UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Forbidding soft warnings

Ridiculous, you can't forbid us from commenting on talk pages, which is essentially all a soft warning is. It's unenforceable, impractical, and, again, ridiculous. Even if it passes it can't be followed without forcing us to make all attempts to solve problems without actual vandal banning escalations vandalism or misconduct. --Karek^maps?! 10:17, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Why do we even need this? A "soft warning" is basically a "note" from a sysop asking the user to smarten up. It has no official status. And that is as it ought to be... However, if I understand correctly, say someone is spamming admin pages... they get a "soft warning"... but they continue to spam the pages... The "soft warning" can be looked at as further "evidence" of bad faith if they now need to be taken to VB... Well, that system works just fine, IMO. Don't add more bureaucratic crap to an already over-red-taped system... thanks, but no. --WanYao 10:37, 3 August 2008 (BST)

"you can't forbid us from commenting on talk pages, which is essentially all a soft warning is". Well...Grim took it to an administration page with the intention of making his ruling public viewing for all those, therefore enforcing that his opinion, and his opinion only, was given on the matter. If anyone differed (see: comments on the VB page) they, by his standards, would receive a soft warning themselves. So you are saying that Grim could have avoided all of this by either handling the matter directly with Jed, or not bringing up six month old stuff for a petty case?--CyberRead240 12:04, 3 August 2008 (BST)

That has absolutely nothing to do with soft warnings and more to do with interpersonal problems between you, J3d, and Grim. So, yes, I am saying that, I'm also saying that Soft Warnings, incorrectly, are taking the blame and being painted as OMGAbuse! in an attempt to justify using administrative pages to further that conflict.--Karek^maps?! 13:18, 3 August 2008 (BST)

All I am saying is, if a soft warning is not official, it should not be on an official page. Make another page for it, if you must, but if it goes on Vandal Banning, it is up for Vandal banning, and nothing else.--CyberRead240 15:40, 3 August 2008 (BST)

As i've said like 3 times now, i have no objection to being given soft warnings if they are just friendly warnings on talk pages, the same as any other post. In fact i might drop a few of my mates soft warnings now. What i do want from a Grim is him to acknowledge that soft warnings have no weight, because from the way he has acted and spoken it would seem he is under the impression that if he gives me a few soft warnings for stuff i did 6 months ago that is within the rules of the wiki he can get me legitimately banned.--xoxo 13:24, 3 August 2008 (BST)

You are always going on about what might happen and never paying attention to what is happening. It is clear from your actions that you honestly don't believe that soft warnings have any merit. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:02, 3 August 2008 (BST)

I don't, I think they are garbage. What is happening is Grim's gone AWOL, all i'm waiting for his a note from him accepting that his soft warning is not an official warning of any sort (well it might be official from him, but not from the wiki) and a Not Vandalism ruling on the a/vb case he started (sort of?) against me regarding this soft warning. That or just delete it off the page...a policy would be nice but in the absence of that the recognition that a soft warning is nothing would be fine.--xoxo 14:10, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Grim is not in fact Absent With Out Leave, he's still on the wiki. What's more, he doesn't require leave to go absent, he can step away from his computer whenever he wants. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 21:34, 8 August 2008 (BST)

Techercizer, we all already know this. Within the space of Jeds comment on the 3rd of August, and yours on the 8th of August, Jed and Grim have communicated. It is on the bottom of this page.--CyberRead240 09:47, 10 August 2008 (BST)

Ok, drop the torches and the pitchforks and let's talk

Nice, I see that my policies have attracted attention... altough all the wrong one indeed. In the first place, let me say that I'm in no way related to the latest drama at hand, J3d vs Grim anbd all that BS: I just tought of this on a kind of whim and told myself "let's try", obviously reminded of the soft warning by the latest drama but in no way taking sides on it. Now, some Re's:

@Karek: Yes, as a matter of fact if it's stated by official policy it can be forbidden for you to warn users in an unofficial manner. If you think the policy goes overboard in this (maybe barring Sysops to do some of their required tasks as collateral damage) please point to wich tasks specifically are required and I'll see the way to unbar them. No, I don't think that "soft warning = abuse", altough as many other tools it can be misused.

