General Discussion

JISOR/Halfdan and Mekhan/Tarpenz

Assuming these 4 are all ruled vandalism, are their votes in the election all struck? Would remove 2 additional votes from Stelar, leaving them at 23. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

We'd strike only the second (time-wise) of the votes for each candidate; e.g. JISOR's first two votes would remain, but any by Halfdan Pisket would be struck. Same with Mekhan/Tarpenz — Mekhan's votes remain, but Tarpenz's have been struck. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I corrected the title for clarity. I have not been connected to the other two accounts. --

14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

JISOR’s final vote was made after both of Pisket’s. If a user has two votes, I believe it would make sense for all votes struck after the first two votes by a single user. DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 14:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, unless of course that scenario would end in a double vote like you described. Apologies. DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 14:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Totally right. I didn't realize Halfdan's were timestamped before JISOR's. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Sister Mary

moved from main page

Blanked User talk:Sniper4625 - normally I would give benefit of the doubt, but they seem quite hostile, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. Regards~ Sniper4625 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I won't need any benefit of doubt, thanks for considering my feelings though. After reading I wanted to have my talk page protected both Sniper and Dragontard came to write on my page - if you don't want any hostile behavior I suggest you fuck off and leave me alone :) I don't even know who the fuck you guys are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:37 June 3 2018.

Oh right. Ban the fuck outta my account if you feel like it Mr. System-Operator-Boss. I have no problem editing some page to get my message across to people who have a hard time getting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC).

--

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Now now, there's no need to be rude and start flinging insults. --Dragonshardz (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Might I inquire why you decided the best choice of action to a harmless greeting was a rule-breaking act of vandalism? Quite rude. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Given talk pages are a pretty important element of regulating user behavior without needing to ban anyone the instant they step out of line, I'm really not sure Sister Mary has any interest in learning or following any of the community norms of the wiki. Swissaboo (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Per their talk page now they apparently have gotten many such pages deleted, which somewhat confuses me. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding onto this, in their protection request they clearly have no interest in bothering with the proper formatting for responding to other users and on their talk page they have placed the nominated for deleting template without any actual nomination for deletion having occurred. I don't know how much of this is actually against wiki RULES (except perhaps that last one?) but they're very clearly running roughshod over the expected standards of behavior. Swissaboo (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant WIKI LAW when you said RULES. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This was exactly the point of having my talk page protected - the horde/jack/whateverzergs can't seem to leave me alone :) Sister Mary (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The Jack got run out of town on a rail. Try again. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason is pretty simple, and I thought you got the message, but okay, I will clarify for you why = I don't like you :) I will eat my warning with pleasure, don't worry about it! But.. this isn't your first time harrassing people, correct? I like that you feel like you have the upperhand over a guy that made 200+ edits within the last 24 hours, and only vandalized a single page of a user that didn't really go about making "a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki" by trying to trigger me by invading my talk page. Im looking forward as to how this will play out. I will just make another account and keep on editing from there so I didn't lose anything catching myself a warning, other than shifting focus to you ugly bunch of motherfuckers :D Sister Mary (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (See, I use my template just like you want to!)

Isn't sockpuppeting to avoid wikipunishments in itself a punishable offense? You just keep digging. Sniper4625 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)

Are you back, Jack? Because you're making the same "alts!" argument he did, and he was similarly disproven. I'm not sure how I put words in your mouth when you said "I will just make another account and keep on editing from there," but well, I did appreciate your attempt to sic Aichon on my compatriot. Too bad it failed. Sniper4625 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

AHHHHHHHH :D I was actually just waiting for someone to pull out the "you're a Yocum" card! Sure dude - let's say im a Jack. I must be a great Jack. I mean, I edited 2 suburbs completely and have been editing the EMRP for 6 months on another account - but sure! YOU GOT ME! :D Im getting the idea that your dick is all so im gonna leave you to play with that! I will be back with another account, to edit another 200+ locations. Meanwhile you guys will have to enjoy yourself being annoying towards someone else! :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2018.

