mit Feuer!!''' - Für große Gerechtigkeit! -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Sie sprechen deutsch?--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 23:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Or for those of us who can't speak German; {{CodeInline|Kill it with fire!! - For large justice}}. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Große in this context means great. =p -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Großartig can also mean great. Haven't seen it used like that in a while though.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - has potential... but meh, i dont see a chance of this image being kept after this round of ''delete''s --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Potential? For what? To waste space and attack another user? Haggie, are you telling us that you whole-heartedly support the use of attack images? Okay everyone, flood the wiki with useless images! :)...:/ If they want to use these images, they should host them at an external image hosting site, then link to it. Stupid shit like this doesn't need to take up space on the wiki.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Precedent says attack images when posted on group space aren't deleted. If you want to talk about useless things on the wiki I would say more than half the templates (especially ones like the mess you have on your page) should be deleted. And as for your idea that an image should be on more than one page to be "in use" is ridiculous. Are you going to put Image:Engel.jpg up for deletion? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Precedent isn't law. Just thought I'd remind you that. Now, onto the rest of it. First, it's on his own talk page, not a group whatsoever. Sure, it's his space, but hell, that doesn't mean its completely exempt from being brought into a more respectable form. And if you feel those templates should be deleted, then put them up for it. I didn't make many, if any at all, of the templates, it doesn't concern me much. And as for your whole "user pic on one page" thing, there's a difference. User pictures are generally exempt from image deletion unless by author request, or its no longer in use. That, and the fact that an image representation of a users character normally ''doesn't attack another user in such a poor and shitty manner''. But whatever. Attack images are a-okay, right Nubis? And I guess I ''should'' start a frivolous deletions case that I'm just going to vote keep on, because apparently I ''should'' think an image representation of one of my characters, just because it's only used in one place, should also be treated like an attack image that's only used in one place, huh?. Also, Hags, I figured the potential bit was just a joke. But just because you're guilty of a crime once, doesn't mean you should let it happen later, nor should you let more of a crime happen just because your ''friends'' get away with it. That's not how you should be doing your job. You should know that.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::You should stop foaming at the mouth for a moment and think about this. This is a game based on rivalry. Zeds VS Humans. PKers VS Everyone, etc. You are going to have "My team RULZ UR team SUX" type of propaganda everywhere. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much fun if everyone got along in a big old love in. So, yes, I do think "attack images" that aren't porn are ok. It isn't like the image says "This is Amberwaves and he lives at 123 Fake St." It isn't even a real picture of that user. It isn't being spammed on that Amber's page or groups that Amber belongs to. It is one fucking image in an old post of a goddamn talk page. I am sick of people (that aren't even involved) trying to dictate what the moral standards of the wiki should be. Attack PAGES are deleted. Attack IMAGES are not. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::Foaming? Not yet. :). Honestly, I understand what you're saying. Sure, it's not porn. Sure, he's not spamming it. But the thing is, it's still , as you even said, and old ass image in an old ass talk page comment, that won't ever be used again (unless it's by someone who has seen this case, as it'll probably remind people about it. Not like anyone would use it then anyway). I will reiterate my point. Its an old, USELESS image, that Dhavid Grohl probably doesn't remember he even uploaded. And I wasn't trying to dictate the moral standards of the wiki from the start. I wanted an old useless barely used image gone. I'm not calling for a scouring of the wiki for all attack images. I'm not even saying I don't want them on here at all. But for the ones that aren't going to ever get any real use, or even remebered months later, then hell, just put it on Imageshack. Quit wasting our space. Thats not asking for much right?--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::It is being used and it is part of his page's history. If he comes along and archives his page and removes the image then eventually it will be deleted as unused. But until then for whatever reason he has chosen to have that image on there and we should not remove an image that isn't porn and is still in use. He is still active on the wiki, too. Your argument that it is old doesn't work because we keep old images (check out any historical page or archived page). Your argument that it isn't in use is clearly wrong. And letting "you" decide what images are appropriate goes against the voted policy that says '''sysops''' are responsible for removing images. Not to mention, we have tons of images that are on here that should be hosted off site or deleted for violating copyrights. And you can't change your song saying you weren't against Attack images. That's not going to work. Also how many times have I heard disk space = cheap. Stop grasping at straws.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::::First, I will quote myself in one of my earlier comments here, and on speedy deletions. "Stupid shit like this doesn't need to take up space on the wiki" "Waste of bandwidth". Not to mention the many times I've said something along the lines of wasting space from the start. Its hard to "change my song" when I've followed it through from the start. And yet again, you're trying to make it look like I said something different than what I said. Not once did I say I was against attack images. I said these hardly used ones that are just wasting away could easily go, but I never called for a removal of all hate images. And who says I'm deciding what goes on the wiki? I simply thought of what a large portion of the wiki users would vote like, and put it up for speedy. And when it was brought here, look at that. Many of them agree with me. Huh. I guess I was right in thinking that the community would find the image to be shit. Doesn't mean I think I should decide whats on here or not, or that I'm trying to do that. One image maybe, but not the entire wiki. I'm not trying to portray myself as a voice of the community like Iscariot seems to here and there. I'm not trying to dictate the wiki's happenings a-la Grim. Quit trying to paint me like that.<br />
#:::::::Also, the whole disk space=cheap? Who cares if its cheap or not. Doesn't mean I want to waste it. And inb4you saying a bunch of my shit is wasting space, I don't feel it does. And if you do, then put it up for deletions. Even if its in my user space, as it's been proven before that the user space isn't sacrosanct. I'm not sure if I replied to each of your points, but I'm tired. If I missed something, let me know, and I'll try to hit it back.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::::I don't know if there's much point to this large discussion but, to clarify; Attack images have been deleted in the past. One relating to Amazing, and one very similar one relating to Finis Valorum. The only real question, aside from if she actually wants it deleted, is if this qualifies as something akin to that as opposed to the Marty images. It's kinda dumb but doesn't cross the line into invasion of privacy that is usually used as the standard for deletion request for attack images. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 03:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::::::Even Marty (bless his thick skull) realized that the images were a parody. Of course, the Marty images are works of art as the Goons are professionals (unlike TZH).--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::::::PMSL...the goon ''are'' TZH... the only difference is that they're zombie arseholes, and they have a numerical advantage :P <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 14:23 10 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#::::::::: Amazing was a prick, and the attack images were made with his "''copyrighted material''". It was easier to delete the image than to get him to shut up about it. And finis image was deleted because it featured a RL-photo of him. And Honest, you claim this image is a huge waste of BW, but this discussion prolly a) drew more attention to the image than it normally would b) created more BW usage than the image alone ever consumed. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 16:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::::::A)I know. It can't be helped that Nubis didn't think it should be deleted, he has his opinions, I have mine. Oh well, right? B) Again, not exactly something we can change. But I still think the image is a useless waste of space. And C) I'm not Honestmistake, please don't tell me you confused me with him, he hasn't even said anything here!--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::::::::I have now.... Still not getting involved though as I don't want to get dragged in. For the record I do lean towards deletion but keep changing my mind. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 08:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:: I dont approve attacking other users, but i am not going to bar them from a crime i and several friends of mine were guilty of in the past (and some of them in the present). BTW, this image is not copyrighted by the user being attacked (heh), nor is it used elsewhere in the wiki besides the talk page of the user who uploaded this image. Its his right to express his hatred for a group or user in his own user page. If any user take this serious, its their fault. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 13:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::: and the "''has potential''" bit on my vote is just a lil joke on one of the below cases :P --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 13:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::What about the 'Saromu is gay Devil' template? It was scheduled deleted..(attack against a user, no swearing). --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Personal attack. --[[User:KyleStyle|KyleStyle]] 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Crap. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - it's on a user:talk page; it's free expression. If you don't like it, don't visit the talk page. Plain and simple. Is it pretty? No. Is it tasteful? No. You're right; it's crap (albeit with gobs of potential). But if we just start haphazardly deleting things we don't like, this wiki is going to turn to bland shit. Wait... unless we start with the DEM. Can we delete the DEM??? --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Oh Lord, don't tell me you've all gotten this petty. The image is SIX MONTHS OLD. If it has offended anyone, the damage has long been done. I feel the whole deletion request only exists to piss off TZH.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:I have no dealings whatsoever with the TZH, I just happened to notice it while checking out some of their stuff. Just because it's old doesn't mean it can't offend anyone that may see it at a later time you know.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 11:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I'm sure Amber Waves has already seen it, and I don't know of anyone else who would be offended. Plus it's not even well made, it's like a 10-minute paint job! If someone made an image like this about me I wouldn't be offended, if anything they would look like the morons for slapping this together in the first place.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::The funny thign is, thats one of the reasons why I said it should be deleted fromt he start, because it was such crap. :). Not so much because it was an attack image, or because it'd offend anyone, but because it was a hardly used, and very crappy image.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - But only because I feel ashamed for the guy who made it. I mean really? Who says PWNT to their own burn?--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 11:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - with prejudice. Some people who play this game need help. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Pointless and eye-hurting. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 11:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
Deleted 18-4 For Great Justice. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== [[Armored Squadron]] ===<br />
Was just up for a [[A/SD|speedy deletion]], but brought here as users at A/SD are unsure about it's status in game. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
Group page that has no content and even says they are disbanded. Armored Squadron, we hardly knew ye. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 11:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:That's random as my alt in Vinetown is standing in a building with a member of the armoured sqadron. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 11:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Well, now here is the question. They are in game (at least one) but they have no wiki presence to speak of. Should we still consider this a crit 1 (in pure wiki terms) or remove it from the requests (since they are in game)? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 11:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Since the page says they have disbanded and is just a few lines i'd say kill it. In game might be unrelated, or a leftover or whatever.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Take it to [[A/D|deletions]], I think <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:46 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Done. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
#'''Delete''' - Doesn't seem to be acting as a group. The page is a stub, it says they are disbanded, and the forum is inactive, despite there being a remnant member in-game <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:22 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#'''Keep''' - Page has content, a record of the group's existence, a link to their former forum and the ever present group box. Just because a group has disbanded doesn't mean things should be deleted. Also there is no proof that the group themselves added the section saying they are disbanded, we could be looking at a piece of missed vandalism. Rosslessness' observations trump all arguments. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' Iscariot's point about the "disbanded" part possibly being missed vandalism is a good one. However, on further investigation I find that their forums are dead. I also hardly consider just a group box "content". I wanted this moved here in case the guy Ross is with can answer if they are gone or not. Having it here gives him a chance to come forth. (if he does then I may change my vote)--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete'''. Come on, a template with a field saying FILLTHIS? The group can always just remake the page if they're so inclined. I mean, it DOES have potential. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 16:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Page is empty, forums quiet since about May 2008. It's more than likely disbanded with a couple of stragglers in-game who decided to carry on by themselves. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As above.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As above. --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 02:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - we've deleted groups stub pages with evidence of an in-game presence before, we'll do it again.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' already. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:'''Deleted'''--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== [[Umbrella Corporation/Report]] ===<br />
An exact same copy of an [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/Aug_2008#Haliman_is_a_Fraud already deleted file]. Posted as a personal assault directed towards me. Also posted just to "get back at me" for posting a logical report (with 0 personal assaults in it.) --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Speedy Delete''' - Crit 6. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:When you're posting shit like this please include links to the deletion logs etc, makes it a lot easier for people to figure out if what you're saying is valid.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::One moment... --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/Aug_2008#Haliman_is_a_Fraud Done.] --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::: :). It was deleted because it was requested so by the page owners before deletion by vote. It never got forcefully deleted. Not crit 6--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::False claim that I zerg, sure that's not a personal attack.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Keep'''--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep'''--It's the equivalent of what you have, sure it's full of holes but so your slander page.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Speedy''' - Already been deleted once. Crit 6. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:40, 11 January 2009</s><br />
*:Striking vote, after looking at the deletion vote from August, I see most of the delete votes were actually move to subpage votes, which is where this already is. '''Keep''': It's a group subpage. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Nope. It was deleted by page owners not by A/D.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Nonetheless, it fills Crit 6. You should have thought about of the possibility of wanting to bring it back when you requested it to be deleted. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Haliman, they had the ''empty'' page deleted because they didn't want that specific page anymore. Effectively they moved it to a group subpage, it just took awhile and was done in a strange and confusing way. The deletion (in that case) wasn't about the content but the desire to have the namespace deleted. Comprendé? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::So they just conveniently restore it now? --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::It's ''their'' page and content, they have the right to do that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC) <br />
*'''Keep''' - That case shows the page wasn't deleted with the content on it, the page that was deleted was empty.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*: The page has nothing on because it was deleted. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Wrong. It was emptied by page owners, then it was empty then deleted by A/D by owner's request. The content on it was never deleted by A/D. Not crit 6.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Your group wiped the page only after it became clear that it '''was''' going to be deleted. If you had recreated it outside your group space it would be toast by now due to crit 6 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:24 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::::Boxy is indeed correct, I'm still contemplating Crit 6ing it because of the reason it was removed; "''But agreed, im not sure if it violates the wiki rules officaly, but it does not belong here''", which is a direct quote from MisterGame, even tempted to file a vandalism case for remaking it as it seems to be in bad faith.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' with difference of our page this one is a personal attack to Haliman while ours is a report about UC zergers.--{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Yes and accusing someone of zerging, no that's a personal attack at all, huh?--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 00:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Yeah, I thought so.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::This one was not deleted and keeps in fact a list of zergers. [[Anti_Cheater_Alliance|Here]]. --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 05:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Because I can.--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - As Sir Argo. We can't have double standards. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Not only does it not fit into the criteria of a speedy delete, the page is not a personal attack, it is a record on a fictional character named Haliman111. Who roll plays this character we do not know but it is not an attack on that person behind the character, even though it tends to point out characteristics of the person behind this character, it should not be viewed as such.--{{User:Jackson/Sig}} 01:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - it's in the group namespace now <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:24 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Keep''' - If Haliman can, why cant we? --[[User:Skouth|Skouth]] 06:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep'''. Sure, it's a heavy chunk of over-indulgent UD weirdness... but what the hell. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 12:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' - weak, though. This could be Scheduled Deleted (Personal Information) imo.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' - and an escalation as per Crit 6. The original deletion vote was clear, it was subverted by the group's action of getting an author speedy first. The community's sentiment still applies. Failing to see this as Crit 6 opens the wiki up to every getting deleted being blanked and author speedied first, we'll never be able to get rid of some pages and Crit 6 and the policy enacted over it will be worthless. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:The original page in question was requested for deletion ''with the specific directive'' that it be moved to a talk page. It was. Crit 6 does not apply; perhaps the original page should have been given a "move" request instead of "delete". --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 16:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Did you just try an argue a technicality with ''me''? Look back at the previous deletions voting, there were 8 votes for Delete/Move and 11 votes for a straight forward deletion. The community's consensus is clear. My Crit 6 vote stands. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Argue! With ''YOU''!! How ''DARE'' I! My word! I retract, I'm sorry! I don't know what I was thinking! How silly of me! Please forgive me, oh great and mighty Iscariot! <br />
*:::Anyway, some of the same people who voted to delete it then are voting to keep it now for that very reason. I think the issue wasn't the page content, per se, but rather the content in the context of where the page was posted.--[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 16:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - You make a flame bait page, they do the same back. Let them have it. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - I just wonder what's the next file/page under the delete order.--[[User:Beau Dece|Beau Dece]] 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Comment''' - There's a policy somewhere saying group pages may have NPOV paragraphs edited in. ([[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines|Found it]].) I believe that's what's been done on similar cases in the past where a group page's content has been controversial, like Red Rum's [[Red Rum/Tommy Gun|Tommy Gun]] page. A short paragraph along the lines of "This is a sub-page of <groupname>, its content reflects the views of that group. The views of other users or groups may differ from those presented here" can help to take some of the sting out of a page where a user feels they are being criticised unfairly or misleadingly. The NPOV section should try to communicate that people should trust what they read in the rest of the page in proportion with how much they trust the source. Also, this same comment goes for the matching case below. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep'''* - They get the zerg page we get this page, all is fair --[[User:Colonel Krauser|Colonel Krauser]] 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' - You are assholes. The wiki already decided this was NOT appropriate content and you posted it again. Go to hell, you fucking creeps. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Deleted''' under Crit 6. -[[User:Karek|Judge&nbsp;Karke]],&nbsp;self-proclaimed&nbsp;Decider&nbsp;of&nbsp;Everything&nbsp;and&nbsp;Ruler&nbsp;of&nbsp;All 14:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:The "page" that was deleted had no content. This is like someone getting their group deleted so they can rename it and move the content elsewhere, then getting crit 6 when they do move it elsewhere. But thanks for stepping in and stopping democracy, the people almost had a say in something then! I was starting to panic.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, the page that would have been deleted was this exact one which the author then chose to move off of the wiki and that is what the original deletion was for. The author himself said this was the wrong place for that content and chose to remove it, no different than a Crit 7. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::He said it was the wrong place, and moved it to the correct place AKA group subpage. The owner has clearly stated he wants the content on and if it was only deleted because he removed it (it was) then it should be subject to a vote as per the guidelines (it was about to be before you interupted). Don't make me put a/m back on everyones watchlists...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You're misreading the intentions behind the removal. The namespace issue doesn't take into consideration that he was informed of how to fix it and instead choose to move it to the groups personal website because the ''wiki'' was the incorrect place for that type of thing. The only reason the owner wants the content now is because of a personal dispute with the user that page is about, or rather because the reason he sited for removing the page because invalid to him upon him having the chance to snipe at another person in a conflict. That doesn't un-crit 6 it and does actually make it harassment(thus my comment on the A/VB case). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:"If more Delete votes are entered than Keep votes, the page will be deleted. In any other circumstance, the page is kept." Hmm. Seems pretty clear. I mean, maybe I'm just shit at counting, but... I'm pretty sure this is just power-tripping. You don't like it, you CAN delete it, so you do. I call bullshit. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 17:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that I count '''2 sysops voting keep''' makes this even worse.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Yes, because sysops aren't allowed to have opinions about anything ever :rollseyes:. It's a vote and we are entitled to vote how we feel. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 04:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, because Karek apperantly ignored them.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 08:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::No, because because Karek followed policy. Read Crit 6 speedy deletion. That page was previously deleted and had no right to be recreated in the first place. And MisterGame knew it. If he didn't, well, now he does. <br />
:::Don't try to play victim here, no one's buying it -- especially considering who exactly it is who's claiming to be a "victim". You Umbrella people are ''all'' pathetic assholes, get some lives. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::No, it was a crit 6 '''according to yours and Karek's opinion'''. Allot of people thought otherwise but Karek ignored them all. Don't change the truth.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[Nigga Hardcore Squad]]===<br />
As below. Last edit by Vantar (category) on July 2007. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 02:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<sub>Moved from A/SD. It's got a keep vote. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</sub><br />
#'''Keep''' - Has potential. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:How is that? Almost no content and hasn't been edited for over a year.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 03:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::It has potential to be a great group. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - Inactive group, no content. Exactly what Janus said above. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - Activity? None. Content? None. Potential? None. -[[User:S Aline|S Aline]] 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:You're angry. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Not in the least. Should I be? -[[User:S Aline|S Aline]] 08:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::I've never seen Sarah Aline voting on deletions before. Is she working up to running for sysop??? Or just THAT bored??? ;P --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::: Gasp! How'd you know, Mr. Yao?! -[[User:S Aline|S Aline]] 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy''' Two years is more than enough time to wait on it's "potential", Sonny. Get real. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 04:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 04:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM!'''<small>(Delet-o)</small> - No one breaks the law on my watch! I'm confiscating your stolen goods. Now pay your fine or it's off to jail.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:I see someone's been playing Oblivion. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBRSQGSyo9s ]--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - Funny, but useless. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 19:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# - Has potential<!--Doesn't mean I'm supporting this. For all you know, I could be actually meaning delete!-->--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Quote from Wan Yao just down this page: "Boxy is right: we don't speedydelete old groups" . If the god of the wiki and boxy both agree, why exactly are so many of you trying to get this speedy deleted???? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:There is a huge difference in the amount of content between this page and the one that Wan was talking about.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 10:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Because you're quoting out of context, Wan continues on to say "''Boxy is right: we don't speedydelete old groups. Many abandoned groups get deleted. However, this usually is because there is mininal, or garbage, content on an abandoned group's page. Though not always... Still, we usually don't delete groups with some decent content which were once active...''" <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:46 3 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#:Yeah, it's a crit 1. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''D'''- Surely if it has potential it can be re-created later. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - Crit 1. No activity, no content. If someone comes along and wants to start this group, they can recreate the page. It's not like a lot of work will be deleted if this is gone - it's got one template. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 16:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:I'll lead the group. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 17:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Do it faggot. I'll join.--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedydelete''' -- I'm quoted above... But this isn't even a group. It's a no content page. Ciao! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - because we got rid of crit 12 a fuck-age ago because [http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8163/diskspaceequalscheep21mtr1.jpg Disk Space = Cheep!]--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 18:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:There's ''no content''. It's not an actual group page with ''any'' existence in UD's history. Therefore Crit 12 doesn't apply. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Oh god, it must be such a huge drain on the server... hurry and delete it from existance before the wiki crashes--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - because getting rid of crit 12 doesn't mean that contentless group pages are automatically kept <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:46 3 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#'''Po-tat-ional''' - Is that how you spell it? (Why the fuck do you think Potential is in fucking bold. Cause it has it! Morons)--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 08:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Kill with fire''' - 'nuff said. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - IRC told me to. As Jorm. There is content, the image, that will be deleted if this page is. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Hai, I don't see jorm anywhar...--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Jorm has moved on, but [http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8163/diskspaceequalscheep21mtr1.jpg his message hasnt]--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 05:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::I've seen that before AS, I was being sillwwy. :D --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 06:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Groups with actual text content -- a few lame-assed lines -- get deleted all the time. The lame and probably ripped off image is no different than these kind of pages. And... Crit 12 doesn't apply here, this isn't speedydeletions. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Has potential. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - ''Had'' potential. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete'''. Why keep every crappy aborted fetus group page? It contributes nothing to the wiki; it makes it look cheap and used. Like your mom. Everything "has potential". That's a bullshit argument. I'm going to go and make a half-assed template for a dozen fake groups and put them each on a separate page. Because then, they can have potential too! --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:The difference between this, and all these other groups, is that I or Sonny might actually form it. I'm still thinking on if I have time or not.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Well! Why didn't you say so! That changes everything. Change my vote to an emphatic keep! This one has REAL potential, instead of the usual brand of potential potential. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::I didn't say so because I can always remake the page should I decide to make this group. Doesn't stop me from voting keep before it's deleted, right? :D. But I would appreciate your ''change of heart'', and will gladly accept your "keep" vote. ;) --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - No useful content, the group's inactive. [[User:G F J|G F J]] 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As above. --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 04:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Deleted''' - 15 delete to 8 keep. -- 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[Urban Dead Leaderboard]]===<br />
It talks about a website that no longer exists, the user himself has not contributed since 2006, and the link was removed from [[External Links]] a while ago.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 15:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - It's something worth keeping around, possibly rewording to make clear that it's not actually still up. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 15:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' As Karek. If only because it was around at one point, and I don't like removing the game's history. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''', maybe add something like 'Website not active' at the top.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' - No site = no proof. No proof = no page for something like this. If someone created this page today it would be deleted out of hand without proof, this is no different. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
**Except this happens to have been a big part of the game for a long time and was used by various groups for various purposes. Sticking your head in the sand is not reason to ignore what we ''know'' and that's exactly what this is equivalent to. The site existed, it was popular, it was used for competitions in the meta-game. That's not the same as if it had been an insignificant page for a project that never happened.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
***If it was such a big part of the game for such a long time, then you'll have no problem in providing some objective proof. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
****Find proof that [[The Many]], [[The Undying Scourge]], and [[TSO]] existed.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*****Actually, The Many were mentioned in a real life magazine blurb about UD back in 2005. XD--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
******I know, but that doesn't make it any more valid than all the references that are easily found on major forums to the use of the leadrboard.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*******One minor point, those pages aren't up for deletion, this one is. As with any rational debate, burden of proof is on the claimant. You claim they are an important part of the history, I'm asking for verifiable proof, you're not providing it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
********Deletions isn't a debate it is a '''vote'''. Your opinion that proof needs to be shown isn't any more valid than my opinion "let's keep it because I like the name". You are also sounding like Grim and his demand that a screen shot of Radio Survivor be provided when no other entry is subjected to that standard. So you vote no and I vote yes and we cancel each other out. Next.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
**<s>'''Delete'''</s> - As Iscariot the Invisible. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC) '''vote changed''' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - But conditionally. If this leaderbard did, in fact, play an important role in the metagame community, then the page ought to reflect that fact. Go in an do a little write-up about this... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' The UD Wiki article needs to be edited to reflect the curent status i.e. it WAS but is no longer and a past tense descriptor of what the site did. And a Point of order...I personally entered over 600 profiles to the leader board (DHPD, RRF, Known allies, and most of our Rouges Gallery and Wanted Lists) Calls for proof are meaningless because in all sense of the word I can't even prove you were involved in UD before September 1st of 2007. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' Remove the links to the website and state that it was in the past, no longer exists, etc, but keep as part of UD history. -[[User:S Aline|S Aline]] 03:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep'''- Someone should do what WanYao said, write about its significance and then let the page be. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - All the page needs is a couple of minor tweaks to say that it is no longer online. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' I like the name.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Kept''' - I've past tensed the article and someone with more knowledge might want to clean it up a bit. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===some old unused images===<br />
* [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:T_RandlemanBull26.jpg Old Profile Picture]<br />
* [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:28weekslaterposter.jpg Old 28WeeksLater Poster]<br />
* [http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/6/65/Killzone_2.JPG Old Killzone Poster]<br />
* [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:Denver_Randleman4.jpg Recently Uploaded, but used a different profile picture instead]<br />
<br />
Images I uploaded, that I no longer have use for, and that are no longer in use. Just taking up space. Thankyou.--{{User:Denver Randleman/sig}} 07:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Speedy''' - Crit 7. In future, just go straight to [[A/SD]], and do it there (if you are deleteing stuff you uploaded yourself. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''speedy''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 07:57 10 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Speedy'''.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 08:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:'''Speedied'''.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 08:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
Sorry about that, I'll remember to do that in the future. thanks again.--{{User:Denver Randleman/sig}} 08:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[The 7th Stockman Walk Regiment]]===<br />
Apparently disbanded, not a confirmed or historically important group, no edits since July, all members apparently inactive/not on the Wiki in the first place.<br />
<br />
--{{User:AClashInRedSnow/sig}} 02:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Keep''' - We don't delete old groups' wikis, unless they're blank. And there's content in them thar wiki! Thus, it stays. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - As Wan. Crit 12 died for a reason (although "group pages" with only a sentence are occasionally deleted.) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Author Keep/Kill Request''' - Oh, thanks for clarification, I wasn't sure whether it was deletion material or not. That settles it for me. Can I just move this to the Recent Actions section or delete it or does it have to stay up for vote? --{{User:AClashInRedSnow/sig}} 04:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Er, for further clarification, what about a group like [[Breaking_News:_We_Must_Unite|this]]? I suppose I'd like to know what the threshold is on what constitutes lack of content. --{{User:AClashInRedSnow/sig}} 09:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Thats a keep. Were looking for a couple of lines, or a group box that isn't formatted. Something that was created one day and then abandoned. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::I've thrown up the [[Template:InactiveGroup|Inactive Group]] template on the page. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - but only just. WanYao's comment isn't exactly correct. Deletion votes can indeed get rid of group pages if they get enough votes, it's just that a group page has to be very minimal, and lack any real history to get the required votes. People create heaps of groups that never do anything of interest in Malton (or the other cities), it's reasonable to delete these pages if they drag down the wiki's signal to noise ratio too much, like the further link provided. Don't feel that because a nomination for deletion gets voted down, that that means you've done something wrong by bringing it here <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:29 23 December 2008 (BST)</small><br />
::Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for the full run-down (and being friendly while at it!), all. I think I'm clear now on how slim a page needs to be for deletion. --{{User:AClashInRedSnow/sig}} 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Boxy is right: we don't ''speedydelete'' old groups. Many abandoned groups get deleted. However, this usually is because there is mininal, or garbage, content on an abandoned group's page. Though not always... Still, we usually don't delete groups with some decent content which were once active... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::What Wan said. Groups that only have ever had one member, with minimal content on the page (such as a broken table or only a few lines of text,) usually fall under a crit 1 [[A/SD|speedy deletion.]] Most of the time, however, they are left. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - because we got rid of crit 12 a fuck-age ago because [http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8163/diskspaceequalscheep21mtr1.jpg Disk Space = Cheep!]--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 18:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' - Because I can. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' Page has content. You can not delete all groups that aren't as popular or big as the historical groups. You need the little groups that add flavor.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
'''Kept''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:02 8 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
===[[The E.Vil Cliq]]===<br />
Crit one, not edited since 30 December, sole editor has left the wiki. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - It's less than a week old! And you don't know that the editor has "left the wiki". It's a holiday. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<sub>Moved from A/SD. 11:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</sub><br />
*'''Keep'''- for now. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Wan has a point. I'll be more careful in future. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
'''Kept''' - The sysop who processed them decided that they didn't fit the spirit of criteria 1 on A/SD, so there was no need to move them here <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:00 8 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
===[[Disposable Heroes]]===<br />
Ditto, except 27 December. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - A week old. Back off. Give it a month or so. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<sub>Moved from A/SD. 11:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</sub><br />
*'''Keep'''- for now. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Are you bored link?--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Yes, I was bored. I'll be more careful in future. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
'''Kept''' - The sysop who processed them decided that they didn't fit the spirit of criteria 1 on A/SD, so there was no need to move them here <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:00 8 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
===[[Perzeus]]===<br />
Ditto again, except 1 January. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - SHEEEEEEEEEEESH, quit putting brand new pages up for deletion! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<sub>Moved from A/SD. 11:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</sub><br />
*'''Keep'''- for now. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Wan has a point. I'll be more careful in future. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
'''Kept''' - The sysop who processed them decided that they didn't fit the spirit of criteria 1 on A/SD, so there was no need to move them here <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:00 8 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
<br />
==Archive==<br />
<br />
{{Deletearchivenav}}</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Template:Wiki_News&diff=1378352Template:Wiki News2009-02-02T03:53:13Z<p>Liberty: old news+ contextualising</p>
<hr />
<div>{{NBox|<br />
title=Wiki News|<br />
link=UDWiki:News|<br />
newsitems=<br />
<br />
<!-- PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU UPDATE [[UDWiki:News]] WITH YOUR NEWS REPORT --><br />
<!-- ADD NEW ITEMS BELOW THIS LINE --><br />
{{NewsItemWhite|<br />
timestamp=January 30|<br />
news=A [[User:Honestmistake|user]] is up for [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions|promotion]]. Interested users are asked to leave their comments [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions#User:Honestmistake|here]].<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{NewsItemYello|<br />
timestamp=January 29|<br />