@Wan Yao: Yes, you pretty much nailed how they are currently used, altough at the same time you nailed the uncertainty that brings it's use: the community in general doesn't seem to know much more of them that what you said, and new users (and old uninformed users alike) to the wiki may even be "soft warned" without understanding what the hell are the warning Sysop talking about, and no policy to refer to. Also, if I put a notice that says "please be civil" on my talk page as a rule, and then you come and act as an asshole, I warn you to follow the rules, and you're still an asshole on my talk page, can I bring you on A/VB over the "repeatedly breaking a page rules" part of UDWiki:Vandalism policy, with my warning to you as further evidence that you were warned and thus, clearly commited bad faith? Would it be fair for you?

@J3d: That's just wishfull thinking and should be discarded ASAP. The soft warnings you have will be used as evidence against you if you continue to behave un an undesired manner, that's all.

Now, the discussion page is meant as to add your input on the policy at hand. I have set up a system where even the failure of both policies, that treat totally different approaches on regulating the so-called "soft warnings", is a possitive result, namely the confirmation of the status quo as the preferred system. Improving the policy means to improve but one take on how should be soft warnings be treated on the wiki, and if you do not want them to be anything else than the current system (if we may call it that way) please vote Against it when it comes to vote. But if your objective is scaring all other users from making some kind of helpful input to the policy, by all means go outside: the shinny thing that scrolls all over that boring cerulean wallpaper? that's the Sun. --Starplatinum 14:28, 3 August 2008 (BST)

You're gonna need to actually back that claim up with an example of how it's possible to abuse something that has no direct consequences, Soft Warnings is just a term, it's not so much a warning as informing you that something could be interpreted as bad faith or vandalism, there's no way you can bar that with a policy without also forcing us to punish users who don't know something might be against some obscure rule as that's the whole purpose of Soft Warnings_{(soft warning just means that it is a sysop who is doing the informing, and a lot of the "confusion" surrounding them was caused by some very specific users who were trying to get a certain Sysop punished for it, it really is that simple)}. You also can't cement it through a policy for that very same reason, it's like trying to define every little possible variation of giving someone information and making it all follow a specific procedure and documentation. You can't regulate it in this manner without changing it to be, and mean, something else entirely.--Karek^maps?! 14:53, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Got to agree with Karek. A soft warning is just a term, it can be called a warning shot, a notice, whatever. Also in issues of vandalism, (barring the dedicated vandal user) any users first port of call should be vandals talk page. Removing the whole ideas of warnings just means more people just going straight through Vandal Banning. And I'm a normal user (?) Does this mean i cant tell someone that their behaviour is considered vandalism and they should stop? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:02, 3 August 2008 (BST)

First, please, refer to... some school in order to learn how to use punctuation signs properly because it's getting harder and harder to read your posts. And I'm the foreign one here, jeez. Now, I'll have to ask you to point out evidence on how do soft warnings per se, not unnofficial warnings in general but the actual soft warnings that we have seen used on the A/VB page, are of no consecuence on the wiki, preferably some hard evidence that contradicts this case, this case, and finally this case (I don't feel like searching for his month ban and looking if it was caused for shitting up administrational pages as well) and point out how they're not the direct consecuence of this soft warning (on A/VB here), and this soft warning (on A/VB here). Incidently, because you make me look for stuff so old that I think I may have broken the wiki while searching, I'll kindly ask you to read the whole lot of it, plus the talk page of October 2007 A/VB archive that contains yet more insightful information, before replying to me: if this condition is not met, I may as well ignore all further comments because it will be proof that you're just speaking your ass out with no backing but words involved.

That said, I do not understand the rest of your sentence, specifically why I would have to make another policy. This is all, however, assuming that you already understood I am neither against or for any of my policies or the status quo, mind you. --Starplatinum 16:26, 3 August 2008 (BST)

If you're truly not trying to take a side in this you have a funny way of doing it. Dismissing a side out of hand because you don't think they can possibly be right isn't neutrality. Not looking into evidence you present for an opinion that it's abused isn't neutrality. If you want to present neutrality you might want to start by clearing up what you think Soft Warnings are, obviously you have a very different interpretation of them than everyone else here.

