From The Urban Dead Wiki

Contents 1 Archives 1.1 Monthly Archives 1.2 General Discussion Archives 2 November 2009 2.1 User:Dawgjz 3 Bots Discussion 3.1 Adbot section 3.2 Spambots 3.3 adbot user pages 3.4 Wait. 4 General Discussion 4.1 This page a redirect, or not ? 4.2 This page is fucked 4.3 New form of Vandalism? 4.4 user page creation for vandals 4.5 Vandal Data

[edit] Archives

[edit] Monthly Archives

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

[edit] General Discussion Archives

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5

[edit] November 2009

[edit] User:Dawgjz

Vandalism because he should be doing it properly, not just randomly wiping shit. And I really doubt that some eployer is going to care that a guy plays games on a computer in his spare time.-- SA 11:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be wrong there. These days, employers do actually check allot of possible aspirants through all means, including Google. The words "urban dead" might be enough to imply terrorist activity for some 50 year old desk worker, you don't know that. I do agree it's pretty stupid to use your full name so loosely on the interwebs. But I'm sure he has learned his lesson, and it's not that his name has such a big historical impact on this wiki. --Thadeous Oakley 12:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the word "cheater" may be of more interest than urban or dead... But perhaps the name itself could be blanked out, if it's ruled to be revealing "personal information". But definitely not taking out whole sentences to change the meaning of discussions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:20 3 November 2009 (BST)

Wow. Vandalism or not you guys are fucked up! And by "you guys" I am referring to SA and Iscariot. Understand, I have never once, in my time on this wiki, resorted to slinging vulgarities at another user. Sure, I've had disagreements, but I do actually believe in and try to practice civility. Normally. And so I have never resorted to base, personal attacks. Not once. Until now.

And I doubt either of you will give a damn what someone else thinks about you since you've both proven yourselves to be so utterly fucking devoid of class and human sympathy. But I'm going to say it anyway, because you ought to hear it, and I want you to understand that I am not just flaming you but that I am actually very upset and disgusted by your behavior. Now then -

You two plotting, heartless, maniacal, smarmy little nigglers are a disgrace to anonymous internet dickheads around the world. I fucking pray neither of you shit monkeys ever end up in a position of any real authority or have the outcome of another human being's life placed in your sweaty little hands because you fuckers don't deserve an ounce trust. Not one ounce.

This poor dude is trying to get his name off a stupid zombie wiki for a game he stopped playing 2 years ago because it is interfering with his ability to make a living in the real world. He lied about why he was removing his name (probably because he didn't want to draw more attention to it) and he broke wiki policy with his edits. Granted. But then he clearly explained his reasoning on his talk page and asked for a little understanding and a little help.

Now at that point, any reasonable person, anyone with a modicum of respect for themselves and for others would understand and say, "Oh ok, let's get your name off the wiki and get you on with your life." Not these two fuckers. Instead of helping, Iscariot goes out of his way to be a complete fucking douche. When Iscariot is normally being a pain in the neck, he at least does so under some poorly argued false pretense. But now the pretenses are gone, and his true colors have shone.

He tried to permaban Dawgjz so he'd have no chance to come back on here and remove his name from the wiki. Then he snidely mentions making a user group with the guy's name on it so it will be permanently linked to the wiki. How smug. How fucking smug. And why would he go through such measures? utilizing backdoor bullshit and loopholes and bureaucracy? Basically, just to be an asshole. Because he can fuck over another human being from behind the veil of his computer screen and revel in the knowledge that he ruined someone else's day. How fucked - up - are - you?

And then SA chimes in on the talk page, full of mockery and spite, which would be one thing. But then he goes the extra mile and shakes Dawgjz down for cash! WTF? The fact that SA is a 'sop here, voted to restrict Dawgjz editing privilege, and then took his money to make the problem go away is paramount to fucking extortion.

