UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2006 10
Other discussions
Unique
Since it's a unique account now I would like my alt unbaned please. The block can be seen here. Thanks. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 06:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Echo was enough IMO. This would be very confusing. I don't know that I should. --Gage 06:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well the page redirects to my user page. Anyway I only want it for bragging rights, plus if I really wanted to get into it I could argue that alts are perfectly allowable and that when my main account was unbanned that the alt should have been as well. But I don't want to make too much of an issue about it. However if you want you can wait until someone else comes along and says what they think should be done. Theres no real rush on this. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 06:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- ...Bragging rights? I don't think that's enough of a reason to let you keep it. Cyberbob Talk 06:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok then, can you tell me a good reason for me not to have it? I fail to see any issue with me having it. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 06:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I assume by your lack of response that there isn't any issue with me having that account back. In that case I request that someone please unban it because last time I checked having alt accounts was not against the rules. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 07:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're an arrogant prick. I had to go have dinner, which explains my absence. You aren't getting that alt back, Jedaz. Not after being as condescending as you just were. Cyberbob Talk 07:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to agree with Cyberbob, but I am. This alt would be confusing and serves no purpose. Deal with it.--Gage 07:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how this would be confusing, however I can see that I can't change your minds. And hey, Cyberbob, I assumed wrong then, because you know what? I don't know when you have dinner surprisingly. I just assumed that you didn't have any respone because it was out of character for you not to reply about 2 seconds after a response. It doesn't make me an "arrogant prick" just because I made a false assumption. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 07:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your wording was what made that comment arrogant. Cyberbob Talk 07:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unh, can you please explain how the comment was made arrogant by the wording? The subtleties of the English language evade me (I'm being serious) - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 07:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- You just took it for granted that the alt would be banned. You attempted to order the other mods around, and that is arrogance. Cyberbob Talk 08:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Last time I checked saying "I request that someone please unban it" was not an order. Anyway I'll be back in a bit. It's dinner time for me =P - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 08:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- You made it perfectly clear that you expected your "request" to be followed. Cyberbob Talk 08:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well of course, otherwise if I didn't expect it to be fulfilled at all then I wouldn't have made it. Whats the point of making a request if you know that nothing is going to be done about it? - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 08:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- No... that's not what I'm getting at. You made that "request" sound like a demand. Look, let's just drop it, as you don't get it and I can't explain it to you. OK? Cyberbob Talk 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok then, I'm quite happy to drop this. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 08:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- No... that's not what I'm getting at. You made that "request" sound like a demand. Look, let's just drop it, as you don't get it and I can't explain it to you. OK? Cyberbob Talk 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well of course, otherwise if I didn't expect it to be fulfilled at all then I wouldn't have made it. Whats the point of making a request if you know that nothing is going to be done about it? - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 08:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- You made it perfectly clear that you expected your "request" to be followed. Cyberbob Talk 08:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Last time I checked saying "I request that someone please unban it" was not an order. Anyway I'll be back in a bit. It's dinner time for me =P - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 08:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- You just took it for granted that the alt would be banned. You attempted to order the other mods around, and that is arrogance. Cyberbob Talk 08:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unh, can you please explain how the comment was made arrogant by the wording? The subtleties of the English language evade me (I'm being serious) - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 07:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your wording was what made that comment arrogant. Cyberbob Talk 07:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how this would be confusing, however I can see that I can't change your minds. And hey, Cyberbob, I assumed wrong then, because you know what? I don't know when you have dinner surprisingly. I just assumed that you didn't have any respone because it was out of character for you not to reply about 2 seconds after a response. It doesn't make me an "arrogant prick" just because I made a false assumption. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 07:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- ...Bragging rights? I don't think that's enough of a reason to let you keep it. Cyberbob Talk 06:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well the page redirects to my user page. Anyway I only want it for bragging rights, plus if I really wanted to get into it I could argue that alts are perfectly allowable and that when my main account was unbanned that the alt should have been as well. But I don't want to make too much of an issue about it. However if you want you can wait until someone else comes along and says what they think should be done. Theres no real rush on this. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 06:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason for the account to be unbanned. Besides, Kevan wouldn't have put measures into place to prevent creation of accounts with Unicode characters if he wanted them around. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's obvious that he put the measures up as a method to remove a vector of vandalism. The problem was that people were commiting vandalism using usernames that looked identical to that of moderators. However as both accounts are owned by the same person (aka me) then there isn't any actual malicious intent. If you want, we could always ask the man himself and see what he thinks about the issue. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 08:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. The problem was as much the general confusion as the mod-impersonation. Given that unicode usernames are now banned, nobody should have one, not even as a status symbol. --Kevan 08:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok then, can't argue with that. Thanks for clearing that up then. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why does Kevan have to step in over every single little conflict? Why can't you just accept a mod ruling for once, even if you don't like it? Cyberbob Talk 08:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- If I did that then I wouldn't be here today, I would still be perma-banned by Xoid. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 09:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- In all reality Cyberbob, Kevan never steps in. He is there, we all know it, but he pretty much leaves us be.--Gage 09:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why does Kevan have to step in over every single little conflict? Why can't you just accept a mod ruling for once, even if you don't like it? Cyberbob Talk 08:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok then, can't argue with that. Thanks for clearing that up then. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. The problem was as much the general confusion as the mod-impersonation. Given that unicode usernames are now banned, nobody should have one, not even as a status symbol. --Kevan 08:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
A UD vandal forums?