news=[[User:Suicidalangel|Sucidalangel]]'s Promotion Bid has been accepted and has been promoted to the position of Sysop. Congratulations!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{NewsItemWhite|<br />
timestamp=January 23|<br />
news=A [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group Trial|policy]] related to implementing a trial period for an autoconfirmed group is now [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group Trial#Voting Section|under voting]].<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{NewsItemYello|<br />
timestamp=January 22|<br />
news=A group has been nominated for Historical Group Status. Voice your opinion [[Category talk:Historical Groups|here]].<br />
}}<br />
<br />
}}<br />
<noinclude> <br />
__NOTOC__<br />
= Usage =<br />
To add a line to the wiki news, do the following:<br />
<br />
# Alternate between the templates {{tl|NewsItemYello}} and {{tl|NewsItemWhite}}<br />
# Correct the time stamp and new links.<br />
# Plase, add the item to [[UDWiki:News]]. <br />
#* If you see an entry which hasn't been added, be sure to add it.<br />
# Failed nominations (for sysop promotion, historical group status, etc.) are not reported<br />
# Items that are more than two weeks old should be removed from the list.<br />
<br />
= Types of News =<br />
<br />
== Historical Voting ==<br />
<br />
=== Historical Group Voting ===<br />
<br />
<pre>{{NewsItemYello|<br />
timestamp=MMMM, DD|<br />
news=[[Example page|Example Group]] has been [[Category talk:Historical Groups|nominated]] for [[:Category:Historical Groups|Historical Group Status]].<br />
}}</pre><br />
<br />
=== Historical Group Status ===<br />
<br />
<pre>{{NewsItemYello|<br />
timestamp=MMMM, DD|<br />
news=[[Example page|Example Group]] has been granted [[:Category:Historical Groups|Historical Group Status]].<br />
}}</pre><br />
<br />
== Sysop Promotion ==<br />
<br />
=== User Nomination ===<br />
<br />
<pre>{{NewsItemYello|<br />
timestamp=MMMM, DD|<br />
news=[[Example page|Example User]] has been nominated for [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions#Example User|sysop status]].<br />
}}</pre><br />
<br />
=== User Promoted ===<br />
<br />
<pre>{{NewsItemYello|<br />
timestamp=MMMM, DD|<br />
news=[[Example page|Example User]] has been promoted to [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions#Example User|sysop status]].<br />
}}</pre><br />
<br />
== Policies ==<br />
<br />
=== Policy Discussion ===<br />
<br />
<pre>{{NewsItemYello|<br />
timestamp=MMMM, DD|<br />
news=[[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion|A policy]] related to [insert brief description here] is currently [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/policy page|being discussed]]. All users are welcome to voice their opinion.<br />
}}</pre><br />
<br />
=== Policy Voting ===<br />
<br />
<pre>{{NewsItemYello|<br />
timestamp=MMMM, DD|<br />
news=[[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion|A policy]] related to [insert brief description here] is currently [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/policy page|being voted]]. All users are advised to cast their vote.<br />
}}</pre><br />
<br />
=== Policy Passed ===<br />
<br />
<pre>{{NewsItemYello|<br />
timestamp=MMMM, DD|<br />
news=The [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/policy page|policy name]] policy was approved by the community.<br />
}}</pre><br />
<br />
== Open Discussion ==<br />
<br />
<pre>{{NewsItemYello|<br />
timestamp=MMMM, DD|<br />
news=There is an [[UDWiki:Open Discussion|open discussion]] on [[UDWiki:Open Discussion/discussion page|brief description of what is under discussion]].<br />
}}</pre><br />
<br />
<br />
</noinclude></div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Project_Welcome&diff=1378349Project Welcome2009-02-02T03:49:41Z<p>Liberty: /* Member Register */ also; got rid of perma'd account to fit my name in</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Wiki Groups]]<br />
[[Category:Newbie Help]]<br />
[[Image:Pwlogo.png|thumb|300px|right|Welcome!]]Project Welcome is an [[Main Page|Urban Dead Wiki]] member group dedicated to assisting new users to become valued members of the wiki community. We welcome all wiki members who share in the goal of enriching our community with new blood, and making this community a more welcoming place for all. It was created on February 10th, 2006 as a response to the increasingly anti-newbie attitude that the wiki community seemed to be taking.<br />
<br />
== What we do ==<br />
We perform several activities as part of the Project:<br />
<br />
* '''Show new people the ropes''' - If we see a user we've never met before make some mistakes on the wiki (editing templates instead of using them properly), instead of berating or ignoring the user, we'll go straight to their talk page and help them understand what they've done wrong, and how to do it right. No one was a perfect wiki editor straight off the bat, and sometimes a little guidance goes a long way.<br />
*'''Welcome new users''' - Our community can only grow with new members, and so we work hard to welcome any new user who wants to edit our wiki, by going through Recent Changes, and welcoming those we've never seen, and who have never talked to others.<br />
*'''Encourage tolerance in non-members''' - Not everyone is in Project Welcome, but the whole community needs to be involved. As much as is feasible, we try to defuse anger towards new members, as a single angry encounter can make someone who may become a valued member of our community leave prematurely. We also encourage users to make themselves open for [[UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration|Arbitration]] duties.<br />
*'''Be a contact point for new users''' - New users can't know every procedure on the wiki off the bat, and we understand that sometimes the documentation around here isn't easily locatable. So, by showing that we are members by saying so on our user pages, we let new users know that we are available for assistance.<br />
*'''Help new users help themselves''' - Sometimes the documentation around here isn't easily locatable, or particularly useful, even when it is locatable. As such, we try and improve the situation, by making documentation where there was no documentation before, by ensuring that the documentation that exists can be readily found by new users, and by making sure that the documentation that exists is useful to new members.<br />
<br />
== How to get involved ==<br />
Project Welcome is an open project, and welcomes any user that wishes to get involved themselves. As long as you're committed to helping out new users, and helping make this community a civil and welcoming place, we're welcome to have you. <br />
<br />
To officially join, you should place your name below on the Member register.<br />
<br />
We also have a Message Box that can be used to identify users as members of Project Welcome. You can use it simply by putting the following on the top of your user page:<br />
<br />
<pre>{{projectwelcome}}</pre><br />
<br />
Alternatively, you can use the spiffy new Project Welcome Userbox (so it fits neatly with the rest of your Userboxes) with the following codes:<br />
<br />
<pre>{{projectwelcome2}}</pre><br />
<br />
<pre>{{smallwelcome2}}</pre><br />
<br />
Further, there's a fledgling convention of putting a link to Project Welcome within your signature. You can do this by doing the following:<br />
<br />
#Go to the Preferences page, accessible from the set of links at the top of the page (or alternately, by pointing to [[Special:Preferences]].<br />
#Make sure you check the box labelled Raw signatures (without automatic link)<br />
#In the field "Your nickname (for signatures)", put the following (replacing ''Your name'' with your user name):<br />
#:<pre>[[User:Your Name|]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup></pre><br />
#Press Save Preferences.<br />
<br />
This will make your signature look exactly like it normally does, except it will now have <sup>W!</sup> appended to the end of your name, with a link to this page.<br />
<br />
==Useful Tools==<br />
As the process to find new users and welcome them to our community is always tedious and repetitive, some members made a template that you can use whenever you find a new user. To make use of it, simply put the following on the new user's talk page:<br />
<pre>== Welcome to our Wiki ==<br />
{{Welcomenewbie}}<br />
<br />
--~~~~</pre><br />
<br />
or you can use the quicker version:<nowiki>{{subst:WN}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
That will make the {{tl|Welcomenewbie}} template appear on their talk pages. It's basically a list with the most basic tips for the [[Suggestions]] page and general wiki editing. We invite all members to make use of and improve the template with more tips and a friendlier appearance.<br />
<br />
If when checking a particular user's contributions you have doubts about this person's newbieness and fear he may as well feel insulted by being supposed new, you can always place the {{tl|Welcomenewbie?}} template instead. You can use it like this:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>== Hi {{PAGENAME}} ==<br />
{{Welcomenewbie?}}<br />
<br />
--~~~~</nowiki><br />
<br />
Keep in mind that there's always a slim possibility that someone will feel insulted if any of those templates is placed in his talk page, so use them with care and always give your best good faith explanations when confronted by not so thankful users in the wiki.<br />
<br />
== Flash points ==<br />
Project Welcome identifies areas where the civility could really be improved, or at the very least where angers can flare up. We leave these here so that Project Welcome members may work to improve the situation there.<br />
<br />
=== [[:Category:Current_Suggestions]] and [[Developing Suggestions]] ===<br />
These are probably one of the worst areas on the wiki in terms of civility. To many, the attacking of other users and creating a hostile environment is considered an important tactic in "improving suggestion quality". We highly recommend that Project Welcome members maintain ''their'' civility at all times, and attempt to follow up on the flaming of others to try and keep the exit rate on this segment of the wiki as low as possible.<br />
<br />
== Member Register ==<br />
The easiest way to place your name on the register is to use 3 tildes (ie <nowiki>~~~</nowiki>). Try to keep the list in alphabetical order as well as keeping the three columns as balanced as possible.<br />
<br />
{| style="margin: 0 auto; padding: 5px; border: 1px solid #AAA; background: #F9F9F9; font-size: 95%; width: 80%; -moz-border-radius:12px"<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="3" style="background: #CCF; text-align: center; -moz-border-radius:6px" | '''Project Welcome Members'''<br />
|- style="vertical-align: top"<br />
|style="width: 33%"|<br />
* [[User:Agent White|Agent White]]<br />
* [[User:Airborne88|Airborne88]]<br />
* [[User:AnimeSucks|Anime Sucks]]<br />
* [[User:Andrew McM|Andrew McM]]<br />
* [[User:Arcology|Arcology]]<br />
* [[User:Ashley Valentine|Ashley Valentine]]<br />
* [[User:Atticus Rex|Atticus Rex]]<br />
* [[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack]]<br />
* [[User:Axe27|Axe27]]<br />
* [[User:Bronz93|Bronz93]]<br />
* [[User:Cap'n Silly|Cap'n Silly]]<br />
* [[User:Krazy Monkey|Cheeseman]]<br />
* [[User:CPQD|CPQD]]<br />
* [[User:DanceDanceRevolution|DanceDanceRevolution]]<br />
* [[User:Darth Sensitive|Darth Sensitive]]<br />
* [[User:Deathnut|Deathnut]]<br />
* [[User:Devolution Studios|Devolution Studios]]<br />
* [[User:Doggie|Doggie]]<br />
|style="width: 33%"|<br />
* [[User:Dr Eddie Ashford|Dr Eddie Ashford]]<br />
* [[User:Dux Ducis|Dux Ducis]]<br />
* [[User:Firetwig|Firetwig]]<br />
* [[User:Evildemon989|Evildemon989]]<br />
* [[User:A Helpful Little Gnome|The Gnome]]<br />
* [[User:Goebi|goebi]]<br />
* [[User:Haliman111|Haliman111]]<br />
* [[User:HanaF|HanaF]]<br />
* [[User:Headless gunner|Headless gunner]]<br />
* [[User:JaredV|Jared]]<br />
* [[User:J3D|J3D]]<br />
* [[User:Jonny12|Jonny12]]<br />
* [[User:JudeMaverick|JudeMaverick]]<br />
* [[User:kcold|kcold]]<br />
* [[User:Kenny Matthews|Kenny Matthews]]<br />
* [[User:Liberty|Liberty]]<br />
* [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]]<br />
* [[User:Lh778|Lh779]]<br />
|style="width: 33%"|<br />
* [[User:Lord Evans|Lord Evans]]<br />
* [[User_talk:Finis Valorum|Luke Skywalker]]<br />
* [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]]<br />
* [[User:Nalikill|Nalikill]]<br />
* [[User:Nimrod1|Nimrod1]]<br />
* [[User:Oldharry101|Oldharry101]]<br />
* [[User:otherlleft|otherlleft]]<br />
* [[User:Pedentic|Pedentic]]<br />
* [[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]]<br />
* [[User:Savant 231 A|Savant 231 A]]<br />
* [[User:Seventythree|Seventythree]]<br />
* [[User:Sgt Martinez|Sgt Martinez]]<br />
* [[User:Sockem|Sockem]]<br />
* [[User:Studoku|Studoku]]<br />
* [[User:Suicidalangel|Suicidalangel]]<br />
* [[User:Techercizer|Techercizer]]<br />
* [[User:Toner Low|Toner Low]]<br />
* [[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]]<br />
|}</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02&diff=1378339UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 022009-02-02T03:38:03Z<p>Liberty: /* WOOT */</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude><br />
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/TalkHeader}}<br />
</noinclude><br />
= [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 02|2009, February Discussion]] =<br />
==WOOT==<br />
<small>''pasted for the sake of me not getting VB'd for deleting Argo's unconstructive comment''- {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)</small><br />
<br />
Constructive edit is Constructive--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Obvious troll is obvious.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Oh yea, cause I am ''totally'' trying to troll... fucking idiot --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Oh no, he ''cussed'' at me! Oh dear Lord I am defeated! He must not be a troll after all!--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
People have been warned in the past for spammage, Argo. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:It shouldn't be a problem now its been moved to talk though? {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=1378326UDWiki:Administration/Promotions2009-02-02T03:24:34Z<p>Liberty: /* User:Honestmistake */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/PM]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
{{Promotions Intro}}<br />
==Candidates still requiring vouches==<br />
<!-- ''Place all new promotion bids under this header'' --><br />
''Place all new promotion bids under this header''<br />
<br />
===[[User:Honestmistake]]===<br />
He has more than enough contributions, although the history purge screws with the contributor history. He has been here more than a year now, has taken an active interest in the maintenance duties and policy discussions on this wiki and, while we don't always agree is the kind of user I think should be promoted. He has proven he is able to do the job and more than qualifies. So, assuming he accepts, I think it's about time we gave him a bid.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I put him up here, it would be strange if I didn't vouch. I believe he would be a good Sysop. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - I've known him on the suggestion pages for a while. He's a good guy, doesn't get involved in too much drama and is reasonably level-headed. Not sure if he wants this, though. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - too fucking serious too much of the time.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Also, this proves what Karek knows about what the community needs.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Look. 3 vouches. Now he has to accept. Although he might not. Did I mention '''Vouch'''? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - We do not need yet another rules-whoring crybaby on the sysop team. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strongly Against''' This user has shown time and time again that he fails to comprehend basic concepts. His arguments are emotional, weak (at best), nonsensical and off topic. I seriously wonder if someone hacked Karek's account to make him do this. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:The "You Ass" section on Karek's Talk page is more than enough to show what I am talking about. The section where Karek says about HM:''Iscariot and you both has a long history of disliking the sysops and raging against the machine for the sake of it, I deal with Iscariot off of the wiki and know he acts very differently here and I know you can be reasonable but often enough fall into the category of opposing the sysops for the sake of it that I often find myself having to take your comments on something with a grain of salt. '' RAGING VOUCH there Karek! --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::He may be one to argue but he is also willing to admit when he is wrong about something if discussion is actually attempted. He only argues because he actually cares about how the rules are enforced, not like some others who do it simply to cause drama. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Karek, he may admit to being wrong ''when you finally get it through his head'' that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. Look at his comments in the section I mentioned and his comments on the J3D A/M case are frighteningly dense. I don't want another sysop that we will have to babysit or clean up after. He also "splits hairs" on policies by commenting on the wording. He thought the phrase "No Confidence Vote" was too harsh. WTF?<br />
*:::You know, Karek, it really looks like you are trying to get someone in "the new crowd" promoted so that you don't seem like part of the "elite clique" and so that you can answer Iscariot's cries of ''you are out of touch with the community''. Why are you putting him up now? What has HM done in the last 2 months that all of the sudden made you decide ''Damn! this is the fresh blood we need''?--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::It's not a sudden decision. I've been considering this for a long while and it's just now that I happened to get around to it(I don't like multiple bids up at once). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Strong 'gainst''' - Done nothinto deserve this, other wise as Cyberbob/Nubis... WTF hae you been smoking Karke?--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Sorry. I know Honest is contributive, but I'm not sure he's up to the task. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - ''Pros:'' Honestmistake is a solid user and with a long history of interest and contributions. Usually listens to reason and almost always avoids drama. ''Cons:'' Sometimes comes up with really weird, illogical positions on what seem to be pretty straightforward issues. ''Concusion:'' More time and more active participation in Admin stuff, then he might be an excellent candidate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against'''I don't see him that often, nor do I see any great contributions.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 09:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - Free sysops for everybody \õ/ --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:honestmistake is a good and caring gontributor. he is not the kind who acts for the lulz, so he wont fuck up with his admin powers --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 10:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Given the [[User:Amazing|company you keep]] I'm sure you'll forgive people if they don't find your character reference all that exciting. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouch''' - He mostly has a point when he disagrees with a decision, and even if I disagree, it's usually a difference of opinion <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:23 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*:Should anyone else bother <s>voting</s> then, if he accepts the nomination? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Of course they should. I always take into account other people's opinions <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:13 31 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::::Hahaha. That's a good one. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::When does cyberbob's trolling cross the border into shitting up an Admin page? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::My comment was considerably more relevant than that attempt, my dear. If you want to go after someone for shitting up admin pages I suggest you take a look at the amount of shit I've moved off A/VB onto the talk page in recent weeks. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::When he stops making good points. I do hope that they at least play out the charade and leave the "what do you think about this promotion bid" comments on each other's pages. We expect the Dog '''and''' Pony at the Show. Or should that be ass? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' i'm on the fence. maybe next time around. don't we have enough users with super powers? and as above i thought HM hated the Sysops?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 13:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' Don't know him well enough. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Vouchy vouch''' - He's always been decent, polite and such when I've talked to him. He seems to have a functioning brain and such, so yes, vouch.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - I haven't seen him much outside several petty squabbles with other users. If/When he accepts his nomination, it would be useful if he would provide some examples of why he should be a sysop. Until then, I will abstain. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Because of some of his comments on Jed's last case in A/M remind me that I don't want him judging anything important in that place, or A/VB.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Wow, I thought this was a joke. His past actions speak VOLUMES.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 07:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Abstain''' - Who? --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - I think he needs more experience with the administration aspects of the wiki, although he seems nice and has a pretty continuous interest in this place. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Against''' - Only because I haven't seen him do anything particularly special that makes him seem responsible enough for this. Given, I haven't seen him do anything wrong but I don't believe abstaining should justify that. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Candidates currently under community discussion==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Archived Promotions==<br />
<br />
*[[:Category:Promotions Candidacies|Complete list of Promotion Requests]]<br />
*[[:Category:Successful Promotions Candidacies|Successful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies|Unsuccessful Promotions Candidacies]]<br />
*[[:Category:Unaccepted Nominations|Unaccepted Nominations]]<br />
*[[:Category:Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies|Withdrawn Promotions Candidacies]]</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02&diff=1378324UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 022009-02-02T03:21:00Z<p>Liberty: /* 2009, February Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude><br />
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/TalkHeader}}<br />
</noinclude><br />
= [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 02|2009, February Discussion]] =<br />
==WOOT==<br />
<small>''pasted for the sake of me not getting VB'd for deleting Argo's unconstructive comment''- {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)</small><br />
<br />
Constructive edit is Constructive--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Obvious troll is obvious.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Oh yea, cause I am ''totally'' trying to troll... fucking idiot --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02&diff=1378321UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 022009-02-02T03:19:26Z<p>Liberty: deleting unconstructive comments</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude><br />
{{VBarchivenav}}<br />
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Header}}<br />
</noinclude><br />
<br />
== [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 02|February 2009]] ==<br />
<br />
=== WOOT ===<br />
{{vndl|WOOT}}<br />
{{verdict}}<br />
Posting random shit on EVERYONE'S talk pages. Check his contribs, he has to be breaking ''some'' policy.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karek&curid=47195&diff=1378281&oldid=1378247 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMisterGame&diff=1378283&oldid=1369528 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASuicidalangel&diff=1378282&oldid=1378021 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAxe_Hack&diff=1378273&oldid=1376672 here], and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARosslessness&diff=1378272&oldid=1378203 here]. Thats just a few. I ''do'' know that whilst its spam it isnt vandalism, the first one on Karek's page is something that I thought could only constitute spam and hence why I think WOOT should be tried here on VB. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2009_02&diff=1378311&oldid=1378310 VB] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02&diff=prev&oldid=1378309 Spammage] {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Blackboard ===<br />
{{Verdict|Not Vandalism|None Required}}{{vndl|Blackboard}}<br />
<br />
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:PsychophillKILLER&curid=103275&diff=1377662&oldid=1377648 Vandalizing] the user page of the vandal below. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I plead no contest. Guy below me there wanted people to look at his page to see his weird spam message, so I thought I'd get rid of it; as above, don't wait for a sysop to get involved etc. and just go back to reverting pages - which I did for some others of his, though someone beat me to the punch in a few of the cases. In retrospect, I probably should have just reverted his page to being blank - or course, I'm assuming creating the page was an act of vandalism to begin with. It just didn't occur to me at the time; my priority was getting rid of his vandalism. The fact that it's back there now on "his" page is just plain irritating. Just trying to cut through some red tape and keep the wiki clean-ish. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Purely because it was an active vandal, and '''only''' because it was an active vandal I'm going to rule '''not Vandalism'''. However, please do not do it again otherwise it will result in an escalation. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Since the page was deleted, meaning Midianian's diff link won't work I've copy pasted the page changes due to the ability to see deleted pages so we have a full record on this page. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
{{quote|PsychophillKILLER|I am Sorry for the Vandalism But we now have no choice... Psychophill Must be stopped. He has discovered a way to give himself infinite time on the server and infinite AP. He plans on killing everyone in the city once and for all and destroying this game. We must stop him. I encourage everyone to tune their radios to 27.77 To hear a city wide announcement on Wednesday at 7:00 PM Eastern Standard time. Thank you for you time.<br />
<br />
P.S. I do not encourage vandalism but I was left with no choice. Monitors if you wish you may delete this account just make sure this message reaches as many people as possible. Thank you again --[[User:PsychophillKILLER|PsychophillKILLER]] 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)}}<br />
<br />
*changed to<br />
<br />
{{quote|Blackboard|CRAP. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
Slap me on the wrist for this, I don't give a shit.}}<br />
-- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Getting rid of the spam (that was repeated on many other pages) would count as reverting vandalism, even on the vandals user page (when it's an obvious permban candidate like this), however replacing it with your own message, especially the abuse ("CRAP") was not a wise move, and can indeed be seen as vandalism, as you seem to understand <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:44 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
=== PsychophillKILLER ===<br />
{{Verdict|Vandalism|Permaban}}{{vndl|PsychophillKILLER}}<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/PsychophillKILLER|Vandal spree]]. Oh, and the [[FAQ]] really should be cut into smaller pieces, I had trouble reverting it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Mass vandalage. '''Perma'''. Also, more then three edits, no contribution in any way, shape, or form that betters the wiki. just that same spammy warning.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02&diff=1378298UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 022009-02-02T03:01:53Z<p>Liberty: /* WOOT */</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude><br />
{{VBarchivenav}}<br />
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Header}}<br />
</noinclude><br />
<br />
== [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 02|February 2009]] ==<br />
<br />
=== WOOT ===<br />
{{vndl|WOOT}}<br />
<br />
Posting random shit on EVERYONE'S talk pages. Check his contribs, he has to be breaking ''some'' policy.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karek&curid=47195&diff=1378281&oldid=1378247 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMisterGame&diff=1378283&oldid=1369528 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASuicidalangel&diff=1378282&oldid=1378021 here], [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAxe_Hack&diff=1378273&oldid=1376672 here], and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARosslessness&diff=1378272&oldid=1378203 here]. Thats just a few. I ''do'' know that whilst its spam it isnt vandalism, the first one on Karek's page is something that I thought could only constitute spam and hence why I think WOOT should be tried here on VB. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Blackboard ===<br />
{{Verdict|Not Vandalism|None Required}}{{vndl|Blackboard}}<br />
<br />
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:PsychophillKILLER&curid=103275&diff=1377662&oldid=1377648 Vandalizing] the user page of the vandal below. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I plead no contest. Guy below me there wanted people to look at his page to see his weird spam message, so I thought I'd get rid of it; as above, don't wait for a sysop to get involved etc. and just go back to reverting pages - which I did for some others of his, though someone beat me to the punch in a few of the cases. In retrospect, I probably should have just reverted his page to being blank - or course, I'm assuming creating the page was an act of vandalism to begin with. It just didn't occur to me at the time; my priority was getting rid of his vandalism. The fact that it's back there now on "his" page is just plain irritating. Just trying to cut through some red tape and keep the wiki clean-ish. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 19:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Purely because it was an active vandal, and '''only''' because it was an active vandal I'm going to rule '''not Vandalism'''. However, please do not do it again otherwise it will result in an escalation. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Since the page was deleted, meaning Midianian's diff link won't work I've copy pasted the page changes due to the ability to see deleted pages so we have a full record on this page. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
{{quote|PsychophillKILLER|I am Sorry for the Vandalism But we now have no choice... Psychophill Must be stopped. He has discovered a way to give himself infinite time on the server and infinite AP. He plans on killing everyone in the city once and for all and destroying this game. We must stop him. I encourage everyone to tune their radios to 27.77 To hear a city wide announcement on Wednesday at 7:00 PM Eastern Standard time. Thank you for you time.<br />
<br />
P.S. I do not encourage vandalism but I was left with no choice. Monitors if you wish you may delete this account just make sure this message reaches as many people as possible. Thank you again --[[User:PsychophillKILLER|PsychophillKILLER]] 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)}}<br />
<br />
*changed to<br />
<br />
{{quote|Blackboard|CRAP. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
Slap me on the wrist for this, I don't give a shit.}}<br />
-- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Getting rid of the spam (that was repeated on many other pages) would count as reverting vandalism, even on the vandals user page (when it's an obvious permban candidate like this), however replacing it with your own message, especially the abuse ("CRAP") was not a wise move, and can indeed be seen as vandalism, as you seem to understand <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:44 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
=== PsychophillKILLER ===<br />
{{Verdict|Vandalism|Permaban}}{{vndl|PsychophillKILLER}}<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/PsychophillKILLER|Vandal spree]]. Oh, and the [[FAQ]] really should be cut into smaller pieces, I had trouble reverting it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Mass vandalage. '''Perma'''. Also, more then three edits, no contribution in any way, shape, or form that betters the wiki. just that same spammy warning.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestion:20090201_Radio_transmitters_in_more_places&diff=1378211Suggestion:20090201 Radio transmitters in more places2009-02-02T01:19:00Z<p>Liberty: /* Voting Section */</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude><br />
<br />
{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
{{TOCright}}<br />
</noinclude><br />
===20090201 Radio transmitters in more places===<br />
<br />
[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Suggestion type''' - Increased item availablity / search rates <br /><br />
'''Suggestion scope''' - Survivors <br /><br />
'''Suggestion description'''<br /><br />
<br />
Radios are very useful items for mass communication and coordination. As it stands, though, they can only be found in Malls and Forts. This isn't logical. Places like Police Departments and Fire Stations would certainly have transmitters. <br />
<br />
Placing radios in other locations would also help to de-emphasise mall-centric play by allowing a greater level of communication/coordination for those who play away from malls. A healthy side effect, if you ask me! <br />
<br />
I propose adding transmitters to the following locations. I've provided rough percentages for search probabilities, but they're just that: ''rough percentages'', not set in stone. <br />
<br />
*''Fire Stations'' - would be the main place to find transmitters. Somewhere in the range of 4-6% chance to find. <br />
*''Police Departments'' - would also have a few, it only makes sense. However, so as not to nerf ammo searches too much, I suggest about 1 - 1.5% chance to find a transmitter. <br />
*''Junkyards'' - of course. The %age would be low, and based on whatever algorithm Kevan uses for junkyards. <br />
*''In street, etc.'' - Optional. Miniscule chance, same as finding anything else in the street. <br />
<br />
====Voting Section====<br />
{{SugVoteBox}}<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Keep Votes'''<br />
#'''Author keep''' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Author Keep''' - wait, the author is wanyao! --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' -Makes perfect sense to me, and anything that puts less of a priority on malls is a good thing. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 19:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - I like it! --{{User:Jasonjason/sig}} 19:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Why not? --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - A flawless idea. --[[User:Michaleson|Michaleson]] <sup>[[CAPD]]</sup> 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Makes sense to me. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 20:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Yep. Given that if anything I would imagine that you'd be more likely to find some sort of radiotransmission thingie in a police or fire station than a mall.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' Because Borehamwood was/is too quiet. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Yeah. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - I've always wondered why I've got to travel so far to a nearby mall after the local one has fallen-assuming there's a mall. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep/Change''' - I'd prefer to see the resources spread out and have these added to non-NT Buildings rather than FD, but increasing the search opportunities for these is needed. This was brought up by SRG on my No More Heroes piece. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - More power to the decentralization of malls --[[User:Diablor1|Diablor1]] 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Should be in the game already. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - As above. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Kill Votes'''<br />
#'''Kill/Change''' - Two things. 1)Just use the already existing flavor and have Police Departments always have radios built in but requires a toolbox fix that is probably somewhat AP intensive, so kinda like Manufacture Radio but it's not portable and still requires a generator. 2) Fire Stations shouldn't have Radio Transmitters, they already give generators. Radios and Generators should not be findable in the same place at any sort of good rate. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br><br />
#:''(non-author comments moved to [[Suggestion talk:20090201 Radio transmitters in more places|Talk page)]]''<br><br />
#:Apparently you can't get generators are Fire Departments any more, still though, flares are too good of a secondary item for me to be all for that in anything but a tentative way. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I don't think you could ever get generators in FS's. And Flare Guns, in spite of their wicked variance, are marginal weapons at best. As it is, Fire Stations are technically non-descripts -- even though they're listed as TRPs for some odd reason. As for the in-house radio idea, well, Fire Stations would have those too. But that's a totally different suggestion from mine, so, moving along... :) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
'''Spam/Dupe Votes'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- Vote **ABOVE** THIS LINE --><br />
<br clear=both><br />
----<br />
<noinclude><br />
{{SugVoteRules}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Current Suggestions]]<br />
<br />
</noinclude></div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestion:20090201_Scent_Enemy&diff=1378209Suggestion:20090201 Scent Enemy2009-02-02T01:17:30Z<p>Liberty: /* Voting Section */</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude><br />
<br />
{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
{{TOCright}}<br />
</noinclude><br />
===20090201 Scent Enemy===<br />
<br />
{{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Suggestion type'''<br /><br />
New skill<br />
<br />
'''Suggestion scope'''<br /><br />
Career zombies, non-meta gamers<br />
<br />
'''Suggestion description'''<br /><br />
After years of pestering by this suggestions process, Kevan finally gave career zombies an equivalent to [[Body Building]] and [[Flak Jacket|Flak Jackets]] in the form of [[Flesh Rot]]. This legitimises career zombie (i.e. a zombie that never seeks or needs to be revivified) play. This suggestion is the completion of the career zombie skill set.<br />
<br />
'''Scent Enemy''' is a sub-skill of [[Scent Fear]] (analogous to [[Scent Blood]], [[Scent Death]] and [[Scent Trail]]), it is a second tier skill and will cost 100 experience points. <br />
<br />
'''Scent Enemy''' is identical in its mechanics to [[Necrotech Employment]], except that it does not allow the operation of [[Useful_Items#DNA_Extractor|DNA Extractors]]. The skill allows the zombie to recognise [[Necrotech Buildings]], they are marked on the map in the same way as they are through [[Necrotech Employment]]. The 'flavour reasoning' is that the zombie has developed their olfactory perceptions to the point where they can recognise the smell of the fluid contained within [[Useful_Items#NecroTech_Revivification_Syringe|Revivification Syringes]], as [[Necrotech Buildings]] manufacture this substance they can be differentiated from other buildings via smell. <br />
<br />
[[Useful_Items#NecroTech_Revivification_Syringe|Revivification Syringes]] themselves cannot be detected (say to target a character carrying syringes over one without) as the syringes in question are hermetically sealed and do not allow the odour to permeate into the air. Therefore this is only of use in identifying buildings that produce syringes (or where they can be found in the context of game mechanics). <br />
<br />
There is precedent in the current flavour ([[Scent Death]]) that the revive drug causes characters injected with it to smell differently, this merely expands it to those buildings where the chemical is present in its raw form.<br />
<br />
Feedback from [[Developing Suggestions|Talk:Suggestions]] led to me removing a clause that would prohibit this skill being trans-mortal, something I put in to prevent possible accusations of the skill being overpowered. General consensus seemed to indicate that the lack of ability to use [[Useful_Items#DNA_Extractor|DNA Extractors]] and progress up the Necrotech skill tree being enough of a downside. <br />
<br />
I do not believe that this addition to the game is overpowered in any way as the skill is available (as was [[Body Building]] and [[Flak Jacket|Flak Jackets]]) if a zombie gains a revive and the location of [[Necrotech Buildings]] is hardly a heavily guarded secret. This suggestion seeks to complete the career zombie's skill set for a complete set of mechanics and to reduce the need of zombies to metagame, even in the simplest form of referencing the wiki.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Summary:''' New zombie skill that allows them to identify [[Necrotech Buildings]].<br />
<br />
<br />
====Voting Section====<br />
{{SugVoteBox}}<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Keep Votes'''<br />
#'''Keep''' - As I said on the discussion. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 23:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Completes the zombie skill-set. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - I think he intends this to be for career zombies, so that they can spend as little time being human as possible. OK! --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 00:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Kill Votes'''<br />
#'''Weak Kill/Change''' - While I really think career zombies should be able to suss out NTs on the in-game map, imo this ability fits better as an automatic function of Memories of Life. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Spam/Dupe Votes'''<br />
#'''Spam''' - This suggestion is dumb. Why should zombies have yet another useless skill that is a more expensive and weaker version of what survivors get? There is nothing redeemable about this suggestion.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 23:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Spam''' - As Karek. And to Blake: Zombies need to spend <15 seconds as a human to get needed human skills. The concept of being a career zombie and never being revived as a human ''ever'' is a mere novelty. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<!-- Vote **ABOVE** THIS LINE --><br />
<br clear=both><br />
----<br />
<noinclude><br />
{{SugVoteRules}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Current Suggestions]]<br />
<br />
</noinclude></div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&diff=1378199UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct2009-02-02T01:11:11Z<p>Liberty: /* Hagnat */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here. <br />
<br />
==Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting==<br />
The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct '''must''' be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.<br />
<br />
Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that ''is'' misconduct, and should be reported to this page. <br />
<br />
There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.<br />
<br />
All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, ''not'' the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
==Administrative Abilities==<br />
For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):<br />
<br />
* Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.<br />
* Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct<br />
* Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.<br />
* Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).<br />
* Warning users reported in [[A/VB|Vandal Banning]].<br />
* Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.<br />
* Editing of Protected pages by any means.<br />
* Research IP activity using the [[Special:CheckUser|CheckUser]] extension.<br />
* (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.<br />
<br />
If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration]] or [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning]].<br />
<br />
==Example of Misconduct Proceedings==<br />
<br />
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|Logs]] show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:::I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::::As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==<br />
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|Administration Staff]] has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over [[UDWiki:Misconduct]] and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.<br />
<br />
Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.<br />
<br />
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==<br />
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. --><br />
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===<br />
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature. <br />
<br />
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature". <br />
<br />
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.<br />
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.<br />
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--{{User:The General/sig}} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::So now redundant links are against policy? When did ''that'' happen? There is nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.<br />
<br />
::::::Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the only ''crime'' i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "''1/6 of the links to his user page''" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of ''punishment'' for when i come back. Até mais. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Not Misconduct''' Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) <sub> who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely) </sub><br />
<br />
All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a ''vandalism case'' will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.<br />
<br />
Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig ''is'' vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB ''properly''. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Misconduct''' - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he ''does'' have a lot of cases.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_March_21|This one]], in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with ''a "real" escalation''. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007#2007.2C_September_15|Also]] this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
'''What is this?!''' I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule ''Not Misconduct'' just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was '''nothing''' that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevan&diff=1375891User talk:Kevan2009-01-30T12:49:58Z<p>Liberty: /* Updating the Wiki software, 2.0 */</p>
<hr />
<div>If you want to report a bug, put it up on the [[Bug Reports]] page for review.<br />
<br />
If you've got a question about the Wiki, use the [[Wiki Questions]] and another user will see it and answer it.<br />
<br />
If you want to discuss game balance or the future of the game, try a [[Unofficial UD Forums|discussion forum]].<br />
<br />
If you'd like to respond to someone who's posted here, you should do so on their talk page.<br />