Vandalism and a Warning. Don't blank other's pages. I'll serve the warning officially over at the Sister Mary page, but I assume you'll see it here as well. And yes, warnings carry over between accounts. —Aich on— 02:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So...how does the wiki handle a user rage-reverting their own edits? --Dragonshardz (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Rage reverting? I edited 3 locations due to them being wrong :D Aichon you said something about the parties in question should talk, the rest should shut up. If this doesnt qualify as harrassment I don't know what will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC).

Sounds to me like someone is finally bored of this game and is getting one last laugh out of the community by being as much as a cunt as possible on his way out. Either that or it's his time of month and he's out of pads.---- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!}06:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah" A ZOMBIE ANT 00:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User: Revenant

Now think about it, I have a very distant memory of a user who used to remove all signatures of everyone else on their talk page as a kind of norm, but I can't remember who it was, or if it actually happened. Might have been Iscariot, maybe even Finis. Does this sound right to anybody? A ZOMBIE ANT 22:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there was somebody, but fuck if I remember who it was. I think the logic was that if there was no signature, they could do whatever they wanted to the content and it didn’t count as impersonation? ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ †

||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh god, I hope it never went that far. I can't help but feel it was Iscariot just being a bit narky about stuff. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

User:The Goth Store Owner

*snif* *snif* I smell drama. Is there drama ? OH MA GOSH IS DRAMA!!! --hagnat 21:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The sooner they learn that 90% of this dispute should be on A/Arbitration the sooner I can sleep at night. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a minimum time cases need to stay on the main VB page? Can't this shit just be moved to archives and locked? --_K^CLZA 21:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A/VB is now archived on an annual basis, so it'll be cycled in January 2016. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

So quiet

* shuffles around looking for drama to feed on, finds none *
What happened to this place ? --hagnat 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to drop the DramaLevel. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hagnat spamming an administrative talk page was the excuse I needed to fulfill our VB case quota required by Kevan. To the wikicourt with him at once! -- Spiderzed ▋ 21:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I like where this is going. Step back everyone, I got A/M covered. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the drama level was updated almost prompted me to raise it a level, since that's more drama than we've had in months. —Aich on— 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

DDRs threat to use A/M before there even is a VB verdict alienates me. I will pre-emptively file an arbitration to forbid him from posting on A/M for 5.73 venusian years. -- Spiderzed ▋ 20:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Foiled again by the cabal. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you can update the DramaLevel to the lesser level of drama. This place is so quiet. --hagnat 16:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ehh, I'm still a little on alert from the big bot attack last week. Not a true old-school drama, but it qualifies. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems the big bot attack got under controle. Whoever pulled that out, congrats :) --hagnat 17:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Bots Discussion

Regarding the New Header

So the way the new header is set up it rolls up a week every Saturday and the Day counter runs from 0-6. That way we can visibly keep track of when the page should be purged without actually having to go through too much trouble of browsing the votes beforehand. Should make things a little bit easier while making this page take up less space in A/VB's ToC and page. --Karek^maps?! 23:12, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Of course, it gets purged much more often than one week at this point in time. I've been purging every couple of days to keep it from breaking A/VB with unclusion calls ({{vndl}} and sigs).I like the idea, though. I think it would help if we all deciding to put all new reports at either the top or the bottom. ~

_{22:29, 12 April 2011}

It can't/shouldn't now. That was because of stuff added to both this page and the A/VB archive page that I removed and had less to do with large amounts of page use. Generally new reports have always been at the top for all admin pages.--Karek^maps?! 02:42, 13 April 2011 (BST)

We'll see. We had a lot of vandal cases in March b/c of jokes and actual legitimate vandalism. We're half way through April and already quite a bit of vandal data and the bots aren't letting up. As the month progresses both the bot page and the a/vb archive will be competing for inclusion size. Plus it looks neater if there aren't 40 bot reports. But I am willing to do the once a week purge to see how it goes. ~

_{03:37, 13 April 2011}

Case in point: if you check UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_03 at this very moment, it is broken due to inclusion calls. I've made a template - {{bot}} which should be a smaller inclusion size. This might help and might also trim down on the clutter. It is basically {{vndl}} without bot talk page, vandal data, or discussion links. ~