Hey guys I found this: http://vandal.clicdev.com/f/index.php?trk=vandal&act=idx . It was the name of a vandal, and it looks like a forums dedicated to destroying UD. Someone should watch over it and make sure nobody is planning anything. Baddass 03:10, 1 October 2006 (BST)
- lol if you only knew how warm and fuzzy this makes me... :-) Conndrakamod T CFT 10:42, 1 October 2006 (BST)
- Wow. This is almost like all those oranizations dedicated to trolling of Slashdot. UD Wiki must be popular. --Daranz . talk . mod . 13:26, 3 October 2006 (BST)
- I have a question. Does the link posted above count as advertising a vandal forum? Gold Blade was punished for making a link on this wiki, yet Gage and now Baddass have done it without issue. Is it that Gold Blade's words around the link were inviting, and these other links don't have the same language? --Kiki Lottaboobs 22:31, 4 October 2006 (BST)
That's pretty sad in my opinion, creating a forum, giving vandal tips, sick of mods for doing their jobs. Weird. Pillsy Hunt! FC! 11:01, 3 October 2006 (BST)
Not planning anything? Too late.....we had a tipster/vandal advertiser on the suggestion page tiping us about a vandal attack on Halloween. --Axe Hack 13:36, 3 October 2006 (BST)
- Axe Hack, do me a favour would ya?? Don't indent your post so it looks like you are responding to someone when you are not. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:44, 3 October 2006 (BST)
* Board suspended for illegal activities - sorry guys * That gave me a laugh... -Certified=Insane☭
20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Are the Mods Online
- So gage, are you always the one to report these alts? It seems that way. Hmmm...Jjames 05:35, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Honestly, they aren't hard to catch if you stalk recent changes.--Gage 05:47, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Oh, ok. I guess it's no more likely to be you than any other asshole.Jjames 05:51, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- And say they were me; why would I revert my own vandalism every time? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of said vandalism?--Gage 05:51, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Well you have been on the whole "These alts are all obviously jjames, let's ban him." So I figured one of those bunch is doing this to get me banned.Jjames 05:54, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Thinking the alts were you was my doing you idiot. --CaptainM 06:19, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- How so? Gage brought a VB case against me and i argued I was the fake karlsbad, you fucking moron.Jjames 06:26, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- IDIOT, PAY ATTENTION. --CaptainM 06:39, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- It's not like you're some Svengali and gage and the crew are you puppets. They can come to their own wrong conclusions. it's nice of you to try and piss me off so you can get more attention though. You're a special little princess.Jjames 06:47, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Does it really take demeaning people to bring up your low low self-esteem? --CaptainM 07:03, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm merely responding in kind to your attitude. If you're going to follow me around with your cunt bleeding all over the place, don't get offended when I throw tampons at you.(metaphorically)Jjames 07:51, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Mmmmmmm, bleeding cunts and tampons.... --CaptainM 08:18, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm merely responding in kind to your attitude. If you're going to follow me around with your cunt bleeding all over the place, don't get offended when I throw tampons at you.(metaphorically)Jjames 07:51, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Does it really take demeaning people to bring up your low low self-esteem? --CaptainM 07:03, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- It's not like you're some Svengali and gage and the crew are you puppets. They can come to their own wrong conclusions. it's nice of you to try and piss me off so you can get more attention though. You're a special little princess.Jjames 06:47, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- IDIOT, PAY ATTENTION. --CaptainM 06:39, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- How so? Gage brought a VB case against me and i argued I was the fake karlsbad, you fucking moron.Jjames 06:26, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Thinking the alts were you was my doing you idiot. --CaptainM 06:19, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Well you have been on the whole "These alts are all obviously jjames, let's ban him." So I figured one of those bunch is doing this to get me banned.Jjames 05:54, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- And say they were me; why would I revert my own vandalism every time? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of said vandalism?--Gage 05:51, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Oh, ok. I guess it's no more likely to be you than any other asshole.Jjames 05:51, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Honestly, they aren't hard to catch if you stalk recent changes.--Gage 05:47, 27 September 2006 (BST)
Is anyone gonna stand up and stop this flagrant abuse of the VB and moderation system? I mean, yeesh, it drags on and on and on with no one stepping in. I haven't been one to stand with the mods in the past, but damn, someone do something and make this bullshit stop. There must be something that can be done. --Zod Rhombus 18:48, 27 September 2006 (BST)
3pwv
| 3pwv said: |