<br />
If you're from the future, there are a [[User Talk:Kevan/Archive|couple]] of [[User Talk:Kevan/Archive2|archives]].<br />
<br />
If you'd like to speak to an operator, please hold.<br />
<br />
==Monroeville Airlift==<br />
Hi Kevan,<br />
I am one of the few remaining survivors in Monroeville. With the Christmas update being implemented, I was curious to know if I set up a Christmas tree and some lights in a building for a few days, would a Helicopter come by and take my character to Malton? I don't want to do something in vain that could end up killing my character that has survived for ten months... <br />
--[[User:Evildiehard|Evildiehard]] 06:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:hey Evildiehard, i'm The Last Unlucky Guy, we were in harvey's group together, i like that idea, can i get in on it too? Getting my character out of Monroeville would be great, i've grown too attached to him and if i got killed, especially after going solo, and survivng for this time, it would really suck :( --[[User:An unlucky guy|Three Dog]] 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==clothing suggestions==<br />
<br />
Hi, long time no see. I've got another question about clothing. I see that you haven't implemented any new clothing for almost a year and the pages in question are receiving little to no traffic. Are you still in need of new Clothing ideas [[Clothes/Suggestions|Suggestions]] or can I close the page and move everything into their relevant archives?--<small><span style="border: 2px solid #DDD">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black">&nbsp;Vista&nbsp;</span>''']][[User_talk:Vista|<span style="background-color: #DDD; color: Ivory ">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 00:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Will donate for awesome clothing ==<br />
<br />
Basically, I was just wondering that if I donated $50AU or something, that maybe you might code in some blood-proof clothing, just for moi? I mean, it's a decent chunk of funds as all... --{{User:Medico/sig}} 01:30, 26 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Broken Wiki page ==<br />
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=5th_of_November%2F2008&diff=1271116&oldid=1270525<br />
<br />
The page I want is the last edit that I made for if, and I have no idea what went wrong. Someone directed me here... --<font face="arial black"><span style="background-color:#000000; border: 1px solid red">[[User:Haliman111|<span style="color:White">/\'''Haliman'''/\</span>]]</span></font><sup> [[User_talk:Haliman111|T]] | [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] | [[Project Welcome|W!]] </sup> 00:44, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Iwitness typo==<br />
<br />
Got really bored, and noticed there was a typo.<br />
<br />
"What does it mean if a record is PUBLIC or PRIVATE?<br />
<br />
Public records are just that- anybody can (if they take the time to look) find them and look at the information they contain. Private records are hidden in directories whose contents are not open to the public view, and the random number string appended to the end of the file name makes it impossible for anybody to find them through luck or accident. "Private" records are in fact so hard to locate that if you don't record their location, '''you'll never them again'''. That's OK when you just want to share a quick secret with some friends in a private chat room or secure forum, though- just copy the link and paste it somewhere you and you friends can find it, but others will not see it!<br />
User accounts do provide a way to retrieve all of the private records a user creates while logged into that account, so while still quite private, they are not going to vanish. User accounts also potentially allow for other levels of security; all of these are essentially private records that only certain people can see, or which do not display all of the details of the record in order to protect the privacy and safety of "innocent bystanders". <br />
<br />
http://www.urbandead.info/iwitness/iwitness_FAQ.php#security<br />
<br />
--<font face="arial black"><span style="background-color:#000000; border: 1px solid red">[[User:Haliman111|<span style="color:White">/\'''Haliman'''/\</span>]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:Haliman111|<span style="color:Blue">T</span>]] | [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] | [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup></font> 15:38, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Check your talk page, {{usr|Haliman111}}. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 01:36, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Suicide Repair ==<br />
Most of the time it isn't easy to let a building reach the higher levels of decay and takes the effort of multiply zombie players. Lately as more buildings reach higher level of decay we see a raise in suicide repairs. Where survivors just spent all their AP and more to repair a long time ruined building and prepare to get eaten and revived. If suicide repairing was not what you where going for with the implemention of decay, please consider changes like: <br />
<br />
a)Make it impossible to spent more AP on repairing than are left to this character, and probably setting a cap at 45AP as a maximum for decay. <br />
<br />
or b)Repair only removes some part of the decay level and not all at once. Probably like tearing down barricades.<br />
--[[User:Experiment211|Experiment211]] 21:15, 13 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:I second option B. Option A could be exploited by people who wait until they have 2 or 3 AP left before running in to repair for 1 or 2 AP. B makes a lot of sense, I think. --[[User:Drugsanimudongs|Drugsanimudongs]] 17:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Errr... I read your suggestion wrong, Experiment211. Ignore my exploit theory! I still support B, though.<br />
<br />
== Database error on the wiki ==<br />
<br />
I have been getting the following message after making edits: <br />
<br />
<pre><br />
A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:<br />
<br />
(SQL query hidden)<br />
<br />
from within function "SearchMySQL4::update". MySQL returned error "1062: Duplicate entry '20534' for key 1 (localhost)".<br />
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Category_talk:Historical_Groups"<br />
</pre> <br />
<br />
The edits seem to be working, however. This bug just took place twice on the Historical Groups Talk/Voting page. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:13, 25 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:I just got one on the same page. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 15:51, 25 July 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ditto. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:06, 25 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Happened to me too today.--[[User:Gamestriker4|Gamestriker4]] 21:57, 25 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
Database error<br />
<br />
A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:<br />
(SQL query hidden)<br />
from within function "". MySQL returned error "1194: Table 'searchindex' is marked as crashed and should be repaired (localhost)".<br />
</pre><br />
Is also appearing when searching brain rot in the Suggestions and Talk Suggestions namespaces.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:02, 26 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:Erg. I've had some server trouble lately, I'll take a look at it. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:21, 27 July 2008 (BST)<br />
::Yesterday it was still doing this... It's rare as of late, it seems-- it was happening with almost every edit for a bit there -- but it *did* happen yesterday again.... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]]<br />
:::Just hit the same after searching for brain in images. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 3 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I've repaired the database, it should be okay now. Let me know if any error messages still creep through, though. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 10:54, 4 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==A Little Idea for Group Affiliations==<br />
<br />
I've had an idea and would like to submit it for your consideration. Would it be possible to add in the option of a URL link added to a player's group affiliation, a la the current system with the 'Real Name' links? This would be very useful for players looking to join a group and for groups looking to recruit players, especially zombie groups who lack the ability to spray-paint places without death-culting. Whilst the RN link is used by some, myself included, for recruitment, more likely than not the majority will simply not bother clicking it after the first few times they have done that on a profile have taken them to YouTube songs or Rick-rolls. A link under the group affiliation would draw more desirable attention. <br />
<br />
There are two ways in which I could see this working: The first is to have the group affiliation act in the same way as the Real Life link, with the player choosing the URL; the second would be to have the GA act as the list of confirmed groups on the stats page does: An automatic link to the wiki page of said confirmed group. My personal belief is that the latter would be the superior option, so as to avoid abuse via unsavoury links which would undermine trust in the system (this is of course going under the assumption that you have a system which makes the links appear automatically on the stats page, rather than having to add them all in yourself of course).<br />
<br />
Just my thought for the early morning. <br />
<br />
Regards. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 04:37, 4 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Please make your suggestions here: [[:Category:Current Suggestions]]. Seriously Moloch, you have been around long enough to know how suggestions are handled. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 04:40, 4 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::FWIW, my personal version of 'ActOnProfile' already modifies the group name to be a link to the wiki page for that group. Its pretty handy, even if just to find out the group has no page. A fancier GM script could easily determine if the page actually exists, and not make it a link if it doesn't, which would be nice. Server side code could likely do the same thing better. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 05:02, 4 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Copyright question ==<br />
<br />
after playing Urban dead I had an idea making it into a warcraft 3 map and before I release 1: may I release a map made by maps and the same idea of urban dead and with its name/s 2: are there any requires you want? for example I could advertise for the site every 5 mins(I can have the map do that for me)I have all ready given credit to Urban dead and if you want I can give direct credit to you also<small>—The preceding {{wikipedia|Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages|unsigned}} comment was added by [[User:Undeadpope|Undeadpope]] ([[User talk:Undeadpope|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Undeadpope|contribs]]) 23:42, 6 August 2008.</small><br />
:l2english.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:34, 7 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:If it's clearly presented as an unofficial fan project, and isn't making any money, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:51, 7 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==IP hits and construction==<br />
<br />
If I repair a badly damaged building (15ap etc.) Is that one IP hit or 15? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:32, 9 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It'd be one. it's a measure of how many times you refresh the map page not ap. The only exception (as far as i'm aware) is syringe manufacture which is 20.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:53, 10 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I thought i was getting more than my regular action. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 11:32, 10 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Is that confirmed or just a guess?--<span style="cursor:crosshair">Kooks</span> 22:50, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It's certainly incorrect. I repaired a building costing 134ap and still had more than enough IP hits to play my other characters.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:11, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Monroeville and headshot==<br />
<br />
All the high level survivors I know (about 30) have been holding out for the return of perma-death headshot with the quarantine. I see the quarantine is back, but everything still says that headshot is not permanent. Is this the case? If you're not bringing it back then you might as well close down the server or at least tell us officially. Because as currently constituted only one side can win, and though we could probably prolong things indefinitely I fail to see the point.<br />
--[[User:Babe's Ghost|Babe&#39;s Ghost]] 03:59, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I couldn't agree more with this post. Staying alive as a member of an organized group in Monroeville is possible but it takes a large amount of coordination and effort. I fail to see the "game" part of current Monroeville on the survivor side, something permanent headshot would bring to the table. If balance is an issue, I'm sure the zombie side would love to have non-curable Infectious Bite. --[[User:Calem|Calem]] 10:09, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::The evidence of the most recent opening of Monroeville suggests that it takes about 6 weeks for the city to go from totally survivor-dominated to totally destroyed with the survivors on the run and hiding in the wreckage. Therefore, it seems to me that the most fun and interesting way to do it would be to run Monroeville in cycles. Every five to six weeks or so switch the rules to give one side or the other the advantage. So, having now had an extened Zombie Friendly period of time, you allow the Survivors to have their turn for a month and a half with closed borders and "permanent" (until the next cycle) headshot. Then re-open it to new admissions with the usual "Zombies stand back up" rules for a month and a half, then close it again and so on and so forth. That way, both sides always have something to look forward to and there's always something to plan for. Frankly, this solution still favors the Zombies somewhat in that a dead Survivor still never gets a chance to come back to life, but its significantly more fair than the current situation where Survivors can never repair a building for more than a couple of days before getting buried under a tide of zombies. While that may accurately reflect the desperate conditions of the later Dead movies and some of the supporting fiction, its not much fun to be a Survivor under these circumstances, and this is a game. --[[User:jng2058|jng2058]] 12:54, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Agreed. Right now Monroeville is only a game of attrition with an inevitable (tedious) end. Maybe that's in keeping with Romero's cannon, but it puts survivors in an unwinnable position and leaves the zombies without enough challenge to stave off boredom. If the game's going to be left open, then since zombies are in the advantage right now (by 4:1) why not restore headshot and see what happens? [[User:CoopVancer|CoopVancer]] 21:34, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Actually Coop- if you think about it- zombie take over isn't necessary canon in the zombie/post-apoc genre nor Romero canon, but merely an outcome of the core theme. What destroys the humans isn't the zombies, which are fairly weak, but their failure to overcome their individual self interest and cooperate. Restoring headshot would work now consistent with the canon. Headshot is something survivors learn with experience. At present, most of the survivors, don't have the XP to have headshot. <br />
::::: So I guess this is down to a test of wills then? Of humanity? How long can humans survive before break down, succumb to anarchy, or make a mistake and get eaten? '''We will not.''' Survivors will not descend into madness. We will survive under these horrible conditions! '''We will be ever vigilant!''' ''(until an emergency comes up in real life, then we're pretty much zombie-food)'' [[User:Bystander|Bystander]] 22:30, 20 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::: Bystander, I recommend the buddy system. Give someone in your group your PW so they can move you in an emergency.--[[User:Babe's Ghost|Babe&#39;s Ghost]] 00:01, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, your reading is correct that perma-headshot isn't returning.--[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 16:59, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Will there be any type of reward for x number of survivors remaining? ==<br />
<br />
I'm just going to say the only reason to ask this is because what the point of trying to survive if the hoard of zombies will eventually take over all? All i want to know is there anything that actually would give hope to the survivors?<br />
<br />
:Yeah, it would be nice if the last 100 survivors were transported to Malton with text like "NAME survived the second Monroeville quarantine." or "NAME was one of the last 100 to die in Monroeville." on their profile page. --[[User:BetterLuck|BetterLuck]] 23:23, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::I hope something happens that's good at least for survivors, now they outnumber us way too much now--[[User:Kazypoo1|Kazypoo1]] 15:44, 19 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Monroeville Characters ==<br />
<br />
I was just wondering if you had any plans for allowing players to have their Monroeville character's account moved to Malton. I just want to know because I happen to really like my MV character from an RP perspective and would like to play as him in a city that isn't completely ruined and dead... or at least use his name for a character in Malton.--[[User:William Told|William Told]] 03:08, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No - you can transfer donation flags, but not characters. If you want to roleplay the same character in Malton, just create a new account with a slightly different name. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 09:33, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
How do you transfer donation flags from a Monroeville character to a Malton one? Thanks. --[[User:Alias81|Alias81]] 13:10, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Just go to your "settings" page and enter a name. I've now added this to the [http://urbandead.com/faq.html#monroedonate FAQ]. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:09, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Don't fucking jimmy me, jules. ==<br />
<br />
# (diff) (hist) . . User:Vigeous/Group Pages; 18:25 . . (-2) . . Vigeous (Talk | contribs) (→Folie à Famille - )<br />
# (diff) (hist) . . Category talk:Historical Groups; 17:01 . . (+319) . . WanYao (Talk | contribs) (→Drunken Dead - )<br />
<br />
I swear that 84 minutes almost pushed me over the brink...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:34, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, it looks like the wiki backups are pushing the server over the brink as well, from sheer weight of data, to the point of actually overheating the machine. I'm going to have to do another archive-history purge, as it's been a long time since the last one. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 10:24, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::NOOOOOO! Not the memories! Take anything but the memories! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:30, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What about all teh lulz?!?!?!?!? Jed! ACTIVATE LULZ PRESERVATION PROCEDURES. CODE RED!--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 10:44, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::::OMG DID YOU SAY <big><big><big><big><font color="red">CODE RED?!?!?!?!</font></big></big></big></big>--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:47, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Good man. You'll do me proud yet. btw Kevan we just bought UD shirts so hopefully that means you don't have to go ahead with this "purging" business...--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 10:48, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Yeah i've thrown my best days into UD and my best money too. The least you could do is buy more server space so that a purge need never happen again. What if we need to check back over to see who made an edit? Or find long lost lulz? I mean [[2 Cool]] have a variety of quality projects using that space. [[ALiM]], [[ELiM]], [[Great Fire of 1912]], [[Sir Dick Longman]], [[Suburb Nicknames]], [[Colloquialisms]] and [[Malton Girl on Girl Parade]] all spring to mind. Of course there are many many more worthy pages created in the name of [[Kevanism|Kevan]], this is just a tasty sampling.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:53, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Stop blatantly spamming your endless vomit pile of useless wiki projects.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 11:02, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Quality projects using the ''page history'' space? If there's something good in there that's been deleted for wiki policy reasons, can't you host it somewhere else where people will actually find it? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:07, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Well if there is that's what we'll do. By the way - whilst I'm here, can I get your thoughts on [[ALiM|this page]]. Totally just out of interest and not fishing for an endorsement to stick in the first sentence of the article... And did you purposely give some of the locations amusing names or was it all the result of some cosmic event?--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 11:22, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Also thanks for the recognition that they are in fact quality. And yes page history contains lols and should be kept for this reason. For example [[User:J3D/lol@finis|this particular work]] would never have been possible if page histories weren't kept. [[Save Page Histories]], i think i smell a 2C wikiproject coming on...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:32, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::Ah that smell. I know her well.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 11:33, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Just wondering if there's a time-frame for this, there's an administrative Archive of Two we need to finish up before it happens, shouldn't take more than a few hours each.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:59, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Turns out that it might just be the A/VB talk archives.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:03, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::What in the name of all things holy is an archive history purge? Do i need to be in the brace position? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:11, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Look at the contribs of an older member, like myself. Ive ben around and posting since october 2005. you will see pretty much nothingb that old. A history purge is just that, a deletion of all revisions older than a certain age from the database. Its one of the reasons we make archive pages. Histories can get seriously huge, especially on larger, more active pages. For examples of the biggest, try A/VB and Talk:Suggestions --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:02, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Cheers Grimbo. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:06, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Couldn't Kev just get rid of the bigs one then? Talk suggestions is a particularly useless page...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:08, 22 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It'll be some time during September, and it'll be clearing out to a specific date (probably everything over a year old). If you need me to hold off while some admin archives are made, let me know. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 17:37, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I believe we finally got them all done.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:17, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Thanks. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:09, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
# (diff) (hist) . . m Talk:Undeadites; 18:20 . . (-629) . . Creeping Crud (Talk | contribs)<br />
# (diff) (hist) . . The Drifters; 17:02 . . (0) . . Robot clean (Talk | contribs)<br />
Maybe we do need to lose some of our precious memories...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Is barricading affected in dark buildings? ==<br />
<br />
Would you be able to resolve [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Dark#barricading_success_is_also_affected_by_dark this question], please? (i.e. is there an effect in dark buildings on barricading success?) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:05, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:As Midi said, you should try doing your own research on this inquiry first. It seems like you haven't even checked by yourself. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:21, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::It's based on chance - sorta hard to get solid evidence when it could just be called "bad luck". Sometimes you have to go to the source to find out if you're just having a shitty day or if it's some game mechanic that's actually stopping you from hitting all those zeds at the local RP... I mean... er...--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 14:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Aeon, I ''did'' "check for myself"... As in. I've experienced it numerous times in-game... Then I went to Brainstock, asked around for a second opinion, and got one... But that wasn't good enough for you people... So I decided to ask Kevan, himself -- especially since Nallan kind of has a point, and since it's not easy to find the conditions to conduct the experiment... In any event, I managed to find a place to try it: I posted the results on the Darkness talk page. However, a quick word, yea or nay, from the designer really would be appreciated... Now... none of this "discussion" was necessary, not here, stop spamming this page, sheeesh. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 23:14, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You typed more than the first three comments combined. And you complain about spamming? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:31, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, there is an effect. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:09, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== theres 98 survivors in monroeville what now? ==<br />
<br />
what is going to happen now? is there anything left for the survivors other than to just run or make a last stand? is there anything for staying alive till the end. --[[User:Kazypoo1|Kazypoo1]] 19:13, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Stay alive I guess. --[[User:Federationtrooper|Federationtrooper]] 22:49, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:umm the count jumped UP TO 100, what just happened? --[[User:Kazypoo1|Kazypoo1]] 03:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::And it's 101 now. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:44, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Idled characters standing up, most likely. Hellooooo. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:11, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Yes, idlers. So, will all characters be deleted completely? Should we make a last stand? What will happen to the accounts? Will there be permaneny links to the diaries, that can still be obtained after the accounts are deleted? Knowing the basic plan will help us figure out what we should be doing.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::If I recall correctly, at some point the game will be shut down. I mean ''shut down''. At which point Kevan has said that any donations on MV alts will be transferable to Malton. He has hinted that he might allow MV alts to be moved to Malton once it's shut right down -- although I haven't noticed anything like this in a while, maybe he's changed his mind? I dunno... My advice, personally is to wait and see... Possibly Kevan doesn't even know yet how he'll wrap it up. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 22:44, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Kevan#Monroeville_Characters pretty sure] that MV characters won't be transferable to Malton.--[[User:William Told|William Told]] 01:49, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Okay, but what will happen to the actual accounts though? What would happen if I tried to login with it after the map ends? Will the diary be preserved?--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:59, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Aren't they (donation tags) already transferable? i'm pretty sure they should be. --[[User:Duke Garland|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>]] [[LCD|<nowiki>[</nowiki>]][[User talk:Duke Garland|talk]][[Signature Race|<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Donations are transferrable, and accounts aren't - it was always going to be one or the other, and donations seemed more appropriate. Profiles and diaries will be kept in perpetuity. And given how little difference there is between shutting the city down entirely and leaving it open for zombies to mill aimlessly around in, I might just leave it open. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:09, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Fair enough? Any chance of us active zeds getting another tag in our profiles? Ive noticed those survivors still active have got one. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:49, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
For what? --[[User:Deadblast|Deadblast]] 19:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It looks like this [[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1147825]], one like ''blah was an active zombie one month into the 2nd quarantine. '' --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:49, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Again, I ask, "For what?" For staying active? --[[User:Deadblast|Deadblast]] 23:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Sorry. yep.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:29, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You knew when you signed up that it was not going to be a permanent map. And you knew the basic rules of the game, as well. You ''knew''... Now, deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 21:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== FAQs addition? ==<br />
<br />
I don't know why you haven't gotten around to it, but here you can even find a pretyped one to add. It's a quick, simple addition...<br />
<br />
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions#Add_encumbrance_section_to_the_FAQs<br />
<br />
Also, I'm not trying to bother you, but could you check the bugs page and try to deal with some of those issues? I noticed my moved-outside reports already in the known bugs section, and that sounds like a creepy one that's been happening to a number of people. I also see a number of other bugs commonly happening, with no hint of what's going on. Thanks.<br />
--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:44, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Once again...[[PR_UI:_Sub_Pages#Tips_about_encumbrance|dupe]]. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:28, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::That's why I wondered why he hasn't gottena round to it yet. It's been around a while, and it seems pretty needed.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Enough is enough ==<br />
<br />
I know you don't want to deal with this kind of stuff... yeah yeah yeah... But please just ''look'' at [http://zombies.dementiastudios.org/boards/index.php?topic=12.180 this post]. Just quickly... <br />
<br />
Enough is enough, already. '''Please''' ban open proxies from accessing Urban Dead, because this is just too common -- and if anything is going to kill this game and the community it's zerging. There is a massive level of frustration over zerging, though honestly it's not brought up because people are fatalistic, figuring you're not going to do anything about it. But there are people willing and able to assist with the coding, with helping to set this up, you just need to say "Yes" to getting the ball rolling. Please consider it, consider ''something''... Because it's a serious problem ((that is, the use of proxies). And, unfortunately -- unless there is something huge we are all missing -- it's a problem that your abuse detection algorithms just can't deal with... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:55, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Just to add... This guy in the post I linked to likely had his alts banned, and just kept making more and more to replace them... which, if true, shows that algorithm works against ''"normal" multi-abusers.'' But when you're dealing with proxies, you can completely circumvent those algorithms. And that's the problem... Active players usually encounter at least a couple ''obvious'' "zerg teams" every week... And a lot more less obvious but suspicious ones... It's very frustrating for those who try to play "by the book"... And while we generally just "shrug and bear it", still... I'm not going to bother you with this anymore now, but I really felt it was high time to bring this your attention, and to speak out for the many people who are so frustrated by the prevalence of zerging in Urban Dead. Thanks for your attention. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm going to take the liberty of seconding the above on behalf of both the [[Ridleybank Resistance Front]] and [[Columbine Kids]], two fair-playing teams that I lead who encounter zerg teams weekly. Whether something comes of this or not, I just want to add our voices. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 18:38, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Ha. The only topic on the page not address by Kev on Sept 3. Come on man an least a reply saying you cbf would be nice...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Sure, I'll take a look at any ideas or technologies people have got. I'm not aware of any silver bullets that don't also turn up false-positives for people on weird ISPs or who have a misleadingly-configured home network, but would be happy to be proven wrong. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Interesting Tangent: Speaking of silver bullets, i recently found out that all that stuff from days yonder referring to silver bullets and there use in banishing monsters is actually ambiguous as to if it's talking about actual silver, or mercury (which was known as quicksilver at the time). so yeah, you may in fact be unaware of any mercury bullets. Just keep that in mind when banishing foes.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There was a discussion on Beerhah.com about this... Where some people were attempting to seriously address the issue and then come to you with some solutions. Sadly, interest seemed to wane once Finis Valorum apparently left the game... However, I am going to copy what was probably the most relevant and hopefully most useful post in that discussion. As you'll see, the solution was not an algorithm and/or set of "suspicious" IPs, etc. -- which I gather was you were talking about above? Rather, the main idea it was using a list of known proxies and simply banning them. I actually think the wiki sysops have a pretty long list of banned proxies, for a start perhaps that could be used... <br />
<br />
And, no solution is going to perfect. There will ''always'' be holes, always ways around whatever measures you impliment. As the post I'll copy discusses. That, I think, is pretty well understood. However, the point is to make it as difficult as possible for people to cheat. Open proxies are just ''too easy'' to find and use... Now, I don't know if paying for a proxy list is going to be effective, or a waste of money, considering how much these things change, apparently -- that's something someone with the right knowledge would have to decide. Anyway, I'm place the text of the post on [[User talk:WanYao| my Talk page]] for you to look at. Thanks for your time. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:21, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sadly, we've got no follow up response yet... Kevan, are you listening? Just as another case in point, look at this... yeah I ''know'' what you say... But just look... I think you need to... I don't want to be a "bitch" about this... But I am really, really hoping we can find some way to address the zerging issue, and this requires a dialogue with you... <br />
<br />
http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/09-12-08_2000hrs_PRIVATE/IN_7-1__644-f97-77b.html<br />
http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/09-12-08_2000hrs_PRIVATE/IN_8-1__0c7-19c-2b9.html<br />
<br />
LOLz at my insane typos notwithstanding (i meant "flayed alive") .... This is sadly typical... We see this stuff all the time: here, 4 alts, at least, 2 each in adjacent buildings, from someone with a whole slew of "mithra" alts, many more than these 4, many of them previously spotted together -- this guy is familiar to us... We've presented some ideas for dealing with zergs like this, there is a discussion on the [[AZM]] Talk page... Will you work on this? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 21:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Kevan, please do this: community appointed UD moderators. These trusted moderators will ban obvious zerging reported by players. To investigate zerging only basic information is needed: history of when the zergs all logged in, and how long they've been around each other. 95% of zergers are stupid and lazy and will be caught this way. No permanent bans, just temporary ones. Enough to make the zergers life difficult. --[[User:Rupert|Rupert]] 19:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:COMMUNITY appointed? You're joking, right? --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm kind of new, so forgive me if this is stupid... Am I correct in assuming that a lot of these zerg characters are level 1, or to a lesser degree level 2 that seldom level up or even gain XP but are used as scouts. If that's the case then I would think that any ''real'' account is going to gain XP and level up within reasonable time periods. If that's the case then would purging level 1 & 2 characters that don't level in say a month get rid of a lot of zergs? Or is there a legitimate reason for accounts within these parameters? --[[User:Mvario|mvario]] 01:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Most zergs (despite the name) do infact end up leveling up, check out all the [[GTFO]] zergs for an example. The one's that do stay at lvl 1 and 2 are throw aways that won't be used again anyway, so deleting them wouldn't have any effect except to free up the account name to be used by another player. And that is something Kevan has said he doesn't want as it would cause confusion. Also lol @ my post up there ^ from Sept 5.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Last Major Change to this page? ==<br />
<br />
When was the last major change to this page made, the one where months pf posts were cleared off and the number of topics reset to 0 (I assume 0)?. What about the Suggestions Development Page, where the Overflow section used to be? I'm trying to find certain old stuff, and I need to know those important dates to do so...thanks.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:07, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
[[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevan&diff=prev&oldid=1241305]]This? You can chust check yourself by looking in the history tab at the top of each page. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:That link's no good.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::There was a history purge so links to old edits don't work. However purges aside he's right, if you need to find an old version of the page use the history tab at the top.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Dear Kevan: ==<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #800000; font-family: Times"><center>You may try to tear down our barricades, devour our friends and allies, destroy our home... But we ''will'' prevail. Your efforts will be met with the stalwart defense that Barrville has maintained for these three years, and with our community at our sides, you must eventually accept defeat. You will go down, Kevan... and we'll put you there. And we'll do it oldschool; With our fists, With our boots, with lead pipes...<BR>And yes, with Axes. We shall not be put down.<BR>'''We Are AXES HIGH'''<br />
<br />
E Cinerebus, Gloriam --[[User:Hardcore Rockabilly|Hardcore Rockabilly]] 16:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)</center></span><br />
<br />
:'''''HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!''''' [[User:The man|The man]] 20:31, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Okay, I actually thought it was quite the honour to be eaten by Kevan... but none the less worthy of an overtly trenchy and overdramatic comment. - --[[User:Hardcore Rockabilly|Hardcore Rockabilly]] 20:46, 23 September 2008 (BST)<br />
==Database errors==<br />
We are getting some infrequent, but still painfully annoying database errors. Last night when i was trying to edit [[A/VD]] i couldnt because of them, and we lost two current revisions on a page [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASpacer_one%2FAthair_bas&diff=1270526&oldid=1270400 here] to them as well. Can you please take a look and find out whats going on? --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 21:51, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Noted. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 10:43, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It looks like we lost a handful of page revisions during the history purge; I'll look at restoring them this afternoon. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 14:08, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Okay, fixed, the handful of pages that were affected are stable now. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 23:25, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==About the proxy issues...==<br />
this site: http://www.gmodtop100.com/ had a similar iddue which involved everyone giving themselves votes using proxyies from proxy.org Recently the website restted all the lists and when I tried to give hits to my gmod clan, I discovered that by some sort of meckanism they had managed to block proxies from being able to vote. I know they hadn't simply banned them because even my top secret proxy was blocked and I had never used it to access the website before. Maybe if you could get in contact with this "Pulsar effect" guy we could finally end this. [[User:The man|The man]] 20:31, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's really not as simple as some people seem to think. Web-based CGI or PHP proxies, or even SOCKS/HTTP proxies, are merely the tip of the iceberg – anyone with any decent technical expertise or friends with same can bypass any proxy list you care to come up with. Sure, it might be helpful, but it won't be a silver bullet, as Kevan alluded to above. Either way, we'll need to continue with [[ZHU|community-based]] [[GTFO|solutions]], as well as any additional technological measures that may be implemented. And remember... {{cquote||It may well be doubted whether human ingenuity can construct an enigma... which human ingenuity may not, by proper application, resolve.''|Edgar Allen Poe}}{{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:09, 15 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And...{{cquote||Some things are not problems to be solved, they are facts to be coped with.''|Anonymous}} --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 17:23, 20 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Future history wipes==<br />
Would it be possible leave a few more months worth of page histories next time a wipe is done? It's making it very hard to evaluate and track deletion requests, vandal histories and the like when histories just weeks old are missing, making it especially difficult to determine who should have "ownership rights" of group pages. Loosing histories will always be a problem, but the problem can be lessened significantly if you could keep it to older edits <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 16:56 20 September 2008 (BST)</small><br />
:Or a portion of the oldest edits on a page(like the first 5 if possible).--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:42, 22 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And maybe a backup for the suburb danger status, using that sql code i sent you last time... heh... too bad i only found out about this wipe weeks after it occured, or i would have asked you to make the backup before the wipe. Bugger. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]]</sup> 03:14, 22 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== I'm wishing for headshot.... ==<br />
<br />
maybe for those left in monroeville should have something, like headshot, cause look at whats left... [[User:Kazypoo1|Kazypoo1]] 19:53, 4 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:The problem with that is to use headshot, you need to interact with zombies. A lot of the zeds left metagame, and all you'd do is draw others to your location. So yes. Bring it back. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:33, 5 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::I agree, running from zeds is getting old. I imagine they must be pretty bored as well. If not perma-death, how about headshot drops AP to zero. Otherwise we'll continue this war of attrition. Also shouldn't we get new badges? It would be cool if we had an incentive to keep playing besides making the zeds look impotent.--[[User:Babe's Ghost|Babe&#39;s Ghost]] 01:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ALiM's Birthday Party ==<br />
<br />
You've been cordially invited to attend ALiM's birthday party at [[Club Head]] at 10am GMT on the 18th of October. Festivities will last for a full 24 hours. See [[Talk:Amusing_Locations_in_Malton#ALiM_PARTY.21.21.21|here]] for more details, oh divine master.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 02:15, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Misconduct ==<br />