• This is the biggest example of that as it had nothing to do with soft warnings beyond that at that point he was well informed that that is vandalism, just like the case of putting Deletions up for Deletion is vandalism, had he not been Soft Warned before hand he still would have gained that escalation. Check what he was reported for before assuming personal vendettas.
• This_{(which you also linked as "evidence")} can be dismissed in a very similar manner. The page being discussed was a subpage he made specifically for the purpose of transculding on other users pages, it was deleted as it's purpose was vandalism and he admitted as much. Relevant links included.
• These two don't help much when This was the type of thing he was doing on the main page. It helps less when you consider he came to agree he was being a problem.

I seriously find myself wondering if you spent the time to actually check why each one of those escalations happened. It doesn't help that you seem to be forcefully differentiating Soft Warnings and Unofficial Warnings with your rhetoric, they are the same exact thing and always have been. --Karek^maps?! 17:44, 3 August 2008 (BST)

You'll notice I didn't even bother with the talk page. Everything I mentioned above is contained therein. The page presents, repeatedly, the opposition to the evidence you claim shows abuse of soft warnings, there's even a point in that page where Nalikill is talking about banning himself from all administrative pages of his own volition. .--Karek^maps?! 17:44, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Ok, you'll hate me for this, but... when did we start talking about abuse? You asked me specifically:

Karek said:

You're gonna need to actually back that claim up with an example of how it's possible to abuse something that has no direct consequences

I followed suit and proved that soft warnings have direct consecuences, not that they have been abused. If the question is "can soft warned be abused?", my answer is "of course, as any other administrative ability they may be abused: that's why we have Misconduct". If the question is "have they been abused already?" my answer will most definitely be "It looks like they were not yet abused". That's why I have left status quo as a natural choice instead of taking a stance of "my policies are the true solutions", that's why I say I'm no taking sides (making two contradicting options and even citing a third is taking a side?), and that's why I'm taking your labia as pure BS. If you fail to understand this as well, then, I have no solution for you, just go and tell AHLG how much you just won, and maybe your pals on IRC as well. Yeah, I know, you don't know me and have no reason to believe that I'm informed about these cases. But I am. --Starplatinum 18:07, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Except none of the things you mentioned were in any way direct consequences of soft warnings, that's an important point of my whole spiel. I couldn't care less about whether or not I know you but when you talk about the cases and draw the conclusion that they are a direct consequence of soft warnings then you are either uninformed about the case/s, under the assumption that none of the things would have been vandalism without the soft warnings, or are purposely misrepresenting or ignoring the real causes of those reports, warnings, and escalations.--Karek^maps?! 18:42, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Bit of a side note; Your being defensive, I don't care who you are, for me this is about the policy not about some e-peen contest, you're dismissing my comments out of hand but it might be beneficial for you to realize I've been directly involved in not only everything you've mentioned here regarding soft warnings but the whole soft warnings debate since it's inception, I don't just know what I'm talking about I'm generally the one who works at settling the disputes that arise over it. You may not like me, you may not like what I'm saying but, dismissing it out of hand is surely not the right way to show your actually in this to address the/a problem or work towards a solution.--Karek^maps?! 18:42, 3 August 2008 (BST)

And another little one; You obviously have a reason for making these policies or you wouldn't have bothered. Would you mind mentioning it instead of just claiming you have no investment in the outcome?--Karek^maps?! 18:44, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Gaaah. This is out of hand. I have no interest anymore... ;The soft-warnings system is fine' -- and I have explained why I believe that. Everything else is irrelevant. Ciao. --WanYao 21:17, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Le Sigh

It seems everyone here, or at least the opposing crowd, are a bunch of extreme idiots. The whole concept of soft warnings has been explained pretty thoroughly before, and its only through intentional actsn of obfusciation here by J3D and his RL pals, plus Starpplatinum the imbecile who ran with it instead of digging up the truth that we are this far.

A soft warning (Formerly known as unofficial) is a warning between a sysop and a user. It doesnt have to be for a specific case, though those where they have been are usually for people posting rulings on pages where they have no right todo so. They have also been given to users who have demonstrated a clear history of disrupting the page. These are generally applied only for A/VB but apply to other sections as well where people are intentionally fucking with the admin pages to make the sysops lives more difficult. A Soft warning does not require policy. A soft warning is merely a marker that allows a sysop to state, definitively, that a person has been told that his behaviour crosses the line and that its making life more difficult for sysops to process their workload efficiently.