| It has been fun while it has lasted but I don't have time for this anymore so I am announcing that I am leaving the UD wiki and probably the scroll wars wiki forever, or at least for a long, long time. Couple things to say though before I leave, 1 get that signature policy past or something else that would be effective or this wiki is doomed if someone else comes along, 2nd watch out for annoumous proxy users and third if you ever come accross a perstant vandal that uses AOL then you should fear them (I only used open proxies). Thats all so I guess I will see you guys either on SW or a long time from now. Your long time V, 3pwv. |
Hmm... well I'm done here, I was asked by 3pwv to do this and I have. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 05:15, 23 September 2006 (BST)
- I'll miss you, 3pwv. --Gold Blade 05:32, 23 September 2006 (BST)
Blue Blade
[[1]] Hmm. I just remembered this case...suspicious...--Gold Blade 23:21, 26 September 2006 (BST)
Vandal Banning policy discussions
Archiving M/VB
| Xoids talk page |
| Do you think we should start to archive M/VB? The purging might have been a good reason back in February, but now it's just a burden to search the history. Lots of precedents are set on that page.
Oh and I only noticed this today. Damn I laughed hard. --Brizth M T 20:08, 9 September 2006 (BST)
|
So what do people think about having this as standard practice? I think it'ld be helpful, but the only question is how really. Probably the easiest way is just to do it the same as the suggestions talk page archive. But I'ld like to see what other peoples thoughts are on this. - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 15:04, 17 September 2006 (BST)
- You know, I made {{Quote}} for a reason. Cyberbob Talk 15:07, 17 September 2006 (BST)
- I must have missed the memo =P - Jedaz - 08:29/5/11/2024 15:11, 17 September 2006 (BST)
Mod-to-mods: suburb reports
Is anyone else tired of seeing suburb reports on the vandal banning page? I'm not talking about XYZ vandal vandalizing a suburb page. I'm talking about "X changed the status from Y to Z, and it's really Y." Given the inherent flaws in assessing suburb danger levels (no perfect view of the entire suburb at all times) and the subjective nature of what "dangerous," "safe," etc. mean, I move that we dismiss all "danger report changed" vandalism reports unless the change is truly vandalism, and instead direct the reporter to arbitration. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:06, 31 August 2006 (BST)
- I don't care if my vote really doesn't count, but I've been for this for a long time. Along with redefining the danger level rules. --Darth Sensitive
W! 03:08, 31 August 2006 (BST)
- I agree. Any of these complaints can hardly be called vandalism. Come to this page if some guy deleted your report, not if he contests it. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:12, 31 August 2006 (BST)
- If someone says "The Noob 501st Ranger Marine SEAL UNIT has just cleared out the whole Big Bash from 'suburb 1'." that's vandalism. But if someone makes a report where there are zombies saying there are no zombies it isn't. Double standards FT-fucking-W? --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 04:07, 31 August 2006 (BST)
- I agree. Any of these complaints can hardly be called vandalism. Come to this page if some guy deleted your report, not if he contests it. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:12, 31 August 2006 (BST)
Ok. Listen now. Everytime there is an edit conflit in the Danger Report status, use the subrub DangerReport talk page. When i built this system i said to discuss things there. People rarely do it, and they even created a new page to discuss the ridleybank drama. Sheesh. --overlord hagnat mod 04:34, 31 August 2006 (BST)
Vandal Votes
May votes produced by permabanned-vandals be stricken by users when they are encountered in policies and suggestion on which voting has not yet ended? If so is any special notation required? --Max Grivas JG,T,P!,Bob06! 07:55, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- I have your answer here.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 07:58, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- For policies I'd say yes because they arn't going to be affected by them, but with the suggestions I don't think it's worth the time or effort to do so, but if you want to put in the effort then don't let me stop you. In most cases with the suggestions they are either one way or another, one vote doesn't usualy make much of a difference. When you do strike out the votes though just say "Perma-banned vandal vote struck" or something to that effect, and don't forget to sign it as well. - Jedaz 08:01, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- I would say absolutely yes. Someone who has earned a permanent ban has lost their right to participate in this wiki, and that includes the voting processes. Strike the votes when you find them, make a note of why, and sign it. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:21, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Question