I figure you are already aware of whats going on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct#User:Grim_s| Here] but figured you should be formally informed. The final decision of the community has not been reached, but the general consensus will at the very least include the Bureaucrat status being removed from Grim. More may or not follow depending upon deliberations. Thank You. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 05:25, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:You have provided no evidence of misconduct. This is absolutely ridiculous. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 11:18, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::Grim pipe down, everyone knows what you think and we also happen to know what Conn thinks. I can appreciate you're pissed off but can you not write the same boring ass one line all over the place, at least i nice tl;dr wall for old times sake ;) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:33, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Its not a boring arse line. Its a simple fact. All accusations of abusing the status of sysop as abadge of authority to force ones wishes on the community '''must''' come with '''clear evidence''' over a '''substancial period of time'''. So far no such evidence has been presented, and all my requests that it be have been soundly ignored by all concerned. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 11:36, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Conveniently all such evidence was wiped by Kev yestermonth, so i guess it falls down to your word against his/theirs. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:39, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Evidence already posted would still be present, easily visible to all who try a basic search. In any case, as [[user:Revenant]] has said, this is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Court Kangaroo Court], nothing more nothing less. My defense, which is logically sound, has been ignored, except where people have cherry picked points to troll. Saddam Hussein got a fairer trial than i am. In any case, without evidence, you cannot convict. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 11:40, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug*, shouldn't have declined my sysopship... ;) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:43, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::You were unfit for the job, and your subsequent tantrum proved as much to even the most jaded of eyes. My job isnt to make friends, or to be popular, or to do what people want, its to do what the rules and guidelines of this wiki state is correct, and to make the best decisions for the wiki in places where the guidelines do not cover. I am the only person to have ever lived up to that responsibility. No one else has, though karek comes damned close. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 11:47, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::oh come on, it was a joke! I thought even in your current state you should have picked it up. Feel free to slur away, hope it makes you feel better, xoxo. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:51, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Im sorry, but one seldom finds entertainment when one is the victim of such obvious and gross injustice where one cannot do anything about it. I apologise. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 11:54, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::apology accepted, we shall see how it plays out...now, to leave kevan's talk page so he doesn't get pissed off and cancel my accounts!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:59, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, this page was already on my watchlist. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:37, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::You gonna have a vote? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:39, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Contrary to Conndraka's first post, this is not a community decision at all. It is in fact a decision made by a small group of sysops. I trust the subtle difference and obvious deceit on Conndraka's part is not lost on you. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:59, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There being no official method or process of notification...[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct#Final_Ruling| Here] is the result. Note the community "petition" that is also currently attached to the position. There being no "Policy" in this manner, the impeachment of a sysop by the community is a nebulous proposal at best. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 06:00, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:So that was you that thought that it would be a good idea to try to drive someone to vandalism as a last resort at neutrality? If it wasn't whoever added that petition should themselves be vandal escalated for misusing an administrative page to further a personal fight. Precedent matters.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:13, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just for the record it was me who added the "petition" it was not intended to be used as evidence against Grim it and i thought it was pretty clear that I was asking for the communities opinion on wether Grim should face a vote. more than 1 person thought not.... apparently my intention was not clear enough and it turned into a petition while i was off-line. Should Grim have lost his Crat status? Probably... should he have lost it for the misconduct case? Absolutely not!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:15, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Bug, "zerg flag", or what? ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=951980 This alt] has recently tried searching for FAKs in a powered Mall with *no* success. 'Tis far more than bad luck... All other actions seem to working just fine, and I really can't see how a zerg flag could have been activated, even accidentally. Is this a bug, some unannounced change, or has a zerg flag somehow been activated? Anyone else had anything similar happen? But if it is a bug, then I'll report it normally... Thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:09, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Unannounced change, although you shouldn't be getting ''zero'' success. If it keeps up, report it as a bug and we'll get some more data on it. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:17, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::Can you post these things as news? not only are we in a news drought, but it'll send the mall rats scurrying to the TRPs...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:25, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It seems a bit cheap to announce search tweaks as fully-fledged "game updates". There are some proper updates on the way. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:27, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Perhaps, but it makes a difference. And considering it was suggested through the wiki suggestion system it'd a tip of the hat to the crowd over there (regardless of whether or not you actually saw that ;) ), i look forward to new updates :D something pro zombie perhaps? Things have quietened down in Malty as of late...btw kudos on the ruin update, she added a whole new dimension to the game.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:31, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Oh good. I thought this was just me. I have been getting reduced search rates EVERYwhere. (Hospitals, Malls, NT buildings.) Quite a few days I've spend 18~23 AP in these buildings over a period of about 10~12 minutes and have found nothing at all. Recently I've used a mall-searcher and spent 20 AP in Caiger NW and have found nothing in any store. It woulda been nice to see this as an official update. [[User:Pakopako|Pakopako]] 14:35, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Yay! Updates are ace. :D -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Yes, please announce it or something. I was sad to find just 2 FAKs with 20 APs in a lightened mall with bargain hunting. Its just very less. First i thougt, it was bad luck, but others said the same too. Maybe a small view, what has been changed would be nice. --[[User:Paradoxin|Paradoxin]] 17:53, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::'''My search-statistics:'''<br />
:::::::'''Where:''' lightened Mall, searched in the Drugstore<br />
:::::::'''Skill:''' Shopping+Bargain Hunting<br />
:::::::'''APs:''' 38 / 47<br />
:::::::'''Found nothing:''' 30 / 36<br />
:::::::'''Found a FAK:''' 8 / 11<br />
:::::::'''Rate:''' 21,06% / 23,4%<br />
:::::::--[[User:Paradoxin|Paradoxin]] 18:18, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Assuming there are no more break-ins at my safehouse, I'll post some data tomorrow. [[User:Linkthewindow|<span style="color: DodgerBlue">Linkthewindow]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Linkthewindow|<span style="color: DarkRed">Talk]] </span> </sup> 04:26, 10 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the reply, Kevan... No, you're right, haven't had a lot of time to play lately, but I tested it further and I did finally find some FAKs... And for everyone else... I believe I know ''exactly'' why Kevan implemented this. And it pleases me, personally, very much. :) Meanwhile, this wasn't a game-mechanic change, just a search rate nerf... Thus, I think it's cool it was left for us to discover on our own, and not as an announcement... Even if I had to resort to the cheap method of asking the big guy himself... ;) Though I did suspect it might be a search rate nerf, I just didn't ''dare'' to believe'' :D ... Thanks, Kevan, cool change... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:01, 10 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Oh... FTR limited data... but searching for guns in a mall ''seems'' the same as always... and syringe rates have been quite low for some time now... just to clear up statement made above about everything sucking... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:05, 10 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You know, there's a [[Search Odds|better place]] than Kevan's talk page to dump this data... --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 18:17, 10 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Coup II==<br />
I have regularly spoken to you of the abuses of adminsistrator and the flaws of the system. I have begged, and pleaded for you to become involved in fixing these problems. You have told me to do it myself. Tow/three days ago i notified you of my intent to stage a coup on this wiki and enforce a better way, at the very least as a trial run. I also informed you that you could call it off simply by telling me "no". Since you havent responded, and circumstances have cospired to make such an option impossible in the immediate future due to the very corruption that has taken root, i have been forced to go ahead earlier than i would have liked. I merely ask that you adopt a wait and see attitude towards what i am trying to do. This is my last throw of the dice. My last ditch attempt to make this a better place before i take my leave of this community forever. I apologise for the manner in which i had to bring it about however. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 10:26, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Hello Grim. I read your email as a bold request for ''permission'' to single-handedly institute "sweeping reforms" and selective sysop demotions. I didn't realise you were threatening to actually abuse bureaucrat powers and go ahead regardless, if I didn't respond quickly enough.<br />
:Yes, whenever you email me asking that I force through a change that you personally want implemented, I suggest that you take it through the proper channels - usually a policy discussion, to at least get some community feedback first. I don't see why you couldn't have done that here. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 12:17, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Coup==<br />
Could you please re-sysop all the people that Grim just demoted, please, and remove his bureaucrat status to avoid it happening again? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:24 9 October 2008 (BST)</small><br />
:Already onto it. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 10:24, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::Thanks <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:28 9 October 2008 (BST)</small><br />
:::sooo....where do we go from here? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:31, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::[[Suburb Nicknames#West Becktown|PUSSY TOWN]]!--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 11:33, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Shouldn't grim also have been demoted ? He can still do lots of damage with his sysop powers --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]]</sup> 13:41, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Given the "effective immediately i am seizing executive power" tone of his bureaucrat abuse, and the fact that he claims to have left the wiki permanently, temporarily revoking his sysop powers seems fair enough, if only as a security issue. I'll reverse it should the [[Misconduct#User:Grim_s|new misconduct case]] decide in his favour. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 14:34, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hm... I think I may create a new subpage on my userspace containing as much of this stuff as I can. It will be interesting to read through and spot the points at which Grim became more and more frantic. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 14:27, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::First Katthew, now grim. There is no place for common sense is there? Maybe i'm not in possession of all the facts; all I see is one frustrated person finally snapping, after years spent as one of the very few sysops to actually work to make this a better place - rather than feather his own nest. The wiki has finally moved from being a source of information to some kind of passive-aggressive, UD version of Facebook. I'd rather have one person capable of making a mature decisions, unafraid to step on a few toes and deflate a few egos, than a gaggle of preening children. Disappointing. --[[User:Keith Drudgely|Keith Drudgely]] 17:58, 12 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Grim was anything but "mature". Just saying. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 20:56, 12 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::you should talk, cyberbob... actually, i do think grim was someone who worked hard for the wiki... and he'd dealt with idiocy for so long, he did snap... however, if only he'd handled things better over the long haul... le sigh... for what it's worth, the drama has pretty much caused me to quit the game, too... pathetic how seriously some people (myself included) take all this sometimes... and interesting how easy it is to walk away when the bad taste gets to be too much, and how little you miss UD when you do... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 10:36, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Biiig difference between being immature by choice and being immature by impulse, Wan. Also, WTF is with you and ellipses? --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 11:18, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::~2 years till the next sysop snaps. I can understand where Grim was coming from though. It's very frustrating when people constantly attack you for no perceived reason, and eventually you *have* to snap, no one can sustain continued harassment. Grims misconduct case showed this, sysops calling for Grims demotion over something so minor was ridiculous. Unfortunately once a group of users has decided to attack you there's nowhere safe on the wiki, and eventually you are forced to leave until things cool off, which can be a long while, and difficult to do if you are a regular. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">11:35/13/10/2008</span>]]'''<br />
::::::OR you could simply cease the unneccessary causticness that brought on all that ire and start acting with some degree of restraint rather than taking the easy route and trying to lay the blame on others. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 11:52, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Cyberbob's right, just because you weren't a victim of Grim's monster rampage doesn't mean it didn't happen. You should try to understand Jedaz, people didn't just rise against Grim for fun. We aren't idiots. If we were mindless idiots we would be playing Halo 3 and NFL 2009 instead of UD. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 11:58, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::It's called Madden you culturally ignorant fuck. Nah you're allllright. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:02, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::How dare you be here and not on IRC. You left me alone with those barbarians. >=[ {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:13, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::sorry sorry! I was spose to go to bed 21 minutes ago...hows a week tonight for you? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:19, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::@Cyberbob - What kind of restraint are you talking about? Restraint of language? I don't see anyone else restraining themselves. Restraint of Sysop powers? Well there wern't any successful misconduct cases about misuse. If you are talking about restraining yourself once you've snapped then you must be laughing. Don't get me wrong, Grims attitude didn't help the situation, but people making a mountain out of a molehill doesn't going to help either.<br />
::::::::@DDR - What has Grim done since June to have this "uprising" occur? Personally I didn't see Grim do anything outside of his regular behaviour (ignoring this most recent case), and the community has known about his behaviour for a long time and still elected him! Would the community still have rised up if this didn't occur? If not then it's just an angry mob and it would have cooled down eventually, where as an uprising would still have occured.<br />
::::::::Anyway, if either of you wish to continue this conversation I'ld suggest we move this to my [[User_talk:Jedaz|talk page]] rather then clog up Kevans. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">00:34/14/10/2008</span>]]'''<br />
:::::::::My point, Jedaz, was that if Grim was at all socially intelligent he would have realised that people weren't going to take his shit forever. If he wanted to prevent an explosion of the sort we saw he should've taken steps to improve his self-control. Blaming his completely unreasonable hissy fit (ZOMG IM GONNA LOSE MAI CRAT STATUS ALL MUST DIE) on the completely understandable reactions of everyone else is ridiculous. You need to take off the "I got yo back brotha!" goggles (you think I don't remember the circumstances of your demotion?) and take a step back to look at things realistically. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:37, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::I supose you have a point. But I don't think you fully understand the reason I chose to be demoted (if you did then you wouldn't have brought it up). My point is if you don't have the support of the team you are working in then of course you are going to find it tough and eventually you are either going to quit or break. Nobody seems to care that it can actually get to this point. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">02:20/16/10/2008</span>]]'''<br />
:::::::::Cyberbob's right. Do you actually have a personal history with Grimsky? He has been planning this entire explosion for a very long time. He probably stretched out the time of the case so it could build up to a bigger explosion. He deliberately did this for his own ego. And yet you don't think he was unfit to be at the position he was at? Why argue with us more? Ask the entire community which demanded what we demand right now. I don't want to disrupt Kevan (I know your reading hun =]) So I'll stop here, no need to pursue justification. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 10:40, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::it was very calculated, there was a reason he chased away the other competent sysops, and crats, and meatpuppeted his crat "election". He was planning this "coup" for a while and was no lapse in judgement.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 22:30, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::I miss all of the good stuff. I believe what Anime is referring to is discussed [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Grimch_vs._Conndraka#Opinions/arguments/refutations/insults|here]], with a now dead reference to [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Sysop_Sub_Groups:The_Cheesy_Version#"With_less_than_10_active_sysops"|the original conversation here]]. You know, where he admits to hounding sysops such as Vista and Hagnat to get them to quit their positions. Coincidentally, after he got Hagnat to quit, he got elected as a Bureaucrat. No, obviously no long term plan in place.<br />
:::::::::::{{quote|Grim_s|Making a new sysop subclass wont solve this problem, all it will do is bloat the numbers of idiot sysops, which i have spent the last 18 months whittling away at.}}<br />
:::::::::::Whoops. I guess it ''was'' a long term plan to get into power after all, huh? [[Image:Haw.gif]] --{{User:Akule/sig}} 22:52, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::No way to prove this but on IRC Grim would often criticize my "hissy fits" of pissing people off for lulz and then brag about how he could do it better. I think AS remembers it, he often hung out in #udwiki. My point, he planned this. That wasn't impulse. Impulse is "DELETE FUCKING EVERYTHING!!!" --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 23:07, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::Maybe they are talking about on a geological timetable. Or perhaps some people need to [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impulse%5B2%5D read more]. I do find it amusing that [[:Template:Grim Doom|this template]], which was meant as a joke, is closer to the truth than people like to believe. --{{User:Akule/sig}} 23:29, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::He made [[User:Grim_s/Sandbox/Thingamajig|these notes on attempting to scrap the system]] back in July, which included the idea that my veto power was a "problem" and should be revoked. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 23:51, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::That's kind of why I am confused how what [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] did was worse than this. There is a huge history of edits of Grim chasing users off of the wiki in order to attain the power he craved ([[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Grimch_vs._Conndraka#Opinions/arguments/refutations/insults|'''by his own admission''']]), then kicks off the rest of the sysop team to implement his changes when he is threatened, yet he doesn't receive the same punishment. --{{User:Akule/sig}} 00:15, 15 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::You're confusing yourself, because the Amazing and Grim situations are totally different. Amazing wasn't a sysop when he earned his permban through the established VB escalation system, and it was also a long, long time ago. Most of the sysops ruling on Grims case had nothing to do with the wikigate farce. Careful what you wish for, Akule, [[Witch Burners]] arn't that picky, as you well know <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:35 15 October 2008 (BST)</small><br />
:::::::::::::::Oh, okay, so talking with Kevan about how Grim probably should have been permabanned for chasing away several good sysops, plotting to remove Kevan's veto power, and overthrowing the other sysops results with veiled threats of forcing me off the wiki from you. Gotcha. So, when are you going to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Amnesty&diff=next&oldid=1295384 "waah"] Kevan like you did Hagnat and the others? --{{User:Akule/sig}} 22:17, 15 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::::I'm not threatening to force you off the wiki, Akule. I'm trying to point out that if witch burners always got their way, Grim would be out, but so would you, long ago due to copyright-gate. And why the hell would I Wah Keven, you clown... you're the one doing the waaaaahing <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:26 16 October 2008 (BST)</small><br />
:::::::::::::It's cos deep down (very deep, in some cases) we've all got a soft spot for ol' grimchy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:12, 15 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::And the winner of the Speak For Yourself award goes to.... --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 08:53, 15 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::Ooo! ooo! I'm a shoo in for this one! Pick me! Pick me! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:58, 15 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::Umm...Boxy? How is what Grim did similar to the Witch Burners? Our goal is to remove those who create mass amounts of drama on the wiki through vandalism, arby's, and other crap. We are the vigilantes that work where the sysops can't. Grim would have been a target of ours if we weren't so afraid of him banning us after labeling him a target. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 22:25, 15 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::Well, I was referring to the way Grim has become a targeted witch, actually, but he did use similar tactics, now you mention it <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:26 16 October 2008 (BST)</small><br />
::::::::::::::::The problem Grim saw with Kevan's veto power was that Kevan's refusal to participate in the wiki and the absence of the threat of the use of that power was in and of itself damaging to the wiki and led to a lot of the crap that annoys all of us. It wasn't that Kevan had veto power but that Kevan wasn't willing to give that power any weight. You'd probably know that if you ever spoke to Grim outside of arguments.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:24, 16 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::I did. Usually it was go back to an argument, mostly over stupid shit. Mentioning you like Star Wars would result in a vicious attack on why TIE Fighters can't make noise in space. I for one don't give a shit. Grim loved to create trouble over stupid shit. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 18:23, 16 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::That wasn't directed at you Sonny.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:54, 17 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::::::BUT GODDSDAMMIT TIE FIGHTERS CAN'T MAKE A NOISE IN SPACE!!!!!!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 18:28, 16 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::fcuk u tehy can 2!!1!!!1one! --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 18:30, 16 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::::::: obviously the whole star war universe takes place in a particle rich nebula that allows for both the transmission of sound and the really spectacular explosions...DUH! [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:07, 17 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Well at least we don't have Real Gamer ruling the wiki.Grim did make a joke about a coup earlier in 2008 around the time the the dead did their rampage I believe.And by the way, according to the History Channel,if you were in space,the Death Star firing and destroying a planet is as less loud than you clicking your computer's mouse.--[[User:Gamestriker4|Gamestriker4]] 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Coup Misconduct Resolution ==<br />
[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct#Resolution.2FFinal_Ruling| Resolution]] of the Misconduct case due to the coup, Just an FYI for official notification. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 16:27, 12 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== HP? ==<br />
Just stood up after a revive... Found myself at 20 instead of 30. another one of these unannounced changes? [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 21:07, 12 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:That would be a bug. Report it if it happens again. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 20:24, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like the NT scan tweak. Very classy. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:22, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Grammar ==<br />
<br />
You try to add some corrugated iron to the barricade, but can't find a place for them.<br />
<br />
"Them" should be "it", or "corrugated iron" should be plural, so maybe "corrugated iron rods".<br />
<br />
Hope this is in the right place, and I know you probably don't care that much about small gramatical errors but someone needs to point them out!<br />
<br />
Feel free to downsize the image..I would but I need to run! {{User:Lemonhead7t7/Sig}} 12:24, 15 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Grammar.JPG|left|thumb|100px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Grammatical Errors in Urban Dead]]. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:34, 15 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Update ==<br />
I don't do this much and am actually on the side of criticizing updates as too much for false problems but this recent update has been something that has been long in the waiting. Thank You, this might actually get me playing my characters again.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:37, 16 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'll go along with that. Admittedly I'm far more easily-pleased than Karek and never stopped actively playing, but still, thanks for a great update. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 02:27, 17 October 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
== Privacy Policy ==<br />
Hi kevan, is there any chance of a Privacy Policy being written up regarding players IP's and emails. --[[User:Thekooks|Kooks]] 18:58, 17 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[UDWiki:Privacy policy]] has been in the footer for a couple of years now. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 23:13, 17 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry I did not make it clear, I meant in regards to the game, not the wiki.--[[User:Thekooks|Kooks]] 10:39, 18 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Streetwalkin' cheetah with a heartful of napalm ==<br />
<br />
A ruffian headbutted me for 1 damage today, as a human. Is this a new addition or am I slow? I basically came here to ask, Kevan, how does one headbutt? Is it a random occurance that may happen instead of excecuting the punch command? Just curious. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 11:22, 18 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Heh. That would have been me, non? Headbutt works via ?actions, i simply installed a greasemonkey script that allows me to perform said action in harman form without using the ?action. Sometimes young ddr, the only way to fight fire is well, with fire ;) . --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:50, 18 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::That would be biting with a mask while alive I assume. 'cause you can bite while alive but, for 1 damage.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:49, 18 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Sounds like the shooting while a zombie cheat to me. That hasn't been fixed yet, has it? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 14:27 18 October 2008 (BST)</small><br />
::::That was fixed just before April 1 this year, I remember because Red Rums April Fools plans were ruined.--[[User:Thekooks|Kooks]] 17:06, 18 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::The only reason the shooting cheat got fixed was because enough people decided to whine about such a minor thing. No one really cares about this one and it's been known for a long long time. That being said the damage is reduced when trying to perform zombie actions while living, it's always punch damage and I think punch rates too.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:58, 18 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Nah no mask, just 1 damage.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:55, 18 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::I wish to lay claim to be the first person to be headbutted for 1 damage by a harman. Then I'll be positively famous. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 00:52, 19 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::You aren't. Unfortunately i'm not original, i got the script that allows me to do this off viktor, first person i know of who got headbutted was Fiffy i think, check with Anime, he'll know! --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:06, 19 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Take it to [[Talk:Actions via "question marks"]], thanks kids... no need to bother Kevan with this. Basically all these attacks work as a punch with different flavour: they're all 25% to hit, 1 damage. And you're very late to the party, I know I and others have been doing this for 6 months or more. Pretty much from around the time ActOnProfile came out. <tt>;)</tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 03:34, 19 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::And unlike shooting while a zombie...the damage able to be inflicted by this is minimal. I've been bitten by a harman before. It was hilarious. ;) --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 04:15, 19 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Aha! That sneaky gorilla's secret is revealed! At last the world makes sense again. --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 05:09, 19 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
/topic. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 06:31, 19 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== so wait... new map? whats for monroeville? ==<br />
<br />
2 questions....headshot on this map or?<br />
<br />
and monroeville is at 260 poeple so im kinda wondering if theres anything left for it....<br />
<br />
[[User:Kazypoo1|Kazypoo1]] 10:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
:First question, the first one to level 10'll find out. Question 2, get over it, there's been nothing there for ages...new city thyme :D --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Kazypoo1, Monroeville ''did'' die quite a while ago, in case you didn't notice... I thought it said 'permanent zombification' somewhere, and it only lasts a month, so I'm assuming its perma headshot. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 10:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
::No, headshot doesn't mean permadeath in Borehamwood. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 10:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hello Kevan, quick question: The stats page currently displays the Monroeville numbers as {{udspan|(1023 standing survivors, 707 standing zombies, 43896 accounts created)}}. I take it this is Borehamwood numbers mixing with the old of Monroeville. So will we get separate stats for Borehamwood? - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
:So. That's basically 950 survivors against 200 zombies at the moment? Still I liked getting the rage. It was fun. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Good point. Fixed. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 22:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
With the new locations such as railway line(s) and petrol station(s), what do they bring to the game? Is their any new weapons/items? --[[User:Alcatraz311|Alcatraz311]] 15:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Was this why the server went down last night by any chance? =P -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Publicity of Big Brother house location ==<br />
<br />
Greetings. I, amongst others, would like to know your opinion on publicity of the Big Brother house location on the wiki. Should it stay hidden or be revealed? --[[User:Duke Garland|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>]] [[User:Duke Garland/BHW|<nowiki>[</nowiki>]][[User talk:Duke Garland|talk]][[Signature Race|<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 13:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Unless Kevan comes out and says otherwise, this is no different than any other location in the game. Removing it is in no way different to a group of trenchies removing [[Giddings Mall]] from the map in case [[MOB]] comes to visit. Information is free. Censorship is bad.<br />
<br />
:This wiki is a game resource, not a vehicle for censorship so that certain players can increase their chances of winning a DVD.<br />
<br />
:Also this information has already been disseminated to public UD forums and is available through public iwitnesses. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Had this talk with the Big Man before, and he said he has no problem with it. Actually, he imagined its coordinates would have been posted in a matter of hours on the wiki, and also broadcasted through radio and stuff like that. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]]</sup> 13:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's up to players how much information they share or conceal; I don't mind either way, in this case. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 17:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wow... as if we don't get enough of the BB franchise on the idiot box, now we get huge BB eye's looking at us as we attack a mall in Malton? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:59 2 November 2008 (BST)</small><br />
:They'd only be there because someone chose to spraypaint them, but the graphic shouldn't have been showing up outside Borehamwood. This is now fixed. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 17:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::OK, thanks. I have a particular hatred of the bastardisation of the original "big brother" concept that involves housemates <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:56 3 November 2008 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
== Questions about your character ==<br />
<br />
I assume this UD ID is yours, correct, UD ID-11? Well, I'd like to welcome you to West Grayside, though I don't appreciate the eating of so many brains. Also, I don't appreciate the Ninja Zombie status you seem to give yourself. we all know the military covers up things, but covering up their own skills? I scanned your zombie, listed as pre-death class Military, but you lack any military skills! So is just a sick joke, or is it a bug? Picture of scan here:<br />
<br />
http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=classyw6.png<br />
<br />
Thanks for checking.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Damn, that's a pretty smart catch! Bub is pretty famous among organized zombie players, and most folks know him for not having any human skills, but I never knew he was a "military class" character, as I've never seen the "living" version of his profile.<br>I doubt its a bug; G. Romeroe's "Bub" character was military. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::How did he get Military without any skills? .......... Oh wait.... Mad haxors skill... :P --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Bweing god of Urban dead helped as well; being able to defy the laws of logic and the 4rth dimension and whatnot. Wait whats his human account?--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Mediawiki Update ==<br />
<br />
Hi, just wondering if there any chance of getting wiki software updated? The latest version is v1.13 and there are several useful new features, including: <br />
*Expiry dates on page protections<br />
*Finer control over permissions and permission assignment (e.g. Assigning the ability to remove only certain groups)<br />
*Ability to merge page histories<br />
*AJAX-based page watching and a bunch of usability improvements (User information when viewing a deleted revision, predefined deletion reasons, useful links in various places, etc.)<br />
It's not urgent or anything, but it would be nice if you could put it on your busy to-do list :D.--{{User:The General/sig}} 14:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:That sounds pretty cool. =) Can we get it for Christmas? Means you'd only have to get us one present between us this year, saving you quite a lot of money. =p -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 18:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Image undeletion is enabled by default as well-useful for when sysops accidentally delete a useful image {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Black Holes of Borehamwood==<br />
Evening. There's a couple of squares in [[Borehamwood]] that are seemingly unscoutable. Namely deep river sections. Can you confirm there's nothing mysterious and shiny hiding in the depths, islands and the like? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:I'd just like to also say thank you for the charcoal briquettes barricade message. Brought a smile to my face.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Amazing ==<br />
I'v always owndered for these 2 years; what in the hell DID amazing do anyways? What grim did is easy to see because of the publicity and recentism of it but what EXACTLY did amazing do?--[[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]] 04:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amount of characters in a broadcast ==<br />
I was wondering, Since I started the [[Galaxy News Radio]] i've found that the very small amount of characters you can use is at best, a thorn in my side, couldn't it be possible to make the transmission amount of characters the same as for speaking, it makes perfect sense really --[[User:An unlucky guy|Three Dog]] 21:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:If you want to make a suggestion for an in game feature, take it by [[Developing Suggestions]] and get some constructive criticism before putting it up for voting. Although as far as i'm aware the character cap exists to limit spamming of radio channels.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Actually it's probably more of a necessary thing like the 50 people limit in normal speak is. Radio can't share that limiter because that would eliminate it's whole purpose so the only other ways to limit it is to put an upper end on how much you can say per day per channel.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::It's a possibility, but since character limits (as far as i'm aware) predates the need for limiting talking to 50 it seems odd.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
Okie i'll take this to the development pages, thanks for the feed back though guys {{unsigned|An unlucky guy|11:00, November 23, 2008}}<br />
<br />
==Dead Set Competition== <br />
Can I assume that the prizes and all went off without a hitch so I can update the competition as a Past event? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Yes, the winners have been selected and contacted, and talking to the cameras in the diary room no longer has any effect. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 11:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Trade?==<br />
Sorry to bother you but I was wondering why survivors can't trade. This could lead to more eaisly avalible equipment, I think there would be a limit thou. Generators couldn't be traded etc. I think that it might help the humans in a bunch of Unbalanced claims. Players could not trade to same Ip address characters would stop cheating and it could lead to characters traveling round Malton selling there wares which would be fun to see. My regards it's a great game and I've got a bunch of my freinds playing now too. Thanks from me and them [[User:Athur birling]]<br />
:Heya. If you want to make a suggestion for an addition to the game you should go [[suggestions|here]]. In the meantime check out [[Frequently_Suggested#Giving_or_Trading_Items|this]] which explains why trading is generally seen as a bad idea. Anyway, welcome to the totally awesome UD wiki!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::The [http://www.urbandead.com/faq.html#trade FAQ] does hint at trading, but he also says it will take lots of thought. I imagine the coding would be nightmarish too. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::you know what link? you're alllllllllllllllllright.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 17:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks {{unsigned|Athur birling}}<br />
<br />
==Making a list? Checking it Twice?==<br />
<br />
We getting a chrimbo update? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Snow? ==<br />
<br />
Are you hiding it under your cap? Or NO SNOW FOR MALTON WINTER 08'? I miss mah flakie friends! --[[User:Sockpuppie|Jelly Otter]] 21:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:[http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a841/a841.gif Al Gore was right]. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I'd like to put in another vote for snow! I missed the fog this year at Halloween and the snow really added some nice flavour in my opinion. --[[User:Queen Mum|Queen Mum]] 00:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Need moar snow. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 04:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== what, no more newspapers? ==<br />
they don't seem to be showing up in hospitals anymore. got rid of them, eh? any chance of them coming back, i love smacking people with 'em! :) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:They should be somewhere else maybe? It was annoying with them in hospies. Luckily all ma guys have them already :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Still plenty of places to find [[newspapers]], guys. lrn2wiki. <tt>:P</tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::No, there are no more newspapers in Hospitals. I search them often, and not in ages have I found a newspaper therein. Update that wiki page? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 10:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Same here. Seems safe to update. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== I can't smash Xmas lights??? ==<br />
<br />
Those darned Whos! I hate them!! But seriously, the option to smash christmas lights in a ruined building is not available. This is blatant discrimination against zombie scrooges. I protest! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:My apologies. I figured it out. :) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Hi ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I'm a big fan. I finally found your talk page and I have a question, can you reinstall headshots in Monroeville as the humans think they can take down us zeds........--[[User:Jerrel Yokotory|Jerrel Yokotory]] 23:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Leaving nice messages for Kevan is fine, however we have a system for suggesting improvements. Please go to [[Developing_Suggestions|Developing Suggestions]] and suggest it there. --[[User:Thekooks|Kooks]] 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Character Deleted == <br />
<br />
I wanted to make sure that this [[Fixed_Bugs#Teleport_across_Malton_and_level_0_account||bug]] was fixed but it appears that it is not fixed. If you are on the edge of Malton and go to http:urbandead.com/map.cgi?v=100-99 it will mess up your character. I did this with my charachter Yark and now whenever I log in I can't perform any actions with him, and it seems his skills have been deleted: http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=815674 --[[User:Thekooks|Kooks]] 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No! Yark! =( -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Just replicated it by going from 0,99 to 0,100 in New Arkham with a random throwaway I just made: [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1442227 Testy McTesterson]. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 20:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I hate to say it, I killed mister <span class="stealthexternallink">[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=142058 password]</span>. After more poking, I have observed even more; Couple of AP and permadeath, I'm the first to go from Spicer Hills to Dakerstown instantly. I'll work out more details when my IP hits refresh, as I just used a proxy that I didn't much like. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 01:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::<nowiki>:</nowiki>'( --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::password will live on. (and probably be revivificated) Also, what about 100-100? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 05:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::[[:Image:Testy.jpg|We're alive!!]] =D We're level 0 and we've got a zombie chewing on us, but we're alive!! -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Fixed. I've dropped Yark into a random, secure building, and given the character 1000XP to get up and running again. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:The bug? Or Yark? password and Testy are level 0.. The bug was interesting, odd behaviour, but it would be nice if after a server reset you could be free to move again. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The bug. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 18:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Project Namespace ==<br />
<br />
we have few projects, yet i was wondering if it wouldn't be interesting to have them in their own namespace. Thus projects like [[The Great Mall Project]] and [[ALiM]] would be located in [[Project:The Great Mall Project]] and [[Project:ALiM]]. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 11:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I'm not sure if there's a way around it, but "Project" is a builtin alias for whatever the name of the wiki is (here it's "UDWiki"). e.g. [[Project:Administration]] is the same as [[UDWiki:Administration]]. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:: Darn, forgot about that. Maybe in the plural then, [[Projects:The Great Mall Project]] --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 15:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::That would just be confusing.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Just Plain Vanity ==<br />
<br />