Go ahead and defend yourself. Tell me why I'm wrong and you were really just trying to help. Bitch about my wall of text. Iscariot, get to work on a bulleted list of arguments. SA tell me why I don't know shit about the wiki and call me something really nasty. Go ahead. But you both crossed a line and you should be ashamed of yourselves. And that stands.

Seriously people. This had nothing to do with the wiki or some zombie game. It had nothing to do with following the rules or any other BS excuse you're likely to come up with. The truth is, you both saw a gleaming to opportunity fuck somebody over and you delighted in it. What does that make you?

Sickening.--Giles Sednik ^{CAPD SWA} 14:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And the most brilliant part of all, is because Google can take up to 5 months to re-cache websites, the information coming up on Google isn't likely to change the results for his name at all. So this whole argument, at leased in the foreseeable future, is absolutely futile. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Giles, Giles, Giles. The man brought it upon himself. He cheated. His employers deserve to know he cheated. If they decide that it doesn't matter that it was just a computer game then there's no harm done, if they think it is important then we've helped a company remove an undesirable candidate for employment. After all if he can cheat at something for fun, then perhaps he might go cheat for fun and profit at work. I wonder if he's a banker? This whole argument is moot really, given a Texas burger site shows up on page one of google, you can imagine what a quick google bomb will do if there's a nice off-wiki page to link to that contains a history of what happened. -- . 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because somebody is a zerg at UD, he doesn't deserve a job? His employers deserve to know? Why don't you do us all a favor and fuck off. --Thadeous Oakley 18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It proves he cheats. If his potential employers decide that it's important and that they don't want someone who cheats working for them, then it's relevant. You're just unhappy because you're just as much of a cheat as he was. See, the Zerg Liste. -- . 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I care about that? Or you thought my name really was Thadeous Oakley? Like I said before this isn't about dawgjz, this is about you abusing someone else reality problems for you own wiki drama. Oh well, this over since Boxy is blanking his name anyway.--Thadeous Oakley 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is all pretty sad, though I doubt anyone (or SA) was serious with the whole money extortion thing. And I also doubt Iscaridiot cares much about Dawgjz himself, he is just misusing another person's problems for his own little wiki crusade. Only shows Izzy puts others real-life problems below his virtual troll needs. --Thadeous Oakley 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

An incompetent arbitrator, who like the person in question cheats at a browser game, has no business passing judgement on players that don't cheat. -- . 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good thing then that I don't need your permission to judge you. --Thadeous Oakley 18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Iscariot but you don't get to "prove" anything. It is not your place to try and keep this guy's personal information public just because you feel he "deserves" it. Cyberbob  Talk  21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - I'm sorry, but you can't just wipe your history from this site because you were silly enough to use your real name for a character here. However, if Iscariot (or anyone, really) creates a page to further sully the name through their own actions, then yeah, that would be vandalism on their part as well -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:37 3 November 2009 (BST) "

This perhaps needs to be looked at. You realise you've given me a character that can now get away with anything? DHPD can't issue warrants, the DA can't put me on their blacklist, so as they don't offer public evidence (they use the wiki) the RG will consider every kill of this character a PK? That's before all those little groups start trying to put this character on their enemy list.

Also, where are we drawing the line between personal information and publicly available information. There's a least one member of this wiki that has a page at a often used entertainment site and has linked career details on public forums, repeating public information cannot be considered against this policy, any more than saying that DDR is an Aussie could be. -- . 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is cari a sysop? If he is, then why the fuck does he still have privelages? If he isn't then why has he posted on the front page of A/VB for the past two cases with no reprocussions or removal? Lelouch vi Britannia _ 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