After multiple such warnings (Historically two), a sysop can then point out such requests for a person to stop shitting up the admin pages as proof that the person doesnt give a shit about making the admins actions easier, and is acting in bad faith, simply because they like disrupting the page. At this point further actuions are subject to the standard escalation system, because the people are intentionally being douchebags. Given that its the sysops who are using the page, its their call on whether or not such behaviour is disruptive. The users being soft warned dont have a say in that, as they arent forced to dig through the drama of the initial confrontation, and then the extra half dozen vabdal cases that sometimes spring up as a result of such patent idiocy.

They are posted on the A/VB page simply to provide a record of the action being taken, and inform other sysops of that action having been taken. Its nice and easy to find should they need to be used to link up for actual escalations later.

As for needing a policy to happen? No. The decision to make this happen was enforced by concensus among the sysops, who are the people who have to use the page. You dont like it? Fine. Nothing is keeping you here. If its that big a problem, leave the fucking wiki and save us all the headache of having to deal with your massive egos and tiny brains.

As has been pointed out on the last three times this matter was brought up, the talk page is a perfectly viable place to post your opinion if you have one. It stops shitting up the case, the casual idiot wont spot it at first and make stupid assumptions based upon the idiocy, if any, in your posts, and since sysops have the VB page bookmarked already, they will see if there are any new discussions on talk when they check their watchlist. If they actually give a shit they may even deign to grace you with a response, provided your post actually contains anything based in reality instead of your own little insane paranoid delusions. As for me allegedly taking a runner, ive just got a new PC up and running, and have far better things to do with my time than watch imbeciles patting themselves on the back while having a circlejerk. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 21:41, 3 August 2008 (BST)

"If its that big a problem, leave the fucking wiki". Ah yes, the solution to disagreeing with Grim = leave the wiki because someone who disagrees with Grim has no place here.

For Grim:Sorry to bring this back to my specific case but Grim i really don't see how any of the edits i made to A/VB in the lead up to getting a 'soft warning' from you were "spam". I've requested this information from you several times on different pages so if you haven't seen it yet it is here in plain sight. If you don't have an answer i can only assume the soft warning was for edits i made months ago, and the reason the action came now was because you were sulking. I'd love to be proven wrong so please explain what the soft warning was for, thanks.--xoxo 09:51, 4 August 2008 (BST)

"(I) have far better things to do with my time than watch imbeciles patting themselves on the back while having a circlejerk". You needed a new PC to figure that out? I don't want to guess how you fucked up your old one... If you don't live alone, you'd better delete your history. Could be embarrassing.--CyberRead240 10:40, 4 August 2008 (BST)

I've got a question. If someone, it could be anyone, gave you a warning (just a friendly reminder) a for spamming up an administrative page would you be complaining about that? It is exactly the same when a newbie comes along and makes two suggestions in a day. Someone gives them a friendly warning (a "soft warning") that doing such things is against the rules. From this point it can be reasonably assumed that the user knows what they are doing and is intentionally going against the rules set out on the page.

What makes the difference between the suggestions example and the soft warnings about the A/VB page is the group of users who regularly use the page, and thus who has more weight behind their words (you wouldn't trust someone about location blocking when they do none!). While I don't agree on how Grim went about it all, you are doing no favours for yourself in the way you have dealt with the issue either. - Jedaz - 10:52/4/08/2008

I don't think Jed cares about getting a soft warning, it is the manner in which Grim posted it. A friendly soft warning would not end up on A/VB, would it? It would be dealt with on the users talk page. Grim posted it on A/VB, which means it is up for VB consideration, then ruled on it himself, with a mere soft warning. Obviously to antagonize Jed. The reason this has got so out of hand is that it is obvious misconduct. Could have been all avoided if Grim acted as maturely as his position suggests he should, and posted the warning on Jeds talk page. The argument isn't about whether or not Jed deserved a soft warning, it is about Grim breaking the rules of the Vandal banning page.--CyberRead240 10:57, 4 August 2008 (BST)

You are correct, Grim did go about it in an inappropriate manner. However it is not misconduct since no administrative action took place. Personally I would have put Grim up for vandalism for "shitting up the admin pages", which you could make a sound argument for, however the chances for doing that are gone now. And it all comes down to how Jed dealt with the issue. Don't take this as me condoning Grims actions, but Jed focused on the soft warning rather then the real issue. This can be seen in the misconduct case against Grim.