Any chance of a {{Udspan|''' Dermot O'Leary was still alive and active one month into the Borehamwood quarantine.'''}} ? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== about the admin team ==<br />
<br />
how do you feel about the current sysop team of the wiki ? do you have any problems with how we run things ? --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 11:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:does he give a fuck? recent history would suggest probably not. Stop fishing for compliments hagnat. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:okay that came out a little harsh, but i don't see why you want to bring kevan into this other than for your own gratification. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Hedging much? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::It's pretty easy to predict what he's going to say. Why would he complain? You can't have nothing to do with your own games wiki then rock up and say 'i hate the way you people run it' and then disappear again. Unless he wants to get involved in the wiki again kevan ''can't'' say he has a problem with the way they run it. Although I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Easier than that, last time someone asked him to weigh in on promotions his response was that he basically didn't want his opinion brought into the matter. So No Comment is probably the best bet.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 01:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Me? I'm just the guy who provides the hosting, here - I'll step in if there are server issues, or if a rogue bureaucrat locks the wiki down, but everything else is up to the community. If I wanted to have a say in wiki policy, or who should and shouldn't be a sysop, I'd already be doing that. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::J3D 1, haggy, zerrro. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Hey, he gives a fuck about how the community is run. He just won't say how much or what he gives a fuck about. :D --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span></small> 02:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
I think Hagnat's concerned for his sysop status. I would be too if I was a ''trusted user'' that was acting against the wishes of the community. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Stop right there Iscariot! I am sick and tired of you constantly saying that every sysop on the team is going agaisnt the wishes of the community! Most of the community never has a problem with the current admin team, and when they do it's rarely a huge problem. Now you come on Kevan's page and still continue the bad mouthing. Just face it, no matter what you will never be pleased with the administration and so you will constantly have to pretend that the whole community is on your side so that you will feel right in your head.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::How many people are there playing the game? How many are on this wiki? Yes, some people don't have time to spend on anything other than playing the game, but how many people are putting hours a day into the meta game and ''still'' won't touch this wiki without an exceptional reason? And how many of those people have told you that the current administration team is one of the primary reasons? My total ''will'' beat yours. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::The wiki is an information source. Almost everything is explained in game when you encounter it (1st death, 1st Rez. etc.) So, not every one needs to touch the wiki or even use it as a resource. <br />
::::The wiki is the worst place to organize and meta-game. Just ask DHPD. When we were just Project:T.I.M.E. (well, before the Dead/DoDH) we were seriously outnumbered by them, but because they had all of their profiles linked on here and updated where they were going to be and who they were working with and so on we knew enough about them to take them out. The wiki shouldn't be for the meta-game it should be for information. That's why most groups of note have an off site forum to metagame. You can't blame the current staff because people have figured out that giving away too much information on their groups is bad thing.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::That has so little to do with what iscariot said.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Get it off Kevan's page. He doesn't need to be bothered with a dispute between users. Have it out on each others talk pages, or even mine, just don't start bringing it here. Okay?--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 01:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I know, I'm sorry. I just wanted to counter Iscariot's comment because I know exactly what he's trying to accomplish by posting that. I, unlike Iscariot, am done here now.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Much as I hate the way Iscariot is going about his crusade I have to say he does have a point. The sysop team probably does not represent the view of even a large minority of players and that explains why so few players contribute. Not that i think its all the Admin teams fault, but the rules they follow and enforce reflect a community that no longer exist. Most sysops were promoted long before most current players even heard of the game yet the tag "trusted user" is still attached to the title "SYSOP". Few current wiki users vouched for them and fewer still of the actual player base and yet they still cling to positions claiming that "popular" votes undermine the system! They are right that popularity does not mean competence but... Franky i find it a bit odd that sysops can claim the label "trusted user" and not be willing to allow the community to confirm that label. Look back to Conn's promotion bid, or Boxy's or Hagnats or even Kareks and even without checking i can say with confidence that at least half those that vouched are no longer active.... Now i personally '''Would''' vouch for them all but my point is that they were not voted in by the current community and the claims that they are trusted users wear very thin in light of the fact that they do not seem willing to trust the communities opinion on pretty much any issue!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::The sysop team doesn't have to represent the view of a large majority of players, it only has to represent the view of the wiki community. Whenever I play a browser game I don't always sign up to their forums/wiki/whatever they have. A large portion of users probably won't bother contributing to the wiki because so many other users already are. If I was to ask you, "what needs contributing to on the wiki?", I'm sure you probably won't have many answers. The only things of note are suggestions and suburb reports, and not everybody is interested in that (and the drama which comes with each of them). - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">02:26/16/01/2009</span>]]'''<br />
::::::I have a few, if you want a list feel free to pester me some time.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::I agree that the only bits of the wiki that interest most players are the Maps, suggestions and suburb reports (I include maps because i assumed you had forgotten them?) that said i do think that the system is set up to support the views of long time players (contributors) rather than the new players who are actually the lifeblood of the game. While obviously the wiki needs to pay some attention to long time editors like me,wan,cyberbob,ahlg,etc... i would think it would be far more important to promote the wiki to new uers. I still play (and i hope/assume that those named do too) and i would hope that everyone on the admin team does to but it has to be said that without change the game becomes dull and people leave. If the wiki and its admin team does not reflect the changing demographic of the game it is missing what is surely a fundemental point for its existence?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 02:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::I remembered the maps, but I did not include them because there is very little to nothing which a new user can contribute to (which is what I'm focusing on). I agree, we should encourage new users to join and contribute, however most of the other work is maintence which doesn't exactly draw the crowd. If you have an idea which would encourage new productive users to sign up then I'ld like to hear it. I'ld be more then happy to help flesh out any ideas you may have. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">02:50/16/01/2009</span>]]'''<br />
::::::::I think my wiki Urban Dead game could draw in some people to play. They could even make their own once I finish the template. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Autoconfirmed group ==<br />
<br />
Hi Kevan. Just want to ask a quick question. We've had a couple of policies about setting up an autoconfirmed group recently and I thought it might be a good idea to check in with you about it. Depending on the result of [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group Trial|this policy]] would you been willing to implement an autoconfirmed group on the wiki as a trial to see how we get on with it? -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 14:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:No problem. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks. =) -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 16:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Quick Questions ==<br />
Sorry to take up your time, but I'm just wandering what you think of the games on the Related Games page. (ie, Nexus War, Shartak, Outbreak, etc). Also on Shartak, Leaky Blocks (It's creator) said that you encouraged Shartak's developement and that you play shartak. Is that true?--[[User:Gamestriker4|Gamestriker4]] 15:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Shartak's the only spinoff I've played, and yes, Simon/Leaky is an old friend of mine. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Why no chainsaws ==<br />
<br />
:''content moved to [[User_talk:Jakezing|Jakezing talk page]]''<br />
<br />
== Updating the Wiki software, 2.0 ==<br />
<br />
The wiki software, as it stands, is two years old (ish, in the coming month.) As well as the obvious bugfixes and minor changes that can't be gone into detail here, 1.13.3 of MediaWiki has some useful new features that we could use:<br />
*Expiry dates on page protections<br />
*Finer control over permissions and permission assignment (e.g. Assigning the ability to remove only certain groups)<br />
*Ability to merge page histories<br />
*AJAX-based page watching and a bunch of usability improvements (User information when viewing a deleted revision, predefined deletion reasons, useful links in various places, etc.)<br />
*Image undeletion enabled by default<br />
*A prettier [[Special:Specialpages|list of special pages]] (compare to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SpecialPages Wikipedia's])<br />
<br />
There are heaps of other changes-you can look at the release notes linked [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/News here]. I know that updating the server will take some time, but it would be nice if you could add it to your busy schedule.<br />
<br />
<sub>I stole some of that list from [[User:The General|The General]] above</sub><br />
<br />
--{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Would this increase information between the server and peers= server load increase? {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 12:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestion_talk:20090129_Burglar_Alert&diff=1375769Suggestion talk:20090129 Burglar Alert2009-01-30T05:28:57Z<p>Liberty: Burglar Alert</p>
<hr />
<div>"Don't suggest tools for survivors to screw each other over. You're missing the point of the game."<br />
Well and what about PKing? Human vs human is pretty big part of this game.<br />
Also it's way milder than PKing. You would hardly die from this, only with very little AP left. It's just this mean bunch of surviors that want to save only themselves... such guys are visible in many survival horrors.<br />
<br />
"Shows you either can't read the suggestion advice provided, or don't even play the game."<br />
In fact I did read it, aside from playing the game.<br />
This I've also read. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Frequently_Suggested#Player_Killing<br />
"Kevan has stated that he does not intend to remove PKing from the game. It adds to the inherent "apocalyptic" nature of the game when one has to worry over whether the person in the corner of the building is going to axe you in your sleep, and zombie cannibalism is not unheard of in the film lore of the genre."<br />
<br />
So seriously, you don't like it one bit (which is perfectly fine) ... kill it FFS!<br />
<br />
"What's to stop someone changing their group to enter anywhere?"<br />
Well I can't change it anymore so I didn't answear in RE.<br />
It would demand puting actual groups system in place. Where it's not just a string of text (and all actual group is happening in some board outside of the game), but a group where joining isn't automatic and instant.<br />
But isn't it something that has to be done regardless?<br />
<br />
BTW<br />
Setting alarms on resource buildings in heavily contested burb wouldn't even be AP efficient for spies. Searching for one alarm would get you full load of weapons. If u place alarm on sleeping bystanders they tear it down from the inside for 1AP. If u PK them first you'll get a nasty suprise for some, but if someone really wants to get it - he'll lower the barricade to VSB ...<br />
<br />
It would actually work only in realatively empty places. Where there wouldn't be enough pissed off guys to destroy the barricade from the outside.<br />
--[[User:Peterus|Peterus]] 16:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:''I did in fact read it''. [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Category:Current_Suggestions&diff=1375077&oldid=1375062 Of course you did]. And the bit above in huge bold letters (which I put there myself) that says ''DO NOT POST THE ACTUAL SUGGESTION HERE. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS'' is completely invisible. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 16:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::RE I ment the guides to actual post. You didn't "spam" it becouse of formating error? And about that blopper, was fixing it when someone else came and did it before I saved it. And guessing from the size of these DO NOT POST THE ACTUAL SUGGESTION HERE. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS - it happened a lot. I believe it would be helpfull to add only to: ''Copy and paste the following code to the bottom of Current day's suggestions:(code)''. Sth like ''Copy and paste only this single line of code to the bottom of Current day's suggestions:(code)'' wouldn't be misleading. Right now it looks like format of header that has to be used. Obviously after moving to next points in the list I've find out that it was a misteak, but sb was faster than me.--[[User:Peterus|Peterus]] 17:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I didn't vote it down just because of the formatting error. Whenever there's a major error like that it usually suggests someone didn't read the instructions properly (if at all) and also ignored the guides completely. I also voted spam due to the utter retardedness and griefage that would come from it. Also: ''40 ppl inside it gets destroyed for 1AP at no time, by anyone inside'' that bit is Bullshit because it's not even in the suggestion. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Regarding groups...==<br />
<br />
You say that the suggestion would add ''"some additional meaning to groups"'', and that ''"It would demand puting actual groups system in place. Where it's not just a string of text"''.<br />
<br />
Being a member of a group isn't about wearing the group tag in game. Being in a group tends to mean you play the game with other members of your group. You hang out in the same area, or share info, or work together on events, etc. The group tag is just a way to signify to others what group you're in. This distinction is most clear in certain groups (most commonly PKer groups) that don't require their members to wear the group tag, and yet they're still a group. If changing your group tag let you enter a building that you otherwise couldn't get into, people would do so all the time, and the tag would be even more trivial. This suggestion would really only add meaning to groups ''if'' there were an actual group system in place in the game. You can't force Kevan to implement a group system, and your suggestion doesn't cover a change to the way groups work. You could certainly make a suggestion to change the way groups work in-game. Think about what you want the group system to be (like, should the group leaders have to approve new members in-game before they can join? How would your system work?). Figure out what you want to see there and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Developing_suggestions get feedback] on your idea. A change to the way groups work seems like it's a prerequisite for your Burglar Alert suggestion to work as intended. --{{User:Jasonjason/sig}} 17:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Burglar Alert ==<br />
<br />
Possibly the worst suggestion I have ever read. And that includes Blinding Other Players. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 05:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Sexylegsread&diff=1374905User talk:Sexylegsread2009-01-29T04:16:38Z<p>Liberty: Ugh</p>
<hr />
<div>{{User:Sexylegsread/nav}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
''All posts that were here, that now aren't here, can be found in the Archives.'' [[User:Sexylegsread/Archive2007|2007]] or [[User:Sexylegsread/Archive2008|2008]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== New Posts/Rules ==<br />
*New posts at the bottom of the page, use that little + button at the top of your screen. <br />
*Always sign your posts.<br />
*Remember that I enjoy wiki wars, so if you have a problem, please tell.<br />
*Refer to me as "Sir" or I will delete your posts. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*kidding, btw.<br />
<br />
== HEY ==<br />
<br />
COME ON MSN LOL--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 10:41, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Bobs Rant ==<br />
<br />
Before you go off decrying people as newfags, keep in mind that you actually don't know how long exactly they've been around for. I am actually in a better position to be calling you a newfag than the reverse, believe it or not. There are three reasons for this:<br />
#You display classic newfag behaviour - oh-so-rnadomlololololol circlejerk sessions with your fuckbuddies,<br />
#I've been around on 4chan since a couple of weeks after it first began; while I don't have concrete proof that you haven't been around for longer by your behaviour I'm happy in assuming you haven't, due to both the above and the fact that<br />
#You don't know the real origin of DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS; a fairly basic and well-known meme.<br />
<br />
kthxbai --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 16:56, 2 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:"I've been around on 4chan since a couple of weeks after it first began". That, right there, shows me that you are a butthurt newfag who needs to come to my user page to show the whole wiki community that you indeed are not a newfag, and that you are 4chan for life. Dude, I don't give a fuck when you started lurking, really. Just don't bring your /b/ shit to the UD wiki, it's not really humourous, and it makes me cringe whenever I see it. I do not need to prove how long I have lurked any imageboard, I can still state that what I think on this wiki, and I will continue to do so.<br />
<br />
:Oh, and in response to the "oh so rnadomlololol" comments, maybe you aren't the most successful troll on this wiki, eh bob?--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 17:02, 2 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::You have the nerve to try and play the "you're obviously insecure" card after being the one to bring up newfaggotry in the first place? Are you always this stupid, or do you save your special person moments for the internet? <s>I'm terribly interested in knowing.</s> --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 17:09, 2 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Claims of newfaggotry do not need to come from an oldfag. I am not an oldfag. I am 18 years old and I was not active online at the time of 4chans inception. I, personally, as well as many others who I frequently interact with believe that posting on other forums and wiki's as if you are on /b/ is an act that is somewhat similar to, if not entirely, newfaggotry. Don't get me wrong here, I don't question your length of time spent on /b/ or 4chan in general. I believe that even the oldest oldfag can be a newfag from time to time. The short of it is, leave /b/ talk for /b/, it's not supposed to be flaunted around in other forums/similar. <br />
<br />
:::Basically, I don't care what you do, or how you troll, be it funny or not, I cringe when I see people talk like they are on /b/ on this wiki, other forums, and IRL. Go about your business, and stop being so butthurt about my accusations. No doubt you will want the last word on this, if it is worthwhile, I will continue this conversation with you, but otherwise, good day.<br />
<br />
:::Sorry for the late reply, I have my HSC in two and a bit weeks, therefore distracted.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 17:33, 2 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::A few things.<br />
::::*I am also 18, and have VCE coming up.<br />
::::*I agree (shock horror!) with where you're coming from WRT people trying too hard by using chanspeak. Where we differ is that my signature is not intended to actually be "chanspeak" - I first encountered the quote on bash and thus in my mind it has always been a bash type of thing.<br />
::::--[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 17:40, 2 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::Good luck with your exams dude, despite all the raging tonight/this morning, exams fucking suck. Thankyou mini-wiki-wars for making me feel like I am spending constructive time at my computer.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 17:48, 2 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::That's the second thing we can agree on. ^_^ --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 17:50, 2 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::::He's 18? God! Why do people keep telling me he's 12! Now I won't feel so strange when I suggestively attempt to meet Bob in real life. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 06:52, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::IRL* --{{User:Nallan/sig}} 07:13, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
GTFO MY TALK PAGE OMG--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 15:53, 9 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== sandpit ==<br />
<br />
Its' my subtle plot to make a historical archive of the grim explosion and get it voted as historical. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 10:14, 10 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:i will vote it keep into oblivion. Also, I have a screenshot that will make you fucking rage harder than you ever have before.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:05, 10 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Sigsig ==<br />
<br />
This is just temporary, like an april fools day sig, except in october :) so the old one will be back soon. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 06:03, 20 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like dis one, it's cute, like you x) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:16, 20 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::Aww you... {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 06:26, 20 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== userpage ==<br />
Ya, well I don't like it much so if I ditch it for something better in the near future I'll tell you {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 00:01, 22 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== hai ==<br />
<br />
[[DanceDanceRevolution]] ya its a cool link. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 00:20, 24 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah saw that, was gonna save it but didn't think you'd care if it went. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:29, 24 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Warning==<br />
{{Warning2|spam admin pages with large images on}} <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 08:48 24 October 2008 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
== Stop ==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Stop_hand.png|left|35px]]Please do not internet on this wiki. Continuing this behaviour ''may possibly'' lead to ''some kind of "off the record"'' soft warning. Maybe.<br />
<small>--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 09:29, 24 October 2008 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
<br />
===Templated===<br />
<br />
<nowiki>{{SoftWarning}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
{{SoftWarning}}{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 13:37, 24 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Banned===<br />
You have been banned from editing this wiki for 24hrs for carrying on disagreements on the main admin pages. <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:46 26 October 2008 (BST)</small> 03:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[A/D]]==<br />
Regarding your vote on several user redirect pages i have separated the case into individual cases, if you feel so inclined please recast your vote on each page relevant to how you feel about that particular redirect being kept on the wiki. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Re:<big><big><big><big>CUNT</big></big></big></big> ==<br />
<br />
lal.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 23:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
:more like untcay. fucking lads on my usbay speaking pig latin, it really shouldn't be a language...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== nationstates update ==<br />
<br />
2 is here. i wont zerg it this time {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== RE: p--==hey ==<br />
<br />
Yeah it was good. We woke up at 5am and put a movie on, then fell asleep and woke up at 10. lel. hahaha when those dudes started dancing I was lolling hard. It was pretty weird that that just started up. I felt embarrassed for them.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 01:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=={{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)==<br />
come back you fucking nigger.-<nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki><br />
<br />
==Go vote==<br />
On the ALiM awards that i unanimously decided required it. Voting will be Me, Nallan, Read, Ross and anyone i deem sufficiently alim to vote who rolls up in the near future.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== hai ==<br />
<br />
update your user page, and check this [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_03#User:NIGGERS_MALONE|lol]], a/vb archives are classic. Shame the histories don't work though. Also, are you at fingallol?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ugh ==<br />
<br />
Why does your signature hurt so much? {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/2011_06&diff=1374901UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/2011 062009-01-29T04:10:44Z<p>Liberty: /* Grayside Civil War */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Shortcut|[[A/D]]}}<br />
<br />
{{Moderationnav}}<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style="margin-bottom: .5em; float: right; padding: .5em 0 .8em 1.4em; width: 33%"<br />
|__TOC__<br />
|}<br />
<br />
This page is for the request of page deletions within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to concerns about loss of data, the ability to delete pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request a deletion from the system operators. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here.<br />
<br />
==Guidelines for Deletion Requests==<br />
<br />
All Deletion Requests '''must''' contain the following information in order to be considered:<br />
<br />
* '''A link to the page in question.''' Preferably bolded for visibility. Note that Category and Image links need a colon at the front to turn them into links (ie <code><nowiki>[[:Category:Category]]</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>[[:Image:Image.jpg]]</nowiki></code>).<br />
* '''A reason for deletion.''' This should be short and to the point.<br />
* '''A signed datestamp.''' This can be easily done by adding <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to the end of your request.<br />
<br />
In addition to placing a request on this page, please place the '''''<nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>''''' tag on the top of the page that is being recommended for deletion. Please make sure that the original content remains on the page, so that others can judge whether the page is worthy of deletion.<br />
<br />
Any deletion request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.<br />
<br />
Once the deletion request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be voted on for a period of two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. At the conclusion of this two weeks, the appropriate action will be taken by a system operator, and at the end of that day the request will be moved into the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive|Archive]].<br />
<br />
Certain types of pages may be better being scheduled for deletion in order to reduce the amount of red tape and stop this page getting too cluttered. To lodge a request for scheduled deletions, head for [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling]].<br />
<br />
Deletion of pages that match a certain criteria may be better serviced by a request for a Speedy Deletion. Speedy Deletions are for removal of pages that are clearly of no value to the wiki, and do not incur the two week voting requirement. Speedy Deletion requests can be lodged at [[UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions]].<br />
<br />
{{speedydeletioncriteria}}<br />
<br />
==Guidelines for Voting on Deletion Requests==<br />
<br />
* One vote per user.<br />
* Voting should take place underneath the request, and each vote should be started with a {{CodeInline|#}} with no empty lines inbetween votes.<br />
* There are four vote types:<br />
** '''Delete'''. For agreement with the deletion request<br />
** '''Merge'''. For indication that the content on the page should be merged with another page (includes an implicit '''Delete''').<br />
** '''Speedy Delete'''. For indication that the page meets one of the [[UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions|Speedy Deletions]] Criteria (includes an implicit '''Delete''').<br />
** '''Keep'''. For disagreement with the deletion request.<br />
<br />
* The specific vote keyword should be bolded within the lodged vote. Any relevant comments are also allowed, but these should not be bolded.<br />
* At least one '''Delete''' vote must be entered by the deadline in order for a page to be deleted. System operators may not use their own vote after the deadline to delete a page.<br />
* If more '''Delete''' votes are entered than '''Keep''' votes, the page will be deleted. In any other circumstance, the page is kept.<br />
* If 3 '''Speedy Delete'''s are lodged, and there are no '''Keep''' Votes, the page will be deleted as per [[UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions|Speedy Deletions]].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Deletion Queue==<br />
===[[Grayside Civil War]]===<br />
A pointless page about a non-event which provides not a whit of useful, informative, factual or even ''entertaining'' information. It doesn't approach anywhere near NPOV: it's just a collage of POV rants which don't even make sense. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
#'''Delete''' - Has no "potential". Except for spastics to make drama amongst each other. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]]<br />
#'''Delete''' - See above, excluding the "spastics" --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:"Except for to make drama amongst each other." sounds stupid though. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Doesn't really matter in this case I guess. --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' to avoid further drama concerning it. Replace "spastics" with "people" then to avoid illogical fallacy. My brain hurts :/ --[[User:Ryzak Black|Ryzak Black]] 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Wow. {{User:Met fan/sig}} 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Dammit Wan, you beat me to it! {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' post-haste. Saying "opinion" is not a way to make POV okay on a public page. {{User:Blackboard/sig}} 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - It seems to be an active page and maybe with more work it won't suck so hard. Is there anyway we can move it to a group or user subpage?--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:ScouterTX_and_User:Ryzak_Black You should lurk more]--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Um, what the hell did that prove? I have read that before and I merely agree that is should be moved to the group namespace.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - about 3 people will care when this goes. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 04:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[:Image:Cyberfag and rackoon.jpg]]===<br />
Speaking of attack images... I just noticed this little gem. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:You just noticed? [[User_talk:J3D/Archive3#Misconduct|Oh really?]] --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
#'''Delete''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - lol. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Yeah, figured you might swing that way. Good to see that skim of sophistication you've been so desperately trying to build up since your demotion is indeed a sham after all. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::lol?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:[[User_talk:J3D/Archive3#Misconduct|Proof Bob knew about this image 3 months ago.]]--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Wow. Also, its been up for [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread&diff=1304107&oldid=1302082 months] and you just noticed, haha [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:I'm not really that interested in keeping tabs on people. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::What the fucks that even mean? You had obviously already seen it because you commented on it months ago.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Yeah, i'd say [[User_talk:J3D/Archive3#Misconduct|you are interested in keeping tabs on people, or just lying :P]] --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Any similarities between my comment and one that might be directed at the image are purely coincidental. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Ahhh Clever ;) {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 12:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Oh so you were just talking shit, kkk.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Why? This is about as blatant as it gets, and I see you voted delete on the other attack image below. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Agenda... it's all agendas... ... ... **shakes it off** sorry, must have been channeling J3D there for a second <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 07:33 20 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#::::haha, shush you. But if you look i think you'll find it's read who says agenda, although i might have said it once or twice.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::Didn't he mean he was channeling ''your'' agenda?? {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 12:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::Nah, read always claims everything boxy does is furthering his agenda. Basically everytime boxy calls vandalism on something i've done that clearly isn't vandalism read calls agenda. Some call it paranoia, most call it being realistic. Anyhoo you weren't really expected to understand the reference :P --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::::'''Jed: ''"Some'' call it paranoia, ''most'' call it being realistic."'''<br />
#:::::::lol --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::::i am pretty awesome.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' -- Really?--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:What do you mean? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - Obvious attack image. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">02:37/19/01/2009</span>]]'''<br />
#'''Delete''' - While better made than the TZH one, it still implies that Cyberbob is into the "cyber-sex" thing, and he still won't accept my offers. Also, cocks, read the page a bit more: "Voting should take place underneath the request, and each vote should be started with a # with no empty lines inbetween votes". Jesus, how do you people confuse this stuffs? :/ --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - *sigh* Not porn and in use. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Meh. It's an attack image and I voted delete on the other one. This one's a lot better made, but still delete. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As SA. It's not as bad as the TZH one, but it does nothing but attack a user. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:...although it should be stated that images that attack a user or group are quite common around here. However, these last few (this and the Amber Waves one,) are basically just YOU SUCK lololololol, and have no merit whatsoever. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 12:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I disagree with that, i mean its no awesome satire but its not just you suck, it doesn't actually say that anywhere. It's just the way it's interpreted. It even includes a pun as well as rampant characterisation, not too bad for an MSpaint job.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Crap. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 07:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - ''any similarities to anybody in real life or on wiki are purely coincidental'' Yeah, right. Delete, just like the Amber one. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 08:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''delete''' wavering but clearly has no purpose but to attack Bob + it's crap! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 08:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:And Woot, although it might be hard to spot. I actually slightly enjoy this image but since me and read live together and he's stuck it on the fridge i can see it anytime i want.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::EDIT: if Someone provides the link Read refers to which explicitly shows Bob was aware of this months ago then feel free to change my vote... then again, its been there that long that the joke is stale and you 2 should at least come up with something a bit better. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Firstly, why does it make a difference? Secondly, I like the implication that if the insult was a clever one you would vote Keep. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 15:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::first, It makes a difference in that if true you didn't care then so I have to wonder why you do now? Second, the implication should be that if it was a funny and harmless insult then yes, I would be fine with it... Insulting folk with words isn't banned here so why should it be with pictures? I will vote against a good many extreme variations on such themes but such cartoons have been an accepted (and valued) form of criticism for millenia in the real world and certainly since the start of this wiki. This particular one falls on the wrong side of funny/clever for my tastes and so does the one below... just not far enough below for me to have real strong feelings on.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::[[User_talk:J3D/Archive3#Misconduct|thar you go]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::You guys live together (in after buttsecks)? What happened to "no srsly we live in liek totally different states yo"? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 15:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::I was utilising sarcasm lol, sorry 4 teh confushun.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Link shows Bob knew about it so it his "just noticed" thing is a bit disingenuous but at the end of the day it is clearly an image designed to attack him and if he has since decided that he wants it gone then its clearly valid to ask for its removal. As for should it be, I really don't care either way anymore.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''delete''' - nowhere near as offensive as the amber waves one, it's borderline. but as honestmistake, yeah, it's pointless garbage that i can't even define as "art" -- as much as i'd like to. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Basically, I am not against images attacking or satirising users/players, per se. If it has some degree of "artistic merit" so to speak, and/or clear satirical acumen, i.e. it's actually funny, then I'd probably keep it. But if it's basically just "YOU'RE FAT AND GAI AND YOU FUXXX GOATS!!!elven!" then get rid of it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Actually, "YOU'RE FAT AND GAI AND YOU FUXXX GOATS!!!elven!" is funnier than any of these attack ads. Which is, like, my point. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' Stfu Wan, Bob and any of you other self-righteous cunts. Wan, you dont need to make 6 million edits and timestamp them all to give your shitty opinion, and opinion that doesn't even matter beyond your initial keep or delete, about a paint drawing that bob noticed months ago (if you skim through the edit wars at the time, he commends me on my "mspaint skills bro". Also, any of you who think it is a serious attempt at art need to take a long hard look at yourselves. It is nothing but an expression of opinion.....of cyberfag and rackoon. In conclusion, Wan, I come in to contact with you like once a month. And each time you are a total faggot and I hate you more. You do not need to make 1mil edits to a vote on the deletions page. Nobody gives two shits.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:It's a pointless attack. The only reason it has for being on the wiki is to create drama.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 16:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Obviously....--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Get a life, cretin. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Deary me. Michael, it is clearly an attack that has no place on the wiki, unless you enjoy creating drama. Drama = Bad, m'kay?--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::I think it is pretty obvious that I like drama.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 03:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 12:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Pointless attack. I voted delete on the other, so it's fair to vote the same here.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - I voted delete on the other image. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - cyberbob whining because of an attack image ? sudden change of roles in here --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:When have I ever made an attack image, you hopeless shit? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::This has produced everything I wanted + more.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As Drawde --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 18:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' and cry about it on your own time. {{User:Blackboard/sig}} 20:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - If the thing was clever I might vote keep. As is it's pointless and kinda sad. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 15:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:I am curious to know, do you people really believe I intended to make it look anything more than a quick piece of shit drawing on mspaint? It was created during an edit war and I haven't cared enough about my user page to edit it in a couple of months now. It is more sad that you judge the quality of an obvious attempt at being deliberately shit, and use it as some sort of insult. Ffs seriously your all fucking gay--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::<nowiki>*</nowiki>you're. lal. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I am curious to know, do you people actually try to understand what your talking about before failing miserably? Lawl cawks amarite? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::"Do you people". Also, you aren't too good at arguments are you Karek? You basically just said NO U but you dressed it up a little. Fail.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 13:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::You're really bad at recognizing patterns and similarities. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 14:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::lol, k then.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Töten Sie es mit ein wohnwagon!!''' - Für große Gerechtigkeit! -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 16:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:For those of us who can't speak German - {{CodeInline|'''Kill it also wohnwagon!!''' - For large justice}}-damn Bablefish doesn't know what wohnwagon means, although google says it's "living wagon" :/. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::'For those of you who can't speak German, neither can I, but I'll give you an equally confusing sentence, to remember instead of the original German one'. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 11:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::"mit" likely means "with". "whonwagon" is still a bit of a mystery. A more sensible translation might be {{CodeInline|'''Kill it with whonwagon!!''' - For great justice}}.--{{User:The General/sig}} 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Pretty sure he spelled wohnwagen wrong. And I'm pretty sure he was meaning something along the lines of "Killing it with a bandwagon", or something to that effect. I don't know, I'm still tired.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::That would make sense, and it would be why a dictionary wouldn't understand it ("bandwagon" isn't exactly standard vocab anyway).--{{User:The General/sig}} 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::If I'm remembering my Standard Grade German properly, wohnwagen is actually supposed to be Caravan. Might have spelt it wrong though. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::Nope. I am right. =D Wohnwagen run by itself through babelfish comes back as Camper which is pretty much a caravan. So it actually says: Kill it with a Caravan!! -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::Well, if you were going for caravan, then alright, you had it right. But I figured you were using it as another way to say bandwagon, or a similar meaning. Killing something with a caravan doesn't seem to make sense here. Also, you still spelt wohnwagen wrong. You gave it an o instead of an e. :P --<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete'''-Not because it's an attack page but because it's stupid and crap.--{{User:The General/sig}} 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - lol --[[User:Shakey60|Shakey]] <sup>[[Beatbox_Kids|BBK]] </sup> 11:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:You are a valued member of this community. Thank you for your ongoing contribution. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 11:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::In short: ''Thank you for your input.'' --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 20:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Recent Actions==<br />
<br />
=== Umbrella Zerg ===<br />
[[Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service/Umbrella/Zerg]]<br />
<br />
This contributes nothing more then malicious text. I wouldn't know the exact policy or guideline but this does not belong on the wiki.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC) <br />
:<small>[[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Deletions#Umbrella_Zerg_Discussion|Extraneous discussion moved to talk page]] -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</small><br />