*In before Iscariot's needless insults* Because he brought the case up, he reported him. Reporters are counted as involved, involved users (as well as sysops, he isn't one BTW) are allowed to post on the main page.--Thadeous Oakley 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because CB is the one who goes nuts over that shit. :D -- SA 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, as someone who took care of hiring people at my old job, I would never use being connected with a game, or the texas burger up his ass comment as a reason to not hire him.-- SA 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Cyberbob  Talk  21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Only because I've disagreed with you.-- SA 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If by "disagreed" you mean "say anything other than 'it doesn't matter what we think; we don't have the right to make that kind of judgement'" then yes. Cyberbob  Talk  21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicted twice grr. This case troubles me. Someone who played a few years ago has come back and asked for his name to be removed from the zerger cheaters list. After this statement, Iscariot posted a comment by someone of the same name as the user from a different website, and he (Dawgjz) removed the name from that comment. That's the vandalism being discussed. Granted, the comment itself was unneeded, though it could easily have been found anyway.

To me, this proposed vandalism came about because of what Iscariot said in reply to Dawjgz's comment. The only thing I really don't understand is why, instead of just saying that it couldn't be done, the user in question was met with sardonic replies and unneeded comments, namely the rather vulgar message under his name on texasburgerking.com, or something similar. Also why do his future employers deserve to know that he cheated at a game?Comment by Rorybob at 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

"Combined with repeated edits to a group page he is not a member of, request perma" it wasn't just the impersonation edit, but those too. Read my reply on Giles page please for an explanation as to why I was being a dick.

Also, an employer deserves to know about a persons past if they go to hire them. Like I said though, anybody that would hold a game connection, like UD, against you probably isn't worth working for.-- SA 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, you still don't get to make that kind of call. Cyberbob  Talk  21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to drag that scary big world in again, but in the current economical situation I don't think many people consider being too "good" for their employers. --Thadeous Oakley 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Right bob. We'll just follow your OH SO AWESOME AND COMPLETELY DEVOID OF PAST FUCK UPS way of doing things and your OH SO UNBIASED opinions.

Bob, if if I want to tell this guy's potential employer that the guy he's considering on hiring is actually kind of a dick to people or something, I have every liberty to do it. There is nothing stopping me from doing, no laws, nothing.

And Thad, I actually know what you're talking about. Since I sold my share of the tech store and quit, I've been playing the job field, temping and shit. What I'm saying is that if an employer turns you down because of it, the guy would have been a shitty boss anyway.-- SA 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So sorry, but if that involves disseminating his personal information on the internet against his will then no - you don't. As far as your really rather inept attempt to insult... lol. Cyberbob  Talk  22:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pleez to be quoting UK law rather than your own moral opinion plzkthxbai. -- . 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to quote law. Cyberbob  Talk  22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So then why are you trying to force us to follow your opinion? And saying it all in a rather factual manner?-- SA 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because. Cyberbob  Talk  22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Right then.-- SA 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

While I can't "force" you to do anything, that doesn't mean I won't bring you here or email Kevan (which I have already done with Iscariot). Cyberbob  Talk  22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And you completely have that right to, I'd never deny that. What I'm talking about right now is how you've been pushing your opinion as factual information up until a bit ago, not your right to take us here.-- SA 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

my price for stopping is 40 dollars Cyberbob  Talk  23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How about instead, you give me ten and I'll blindly follow your decisions for a month?-- SA 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Now see, the problem is you keep saying we can't do this, I can't do this. The thing is, I wasn't trying to keep his personal info on the wiki. I was having a problem with the way he was trying to remove it. Admit it, the only reason why you care in the first place is because Iscariot made the case. ;) -- SA 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

whydontyougofuckyourselfyousmarmyfuckingcunt. Cyberbob  Talk  22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

nou-- SA 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just give him a soft warning. He did it in a completely stupid way, and he shouldn't have done it that way at all. Hence, it's vandalism. As shown by his comment on A/PT, he wasn't aware. So, give him a soft warning. If he wants his real life name removed from a wiki, he can feel free. He just shouldn't have left it disjointed and screwed up, impersonation, etc. Boxy's fixed that, the only real issue now is if him removing the names was vandalism, which, let's face it, it was. But, he didn't know, and apologised afterwards. Soft warning, and enough with the personal attacks at each other. :D --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a chance to calm down after my last edit. When I wrote that I was extremely upset, but that's no excuse. I believe strongly in treating others with respect, especially in anonymous situations where there is no consequence for being a bastard. And so, in resorting to vulgarities and personal attacks, I've violated my own principles and I'm embarrassed to read my own words. Iscariot, SA, I went after you both in a very personal way, and I'm sorry.