For reference, I could create a A/VB case but then "rule" a soft warning (take the suggestion newbie example). No sysop would rule vandalism against the newbie, but I would be spamming up the admin pages. To differentiate between misconduct and vandalism you have to ask "can a normal user do the same thing with the same outcome?" - Jedaz - 11:17/4/08/2008

Jedaz, they have always been posted on the A/VB page, ever since the start. I posted relevant links in my misconduct case at the time, which further show how they are done and how my actions were consistent with them. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 11:45, 4 August 2008 (BST)

So wait, are you saying that if I found a user who broke a rule and then I posted on the A/VB page that I gave them a soft warning, that it would not be considered "shitting up the admin pages"? So that we are clear here, I'm not saying that the "soft warning" wasn't justified, and I do agree that it wasn't misconduct. However, if reporting incidents like that is vandalism then why is you doing it not? Again, just to be clear, I believe it is vandalism by precedence, and to my knowledge I don't know anyone else who has stated their opinions either way whether or not something like this is vandalism. - Jedaz - 12:13/4/08/2008

From you it would be, because you are not a sysop. I can because i am. I explained the things perfectly clearly and im not seeing how you can be making the mistakes you are. Its a notice from one sysop to the others that one person has been warned on their behaviour so that others can take appropriate measures the next time, on a page that is tied to user behaviour in the manner that A/VB is. It is the most logical place for such things to be recorded, since they are not applied to A/VD and people can and do wipe things off thier talk pages. A new page for keeping them is just more red fucking tape and bureaucratic nonsense. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:18, 4 August 2008 (BST)

That sounds reasonable. However, why is it therefore not the most logical place for non-sysop users to alert the sysop team about users behaviour? Precedence has shown that messages on users talk pages (more precisely the histories) can be used in A/VB cases to demonstrate that the user was most probably aware of the rules, so why is there a need for notifications on the main A/VB page? I want to understand how one is ok but the other isn't, and if it really is because of the sysop position then what are the real alternatives for normal users, and why can't a sysop just use them instead, or is it that sysop "soft warnings" hold more weight then experienced users? In addition, how does other sysops knowing that a certain user has exhibited certain behaviour be important information in any circumstance other then when ruling on a case brought against the user (which is covered by page histories).

I realize I'm asking alot of questions, however it is important in understanding your point of view. I geuss in the end I really want to know is what you hope to achive by doing this when a simple link to Jed's talk page history on a case against him would suffice. - Jedaz - 13:34/4/08/2008

By A/VB page guidelines all users are supposed to try and work out "vandalism" issues by posting on the vandal's talk page first (soft warning). In theory, the issue should be cleared up after that if it was an honest mistake. If every user posted on A/VB every time they corrected a newbie or gave a soft warning then the page would be worthlessly cluttered. It is only when the reportee needs to follow through and make an actual VB case that they should post that they posted on the talk page (along with the links to said vandalism).

Sysops need to post that they gave out soft warnings on the main A/VB page for a few reasons. They need to alert the other sysops that they addressed this behavior so that you don't get multiple warnings for the same actions. They need to show other users what actions are not allowed. A/VB is a pretty high profile page. If warnings were only left on the user's talk page it might get deleted before it can help others. And they also need to show they are actively involved in A/VB issues. It gives other sysops opportunities to see how the others handle certain situations. It isn't just about sysops dealing with problem users, it is about sysops answering to other sysops, too.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:51, 5 August 2008 (BST)

That makes much more sense then what I had considered. I was thinking more towards the end of the process (the vandalism case) rather then the impact it has on curving other users behaviour as well as ensuring that a user does not recive too many soft warnings. I still do not agree on the timing of Grim issuing the warning, but such is. Thank you both for helping clear up my understanding of this matter. - Jedaz - 05:40/5/08/2008

Nubis, don't you think your 2nd reason that it allows other users to know what is/isn't acceptable is somewhat voided by the fact that no mention of specifically why the warning is being given was made. Out of all this mess it is the one thing i'm still not sure about. And if i'm not sure about it how could Joe Newbie have a chance of learning from it?--xoxo 07:25, 5 August 2008 (BST)

"Soft warned for spamming up this page with unhelpful postings" (my emphisis) - How is that not saying why the warning was made? While it doesn't cite a specific example, it is clear on why it was made. Even Joe Newbie would know what it means; and now he knows not to add unhelpful postings to the page.