<br />
#'''Keep''' - Interesting.--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#<s>'''Delete''' - Little more than a barely concealed attempt to provoke the other side to edit the page and get taken to [[A/VB]] -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</s> '''Keep''' - Meh. The other guys have done the same. Let them have it. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:<small>[[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Deletions#Cheese.27s_vote_discussion|Extraneous discussion moved to talk page]] -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</small><br />
#'''Keep''' - Viable info. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete'''--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Jackson threatened to put up zerg-related info about UBCS first anyway.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#<s>'''Keep''' - Umbrella threatened to do the same. I also don't buy into this whole "page created only to provoke the other side into vandalizing it" conspiracy.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
#:'''Delete''' - Now that the other page is gone, I say that this one gets deleted as well to avoid future fighting between the Umbrellas.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group subpage, they can say what they want in it. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group subpage --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group subpage, It's their property.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#<s>'''Keep''' - but only just. It's a group subpage, but it is bordering on trolling to make A/VB cases. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
#:'''Delete''' - As Argo. Move it off-site if you want the data kept. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' -This is a group sub page, you can write whatever you want about other groups on your own group pages and they can do nothing to stop you short of arbitration. The A/VB case in question was simple and ruled incorrectly, flame/A/VB bait or not, this group is entitled to have this page and deserves the protection afforded to all other group pages. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - or we'd have to get rid of classic pages like [[User:DanceDanceRevolution/Fenis|this one]].--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Kay, I get how this works. Will put a similar page up by tomorrow, no worries.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Kthzbye. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Done. Jackson's old report back up. Long live the freedom of speech.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::When will you understand that my report is an actual report, while yours is just circumstantial evidence and personal assaults with fake ass chats and shopped shots. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' Our page, our space. --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete'''That proves that it was created by the UBCS to discredit and to be used as a weapon against umbrella! I hope you know Lithedarkangel's comment will be exploited as the defence!--[[User:Beau Dece|Beau Dece]] 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#: Then Haliman's vote also shows the same... >_> --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:: More to use! This can be handy for my STARS problem! {{Unsigned|Beau Dece}}<br />
#::: Beau, the creator has a right to vote on this page. --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#<s>'''Keep''' - Its obvious that it is a POV page and does not violate any terms, though it may be full of half-truths it should be respected like OUR PAGES should be respected in the same way.</s> If Haliman can sport his page of half-truths then Umbrella Corporation should be able to display a page full of facts created by Haliman himself.--{{User:Jackson/Sig}} 01:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:'''DELETE''' - No viable "keep" option granted to for the Umbrella Report.--{{User:Jackson/Sig}} 23:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - it's in the groupspace, it's relevant information, even if the level of "proof" leaves a lot to be desired <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:14 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#'''Keep''' - POV, unfortunately. --[[User:Skouth|Skouth]] 06:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Redundant Keep is Redundant''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep'''. It's in their groupspace; it's part of their raison d'etre, not just random drivel. They're allowed POV. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group Subpage, POV. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group subpage. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 16:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Kepp''' - I'm starting to enjoy the talk page it has where i can post proof of his team zerging --[[User:Colonel Krauser|Colonel Krauser]] 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' I hate both these fucking groups.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Propaganda is acceptable. However, you wankers need to grow the fuck up. All of you. FAST. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As a firm loyalist to Umbrella, I believe it's too much drivel. [[User:Nemesis645|Nemesis645]] 08:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:As a Republican (in the English Civil War / French Revolutionary sense of the word) firmly on the side of the United Anti-drivel Front, I think both your groups need to grow up and get lives. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::That should mean a lot when it comes from you!--{{User:Jackson/Sig}} 02:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - It's nothing more than group propaganda, offensive or not, true or not.[[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Group subpage. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
Kept. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 04:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Old Protection Archive===<br />
<br />
Requesting deletion for the following pages, as they no longer have use (a new protection archive was created)<br />
<br />
* [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive]]<br />
* [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive2005]]<br />
* [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive2006]]<br />
* [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive2007]]<br />
* [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive2008]]<br />
<br />
Any links to these pages should be changed to their new locations, whenever possible. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Delete''' - Two weeks is more then enough time to sort out the archives (hence why it's not a speedy.) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
**Hmm... on second thought, a lot of pages link to those pages, a lot (naturally,) protected. Why not just leave them as a disambiguation? {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - The new system sucks and will be scrapped for a modified version of the old system which currently has more functionality. Any protect page with {{tl|Protect}} will show you as much. There should have been discussion on this before the change was done.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - New, bad. Old, good. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep'''; having redundant systems can't hurt. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - as above. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Kept for the above mostly good reasons. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
===[[:Image:Amberwaves.jpeg]]===<br />
Crit 2 I guess. All in all, just another rather pathetic attempt by the TZH to trump someone they don't like.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <br />
:Not deleted. Image is in use. --– TANK! Nubis 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <br />
<br />
<sub>From [[UDWiki:Administration/Speedy_Deletions#Image:Amberwaves.jpeg|A/SD]].</sub><br />
<br />
#'''Delete''' - Because I wanted to sign. At the top. Because I'm cool.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As Suicidalangel. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Because I don't have to give a reason, hmmmm, I wonder if we can meatpuppet through everything of TZH while we're at it? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Why should we meatpuppet? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Meatpuppeting is the use of many users that have the same opinion to force through something that would not normally pass a vote if it was not the subject of their group opinion. It should not be confused with sockpuppetry where one or few users create multiple 'sock puppet' alts to subvert the community consensus. Sockpuppeting is illegal on this wiki, meatpuppeting is not. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::I see. What I don't understand is, are we ''meatpuppetting'' now? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 18:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Baleet''' - Yup. Meatpuppeting is awesome. Especially when you're running for sysop and users from Brainstock who never use the wiki are told to go on and vote against you en masse. That's awesome. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As SA, and especially Iscariot! {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As Iscariot. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' unless you argue its a scheduled deletion under 22 July 2008 vote. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:'''No, it isn't scheduled.''' Attack images and pages were both up for votes and only pages passed. Images didn't get enough votes.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Ew. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Insta-remove''' - Thats a personal attack image--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - No speedy crit, unfortunately. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' Not porn, not copyrighted, and in use. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Worthless shite. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Töten Sie es mit Feuer!!''' - Für große Gerechtigkeit! -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Sie sprechen deutsch?--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 23:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Or for those of us who can't speak German; {{CodeInline|Kill it with fire!! - For large justice}}. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Große in this context means great. =p -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Großartig can also mean great. Haven't seen it used like that in a while though.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - has potential... but meh, i dont see a chance of this image being kept after this round of ''delete''s --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Potential? For what? To waste space and attack another user? Haggie, are you telling us that you whole-heartedly support the use of attack images? Okay everyone, flood the wiki with useless images! :)...:/ If they want to use these images, they should host them at an external image hosting site, then link to it. Stupid shit like this doesn't need to take up space on the wiki.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Precedent says attack images when posted on group space aren't deleted. If you want to talk about useless things on the wiki I would say more than half the templates (especially ones like the mess you have on your page) should be deleted. And as for your idea that an image should be on more than one page to be "in use" is ridiculous. Are you going to put Image:Engel.jpg up for deletion? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::Precedent isn't law. Just thought I'd remind you that. Now, onto the rest of it. First, it's on his own talk page, not a group whatsoever. Sure, it's his space, but hell, that doesn't mean its completely exempt from being brought into a more respectable form. And if you feel those templates should be deleted, then put them up for it. I didn't make many, if any at all, of the templates, it doesn't concern me much. And as for your whole "user pic on one page" thing, there's a difference. User pictures are generally exempt from image deletion unless by author request, or its no longer in use. That, and the fact that an image representation of a users character normally ''doesn't attack another user in such a poor and shitty manner''. But whatever. Attack images are a-okay, right Nubis? And I guess I ''should'' start a frivolous deletions case that I'm just going to vote keep on, because apparently I ''should'' think an image representation of one of my characters, just because it's only used in one place, should also be treated like an attack image that's only used in one place, huh?. Also, Hags, I figured the potential bit was just a joke. But just because you're guilty of a crime once, doesn't mean you should let it happen later, nor should you let more of a crime happen just because your ''friends'' get away with it. That's not how you should be doing your job. You should know that.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::You should stop foaming at the mouth for a moment and think about this. This is a game based on rivalry. Zeds VS Humans. PKers VS Everyone, etc. You are going to have "My team RULZ UR team SUX" type of propaganda everywhere. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much fun if everyone got along in a big old love in. So, yes, I do think "attack images" that aren't porn are ok. It isn't like the image says "This is Amberwaves and he lives at 123 Fake St." It isn't even a real picture of that user. It isn't being spammed on that Amber's page or groups that Amber belongs to. It is one fucking image in an old post of a goddamn talk page. I am sick of people (that aren't even involved) trying to dictate what the moral standards of the wiki should be. Attack PAGES are deleted. Attack IMAGES are not. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::Foaming? Not yet. :). Honestly, I understand what you're saying. Sure, it's not porn. Sure, he's not spamming it. But the thing is, it's still , as you even said, and old ass image in an old ass talk page comment, that won't ever be used again (unless it's by someone who has seen this case, as it'll probably remind people about it. Not like anyone would use it then anyway). I will reiterate my point. Its an old, USELESS image, that Dhavid Grohl probably doesn't remember he even uploaded. And I wasn't trying to dictate the moral standards of the wiki from the start. I wanted an old useless barely used image gone. I'm not calling for a scouring of the wiki for all attack images. I'm not even saying I don't want them on here at all. But for the ones that aren't going to ever get any real use, or even remebered months later, then hell, just put it on Imageshack. Quit wasting our space. Thats not asking for much right?--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::It is being used and it is part of his page's history. If he comes along and archives his page and removes the image then eventually it will be deleted as unused. But until then for whatever reason he has chosen to have that image on there and we should not remove an image that isn't porn and is still in use. He is still active on the wiki, too. Your argument that it is old doesn't work because we keep old images (check out any historical page or archived page). Your argument that it isn't in use is clearly wrong. And letting "you" decide what images are appropriate goes against the voted policy that says '''sysops''' are responsible for removing images. Not to mention, we have tons of images that are on here that should be hosted off site or deleted for violating copyrights. And you can't change your song saying you weren't against Attack images. That's not going to work. Also how many times have I heard disk space = cheap. Stop grasping at straws.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::::First, I will quote myself in one of my earlier comments here, and on speedy deletions. "Stupid shit like this doesn't need to take up space on the wiki" "Waste of bandwidth". Not to mention the many times I've said something along the lines of wasting space from the start. Its hard to "change my song" when I've followed it through from the start. And yet again, you're trying to make it look like I said something different than what I said. Not once did I say I was against attack images. I said these hardly used ones that are just wasting away could easily go, but I never called for a removal of all hate images. And who says I'm deciding what goes on the wiki? I simply thought of what a large portion of the wiki users would vote like, and put it up for speedy. And when it was brought here, look at that. Many of them agree with me. Huh. I guess I was right in thinking that the community would find the image to be shit. Doesn't mean I think I should decide whats on here or not, or that I'm trying to do that. One image maybe, but not the entire wiki. I'm not trying to portray myself as a voice of the community like Iscariot seems to here and there. I'm not trying to dictate the wiki's happenings a-la Grim. Quit trying to paint me like that.<br />
#:::::::Also, the whole disk space=cheap? Who cares if its cheap or not. Doesn't mean I want to waste it. And inb4you saying a bunch of my shit is wasting space, I don't feel it does. And if you do, then put it up for deletions. Even if its in my user space, as it's been proven before that the user space isn't sacrosanct. I'm not sure if I replied to each of your points, but I'm tired. If I missed something, let me know, and I'll try to hit it back.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::::I don't know if there's much point to this large discussion but, to clarify; Attack images have been deleted in the past. One relating to Amazing, and one very similar one relating to Finis Valorum. The only real question, aside from if she actually wants it deleted, is if this qualifies as something akin to that as opposed to the Marty images. It's kinda dumb but doesn't cross the line into invasion of privacy that is usually used as the standard for deletion request for attack images. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 03:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::::::Even Marty (bless his thick skull) realized that the images were a parody. Of course, the Marty images are works of art as the Goons are professionals (unlike TZH).--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::::::PMSL...the goon ''are'' TZH... the only difference is that they're zombie arseholes, and they have a numerical advantage :P <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 14:23 10 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#::::::::: Amazing was a prick, and the attack images were made with his "''copyrighted material''". It was easier to delete the image than to get him to shut up about it. And finis image was deleted because it featured a RL-photo of him. And Honest, you claim this image is a huge waste of BW, but this discussion prolly a) drew more attention to the image than it normally would b) created more BW usage than the image alone ever consumed. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 16:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::::::::A)I know. It can't be helped that Nubis didn't think it should be deleted, he has his opinions, I have mine. Oh well, right? B) Again, not exactly something we can change. But I still think the image is a useless waste of space. And C) I'm not Honestmistake, please don't tell me you confused me with him, he hasn't even said anything here!--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::::::::I have now.... Still not getting involved though as I don't want to get dragged in. For the record I do lean towards deletion but keep changing my mind. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 08:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:: I dont approve attacking other users, but i am not going to bar them from a crime i and several friends of mine were guilty of in the past (and some of them in the present). BTW, this image is not copyrighted by the user being attacked (heh), nor is it used elsewhere in the wiki besides the talk page of the user who uploaded this image. Its his right to express his hatred for a group or user in his own user page. If any user take this serious, its their fault. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 13:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::: and the "''has potential''" bit on my vote is just a lil joke on one of the below cases :P --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 13:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::What about the 'Saromu is gay Devil' template? It was scheduled deleted..(attack against a user, no swearing). --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Personal attack. --[[User:KyleStyle|KyleStyle]] 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Crap. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - it's on a user:talk page; it's free expression. If you don't like it, don't visit the talk page. Plain and simple. Is it pretty? No. Is it tasteful? No. You're right; it's crap (albeit with gobs of potential). But if we just start haphazardly deleting things we don't like, this wiki is going to turn to bland shit. Wait... unless we start with the DEM. Can we delete the DEM??? --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Oh Lord, don't tell me you've all gotten this petty. The image is SIX MONTHS OLD. If it has offended anyone, the damage has long been done. I feel the whole deletion request only exists to piss off TZH.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:I have no dealings whatsoever with the TZH, I just happened to notice it while checking out some of their stuff. Just because it's old doesn't mean it can't offend anyone that may see it at a later time you know.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 11:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I'm sure Amber Waves has already seen it, and I don't know of anyone else who would be offended. Plus it's not even well made, it's like a 10-minute paint job! If someone made an image like this about me I wouldn't be offended, if anything they would look like the morons for slapping this together in the first place.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::The funny thign is, thats one of the reasons why I said it should be deleted fromt he start, because it was such crap. :). Not so much because it was an attack image, or because it'd offend anyone, but because it was a hardly used, and very crappy image.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - But only because I feel ashamed for the guy who made it. I mean really? Who says PWNT to their own burn?--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 11:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - with prejudice. Some people who play this game need help. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Pointless and eye-hurting. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 11:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
Deleted 18-4 For Great Justice. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== [[Armored Squadron]] ===<br />
Was just up for a [[A/SD|speedy deletion]], but brought here as users at A/SD are unsure about it's status in game. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
Group page that has no content and even says they are disbanded. Armored Squadron, we hardly knew ye. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 11:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:That's random as my alt in Vinetown is standing in a building with a member of the armoured sqadron. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 11:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Well, now here is the question. They are in game (at least one) but they have no wiki presence to speak of. Should we still consider this a crit 1 (in pure wiki terms) or remove it from the requests (since they are in game)? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 11:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Since the page says they have disbanded and is just a few lines i'd say kill it. In game might be unrelated, or a leftover or whatever.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Take it to [[A/D|deletions]], I think <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:46 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Done. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
#'''Delete''' - Doesn't seem to be acting as a group. The page is a stub, it says they are disbanded, and the forum is inactive, despite there being a remnant member in-game <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:22 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#'''Keep''' - Page has content, a record of the group's existence, a link to their former forum and the ever present group box. Just because a group has disbanded doesn't mean things should be deleted. Also there is no proof that the group themselves added the section saying they are disbanded, we could be looking at a piece of missed vandalism. Rosslessness' observations trump all arguments. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' Iscariot's point about the "disbanded" part possibly being missed vandalism is a good one. However, on further investigation I find that their forums are dead. I also hardly consider just a group box "content". I wanted this moved here in case the guy Ross is with can answer if they are gone or not. Having it here gives him a chance to come forth. (if he does then I may change my vote)--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete'''. Come on, a template with a field saying FILLTHIS? The group can always just remake the page if they're so inclined. I mean, it DOES have potential. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 16:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - Page is empty, forums quiet since about May 2008. It's more than likely disbanded with a couple of stragglers in-game who decided to carry on by themselves. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As above.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As above. --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 02:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - we've deleted groups stub pages with evidence of an in-game presence before, we'll do it again.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' already. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:'''Deleted'''--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== [[Umbrella Corporation/Report]] ===<br />
An exact same copy of an [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/Aug_2008#Haliman_is_a_Fraud already deleted file]. Posted as a personal assault directed towards me. Also posted just to "get back at me" for posting a logical report (with 0 personal assaults in it.) --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Speedy Delete''' - Crit 6. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:When you're posting shit like this please include links to the deletion logs etc, makes it a lot easier for people to figure out if what you're saying is valid.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::One moment... --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/Aug_2008#Haliman_is_a_Fraud Done.] --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::: :). It was deleted because it was requested so by the page owners before deletion by vote. It never got forcefully deleted. Not crit 6--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::False claim that I zerg, sure that's not a personal attack.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Keep'''--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep'''--It's the equivalent of what you have, sure it's full of holes but so your slander page.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*<s>'''Speedy''' - Already been deleted once. Crit 6. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:40, 11 January 2009</s><br />
*:Striking vote, after looking at the deletion vote from August, I see most of the delete votes were actually move to subpage votes, which is where this already is. '''Keep''': It's a group subpage. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Nope. It was deleted by page owners not by A/D.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Nonetheless, it fills Crit 6. You should have thought about of the possibility of wanting to bring it back when you requested it to be deleted. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Haliman, they had the ''empty'' page deleted because they didn't want that specific page anymore. Effectively they moved it to a group subpage, it just took awhile and was done in a strange and confusing way. The deletion (in that case) wasn't about the content but the desire to have the namespace deleted. Comprendé? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::::So they just conveniently restore it now? --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::::It's ''their'' page and content, they have the right to do that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC) <br />
*'''Keep''' - That case shows the page wasn't deleted with the content on it, the page that was deleted was empty.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*: The page has nothing on because it was deleted. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Wrong. It was emptied by page owners, then it was empty then deleted by A/D by owner's request. The content on it was never deleted by A/D. Not crit 6.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Your group wiped the page only after it became clear that it '''was''' going to be deleted. If you had recreated it outside your group space it would be toast by now due to crit 6 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:24 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*::::Boxy is indeed correct, I'm still contemplating Crit 6ing it because of the reason it was removed; "''But agreed, im not sure if it violates the wiki rules officaly, but it does not belong here''", which is a direct quote from MisterGame, even tempted to file a vandalism case for remaking it as it seems to be in bad faith.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' with difference of our page this one is a personal attack to Haliman while ours is a report about UC zergers.--{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:Yes and accusing someone of zerging, no that's a personal attack at all, huh?--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 00:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Yeah, I thought so.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::This one was not deleted and keeps in fact a list of zergers. [[Anti_Cheater_Alliance|Here]]. --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 05:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Because I can.--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - As Sir Argo. We can't have double standards. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Not only does it not fit into the criteria of a speedy delete, the page is not a personal attack, it is a record on a fictional character named Haliman111. Who roll plays this character we do not know but it is not an attack on that person behind the character, even though it tends to point out characteristics of the person behind this character, it should not be viewed as such.--{{User:Jackson/Sig}} 01:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - it's in the group namespace now <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:24 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Keep''' - If Haliman can, why cant we? --[[User:Skouth|Skouth]] 06:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep'''. Sure, it's a heavy chunk of over-indulgent UD weirdness... but what the hell. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 12:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' - weak, though. This could be Scheduled Deleted (Personal Information) imo.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' - and an escalation as per Crit 6. The original deletion vote was clear, it was subverted by the group's action of getting an author speedy first. The community's sentiment still applies. Failing to see this as Crit 6 opens the wiki up to every getting deleted being blanked and author speedied first, we'll never be able to get rid of some pages and Crit 6 and the policy enacted over it will be worthless. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:The original page in question was requested for deletion ''with the specific directive'' that it be moved to a talk page. It was. Crit 6 does not apply; perhaps the original page should have been given a "move" request instead of "delete". --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 16:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*::Did you just try an argue a technicality with ''me''? Look back at the previous deletions voting, there were 8 votes for Delete/Move and 11 votes for a straight forward deletion. The community's consensus is clear. My Crit 6 vote stands. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*:::Argue! With ''YOU''!! How ''DARE'' I! My word! I retract, I'm sorry! I don't know what I was thinking! How silly of me! Please forgive me, oh great and mighty Iscariot! <br />
*:::Anyway, some of the same people who voted to delete it then are voting to keep it now for that very reason. I think the issue wasn't the page content, per se, but rather the content in the context of where the page was posted.--[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 16:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - You make a flame bait page, they do the same back. Let them have it. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - I just wonder what's the next file/page under the delete order.--[[User:Beau Dece|Beau Dece]] 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Comment''' - There's a policy somewhere saying group pages may have NPOV paragraphs edited in. ([[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines|Found it]].) I believe that's what's been done on similar cases in the past where a group page's content has been controversial, like Red Rum's [[Red Rum/Tommy Gun|Tommy Gun]] page. A short paragraph along the lines of "This is a sub-page of <groupname>, its content reflects the views of that group. The views of other users or groups may differ from those presented here" can help to take some of the sting out of a page where a user feels they are being criticised unfairly or misleadingly. The NPOV section should try to communicate that people should trust what they read in the rest of the page in proportion with how much they trust the source. Also, this same comment goes for the matching case below. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep'''* - They get the zerg page we get this page, all is fair --[[User:Colonel Krauser|Colonel Krauser]] 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' - You are assholes. The wiki already decided this was NOT appropriate content and you posted it again. Go to hell, you fucking creeps. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Deleted''' under Crit 6. -[[User:Karek|Judge&nbsp;Karke]],&nbsp;self-proclaimed&nbsp;Decider&nbsp;of&nbsp;Everything&nbsp;and&nbsp;Ruler&nbsp;of&nbsp;All 14:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:The "page" that was deleted had no content. This is like someone getting their group deleted so they can rename it and move the content elsewhere, then getting crit 6 when they do move it elsewhere. But thanks for stepping in and stopping democracy, the people almost had a say in something then! I was starting to panic.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, the page that would have been deleted was this exact one which the author then chose to move off of the wiki and that is what the original deletion was for. The author himself said this was the wrong place for that content and chose to remove it, no different than a Crit 7. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::He said it was the wrong place, and moved it to the correct place AKA group subpage. The owner has clearly stated he wants the content on and if it was only deleted because he removed it (it was) then it should be subject to a vote as per the guidelines (it was about to be before you interupted). Don't make me put a/m back on everyones watchlists...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You're misreading the intentions behind the removal. The namespace issue doesn't take into consideration that he was informed of how to fix it and instead choose to move it to the groups personal website because the ''wiki'' was the incorrect place for that type of thing. The only reason the owner wants the content now is because of a personal dispute with the user that page is about, or rather because the reason he sited for removing the page because invalid to him upon him having the chance to snipe at another person in a conflict. That doesn't un-crit 6 it and does actually make it harassment(thus my comment on the A/VB case). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:"If more Delete votes are entered than Keep votes, the page will be deleted. In any other circumstance, the page is kept." Hmm. Seems pretty clear. I mean, maybe I'm just shit at counting, but... I'm pretty sure this is just power-tripping. You don't like it, you CAN delete it, so you do. I call bullshit. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 17:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The fact that I count '''2 sysops voting keep''' makes this even worse.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Yes, because sysops aren't allowed to have opinions about anything ever :rollseyes:. It's a vote and we are entitled to vote how we feel. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 04:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, because Karek apperantly ignored them.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 08:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::No, because because Karek followed policy. Read Crit 6 speedy deletion. That page was previously deleted and had no right to be recreated in the first place. And MisterGame knew it. If he didn't, well, now he does. <br />
:::Don't try to play victim here, no one's buying it -- especially considering who exactly it is who's claiming to be a "victim". You Umbrella people are ''all'' pathetic assholes, get some lives. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::No, it was a crit 6 '''according to yours and Karek's opinion'''. Allot of people thought otherwise but Karek ignored them all. Don't change the truth.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[Nigga Hardcore Squad]]===<br />
As below. Last edit by Vantar (category) on July 2007. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 02:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<sub>Moved from A/SD. It's got a keep vote. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</sub><br />
#'''Keep''' - Has potential. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:How is that? Almost no content and hasn't been edited for over a year.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 03:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::It has potential to be a great group. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - Inactive group, no content. Exactly what Janus said above. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - Activity? None. Content? None. Potential? None. -[[User:S Aline|S Aline]] 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:You're angry. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Not in the least. Should I be? -[[User:S Aline|S Aline]] 08:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::I've never seen Sarah Aline voting on deletions before. Is she working up to running for sysop??? Or just THAT bored??? ;P --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::: Gasp! How'd you know, Mr. Yao?! -[[User:S Aline|S Aline]] 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy''' Two years is more than enough time to wait on it's "potential", Sonny. Get real. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 04:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 04:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM!'''<small>(Delet-o)</small> - No one breaks the law on my watch! I'm confiscating your stolen goods. Now pay your fine or it's off to jail.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:I see someone's been playing Oblivion. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBRSQGSyo9s ]--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - Funny, but useless. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 19:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# - Has potential<!--Doesn't mean I'm supporting this. For all you know, I could be actually meaning delete!-->--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Quote from Wan Yao just down this page: "Boxy is right: we don't speedydelete old groups" . If the god of the wiki and boxy both agree, why exactly are so many of you trying to get this speedy deleted???? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:There is a huge difference in the amount of content between this page and the one that Wan was talking about.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 10:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Because you're quoting out of context, Wan continues on to say "''Boxy is right: we don't speedydelete old groups. Many abandoned groups get deleted. However, this usually is because there is mininal, or garbage, content on an abandoned group's page. Though not always... Still, we usually don't delete groups with some decent content which were once active...''" <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:46 3 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#:Yeah, it's a crit 1. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''D'''- Surely if it has potential it can be re-created later. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedy Delete''' - Crit 1. No activity, no content. If someone comes along and wants to start this group, they can recreate the page. It's not like a lot of work will be deleted if this is gone - it's got one template. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 16:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:I'll lead the group. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 17:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Do it faggot. I'll join.--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Speedydelete''' -- I'm quoted above... But this isn't even a group. It's a no content page. Ciao! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - because we got rid of crit 12 a fuck-age ago because [http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8163/diskspaceequalscheep21mtr1.jpg Disk Space = Cheep!]--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 18:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:There's ''no content''. It's not an actual group page with ''any'' existence in UD's history. Therefore Crit 12 doesn't apply. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Oh god, it must be such a huge drain on the server... hurry and delete it from existance before the wiki crashes--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - because getting rid of crit 12 doesn't mean that contentless group pages are automatically kept <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:46 3 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#'''Po-tat-ional''' - Is that how you spell it? (Why the fuck do you think Potential is in fucking bold. Cause it has it! Morons)--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 08:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Kill with fire''' - 'nuff said. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - IRC told me to. As Jorm. There is content, the image, that will be deleted if this page is. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Hai, I don't see jorm anywhar...--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Jorm has moved on, but [http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8163/diskspaceequalscheep21mtr1.jpg his message hasnt]--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 05:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::I've seen that before AS, I was being sillwwy. :D --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 06:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Groups with actual text content -- a few lame-assed lines -- get deleted all the time. The lame and probably ripped off image is no different than these kind of pages. And... Crit 12 doesn't apply here, this isn't speedydeletions. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Has potential. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - ''Had'' potential. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete'''. Why keep every crappy aborted fetus group page? It contributes nothing to the wiki; it makes it look cheap and used. Like your mom. Everything "has potential". That's a bullshit argument. I'm going to go and make a half-assed template for a dozen fake groups and put them each on a separate page. Because then, they can have potential too! --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:The difference between this, and all these other groups, is that I or Sonny might actually form it. I'm still thinking on if I have time or not.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::Well! Why didn't you say so! That changes everything. Change my vote to an emphatic keep! This one has REAL potential, instead of the usual brand of potential potential. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::I didn't say so because I can always remake the page should I decide to make this group. Doesn't stop me from voting keep before it's deleted, right? :D. But I would appreciate your ''change of heart'', and will gladly accept your "keep" vote. ;) --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - No useful content, the group's inactive. [[User:G F J|G F J]] 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#'''Delete''' - As above. --{{User:Lithedarkangel/signature}} 04:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Deleted''' - 15 delete to 8 keep. -- 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[Urban Dead Leaderboard]]===<br />
It talks about a website that no longer exists, the user himself has not contributed since 2006, and the link was removed from [[External Links]] a while ago.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 15:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - It's something worth keeping around, possibly rewording to make clear that it's not actually still up. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 15:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' As Karek. If only because it was around at one point, and I don't like removing the game's history. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''', maybe add something like 'Website not active' at the top.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' - No site = no proof. No proof = no page for something like this. If someone created this page today it would be deleted out of hand without proof, this is no different. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