Please understand that I meant every word, but I shouldn't have said it in that way. I do think you both treated that guy very poorly and got caught up in the freedom and anonymity of the internet, but then I did the same thing to you. There is a big difference when it comes to screwing with someone's ability to make a living, but still. In the future, I hope you'll both think twice about the way you deal with other people online, and I promise I won't be such a dickhead when I get angry.--Giles Sednik ^{CAPD SWA} 12:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot, it's not your place to be judege, jury and executioner of this man's employment chances -- over an allegation of zerging. You take delight in having a man's ability to support his family ruined because he was an alleged zerger 2 years ago? You take UD way too fucking seriously, you asshole.

On the other hand... It's not the wiki's responsibility to clean up every stupid thing every user and player may have typed. The wiki is not responsible for this person's stupid choices at another point in his life. This person chose to post his real name to several public forums -- not just the UD wiki... Is he contacting the this texas hamburger blog to ask his name be removed because he freely and with full cognizance wrote "I'd stick that ham-Dog up my rectum! :)"? Is he asking to be removed from this site where he's kind of a rude, trollish jerk? But if you think removing this gentleman's freely shared and posted information is the right call, then be prepared to honour every similar request in the future, warranted or otherwise. Your janitorial job just got a lot busier....... --WanYao 08:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal information has always been removable on sight anyway, hence why Personal Information is a scheduled deletion. Our janitor job has always had to encompass this. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bots Discussion

[edit] Adbot section

Anyone have an actual problem with putting the adbot section back on the main page, and not archiving them for more than a few days? It's the way we used to treat adbot permas, and it was mistakenly left off the page when it was upgraded (see Hagnat's fist VB case for the month) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:52 15 July 2009 (BST)

I will only agree to it if you put it through an arduous policy process.--ALiM style, ya dig? 14:53, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I unironically agree with J3D. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:54, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Repairs to pages that were messed up don't need to go through A/PD unless there are some real objections to the actual changes -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:02 15 July 2009 (BST)

Obviously there's no "need" but it sets a much nicer precedent because you just know how much the "give an inch take a mile" deal is played out around here. Putting this thing onto A/PD should be the number 1 choice because it safeguards against any more accidental changes of this nature as well as dealing with the precedent issue, but I would have been happy with at least some kind of attempt to open a dialogue about it first. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 15:06, 15 July 2009 (BST)

A spambot edit creates a page which then spawns at least 3 more (A/VB report, User Page to issue a warning? and then a record of the ban) How is that really useful or sensible? What is wrong with the idea of just report and ban in such obvious cases? --Honestmistake 15:10, 15 July 2009 (BST)

They don't get recorded on A/VD, just VB (whichever system we use). I think the creation of the user page just for the adbot template may have been so that people could easily tell that the spambot had already been dealt with, so avoiding multiple reports. But I don't see that as much of an issue, when A/VB is so quite these days. In any case, I don't see any reason whatsoever for archiving of the report -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:16 15 July 2009 (BST)

Once this drama is settled, and I have the energy I'll go back and delete the reports made plus the adbots' pages from the last few months (no matter who "wins" the old system will be in place because we all agree on that front I think). --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 15:18, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Agreed. --Rosslessness ^{"Borehamwood's High Profile Celebrity"} 15:50, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Will the bots bans be archived? or just removed weekly? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:19, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Removed weekly, from my reading of it. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:36, 16 July 2009 (BST)