To be clear here, the warning is clear in the sense of why the warning is being given, but not what edits for. This may lead to the confusion of what is considered unhelpful, but there is the underlying assumption that most people know that adding contentless posts is unhelpful, and at that level it would at least give fair warning to people who would post such comments. - Jedaz - 07:49/5/08/2008

Don't you think the guidelines at the top of the page that say if you aren't directly involved don't edit this page make that sufficiently clear?--xoxo 10:13, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Yes they do, what's your point? There's no harm in repeating such information, and it shows that the administrators are serious about major breaches the guidelines. Would you prefer to have been given an offical warning/banning instead? I would also like to note that not everyone reads the guidelines and putting a soft warning on the A/VB page brings attention to it. As I said before, I don't agree with how Grim went about it, but after discussing it with Grim and Nubis I can see why there would be legitimate usage of such a notification. - Jedaz - 10:50/5/08/2008

Fair enough.--xoxo 11:04, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Also, obvious fail is very obvious. Resorting to calling people who oppose a policy "idiots", making up an official sounding policy-esque explanation for something that (apparently) shouldn't have a policy, in order to reaffirm why your actions of posting an unofficial warning on a page designed for official warnings is justified, while also alluding to some sort of possible insult, claiming you prefer doing other things rather than watching circlejerks.....you are running in circles man. --CyberRead240 10:50, 4 August 2008 (BST)

You guys are so pathetic its hilarious. Everything ive said here is supported by precident and by the words and actions regarding such warnings ever since they were created to deal with the major problem of spam on the page. J3D, you have been persistently shitting up an admin page for months', to ask for any single edit as proof of your actions is to ask for a grain of sand from a beach. If i give specifics, you'll focus your drama around them. No matter how many of them i bring up, unless i hit you with a deluge of posts, in which case you will ignore the specific cases, and argue that the system is instead broken. You are not here trying to get things sorted out. You are here because you are a vindictive little sod who is trying to make me "pay" for rejecting your promotions bid over a week ago, and pointing out a great many of your character flaws in the process. The fact that absolutely no one but your select group of IRL pals has run to your defense in this matter is indicative of just how completely and obviously baseless your claims are, and of how fucking pathetic you look. You want to see where you went wrong? See every single edit you made to the A/VB page where you werent the reporter. Why dig up specific examples if i can make you go and look at just how much of a disruptive arsehole you have been. It will be an education, i assure you. In the meanwhile, you have been told to keep your shit off the A/VB page, and to instead use the talk page if you wish to comment. These are not at all unreasonable requests. Keep off the page or you will suffer an actual escalation. Its now abundantly clear that you know its wrong. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 11:12, 4 August 2008 (BST)

Thanks for the tirade, no point addressing any of that garbage coz i already have with most of it. You still failed to mention why you waited til now to give the soft warning? Surely you could have done it months ago with a whole beach's worth of examples?--xoxo 12:36, 4 August 2008 (BST)

You've addressed that? Odd, all ive seen from you is a semi coherent stream of bile and BAWWW! --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:18, 4 August 2008 (BST)

That's coz that's all you wanted to see. There is no way i'm going over it again. A/M, Talk:A/M, my talk page, here, the other policy talk page or any number of other pages containing discussion relating to this should help you out. Or alternatively don't bother reading them and continuing thinking this is 100% about me sulking from not being made a sysop. How many times do you need to be told i had no expectation i would be accepted and it would have been a huge surprise for me. There was NO WAY both you and boxy would pass me. This is about the way you have treated me since then and the way that you are trying to have me punished for stuff i did months ago. It's about a lot more but in the interests of everyones sanity and the fact that this is going round in circles and you have no real interest in any sort of truce i won't bother. --xoxo 13:59, 4 August 2008 (BST)

I think we're forgetting something important- This is a wiki based on an online game, for god's sake. I think alot of people use this as an excuse to act out their fantasies of having a say in something that matters. But all you guys are doing is seriousing up something that's meant to be fun. The wiki is a guide for people who need help in UD. Not a courtroom. Give it a rest and go get some sunshine. Whatever, I'm not here. Illusionist 04:25, 10 August 2008 (BST)

hay guise

This movement looks eerily familiar yo --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:36, 26 September 2008 (BST)