**Except this happens to have been a big part of the game for a long time and was used by various groups for various purposes. Sticking your head in the sand is not reason to ignore what we ''know'' and that's exactly what this is equivalent to. The site existed, it was popular, it was used for competitions in the meta-game. That's not the same as if it had been an insignificant page for a project that never happened.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
***If it was such a big part of the game for such a long time, then you'll have no problem in providing some objective proof. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
****Find proof that [[The Many]], [[The Undying Scourge]], and [[TSO]] existed.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*****Actually, The Many were mentioned in a real life magazine blurb about UD back in 2005. XD--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
******I know, but that doesn't make it any more valid than all the references that are easily found on major forums to the use of the leadrboard.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*******One minor point, those pages aren't up for deletion, this one is. As with any rational debate, burden of proof is on the claimant. You claim they are an important part of the history, I'm asking for verifiable proof, you're not providing it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
********Deletions isn't a debate it is a '''vote'''. Your opinion that proof needs to be shown isn't any more valid than my opinion "let's keep it because I like the name". You are also sounding like Grim and his demand that a screen shot of Radio Survivor be provided when no other entry is subjected to that standard. So you vote no and I vote yes and we cancel each other out. Next.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
**<s>'''Delete'''</s> - As Iscariot the Invisible. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC) '''vote changed''' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - But conditionally. If this leaderbard did, in fact, play an important role in the metagame community, then the page ought to reflect that fact. Go in an do a little write-up about this... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' The UD Wiki article needs to be edited to reflect the curent status i.e. it WAS but is no longer and a past tense descriptor of what the site did. And a Point of order...I personally entered over 600 profiles to the leader board (DHPD, RRF, Known allies, and most of our Rouges Gallery and Wanted Lists) Calls for proof are meaningless because in all sense of the word I can't even prove you were involved in UD before September 1st of 2007. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' Remove the links to the website and state that it was in the past, no longer exists, etc, but keep as part of UD history. -[[User:S Aline|S Aline]] 03:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep'''- Someone should do what WanYao said, write about its significance and then let the page be. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - All the page needs is a couple of minor tweaks to say that it is no longer online. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' I like the name.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Kept''' - I've past tensed the article and someone with more knowledge might want to clean it up a bit. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===some old unused images===<br />
* [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:T_RandlemanBull26.jpg Old Profile Picture]<br />
* [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:28weekslaterposter.jpg Old 28WeeksLater Poster]<br />
* [http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/6/65/Killzone_2.JPG Old Killzone Poster]<br />
* [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:Denver_Randleman4.jpg Recently Uploaded, but used a different profile picture instead]<br />
<br />
Images I uploaded, that I no longer have use for, and that are no longer in use. Just taking up space. Thankyou.--{{User:Denver Randleman/sig}} 07:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Speedy''' - Crit 7. In future, just go straight to [[A/SD]], and do it there (if you are deleteing stuff you uploaded yourself. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''speedy''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 07:57 10 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
*'''Speedy'''.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 08:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:'''Speedied'''.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 08:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
Sorry about that, I'll remember to do that in the future. thanks again.--{{User:Denver Randleman/sig}} 08:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===[[The 7th Stockman Walk Regiment]]===<br />
Apparently disbanded, not a confirmed or historically important group, no edits since July, all members apparently inactive/not on the Wiki in the first place.<br />
<br />
--{{User:AClashInRedSnow/sig}} 02:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*'''Keep''' - We don't delete old groups' wikis, unless they're blank. And there's content in them thar wiki! Thus, it stays. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - As Wan. Crit 12 died for a reason (although "group pages" with only a sentence are occasionally deleted.) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Author Keep/Kill Request''' - Oh, thanks for clarification, I wasn't sure whether it was deletion material or not. That settles it for me. Can I just move this to the Recent Actions section or delete it or does it have to stay up for vote? --{{User:AClashInRedSnow/sig}} 04:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Er, for further clarification, what about a group like [[Breaking_News:_We_Must_Unite|this]]? I suppose I'd like to know what the threshold is on what constitutes lack of content. --{{User:AClashInRedSnow/sig}} 09:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Thats a keep. Were looking for a couple of lines, or a group box that isn't formatted. Something that was created one day and then abandoned. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::I've thrown up the [[Template:InactiveGroup|Inactive Group]] template on the page. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - but only just. WanYao's comment isn't exactly correct. Deletion votes can indeed get rid of group pages if they get enough votes, it's just that a group page has to be very minimal, and lack any real history to get the required votes. People create heaps of groups that never do anything of interest in Malton (or the other cities), it's reasonable to delete these pages if they drag down the wiki's signal to noise ratio too much, like the further link provided. Don't feel that because a nomination for deletion gets voted down, that that means you've done something wrong by bringing it here <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:29 23 December 2008 (BST)</small><br />
::Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for the full run-down (and being friendly while at it!), all. I think I'm clear now on how slim a page needs to be for deletion. --{{User:AClashInRedSnow/sig}} 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Boxy is right: we don't ''speedydelete'' old groups. Many abandoned groups get deleted. However, this usually is because there is mininal, or garbage, content on an abandoned group's page. Though not always... Still, we usually don't delete groups with some decent content which were once active... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::What Wan said. Groups that only have ever had one member, with minimal content on the page (such as a broken table or only a few lines of text,) usually fall under a crit 1 [[A/SD|speedy deletion.]] Most of the time, however, they are left. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - because we got rid of crit 12 a fuck-age ago because [http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8163/diskspaceequalscheep21mtr1.jpg Disk Space = Cheep!]--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 18:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Delete''' - Because I can. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' Page has content. You can not delete all groups that aren't as popular or big as the historical groups. You need the little groups that add flavor.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
'''Kept''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:02 8 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
===[[The E.Vil Cliq]]===<br />
Crit one, not edited since 30 December, sole editor has left the wiki. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - It's less than a week old! And you don't know that the editor has "left the wiki". It's a holiday. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<sub>Moved from A/SD. 11:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</sub><br />
*'''Keep'''- for now. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Wan has a point. I'll be more careful in future. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
'''Kept''' - The sysop who processed them decided that they didn't fit the spirit of criteria 1 on A/SD, so there was no need to move them here <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:00 8 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
===[[Disposable Heroes]]===<br />
Ditto, except 27 December. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - A week old. Back off. Give it a month or so. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<sub>Moved from A/SD. 11:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</sub><br />
*'''Keep'''- for now. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Are you bored link?--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Yes, I was bored. I'll be more careful in future. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
'''Kept''' - The sysop who processed them decided that they didn't fit the spirit of criteria 1 on A/SD, so there was no need to move them here <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:00 8 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
===[[Perzeus]]===<br />
Ditto again, except 1 January. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - SHEEEEEEEEEEESH, quit putting brand new pages up for deletion! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<sub>Moved from A/SD. 11:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</sub><br />
*'''Keep'''- for now. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''Keep''' - Wan has a point. I'll be more careful in future. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
'''Kept''' - The sysop who processed them decided that they didn't fit the spirit of criteria 1 on A/SD, so there was no need to move them here <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:00 8 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
==Archive==<br />
<br />
{{Deletearchivenav}}</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Liberty&diff=1373797User talk:Liberty2009-01-28T00:08:34Z<p>Liberty: /* Tank! */</p>
<hr />
<div><div id="shortcut" class="noprint" style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #FFF; margin: 0 0 .5em 1em; text-align: center; padding: 5px; float:left; clear:right; font-size:smaller;"><br />
<span class="plainlinks">New Topic</span>:<br /><span class="stealthexternallink"><big><big><big>[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Liberty&action=edit&section=new +]</big></big></big></span></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tank! ==<br />
<br />
If you are referring to the Cowboy Bebop song then yes, that is partially it. Mostly Left 4 Dead, but I like that song a lot. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)<br />
:It also refers to the sheer size of his wife.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::How do you know Nubis is a guy? O_o --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 12:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::I had forgotten about this conversation! Is my gender really a mystery? Or more to the point, is it important enough to verify? I could post a picture of my tits but that could either be really cool or really gross. Is it worth the risk? ''IS IT?'' (and wow it took me 20 days to come up with that) :) --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::If you post a picture of your tits I will....I...I really don't know. That's something I never thought would come up ''here'', someone saying they're going to post a picture of their tits. And no, your gender is not all that important to most of the wiki population, Read is just a dick more often than not.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::I wouldn't mind my talk page being the place of Nubis' boobs. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 00:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::No, it isn't. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 06:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::The fairer sex can have wives too, in certain jurisdictions anyway, don't be so presumptuous Sue. And yep, this carefully sculpted reply needed the full 6 days :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::MichaelRead still reffered to Nubis as a 'he'. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::No females on the Internet. Haven't you heard? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::'Round here lesbians are called he. Well, not here, but where read is.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::It took you 5 days to come up with that? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 11:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::In his defence, two of them, he was banned.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Oh yeah. Well, good job then. Nice burn. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 11:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Nah it took me five days. It was like an epiphany when it hit me though--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Box-man's talk==<br />
To be frank, I can say with the utmost certainty that they were talking about Iscariot being the troll. I don't find him to be a dick too often, but sometimes he does do things that are bit unbelievable. Regardless, I like him. Anyway, just thought I'd tell you that so you didn't feel as if you did something wrong.--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Cancerous troll?==<br />
You have me all wrong. Srsly. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== who are you ==<br />
<br />
and where have you come from? If i'm not mistaken you've made around 100 edits, but you seem to be everywhere i am. Except [[ALiM]], you should be there as well.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Is 100 edits alot? [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::nah it's hardly any :P --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Wow. You reply fast. I checked out the page you refered me to, I might go there oneday, but it doesnt really look like my thing. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::haha, don't worry, i was mostly kidding. It's a page i made and spruik around the place, nice to grab another page hit though ;) I'm a bit of a recent changes stalker so expect the fast replies if i'm around.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Not JUST a Recent Changes stalker. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::I'm right outside your window, bob. *binoculars smiley* --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Yeah? And you're posting using whose wireless network? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Err...mmm...ahhh...neighbours?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::That's a shame. If you'd somehow managed to hack your way onto mine (doubtful) I would've been able to fuck your computer up but good. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::Is that coz you're "teh l33t haxx0rz"? I submit that it is.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 12:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::You're 8 days late to the party, but I'll bite. You don't need to be teh l33t haxx0rz to access someone's computer on the same network as you if they haven't ticked the "do not share files" box. It's just a matter of opening a folder and pressing Delete. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::Haha, I love how you reluctantly react to my baiting. You're a true gem, bobby. Yeah I haven't been around lately to stalk your contribs and think up witty retorts to your posts. I do try, but my interest in this old place is waning.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 08:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::You know, if you go on about how awesome a troll you are it only makes you look like a tool. I wish you the best of luck in your waning. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 08:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::::I don't think he was bragging about how good a troll he is. LOOKS LIKE HE TR00LED YOU THEN.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::::I wasn't :( --{{User:Nallan/sig}} 10:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)</div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed_Group_Trial&diff=1373325UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group Trial2009-01-27T10:12:51Z<p>Liberty: /* For */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The "problem"==<br />
Due to bad faith use by vandals, the ability to move pages is restricted to sysops. This effectively removes the ability for page moves to be used as a means to harm the wiki. At the same time, it also delegates yet more routine maintenance tasks to Sysops and takes powers away from the community.<br />
<br />
==The suggestion==<br />
The suggestion is to make use of the wiki's inbuilt "Autoconfirmed" group for the purpose of filtering those users who have tools with greater potential to harm the wiki. Autoconfirmed status is assigned to anyone who makes a certain number of edits and has been registered for a certain time period. Wikipedia assigns it after 4 days and 10 edits; on this wiki it has been indicated that a time period of '''2 months and 200 edits''' would be more appropriate.<br />
<br />
Autoconfirmed users would have the ability to move pages. It is also possible to protect a page so that only autoconfirmed accounts can edit them, this would afford frequently vandalised pages some level of protection while still allowing good-faith edits from established users.<br />
<br />
This policy has had two [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group|previous]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group 2|incarnations]] only the later of which made it to voting. From comments from the community, it might be a beneficial idea to trial this change for a period of time and then after that period has ended ask for community opinion on whether this should become a permanent feature of the wiki.<br />
<br />
The proposed trial period will be '''2 months''' followed by a two week community discussion and a two week vote. If this policy is accepted it will run from the date it is activated by [[Kevan]] rather than the date the voting closes.<br />
<br />
==Protections==<br />
===Move protections===<br />
High profile pages can still be protected from movement by anyone except for sysops. This will allow a two tiered protection, normal pages can be protected from single use vandal alts, while still allowing autoconfirmed users access, and at the same time high profile pages, and pages important to the wiki's administrative integrity can be protected from movement by all but sysops.<br />
<br />
If a "move war" occurs over a specific page, the page can be protected from moving similar to regular page protection in the case of edit wars.<br />
<br />
===Semi-protection===<br />
Would be requested via the current A/P page, the same rules apply and any protections made by Sysops without a request must be listed on the page for future posterity.<br />
<br />
===Technical Implementation===<br />
This policy would be implemented by making the following changes to the configuration file:<br />
<br />
Adding:<br />
<tt>$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['move'] = true;</tt><br />
<br />
changing:<br />
<tt>$wgAutoConfirmAge = 0;</tt> to <tt>$wgAutoConfirmAge = 3600*24*56</tt><br />
<br />
and: <tt>$wgAutoConfirmCount = 0;</tt> to <tt>$wgAutoConfirmCount = 200;</tt><br />
<br />
===Abuse===<br />
Misuse of move privileges is considered vandalism and would be handled through the current vandal escalation system.<br />
<br />
===Scheduled Protections===<br />
Upon passing, the following pages can be move-protected immediately by any sysop without having to go through [[A/PT]]<br />
*Suburb pages<br />
*Administration pages <br />
*"Informational" pages (such as [[:Category:Guides]] and [[Survivor Skills]])<br />
*Every [[Special:Popularpages|page]] with over one hundred thousand views<br />
<br />
==Community Evaluation==<br />
After 2 months have passed, a discussion will be opened and the community as a whole will be able to voice their opinions of this feature. This can include problems, suggestions for improvement, criticisms and other opinions that the user may have. After two weeks of discussion to allow all community members to give their views, a new vote will be opened to decide whether to keep the Auto-confirmed group or to remove it. The vote will last two weeks and all users will be encouraged to vote on it.<br />
<br />
Depending on the views gathered from the discussion, at least 3 options will be available in this vote:<br />
#To keep the auto-confirmed group and the move and semi-protection abilities as permanent features on the wiki.<br />
#To keep the auto-confirmed group and semi-protection ability as permanent features on the wiki but remove the move ability.<br />
#To completely remove the auto-confirmed group and the move and semi-protection abilities from the wiki.<br />
<br />
The option that has gathered the most support will be the one that shall be carried out.<br />
<br />
==The Official Response==<br />
Kevan has been contacted about this and asked if he would be willing to implement this trial if it passes voting. His response follows:<br />
:{{quote|Kevan|No problem. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 15:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)}} <br />
<br />
==Summary==<br />
*Adds an Auto-confirmed group to the Urban Dead wiki.<br />
*Any user that has been on the wiki for longer than 2 months and has contributed more than 200 edits will automatically be placed into this user group.<br />
*This group will allow auto-confirmed users to move pages that are set to allow movement by that particular group.<br />
*High risk pages, such as the Main Page and the Administration pages can be protected from movement, can be protected from movement similar to the current ability to protect from editing. <br />
*Semi-protection will be enabled. This allows high risk pages to be protected so that established users can still edit them, while preventing vandalism from just registered accounts.<br />
*Abuse of move privileges will be treated as an act of vandalism and will result in vandal escalations according to the current escalation system.<br />
*There will be a 2 month trial of this feature from the date it is implemented by [[Kevan]], after this time a community discussion will be held and a vote will be carried out to decide if this should be made permanent.<br />
<br />
==Voting Section==<br />
{{PolicyVotingRules}}<br />
<br />
===For===<br />
# From the last version of this policy it was apparent that several people would prefer if this was trialled before it was made a permanent feature. Personally, I feel we should be able to restore the move ability to the community as it was in the past. If people misuse it, we take action. They keep messing about, the higher up the vandal scale they get. Easy as. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 12:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Once more, and for the last time. --<small>—The preceding [[Special:Listusers/sysop|signed]] comment was added by [[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]] ([[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hagnat|contribs]]) at</small> 13:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#It's a good idea, and I voted for the last one. People who vandalize can be escalated, semi-protection can/would be useful on high-profile pages, and being able to move pages would safe effort for regular uses (although we should keep A/MR-both for the obvious and so people who may move a page can request comments.) --{{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Wikipedia has it and it works bloody well. No-one use it for vandalism.. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 13:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Meh, worth trying. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Several people suggested a trial period so here it is. This system works fine on Wikipedia and I personally believe that we should be able to trust regular users with the move privilege.--{{User:The General/sig}} 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Please make sure to add the phrase "the will of the Community" there <s>Iscar</s> I mean, General.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make with this comment. Could you elaborate?--{{User:The General/sig}} 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# It gets booted if it doesn't work, and there could still be some gain with option 2. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# On the principle that the trial period will give us more experience and information, and that in turn will help improve the choice at the end. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Regular users will never be able to use this, but hey, I'll vote for it anyway. --[[User:Jasonjason|dgw]] 08:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Am I to assume that that is a bad faith vote then? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::No. What I mean is that I think this would be could be good for casual wiki users who maintain group pages and such. 200 edits is a lot. I think it would be good if it required fewer edits, but only counted edits that aren't in the userspace. I know that wouldn't pass though, so I'm voting for this. This is a real vote. --[[User:Jasonjason|dgw]] 13:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Azathoth wills it so. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# I am very ambivalent on this. Nubis' comment almost swayed me to vote No. And, do sysops ''really'' have such a massive work load with moves? However, in my dreams I can hear the cacaphonous piping of the blind, idiot gods at the centre of universe..... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# I suppose it's alright --[[User:Brian eetar|Brian Eetar]] <sup>[[User:Brian eetar/Day To Day|DTD]]|[[CFT]]|[[Golden Machine Gun|GMG]]</sup> 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#If this passes i get at least 3 months without having to vote on a damned autoconfirmed group policy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:You could also vote Against and rest in the knowledge that if it fails any more will be able to be counted as spam and thus be vandalism. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I wouldn't count on it <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:03 26 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
#:::It would be rather hypocritical of you to rule Not Vandalism on such a case... unless of course you're talking about other sysops. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Not really. You can be against a policy without believing it to be vandalism, it's a distinction that you don't quite seem to understand.--{{User:The General/sig}} 09:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#God ''damn'' I cannot pro vote this enough. Being able to move pages around on the wiki will add a whole new dimension of awesome, especially for me. {{User:Katthew/Sig}} 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#More useful than not, problems from this will get taken care of in A/VB pretty quickly but issues with one sysop or another overextending their power are most likely going to last as long as this wiki. --[[User:Riseabove|Riseabove]] 05:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
# Hope, Change, closing GITMO, and stimulus packages. --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 06:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Anything is worth a go. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 10:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Against===<br />
#Just let it die already. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#In the name of most unholy Shoggoth, NO! [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#There's quite a bit of trouble that can be caused with this.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Don't say I didn't warn ya'll when this blows in your faces.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Not only is this a bad idea the fact that a twice failed policy gets a "trial period" vote should make this Vandalism as Policy Spamming. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:If someone tries it again after this one I intend on taking them to A/VB for that very reason. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 05:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:It failed once and this is an alteration to the policy based on feedback gathered from voters. There is plenty of precedent for a policy being put up for voting for a second time after alterations have been made.--{{User:The General/sig}} 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::BULLSHIT! The only change to this policy from the previous version is that this is for a "trial period" of said policy. There is no alteration and the sections are even CUT AND PASTE copies of the other version. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::The trial period was a change recommended by several voters, which is why it was put for voting with that alteration.--{{User:The General/sig}} 11:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::I also find it funny that you are so behind this policy when you were the one that voted: ''I would also agree with Nubis that we do not need extra people to prance around in red tape.--The General'' on [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Sysop_Sub_Groups:The_Cheesy_Version|this]].--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC) <br />
#:::These are two different policies with different aims. My reasons for voting against the one linked are twofold. Firstly, it would allow practically anyone to gain Move, Deletion and Protection permissions with nothing more than a week's discussion. Deletion can be very damaging, even accidentally, and giving vast majority of people the ability to edit protected pages then it would make protection useless (or force us to protect everything to sysop-edit only, making the ability useless). Secondly, it's aim was to give more people the ability to carry out wiki maintenance. As legitimate deletions and page protection still have to go through the relevant pages and those pages do not have a significant backlog, giving more people to ability to carry them out would not speed things up but would merely tie yet more people up in red tape. <br />
#:::As the requirements of this policy are stricter, page moves can be carried out on-sight and it does not attempt to give deletion of protection privileges, it avoids those problems.--{{User:The General/sig}} 11:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::::Are you saying that moves no longer have to go through the Move Request page and that it is going to be the responsibility of the sysops to go through the move ''logs'' to make sure there isn't vandalism? Or are moves going to have to be posted still? Since you finally found A/MR the other day can we assume you will be as diligent with watching the move logs? So now instead of being able to discuss and/or deny requests we will have to pour through logs and track down whether or not that move is this vague "abuse" that you never gave me a definition of? Brilliant! <br />
#::::Has it occurred to you that your move policy is going to give the ability to move pages to a ''vast majority of people'' and that you yourself said that sysops would have to move protect a lot of pages manually but somehow this is ''less work'' than having to ''to protect everything to sysop-edit only'' - you know, the reason you were against the other policy I linked? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::::Moves by those with the move permission never have gone through the page, so it isn't a change. People are still welcome to note down any controversial moves which require discussion. "Abuse" is the same as "vandalism" - a bad faith move is vandalism. I assume you simply want people to log down the moves they make, not that they should have to wait for someone else to carry out the move? One point I would like to make is that we don't require all edits to be logged on A/VB so we can patrol them for vandalism, yet anyone with an account can edit the wiki, so it doesn't particularly follow that we should require people to note down every move made. Having said that, I suppose I wouldn't object to moves being logged down on the page as a reference.<br />
#:::::My reason for voting against the other policy was not the extra work it would create but because making all protections sysop-only would make the Halfop level of protection useless as they could never actually use it. It's a catch 22, really: If we give lots of people the ability to protect and edit protected pages, we make protection pointless; If we counter that by making all protections sysop-only, then we make the lower level of protection useless.<br />
#:::::For the record: I am actually in favour of giving regular users extra privileges. However, there need to be decent requirements before giving them out and I believe that such a policy would be useless with the present level of red tape involved in the system.--{{User:The General/sig}} 20:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#I would have to vote against. For one thing, the Wikipedia version has failed on a massive scale to prevent vandalism (check the histories of the entries for Uwe Boll and Evolution to see this), but this just adds a needless complication.--[[User:MorriganH|MorriganH]] 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#I voted against the last one, and my opinion hasn't changed. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#I know exactly what I plan on doing with this if it passes. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:And what, exactly, would that be?--{{User:The General/sig}} 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#as above and if it does pass i'm going to do the same #99 has in mind me thinks.----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 16:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Is it really needed?--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]]<sup>[[User:Kevan|'the true enemy']]</sup> 17:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#Pointless, and the semi-protection is fucking gay.... people that have been registered for a month can't edit some pages? Totally fair.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 19:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:Currently no one other than sysops can edit those pages, this is at least fair''er''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#::This policy in no way changes the ability to edit pages, it only deals with people ''moving'' some of them around. The protection applies only to ''that''. Take some literacy classes, Rak. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#:::"It is also possible to protect a page so that only autoconfirmed accounts can edit them" get the '''fuck''' off yer high horse and... take some mother fucking literacy classes you douche.<br />
#:::And the General, that might be true, but this will probably bring about much more "semi-protected" pages since it would allow most to edit, but noobies would be denied. If you have no clue what I'm saying, doesn't matter, either do I.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
#The community seems to have made it clear a number of times that it has legitimate and significant concerns about the page move ability being available without a prior review process. The protections part of this would be useful, but it needs to ditch the move ability from being an autoconfirmed ability <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:03 26 January 2009 (BST)</small></div>Libertyhttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=1372644UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 012009-01-26T09:03:29Z<p>Liberty: /* User:Iscariot */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Archives =<br />
==Monthly Archives==<br />
{{VBarchivenav}}<br />
<br />
==General Discussion Archives==<br />
*[[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive1|Archive1]]<br />
*[[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive2|Archive2]]<br />
*[[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive3|Archive3]]<br />
*[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive4|Archive4]]<br />
*[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive5|Archive5]]<br />
<br />
= Discussion =<br />
==[[User:Iscariot]]==<br />
Wouldn't he just be following precedent by entering those requests, since the RRF's subgroups were moved to their subspace and thus the DEM's should be too? Or is this different since Axes High, etc. are technically separate groups? --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:It's a little of that plus he did it in obvious bad faith. He was just being spiteful, though he will tell you otherwise.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah... Though I'm a little worried that its starting to look like admin are going to VB him for everything they can find, new or old. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 03:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::yeah, its the admin team thats out to get Iscariot--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::This isn't exactly something small. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::I guess its cause this was before I arrived. It's hard for me to understand the context. {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 09:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:The DEM has always claimed the member groups are separate and unique groups that entered upon some agreements, like the Dulston Alliance or the Big Bash. The RRF strike teams have never been separate groups, they're representative of activity times, not actual separate membership. Strike teams ''are not sub-groups'', they're not independent, and they never formed out side of the group in question. MOB has strike teams, same thing, they don't even have description pages because they're all MOB, the members are all MOB members they just participate in attacks of X strike team, or in other words are on at X time. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:In my opinion, he deserves it all. He does break rules and he does antagonize people for fun and he does pick favorites when it comes to people and their opinions. He is using all of these failed VB cases against him to make himself look like a great guy being oppressed by the "overlords" and so he has the whole bandwagon routine where he acts like he represents the true opinion of the wiki. In doing such, the people who do agree with him only strengthen his point, and everyone who opposes him is deemed to be basically lackeys of the sysops. He's even accused me of being an alt of a sysop before just because I opposed him! He used to entertain me back when he was Grim's occasional toady but now I see that unlike Grim, he never has periods where he isn't an ass and actually cares about the wiki as a whole.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Probably, but that has nothing to do with the fact that he was using disrupting the wiki to try and make a point, in doing the ''exact same thing'' I warned [[User_talk:Labine50#Soft_Warning|Labine about]] and that Nalikill got a ban over in the past.(put A/D up for deletion). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah I agree. Though I was making more of a general statement than a reply to your point. I'll fix the indention.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[User:Jedaz]]==<br />
Uh... There is a new case -- made by me -- against Raiden. If he choses not to participate, then I will seek someone to represent him ''in absentia'' and proceed with the case. While I appreciate your intervention, below, Nubis, I have little faith at the moment in the sysop team following through with a vandalism ruling for further violations of NPOV. I was told ''by you'' to take it to Arbitration -- and I obediently did exactly that. And.... this comment ''is'' relevant, because if it weren't for Jedaz removing Iscariot's case, I might not have had to file the vandalism report below, and subsequently open a ''new'' arby case for more of the same shit by Raiden. Dig? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Wan, I understand what you are saying, but your Arby case has no bearing on what edit Jedaz made. That would be like someone making a VB case against X and then someone making another different VB case and trying to use the first one as a justification. If Jedaz removes yours then that would be vandalism because the last time I checked Sgt. Raiden hadn't responded to it at all. <br />
:I think in the long run your arby case has more merit because you have shown him the guidelines and what is expected. Not to mention, I doubt that the result that Iscariot wanted (banning him from posting about Mall Tour) would solve your problem (him violating NPOV). <br />
:As far as the sysop team not voting Vandalism if I miss the next time he is on here for a similar edit message me. There is no reason whatsoever that his next edits should be violating NPOV and he has been given every break and should be warned with no discussion. Actually, I would almost go so far as suggesting a ban of some term because of the leniency he has been shown.<br />
:I don't know if I agree with the idea of an arby case being tried in absentia, but it would really be in his best interest to contact you on either A/A or your talk page and work something out. If he doesn't then that shows a lack of good faith since he isn't trying to compromise or follow guidelines. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I don't follow how the one would have prevented the other Wan, the only way is if he got banned for making Mall Tour comments, which he hasn't, and which isn't going to happen unless they're in bad faith anyway. The Arbitration case would have no effect on the edits you reported him for except for the off chance that he might possibly have been involved with the drama there and to distracted to edit anywhere else, which is unlikely. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Nubis, you said: ''"That would be like someone making a VB case against X and then someone making another different VB case and trying to use the first one as a justification."'' Actually.... Ok, I get your point, but... Two seperate cases ''can'' be connected, and the first case be used to establish a pattern of behavior. You see that here all the time. Also, if you fail to ban someone and they re-vandalise, then you point to the fist case, often with an "I-told-you-so" ;P Etc. etc. However, big point taken: the arby was about Mall Tour shit, only. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Jedaz =/= Sgt. Raiden, Wan. Think you aren't reading the User name part.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[User:Wiki Martyr]]==<br />
Wait, can you really unpermaban it after two other sysops voted in favor of vandalism?--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:He can't, but there is only one other ruling I see, so yes, he can. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No. Both Cheese and Boxy voted Vandalism.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Ah, I see now, thanks. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::No problem.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::I did it anyway and if they push the issue I will be forced to file a misconduct case for them permabanning an account illegitimately. Aside from the fact that my contesting the ruling means it's still an active case there's that there is no way under the rules for them to preemptively ban an account unless it exists for impersonation. This one doesn't.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 01:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_12#User:HAHA_DISREGARD_THAT_I_SUCK_COCKS|Ahem...]] --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Also, that name is offensive. Wiki Martyr is not. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::To expand somewhat on that, accounts created that have names that are the same as, or even similar to, the name or chosen handle of a wiki user have always been perma'ed before, vandalism or not. Examples: HAHA DISREGARD THAT etc., 8oxy, Kevin, and many others that I CBA'ed to look up right now. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::It's not his handle, never was. It's just something he's been adding to arbitration cases. His handle is St. Iscariot.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::It's how he's been referring to himself for at least [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3AIscariot&diff=1359430&oldid=1359416 a few days] before this case <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:04 16 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::::: He calls himself that way in his user page, yet his sig says otherwise. I agree with karek that this is a faerie queen case, but i agree that this account serves no purpose but harassment, and that is '''vandalism''' in the new wiki book --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::You can't seriously think him breaking the rules of the wiki(there's a policy against that thing) and providing himself with a title on his user page count as impersonation can you? He does not use the name wiki martyr, no one here thought it was Iscariot, there was no intent or attempt to impersonate and claiming otherwise is twisting the reality of the case in an attempt to justify a ban of the account. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 03:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::But everyone knew exactly who was being imped, because he had named himself that in the same case that this sock puppet posted to. The account was created with only one purpose, to hassle Iscariot about his [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=1363081 choice of arbies titles] on an the admin page, just like the HAHA sock that was banned because its only purpose was imping bob <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:33 16 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::::::Everyone knew who was implied by Faerie Queen too boxy. It wasn't a case of impersonation, the intent wasn't to impersonate and you just admitted as much. HAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS existed only to impersonate, the names were the same down to one small dumb typo. This is a case of ''harassment'' not ''impersonation'' and you know it, you just said it there even. --<span style="white-<br />