How irritating, it requires the same work (because either way, you are making a record of your ban of the bot) but with the added annoyance of having to come to A/VB every week and remove them. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (BST)

You're worried about having to edit A/VB once a week? The wiki is seldom that peaceful. In practice, they'll just be wiped whenever someone notices (and it doesn't even have to be a sysop, other users making new reports can do it). I think you're just pissed because of your spimbot game :p -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:09 16 July 2009 (BST)

Oh my god I forgot about that, now I'm angrier than ever! --ϑϑℜ 10:14, 16 July 2009 (BST)

[edit] Spambots

So, are any of these doing anything for you? Does it make you want to buy those stuffs? They really seem to like this wiki for some reason. --  AHLGTH 18:48, 14 July 2009 (BST)

They attack most wikis. I'm on a few at the moment who have had some troubles with them. See main page for an extra comment- if they don't agree to our demands, I shall rally a counter-spam unit to spam their contact desk. Mwa ha ha. You in? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:58, 14 July 2009 (BST)

I will prepare my Nekkid Romping Gnome division (NRG) for this assault. --  AHLGTH 19:09, 14 July 2009 (BST)

[edit] adbot user pages

should we have a schedule deletion discussion about the removal of adbot user pages ? or is it covered any of the current criteria ? IMHO, creating user pages for adbot was always stupid, and we should remove them and any reference to them from the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:03, 15 July 2009 (BST)

You should read. I've already said I'll delete all instances of the adbot template as well as the cases going back a few months. It will most likely happen either tomorrow or on the day after. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 17:07, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I did read, but what if you fail to delete them all ? what if they are created in the future ? shouldnt there be a criterion to deal with them ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:21, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I can't fail to delete them all because I simply went off "What Links Here" from the template page. Durr. As for the rest, I don't see why not. I'll go make the scheduled vote right now. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 17:26, 15 July 2009 (BST)

If you do so, remember to add a seld-delete clause on the deletion request itself once it gets approved. Nothing to be left behind of an adbot accuont. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:40, 15 July 2009 (BST)

(scheduled deletions aren't the same thing as speedy deletions) --Cyberbob 17:41, 15 July 2009 (BST)

[edit] Wait.

Why does this need to be a whole separate templated page again? The only reason we use templates for admin pages is because it makes them easier to archive and this section isn't going to be archived. Surely it would be simpler just to have it as a separate heading on A/VB itself? --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 17:13, 15 July 2009 (BST)

then you'd have to check A/VB, which i believe most users dont. When they have the current month on their watchilist, they simply check it. This also make it easier to identify what this page is about, leaving the other pages to be edited by content that is relevant for those pages --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:19, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Everyone has A/VB on their watchlist anyway, or should. --ϑϑℜ 10:04, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It's a lot better off at the top of the monthly archives, it's the one that is edited the most, and where people get sent after editing one of the VB cases. No point making people go to the A/VB main page as well, just to deal with adbots. But it could be simply added to the A/VB header that gets added to the monthly archives -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:26 16 July 2009 (BST)

[edit] General Discussion

[edit] This page a redirect, or not ?

I was just working on this talk page, and noticed it was a redirect to this current month archive. If i were to go ahead and change the current redirect to the feb archive, all undergoing discussions in the january archive would be forgotten and hidden from the general public view. Thus i changed this page redirect to a page with a templated header and calling the two talk pages (the current one and jan one) into it. After some thought, i realized that by doing so i would lost my ever so precious and new found ability to create new headers with the + button. So, what are my options:

• leave this page as a redirect to the current talk page
• lose the + button functionality, leaving this general discussion section at the bottom (so that people using the + button will know they are creating a new general discussion sub-header)

opinions ? --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better this way. It functions now the same way as the main page (A/VB). --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As midinian. It's just fine to keep it the same as VB. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:46, 8 April 2009 (BST)

[edit] This page is fucked

It's not showing the main a/vb stuffs, just the bot section.--ALiM style, ya dig? 01:16, 27 July 2009 (BST)

[edit] New form of Vandalism?