_{16:12, 13 April 2011}

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.--x o x o 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. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 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)

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. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 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. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:09, 14 July 2009 (BST)

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)

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)

Bot Rush

With the current bot rush, what about changing the way bots are filed in order to cut down space that gets eaten? We could for instance use the day as header and then file the vndl-templates underneath along with the sig of the serving op. -- Spiderzed ▋ 12:38, 28 March 2011 (BST)

Maybe just use sig of the op and day as the sig says, as me and i think vapor have been doing. it's only a formality for accountability etc. not really important -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 14:00, 28 March 2011 (BST)

I used my own header for a bit but then just started adding to the top header. At the rate they're coming in, they're being cycled a day or two later so it doesn't matter much. We honestly could do without headers and just stack the {{vndl}} template with timestamp to reduce clutter. At least for the time being. ~

_{14:22, 28 March 2011}

Cut away headers, file the newest on the top with vndl and sig? Sounds like a plan to me. I'll change it tomorrow unless someone produces an outcry. -- Spiderzed ▋ 22:17, 28 March 2011 (BST)

I dig that. As long as the headers aren't stinking up the main A/VB contents then I'm happy. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 00:41, 29 March 2011 (BST)

Might just want to link to bot user pages rather than using tl:vndl. Too many template calls were killing A/VB. Had to cycle everything except today's bots. ~

_{01:14, 29 March 2011}

Othpeli

I'm amused that Othpeli created a page advertising for jobs In Christian education on a website that is about a zombie apocalypse. Granted, it is probably automated and was trawling for wikis, but it's still funny. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 01:16, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Extensions

We should totally ask for Extension:SpamBlacklist. After all, we got an update this month: why not strike while the iron's hot? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:26, 27 April 2011 (BST)

“	We have the Username Blacklist extension. Could this help in our spambot related problem?	”
—~ _{19:33, 27 April 2011}

Not really; not only is it obsolete, but the bots are using random names which can't really be filtered. Updating to the replacement Extension:TitleBlacklist would probably help, but only somewhat. Still, every measure we can get in place will do some good. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:20, 28 April 2011 (BST)

Hmm. Well I suppose we could add it to the list of things we'd like Kevan to fix. We also have the ConfirmEdit extension which I believe can be configured by syspos without the need to access the backend. If I'm reading correctly, it can be configured to require capcha when URLs are added and has options to whitelist certain URLs, whitelist groups (like UDWiki:Autoconfirmed Users), and whitelist users with confirmed emails. There is a similar line of discussion happening on UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Semi-protection#Ideas_for_implimentation this policy discussion. ~

_{06:11, 28 April 2011}

The default configuration for ConfirmEdit has it display a CAPTCHA for adding a URL, creating an account, and messing up a login. I don't recall ever seeing any of these. Might be time to create a test account and see if any of them come up…
The only thing listed as sysop-editable for ConfirmEdit is a URL whitelist, everything else requires sysadmin privs. Our Username Blacklist is sysop-editable, but I defy you to come up with any regex that will match the bots we've been getting.
Extension:Check Spambots looks very nice… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:02, 28 April 2011 (BST)

Spam Page

Relevant conversation moved from main page.

Got. Would you mind using the {{Spam Page}} template on them? -- boxy 07:08, 1 May 2011 (BST)

mmmk so instead of posting here? any reason? i mean i don't even look at the page to begin with. i just spot the bot in RC and report it.--

bitch 00:02, 2 May 2011 (utc)

This is why. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:58, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Also post a report here. But I'd like to see the pages wiped as soon as possible so that they don't get picked up by search bots. You don't even have to put the template on, a simple page wipe would do -- boxy 03:56, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Only if the template doesn't look like a user template but actually a notice. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:48, 2 May 2011 (BST)

so let me get this straight so i don't muck it up? post on the bots page with the {{bot|user}} thing, add {{Spam Page}} to the page and wipe it? seems like a lot of work. which would make me prone to not even bother anymore.--

bitch 13:57, 2 May 2011 (utc)

It's two more clicks pretty much. Although the template should be moved to {{BP}} probably. Spaces in templates are needlessly confusing.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:59, 2 May 2011 (BST)