space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::And creating an account solely for the purpose of harassment is bad faith vandalism... alternate accounts are not banned, but when they are created solely for bad faith purposes, such as harassment, they are banned. Quite frankly, Faerie Queen should have been binned too. It was a sock puppet used for vandalism, and was warned for it too <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 04:02 16 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::::::::No one is calling it impersonation. It's obviously not, duh. It's a trolling account with a name based on that of another user and with the clear intention to harass them. As others have said, that sort of thing is and always has been vandalism. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::The account was not used for vandalism unless making it to make a wisecrack about Iscariot adding his fake title to the arbitration case is now harassment. It's not an account that exists solely for vandalism, it's an account you want to prevent from having any chance of performing vandalism it hasn't performed. The actions of Faerie Queen the account since the case just make that illegitimacy point that much more. It was a dumb thing to do ''it was not vandalism'' unless creating sock puppet accounts is now vandalism and should have been handled with a warning to Conn that using it in the manner of the Faerie Queen edits would be considered vandalism. That's not what you've done, and when you did do it that's not why you banned the account because that can't justify banning the account. You banned the account because you feel there is no possible legitimate purpose, you're wrong and that's assuming bad faith and when you did it you broke the wiki's rules limiting when an account can be banned. Wiki Martyr has not performed three vandalism edits, it didn't even perform one, you banned it because it's a reference to Iscariot referring to himself as a wiki martyr and that's about as loose of a reason for any of this as can be provided.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 04:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::How does it follow that someone ripping of Bobs tagline but making no vandalism edit is immediatly banned as a vandal and the same for the 8oxy account while this obvious attack on another users chosen nickname is not? Surely it can't be anything to do with who is guilty in each case can it?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::::Considering it's Conndraka and ''I'' am the one defending the account; No, it doesn't. Those are cases of impersonation, please read the rest of the comments ''before'' commenting as that difference has been pointed out quite a few times now. --[[User:Karek|Judge&nbsp;Karke]],&nbsp;self-proclaimed&nbsp;Decider&nbsp;of&nbsp;Everything&nbsp;and&nbsp;Ruler&nbsp;of&nbsp;All 02:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::For fuck sake, it's NOT impersonation in the normal sense. But wiki precedent is clear: trolling accounts which imitate another user's handle are considered vandalism. Usually you're pretty good with this stuff, knowing and following precent, karek... Why the difference this time around? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::Seriously, it doesn't matter what edits the account made... And it's a confirmed suck puppet... Where is the ambiguity?? There is none: except the smoke screen being created to protect conndraka... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::::::Wan, I'm the only one following precedent. The precedent is [[User:Faerie Queen]]. Even then there's the issue that it's not impersonation ''in any sense'' and the accounts existence is not in and of itself vandalism(which is what allows us to instantly ban such accounts). I'm being consistent in the extreme both with my actions in the past and the precedent provided to us for cases of this nature. --[[User:Karek|Judge&nbsp;Karke]],&nbsp;self-proclaimed&nbsp;Decider&nbsp;of&nbsp;Everything&nbsp;and&nbsp;Ruler&nbsp;of&nbsp;All 13:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::::If the faerie queen case is your only precedent, it's a pretty weak one, given that Gage and Bob both [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2007_01#Faerie_Queen|categorically refused to reveal who the sock puppeteer was]] at the time (2 years ago), and as has been shown by [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Cyberbob240#02:43.2C_26_March_2007_.28BST.29|at least one more recent case]], that attitude has changed, as has the fact that users teaming up on others with [[User:Captain Jack Testes|sock accounts]] is seen as bad faith, even if they don't commit other forms of vandalism. It's a bad precedent to set, to allow people to create sock accounts to poke people, that they are having disagreements with, anonymously <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 14:14 17 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::::::::::::I'm sorry but you astound me Boxy. That case is ridiculous as support to your argument, where is [[User:Wiki Martyr]] being used to delude the community into believing more people support an opinion than really do? It's not because that would be asinine and legitimate grounds to ban the account. It's bad precedent to set that you can ban any alt you want simply because you don't like the look of it. --[[User:Karek|Judge&nbsp;Karke]],&nbsp;self-proclaimed&nbsp;Decider&nbsp;of&nbsp;Everything&nbsp;and&nbsp;Ruler&nbsp;of&nbsp;All 15:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::::::::::If an alt account is solely created to stir another user, like this one was, then yes absolutely <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 22:11 17 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::::::::::::::::[[User:Faerie Queen|And yet you can't because we don't.]] --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If it's about policy and precedent, why can't I recall there ever being much doubt before as to whether a confirmed sock puppet account -- created solely for the purpose of getting another user's goat by imitating his alias, or a prominent part thereof -- should be banned or not? It's been done before, why isn't it being done now? <br />
And, I love how Conndraka tries to assert that he wasn't trolling, above -- when the very creation/existence of the account itself was trolling. Mild trolling, with just a hint of impersonation? Yeah, but trolling nonetheless... You're kidding no one Conndraka, and as others have said, the mature thing to do would be to delete the account yourself. But I don't expect anything of the sort from you. Too bad. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Least trolling trolling I've ever known. Now if he had kept it up then maybe but, as is, the reaction to the account is srsbusnz. Not to mention ''we don't ban alt accounts for being alt accounts'' this isn't sockpuppetry, that's an important difference and part of why we can't ban it, having a second account that isn't trying to rig votes is allowed. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 15:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just a simple question really (i would check but my work pc is being buggy when i try opening history) Did the "8oxy" account or the "Isuckcocks" account commit any vandalism before they were banned? Obviously all 3 are different, but enough similarities exist that they do fit into the same category. Clearly the "8oxy" account was made just to make a point and was pretty unlikely to have any real contribution and the same can be said about the Cyberbob piss take but were they banned before or after vandalism?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:They both made a point of not committing vandalism, and [[User:8oxy|8oxy]] feigned an intention of becoming useful members of the community <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:42 20 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
3 is bigger than 2, '''Vandalism'''. Case closed. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 11:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:And the key difference between '''Faerie Queen''' and '''Wiki Martyr''' is that Matthew Fahrenheit never called himself that way. Therefore, even if the account was created only for harassment of said user, it couldnt be called impersonation in any shape or form. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 11:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::But... Matthew ''Faerie''nheit? {{User:Liberty/Sign}} 12:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I dont know (nor judge) every user initimate life. If he called himself that way outside the wiki, it was my problem. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 13:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Neither can this Hagnat, and you know it. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 15:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[User:MisterGame]]==<br />
On the same page you link to here, it was decided that it was NOT a deletion workaround. It was deleted by request of the page owners before the community deletion was decided.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Yes, and as you can see in the deletion report, it has already been commented on by other sysops. Its in the group subpage now aswell.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 10:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Also WanYao should take note that it is not personal as Haliman111 is a FICTIONAL character and it is not a report against the individual behind the character even though it is about traits this person may have.--{{User:Jackson/Sig}} 11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I submitted this report ''before'' the speedy deletion. As for Jackson's comment, I don't know what the hell you're talking about... I think you people all need help. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::I think he is trying to say that the Haliman in the chat log is made up and is either not actually a real conversation with him or that the fact that "Haliman111" is his screen name (and thus fake) is not like saying John Smith of Pawtucket, Kansas. (so not an invasion of a real person's privacy) Or I could be wrong. Also, I have no problems with Karek's decision here.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[User:Spokane]]==<br />
No! Please tell me you're kidding. His posts on his talk page are completely fine. He doesn't want the newbie template, lots of people don't. If he is a vandal account, which he may be he should be given newbie benefit of the doubt. Shoot him a warning and see if he cleans his act up. This is the sort of overreactive bullshit that scares potential contributors off the wiki. Give him a chance.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Admittedley, his last talk page contribution wasn't bad faith or vandalism, but his main vandal edit doesn't say much for his long term usage of the wiki does it? [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 13:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Newbies do that shit often. I admit it's not a good reference, but it's not like if we don't stop him now he can't be stopped. Woah that's a lot of negs, you catch my drift though.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I do agree with you. should wait for another offense before a perma, his talk page edit ''did'' indicate he intended to stay here. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 13:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Yes, and it also specifically stated that he intended to continue being a "jerk" to people he feels deserve it. If you feel that that part of policy is wrong, then [[A/PD]] can fix it by removing that part of [[A/G]] <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:53 18 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::What about permabanning him if he actually '''continue''' being a jerk after his first warning? --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Have you read the policy? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Me? ''So, if someone is actively vandalising a page, and stops after being warned, we will not go any further on the issue.'' --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::From [[A/G#When_a_User_May_be_Warned_or_Banned|When a User May be Warned or Banned]] - ''"The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki."'' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:03 19 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::::::Yes, that says you ''can'' perma him, i obviously wouldn't have a/med you if you did. I just think in this case it is poor form, give the guy a chance. And it seems pretty much everyone agrees.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::::Yeah, ''ban''. Not necessarily ''permaban''. And of course you can do it; that just doesn't seem fair to me in this case. :) --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 11:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[User:Hagnat]]==<br />
<br />
So, i take it you guys are like sith jedis... there is always two of you guys, a master and an apprentice. With grim's gone, iscariot was promoted to master and ur his apprentice ? --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I hate star wars. You should know why.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
Sorry but I'm gonna have to agree with J3D on this one. You really need to quit poking the damn bear!--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:U mispelled 'beer'... curous fact: a user is trying to get promoted and he says he doesnt drink and wikis for a long time, yet, i... --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 00:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
i herd u liek mudkipz. iz it tru?--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span></small> 03:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:you gettig vb'd [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 07:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:your indentation suggests your responding to cheese but the last word in your post suggests iscariot! :O --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Methinks he needs to go and sober up. =/ -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Nahh... [http://www.livescience.com/health/090113-coffee-hallucinations.html its just the coffe] --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 01:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Drunk wikiing, its teh bezt. Amirite lads? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2009_01&diff=1351889&oldid=1351879 Aye, ruling on vandalism cases is particularly good]. =p -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 01:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::LoL@canadalism... u cant blame people for being canadian. Its like me going around slapping argentinans around for being... you know, from argentina. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 01:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::So mudkipz is a bannable offense now? --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::always has been.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Colonel Krauser case ==<br />
<small>Moved from main page</small><br />
::What?! When Haliman was a Fraud was on the wiki, did I vandalize it? NO. I came to A/D where a case was already opened, and voted. I am simply letting the public know about Umbrella CHEATING. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::While I disagree entirely, go do that somewhere else. The wiki is not a place for this.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Despite the fact that arby case is in the process of getting started, you are still trying to bait the Umbrella side into making a mistake so you can drag them here. Most of the edits I've seen from you the past day or so have been so blatantly non-constructive it's not even funny. You can either co-operate and get this mess cleared up or you can do what you're doing right now and just continue to be a troll. Up to you. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Get this mess cleaned up? Umbrella has harassed me and my doings for the past 8 months. What makes you think a wiki arby case will solve that? Have you even seen our forum today? No. They sent spammers who continued to change their IP every time we banned one, to the point where I took away every guests' ability to post. We are doing nothing wrong. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 21:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::And making pages that are by their very nature going to cause even more fuss is just idiotic. The best course of action is get you guys on a common middle ground (the wiki) and you can sort things out without having to worry about getting banned from the others forums or whatever. The more of a mess that is made, the harder it's going to be to sort it so you might as well get on with it. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Yeah, of course.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 21:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Ok then, Thad, what are we doing wrong? Check the history of all your pages. Nothing wrong there. Check your forums. Any spam by the UBCS? None. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Actually, we do have spam by (apparent) UBCS. Happy? --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Who said it? I can assure you I will confront them about it. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 21:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
Sorry if I'm wrong or ignoring something, but doesn't this meet the criteria for vandalism in that it involves edits to a group subpage that said user is not a member of? --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Apparently I provoked them <_< even when they threatened to do the same thing. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 22:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::There's a general rule of thumb that I've used in the past; When your actions make their vandalism appear to be a reasonable next step either you both broke the rules of it's not vandalism and it's time for a third party to step in and tell you you're both crossing a line(soft warning type administration voice stuff). It seems like Cheese is saying it's reached that point, because we can't let you both vandalize but we also aren't going to reward you for driving people to vandalism. Basically, proceed cautiously and don't use the wiki to further the dispute.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 05:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::This group has been asked to leave this page alone numerous times... telling them that they're actions will go unpunished if another group was "mean to them" will not improve the situation. They both need to keep to their own group sub pages, or learn to use talk pages! <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:05 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::My point was both groups will be escalated equally.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 16:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::And what are you going to escalate UBCS for? For being annoying arses, ''on their own pages''? Bah! A bit of personal responsibility is needed here. Let people say what they like about you on their own pages... if you have a problem with what they're saying, talk to them reasonably... or start [[A/A|arbitration]] proceedings against them... but '''do not vandalise their page!''' When it comes to vandalism being reported here, "they were being mean" can not be a reason to excuse vandalism of a group page <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 17:06 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::::Understandable but there is precedent for treating both sides equally when they're driving each other to bad faith edits. Sadly there's also precedent for ignoring one side while they cause the other to be permabanned.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
Haliman... learn to provide ''diff comparisons'', like [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Umbrella_Biohazard_Containment_Service/Umbrella/Zerg&diff=prev&oldid=1360391 this], which shows the actual changes made by the person in question. S'okay? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:05 12 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
== [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#User:Iscariot|User:Iscariot]] ==<br />
It's a cycled case, so not taking up space in the prevailing cases, but we all know how this is going to be ruled. <br />
<br />
''"even though I know"''? Karek has access to no in-date information. Although a former member of the RRF War Council, Karek is no longer privileged to the basic information I as a serving member of the Gore Corps has. It would be like allowing Jorm to dictate the RRF's current suburb activities, past involvement has no bearing on current information made available to a serving and loyal member of the group in question of the case. I am willing to make available to War Council and Sysops logs from IRC that show Karek's disdain for the RRF and the limit of his ''"privileged information"'' through private channels. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 04:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Feel free, they know why I left. But please, explain how that changes what they all know about how the GC came about and still functions, do they have their own group tag now? Have they been thrown out of the RRF?--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I don't have to answer those questions, I have to answer the ones that were applicable to the DEM's arguments on the move page. The Corps existed before admission to the horde, they operate independently, they were not asked before the move from there old space occurred (in fact I registered a dispute that was summarily overruled) without consultation in question and they recruit seperately from the main body. Now, have I described Axe's High or the Gore Corps? It's odd that all you attempts to escalate me focus on the Gore Corps and not the Breakfast Club which was the other half of the case. Is that because you know you're wrong or is it because your information on the horde is so out of date that you have no clue as to their current status? <br />
<br />
:::What we have here is a sysop making a blanket decision based on year old information with no consultation with the group in question. Odd how he would do this with the DEM rather than the horde he has claimed to hold ''"privileged information"'' about.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::The only reason I'm not adding more on the GMT-BC thing is because I was asked not to by the same person that provided me with the information that made me not go back and move it.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 05:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::You're still avoiding the question. Are you a member of the War Council and able to speak for the RRF? Are you a member of the Gore Corps? My input in the Humanity's Saviour's case wasn't subject to A/VB because I knew more than you due to my current group affiliations. This is no different, except your pride can't allow you to state the obvious. Answer the questions. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Sure, that's it. Had nothing to do with the fact that Labine was a third party and your input there was superfluous and useless.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 05:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Tell me, was the person that requested the move from the original position a third party or a member of the RRF? Same applies. You again avoid the questions. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 05:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::The Gore Corps is and always was a branch of the RRF. It was one of the fricking causes of the RRF-MOB split! Same thing goes for the GMT Breakfast Club and the Dept of Homeland Security (which i was a proud member of). Denying this is saying you dont know jack shit about the rrf history --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::History? Is this an historical group that we are talking about or a current one? Are you a member? Am I? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Do I have the ability to move this shit to the talk page, or will I get in trouble for it? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 05:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Please, feel free.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 05:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I was asked to come here and comment since I was the Papa during the creation of the Gore Corps. Before I begin let me say what the Gore Corps is and what it isn't. The Gore Corp is a disgrace to the RRF and by making himself leader of it Moloch himself is responsible for the downfalls of the RRF. But the Gore Corps is not separate from the RRF for that very reason. During Big Bash (the only one because the second was weak) a lot of us were combat revived. I said if you are revived do what you want; be a survivor, pker, or kill yourself. Goolina asked if she could lead a group when revived, I said sure. Then the group went from those accidentally revived to those that seek revives. This is not what the RRF stands for, and if you ask me it still doesn't because whatever it is that Moloch is leading is not the RRF. Its a fanclub for himself since the man is creating a cult of personality on par with Turkmenbashi (the real one). The Gore Corps was like every other strike team during my control, it answered to a Group leader. This is all alien to you because Moloch did away with everything the RRF had except for the Gore Corps and GMT BC. You had Papa, War Master, Consigliere, Elders, Group Leaders (Uncles), Capos for the Groups, and then strike team leaders that answered to the Uncles. Somewhere Moloch fucked with this because he has nothing better to do then fuck up good things. Now every zombie is in a strike team because the RRF isn't a horde but a group split into 5 or so platoons. However, none of this really matters since the argument is on RRF vs. DEM. During my time as Papa I asked Petro if I could separate the RRF horde from the DoHS so that people could have 2 zombies. He said no because that is alt abuse, going for the same goal with 2 characters. The DEM has this though, 2 characters in the same branch. The RRF does not allow you to have 2 characters in the RRF. By saying the Gore Corp is separate then you are saying that you can have 2 characters in the RRF, thus alt abuse. By doing this the RRF admits to alt abuse. Moloch runs the RRF and Gore Corps with the same character, RRF bans 2 characters in the same group, and historically the Gore Corps always was a strike team within Group 0, the combined horde. My expert opinion: '''Gore Corps is in the RRF'''. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 05:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:When did you stop being Papa of the RRF? Did the Corps stop at the same time? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::I stopped being Papa in September 2006. Gore Corps was created in July 2006. I remained on the War Council until Early 2008. I was very active in the RRF until around November 2007. The Gore Corps has always been part of the RRF. Despite what Moloch says the RRF has been around before he became Papa. I know a lot of this information is new. A lot of information on the RRF before he took over was erased off the wikipage, the main RRF website, and from the forum. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 05:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Just so we're clear, by October 2006 at the latest you were no longer the final de facto authority for the horde? You admit that you views are in conflict with the current holder of the position of Papa in the RRF? You admit that it is the right of Papa to decide whatever he wishes for the horde without reproach either internally or externally? You also admit that you have no basis for a lot of this information other than you own word and those of your supporters?<br />
<br />
:::What we have here, ladies and gentlemen of the community, is someone that is now banned from all RRF media, be it wiki, IRC or forum based attempting to tell you without substantiating proof other than the word of his supporters what the position and structure of a group is that he hasn't been head of for two years and that he has open hostility towards the current group and its leader as approved by the group itself.<br />
<br />
:::I trust this illustrates the accuracy and trustworthiness of this information. It is the right of any group in this game to define themselves as they wish, Sonny no longer holds that position or any of power in the RRF, Karek never held this position, no longer holds a position of power and attempts to stifle all discussion of his decisions regarding this group through such cases as this. The question you of the wiki community must ask yourselves is, is questioning and asking for clarification of a decision represented by deception on a ''closed'' move case an act of bad faith editing and therefore vandalism? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 06:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::If you're trying to argue with the Papa who created the Gore Corps on what the strike team was and was not then you're stupider than I imagined. And for the record I was banned from the RRF and everything for the same reason why the MOB and Sanitarium left the RRF, they didn't like how shit was going. I will say for the record, Moloch is an idiot and is ruining the RRF. My opinions got me banned for "slagging off" as he puts it. This has been settled. All you're doing now is bringing down the RRF even more. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::You weren't asking for clarification and the case itself was borderline vandalism because you know better. You're trying to abuse the system to make some trumped up point against the system working in any manner for the DEM, a group you hate. The fact that your justifications have been proven false by knowledgeable parties that you then attack their trustworthiness because you can't attack their arguments and you know it makes that point for me. Thank you for showing just how right I am in filing this case.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 06:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Please don't imply my intentions, the overriding principle of this page, as you well know, is to assume good faith. Assuming I was doing otherwise against my own knowledge is bad faith at worse and incorrect as fact. Knowledgable parties? Two people no longer in power in a group and with a demonstrative grudge against it? The case is not about the DEM except for a point of statute. They were allowed to move their pages out from group control, I asked why. I then pointed out that groups within my horde can and do fit the same criteria and should be allowed the same rights. You disagreed and I questioned your right to speak for a group you no longer hold a position in and have an obvious contempt for. It was for this, and nothing else, that I was brought here. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 06:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::It's funny because you're being super serious. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
&lt;hagnat&gt; does iscariot hold any "position of power" in the rrf?<br />
&lt;Murray_Jay&gt; iscariot? i don't believe so<br />
&lt;hagnat&gt; ok<br />
&lt;Murray_Jay&gt; he has a gore corpser, but i think that's it<br />
&lt;hagnat&gt; second question<br />
&lt;hagnat&gt; are you capable of defining the status of the strike teams ?<br />
&lt;Murray_Jay&gt; status?<br />
&lt;Murray_Jay&gt; like how many people they're getting?<br />
&lt;hagnat&gt; as in: is gore corps a strike team of the rrf, or a independent group ?<br />
&lt;hagnat&gt; same question goes for the other strike teams<br />
&lt;Murray_Jay&gt; it's a part of the rrf<br />
&lt;Murray_Jay&gt; not independent<br />
&lt;hagnat&gt; iscariot saying that gc is independent<br />
&lt;hagnat&gt; and that the gc formed outside the rrf and they joined in<br />
&lt;Murray_Jay&gt; those are both just wrong<br />
&lt;Murray_Jay&gt; i mean, they were formed during the original big bash, but they were a part of the RRF'ers taking part in the bash<br />
Iscariot dismissed the opinion of both karek and sonny, since they didnt hold any "''position of power''" in the current rrf. To my surprise, neither does he. In the above log, you'll notice how murray jay confirms that the gc is part of the rrf and always was part of it. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 06:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
And I thought inner group-drama was preserved for survivors only.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 15:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:meh... its not like iscariot speaks for any of the groups he says he speaks for. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Umbrella Groups ==<br />
<br />
You are all faggots. Resident Evil sucks. Basing your group off of Umbrella, a poorly created idea for a corporation that fits every single cliche, is retarded. I hope you all die in a fire. I hope your family develops cancer. I hope everyone you love contracts AIDS. I hate you all. Love, --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 01:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I love you Sonny. Are you going to contract AIDS now?--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 14:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I would if I wasn't immune to it. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Omg hax0rs. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 03:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Janus_Abernathy|Janus Abernathy Case]]==<br />
See Wan? This is why we talk things out first! ;) --[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Please don't automatically assume that it is a Umbrella member, WanYao. I apologize for Skouth and Rohanzap but this Hallman/Umbrellaemployee is not one of ours. Its quite easy to impersonate a group and there is not really much what the impersonated group can do in such a case.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:"How many vandal reports in the last week from their members" Lets see... 2 from Umbrella employee, 2 from Rohan, 1-2 from Skouth "I lose track now," 2 from Hallman, and 1 from Thad. That's 9 cases. <_< Just delete there page already. They zerg, vandalize, and all around piss everyone off. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Both of you shut up and get over yourselves. We are not having a flame war starting on the VB page. Take it elsewhere. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 17:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::I was trying to make something clear to everyone here, Cheese.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Hallman111|Hallman Case]]==<br />
::::I'd like to point out that this is not one of our members. Either this hallman/umbrellaemployeeguy is trying to make us look bad on purpose (which would not surprise me at all...) or he doesn't follow direct orders in which case he will be banned from our forums should we ever find out who he is.--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::LOL. Nice "authoritative figure" act. You would never ban someone for this. You'd probably give them a medal. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 17:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
If i might say something... I was acting independently of Umbrella at the time. Please do not let my actions reflect on Umbrella as a whole. If anyone deserves the blame for vandalising let it be me and me alone. At the time i was kind of... inebriated lets say. As for MR. Haliman's remark that i was accounted of two charges of vandalism in the last week i would like to point out to him that the afformentioned incident took place on December 11th. That is more than one week ago from this current date so i would (if it is not seen as being persnickity) suggest to Haliman that he invest in a calendar. Word on the street is you can get one really cheap now.Also i would like to point out that it was seen as a collective charge. I would also like to point out that the "umbrellaemployee" is not in anyway affiliated with Umbrella to the full extent of my knowledge. I can second MisterGame's statement that he is not a member of the Umbrella Corporation group. If i might put forth a slice of personal thought i believe that the person in question "umbrellaemployee" is in fact someone that may feel that Haliman111 has wronged them in some way and seen the animosity shared between our two groups. They have decided to increase the sense of bitter rivalry and hatred by posing as one of our supposed members and by making salacious comments about Mr Haliman here. The overall point i am trying to make is that Mr Haliman should perhaps stop pointing the finger at Umbrella (regardless of past occurences for which i am deeply ashamed of) and think who else it might be. Perhaps a former member of the UBCS who became disatisfied with the group or even a rogue party just trying stir up trouble in order to watch and secretly mock us at we tear at each others throats. So i bid you please stop this madness.<br />
Yours sincerely<br />
Rohanzap {{Unsigned|Rohanzap}}<br />
:Would you all stop, elsewhere, if you must. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::What the hell am I supposed to stop? The UBCS never did anything! Check the history on Umbrella's page! --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 03:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#User:Sexylegsread|Sexylegsread Case]]==<br />
:<s>Id' say not '''candanalism''' in itselsf but ppoor form noetheless. I am quire drnk ans L';m dix shit speilling in eth morningfd -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 04:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</s> Striking my own drunken ramblings--{{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 18:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)</s><br />
::What the hell? Please say that was a joke Cheese...--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 04:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I should clarify that, please tell me the way you fucked everything up like you're drunk was a joke.--[[User:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>]] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 04:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Cheese, he outright admitted to getting a "friend" to do it. He was as involved in it as is possible without actually pushing the button. This "poor form" shit is a cop-out, nothing more. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 05:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::excuse me? I never said I "got someone" to do it for me. It was never even my idea I just told the girl to go ahead, it will be funny. Last I checked regular users don't have an obligation to prevent account creation. Our group of friends all play UD. Only 3 of us wiki it. This person is one of those I'd people.not me. It is not an offence to not stop someone else from doing something. Whether I encourage it or not is irrelevant, it would have happened with or without by input. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 09:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Unfortunately for you, it isn't irrelevant whether you encourage it or not. Hell, even if you didn't encourage it your knowledge of it is in itself vandalism as you didn't do anything to forewarn the sysops. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 09:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::As I said, with or without me, it would have happened. But if you really want to pull all of this out your arse and make a song and dance guys, I'm happy to watch you hoo-hah about it, dw about that. Give me the escalation if you can link the appropriate rules, and I will cop it. Wiki is boring now anyway, its the same old same olds who can't take a joke. I miss grim.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 10:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::If you really hate it here so much, feel free to ask for a permaban. I'm sure they'll be only too happy to oblige. Or are you simply talking shit again? --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 10:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Uh, I don't want to ask for a perma ban, that is why I haven't. Does that suffice? I don't know about you, but I find it easy to go outside and enjoy life, my wiki use is sporadic as a result. But if I ever truly get back into UD, I would like to be able to edit pages that may be of relevance. For now, I am happy doing what I do, but my interest is declining, thats for sure.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 10:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Two points. Firstly, you're absolutely right that you don't know about me, so passive-aggressive shit like that isn't going to be very effective. Secondly, you use this wiki ''plenty'' so your attempt to paint yourself as just a casual internet user is pretty obviously a lie. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 10:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Headings==<br />
Just a minor suggestion: since the {{tl|vndl}} template includes a link to the user profile (and has done for quite a while now), we should really switch to plain headings with no links, which would make it easy to link to a particular case. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Like {{tl|v}}? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:46 3 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::Putting header code in templates isn't the best idea. There's a reason the newbie template is protected.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::If it's used, subst'ing it in should fix that problem, yeah? We'd probably have to also protect this template as well, in case of mishaps <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 04:07 3 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
::::Subst'ing templates is needless and should be avoided when not absolutely necessary. Just don't make it a header, give it an id. Or, just continue on in the already established manner sans link. It'll end up like the original system but with a fancy template.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::Er... what? Substing templates is much better than having people copy paste long blocks of code, especially if there's anything which needs to be duplicated (such as the username), and it's much better than template calls for archival purposes. I like the {{tl|V}} template, looks like a good way to streamline making reports. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::Changing from the current system would just make it ''harder'' on the person filing the case. You're using inconvenience as an argument to inconvenience. However, my point was that you can make a bold title and anchor it, the only problem is that you won't have a normal table of contents AFAIK. That avoids the edit and header problems but keeps the code compact and straight forward by not including needless substitution. But, again, you'd have the problems that come from not having real headers, which is to say you won't have editable sections for each case. Which again brings us back to the point of what real benefit to the user is there from this change?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
The verdict box to the right of the cases is a good touch. Good job guys. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 06:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:I agree. Makes those longer cases a lot easier to follow. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, until Hagnat and Conndraka use ''convenient'' mathematics when it suits them. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Thank you for your input.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 09:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
So, what do we think about doing away with the link in the headers? I think it's a good idea, seeing as the link is in the vndl template <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:25 5 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:Yeah. Go for it. Two links for the same things are just silly. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 11:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Meh. Ether way, I don't really care. It is a bit redundant, as outlined above, but I don't really have a problem with it. If it's annoying some people, then why not? {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Wiki Martyr ==<br />
<br />
oh come on! it's a bit of 'armless fun. Someone was bound to do it. If it was Conn, then kudos for being able to have some fun :) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:lolpuppetry? [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 09:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::exactly. should be encouraged really. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Is sockpuppetry common on the UDWiki? Or is this something that will be remembered? [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 09:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Not really, but this was ''obviously'' a joke, given the recent HAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS case. Not to mention the fact that the user didn't even bother using a proxy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Liberty... don't listen to J3D. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::Yes, and it's commonly banned. [[User:Cyberbοb|1]], [[User:Cyberbob250|2]], [[User:CyberΒοb240|3]], [[User:Cyberbοb240|4]], [[User:Cybеrbоb240|5]], [[User:Gage is a wanker|6]], [[User:Xoіd|7]], etc. <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:52 15 January 2009 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Haha, I remember when someone used #4 on that list to post a fake promotion bid in my name with all sorts of crazy shit in it. Gold Blade actually thought it was me, and tried calling bullshit when I said I didn't post it ;p --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::I had no idea you were so popular, Cyberbob. But I have one too: [[User:A HeIpfuI LittIe Gnome]]. I even banned it myself! --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
As i mentioned, the haha disregard that i suck cocks is almost an exact parallel for what happened here. I would suggest motives were entirely different but while i whole heartedly agree with you, overturning a ruling here wouldn't look too good for the ol' box. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::Conn didn't say anything about Boxy in his comment. Nice job on pulling it out of thin air. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Boxy was the only person who had ruled. And Conn wanted the ''ruling'' overturned. seems pretty straight forward to me.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::You're an idiot then. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This account isn't impersonating Iscariot. Stop comparing it to impersonation accounts.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, I believe the HAHA I SUCK COCKS account was perma'ed due to vandalism, and that case is completely analogous to this one. --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::No, it's not. Cyberbob240's sig read HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS. That was what he was signing as. That account existed solely for impersonation. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Sgt Raiden case ==<br />
<br />
''I would like to direct Iscariot attention to the blue box in the top of this page. Talk with users before reporting them. Most of the times a situation can be solved with a simple and polite request in the talk page. When newbies are involved, failing to follow this advice can even cause them to leave the game --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 18:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)''<br />
:It ''can'' lead to them leaving indeed. But let's not pretend that's what this is all about. If you actually cared about keeping players in the game you'd officially warn him and every other newbie that's brought to this page, otherwise we might try and settle things elsewhere. Should your attempted sabotage of the arbitration process succeed, what's more likely to make him leave the game? A warning on the wiki or repeated killing at the hands of the game's largest event's PKer wing? You tell me, no wait, I know. <br />
<br />
:Telling people to talk to users first is asking for more drama. Rather than put in the effort to go to their talk page, tell them to stop and then have to go through the back and forth explaining everything, people are just going to put their usernames in the profile database (newbies are notoriously stupid enough to have their username for their only character) and go out and gun them down. Rinse, repeat. One newbie gone. This way means you don't have to explain anything in the future either.<br />
<br />
:So stop making out that bringing them here makes them leave the game, this is the only thing that saves most of them from being griefed back to WoW. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Conndraka Case ==<br />
<br />
Karek disputes it because 'it hasn't done anything'. Odd how he didn't dispute [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:8oxy|this case]]. Impartiality? Not here on A/VB. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:Sorry, what's impersonation again?--<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User:Karek|Judge Karke]], self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All</span> 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::disregard that is a far better comparison. It was a user's tag line and that impersonated. Answer the same somewhat rhetorical question with that link subbed in instead plz.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 22:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::Sorry, what's proxy using banned users again? To save time the answer is banned on sight, the cases were obviously related. --[[User:Karek|Judge&nbsp;Karke]],&nbsp;self-proclaimed&nbsp;Decider&nbsp;of&nbsp;Everything&nbsp;and&nbsp;Ruler&nbsp;of&nbsp;All 02:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::I don't understand what you just said, but the DISREGARD THAT case wasn't using a proxy as far as i'm aware. Also, i shorted your sig on my page coz it was breakin it.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
:::::I thought you meant this case here. The DISREGARD THAT was a case of blatant impersonation. There are very few more straight forward cases than that one. --[[User:Karek|Judge&nbsp;Karke]],&nbsp;self-proclaimed&nbsp;Decider&nbsp;of&nbsp;Everything&nbsp;and&nbsp;Ruler&nbsp;of&nbsp;All 06:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
::::::I want to vandl ban ur face coz its so ugley.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The Impersonation rule is all about the continued integrity of communications in this wiki. user:DISREGARD THAT was an account set up to try and fool people into thinking it was a particular user. Making every comment signed by cyberbob suspect as not said by him until checked. Damaging his ability to use this wiki.<br />
<br />
Wiki Martyr was set up as an obviously distinct user. at no point would people be fooled into thinking both users were the same. Clearly not impersonation and in no way damaging Iscariot's ability to use this wiki.--<small><span style="border: 2px solid #DDD">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black">&nbsp;Vista&nbsp;</span>''']][[User_talk:Vista|<span style="background-color: #DDD; color: Ivory ">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 17:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)</div>Liberty