Just click on the link in my siggy :).--Thadeous Oakley A Challenge you ought to try 21:12, 13 August 2009 (BST)

I would definitely consider that a significant form of vandalism. But it also begs the question of why such code even exists (at least for the wiki). Is there any way to disable the Random code so that is has no effect? --Maverick ^{Talk OBR} 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, check the talk page. Though the random page seems to have been deleted...--Thadeous Oakley 20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous. Wasn't sure if it had been dealt with since this header was still here with no comment. Glad to see it was resolved quickly. --Maverick ^{Talk OBR} 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] user page creation for vandals

can we please stop this behavior ? its kind of silly (not to mention stupid) to create a page (sometimes two) for a vandal user just to slap a template or two in them. Can we please stop this ? Im not sure if nonexistant pages can be protected, but even if its not possible, what possible gain does this wiki have by creating and protecting such pages ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:44, 9 September 2009 (BST)

I dunno. I never really got the protections thing anyway. I mean, what are they going to do. Create a new account and spam their old page? And even if protecting them is important, there's no need to create a page just for it. I agree with hagnat.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} 21:46, 9 September 2009 (BST)

That has been done (vandal coming back and vandalising old user pages) many times before in the past. It also stops others commenting on the talk pages of vandals. Again, that used to happen quite a lot. -- Cheese 21:57, 9 September 2009 (BST)

DISK SPACE = CHEEP Cyberbob  Talk  00:13, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Basically, no. At worst it's harmless and the BannedUser template is a good one. Cyberbob  Talk  00:21, 10 September 2009 (BST)

It's pointless and I agree with hagnat... I don't think we should be making a page for them. Still use the BannUser template on permabanned vandals with a page, but there is no reason why we should be going out of our way to spam the wiki with pages that aren't needed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:39, 10 September 2009 (BST)

[edit] Vandal Data

My vandal data is not accurate and is missing at least one report. Do your job sysops, and fix it. --Thadeous Oakley 15:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the magic word? Cyberbob  Talk  15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuck?

...Remember Bob, sysops are tools of the community, not the other way around. Sysops have their chores, and this isn't something I should ask for in the first place D: --Thadeous Oakley 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Actually yes it is something you have to ask for - VD is too big for us to be monitoring all entries all the time) Cyberbob  Talk  00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus with an entitled and unhelpful attitude like that this might take a while. VB cases have to be sorted through and matched to the current entries under your name, strike dates have to be checked... how's January suit you? Cyberbob  Talk  00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Stop being a moron and tell us where and when we should be looking for this missing report. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

CB's being a bit of a jerk by stringing MG along, but MG was also presumptive, rude, and didn't give a lot of information. Why don't you guys just cut each other some slack? Of course, you could also just ignore me if you so choose, but you know that it would be easier if you guys were more civil to one another... Lelouch vi Britannia _ 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We've just had the exact same issue with another more formidable annoyance in Iscariot when it comes to A/VD (and not specifying where or what the issue is)- and our subsequent 'fix' led to even more turmoil and unrest than it would have been to leave it. We are past the "My A/VD isn't right- fix it NOW" attitude and if Thad wants anything done he can come and talk to us in a co-operative matter or we won't think dick of his request. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd be better if MG would just ask you guys to do something and it happened without a big fuss; must we always have wiki drama? Asking someone for something has nothing to do with being subservient, it's common courtesy. Lelouch vi Britannia _ 05:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you wouldn't call up a tech support help line and tell them, "my computer is broken; do your job and make it work" without offering any additional details about the problem. That’s just not how things work. Providing details about the problem is the courtesy that needs to be offered here if a productive result is to be expected. Until that happens, the rest is just chatter. -Aichon^TSMO- 06:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At the moment you've created more drama than Bob and Thad ever did. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)