The Lord God wonders if it is policy to leave a warning in place for a custom title that has not been removed from God's userpage by a moderator, and is infact the Lord God's signature. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 05:25, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- If you permit me to answer your question, your warnings were placed when your signature was different to your User page title so they have a reason to be. A Moderator had no need to change your custom title himself as the policy that rules over these issues explicity allows any user to change it. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 05:30, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God still contends that "The Lord God" is not far enough from "God" to be against the policy. The signature only solidifies the case for removal of this warning, though both are in no way valid at this point. The Lord God simply wonders why others have not been penalized as he has, and senses some theophobia in the Moderation staff. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 05:48, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- If you think that "The Lord God" is not far enough from "God" to be against the policy it's just your oppinion, and there's still your talk page's custom title. It has been ruled that it is against the policy and I personally agree with the ruling. Probably when I ask you "wich others?" you will cite Banana Bear4 example: he changed his signature to his actual page title even before the policy was enacted, so it was permitted; you changed your User page's title after changing your sign and no one is stalking you with vandal reports now. The only thing that I could warn you not to do is to customize any of your page's titles any further as it could be seen as vandalism or as an abuse of the policy (face it, we can't change our sigs every week). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:02, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God points out that the current title of his userpage is the title he recieved the second warning for. It seemed like you were thinking that the current title was put up after the cases, though the Lord God could be wrong. It's happened before, heck he had to flood the Earth to cover up that shit. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 06:28, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- You made the title legal when you changed your sig, and that was after the second warning was delivered. Seems pretty logic to me. If you're saying "but when I was warned the second time no one changed the title", my guess is that it wasn't done because no much time passed and the vandal report that made you to be warned for was still pretty active. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:35, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God cannot fathom the double standards and doubletalk associated with these two vandal reports and following warnings. The lack of title removal shows a clear lack of caring about the title's nature or placement, rather the only problem they had was that it was being used by the Lord God. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 06:40, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I think thew only way to prove that is for you to make a vandal report on someone else with a custom title that doesn't follow the policy and see how mods act. As I said, very little time passed between your 2nd warning and the change of your sig (in fact, approximately 1 hour), time that you invested pretty energetically to contest both warnings, so I can understand the mods defending their decissions and forgetting about changing your user page's title; action that, I must repeat, could have been carried by any user and not necessarily by them. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:48, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God does not believe that the solution to policies being violated by moderators is to try and get someone else wronged by them. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:01, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I meant that that was the only way to prove the point you made. If you really think that you have been wronged, take it to Misconduct, but your case is really weak. As I said, only you and yourself think that mods did wrong... and maybe Kiki LottaBoobs too =P. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 07:07, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God thinks there are a few more. Were it brought to public view, there would be a massive uprising akin to the Crusades. The Lord does not however think that an arbitration case can make a moderator remove an unjust warning. Only an inner voice of reason and honor can do that, which seems to be lacking. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:15, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I meant that that was the only way to prove the point you made. If you really think that you have been wronged, take it to Misconduct, but your case is really weak. As I said, only you and yourself think that mods did wrong... and maybe Kiki LottaBoobs too =P. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 07:07, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God does not believe that the solution to policies being violated by moderators is to try and get someone else wronged by them. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:01, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I think thew only way to prove that is for you to make a vandal report on someone else with a custom title that doesn't follow the policy and see how mods act. As I said, very little time passed between your 2nd warning and the change of your sig (in fact, approximately 1 hour), time that you invested pretty energetically to contest both warnings, so I can understand the mods defending their decissions and forgetting about changing your user page's title; action that, I must repeat, could have been carried by any user and not necessarily by them. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:48, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God cannot fathom the double standards and doubletalk associated with these two vandal reports and following warnings. The lack of title removal shows a clear lack of caring about the title's nature or placement, rather the only problem they had was that it was being used by the Lord God. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 06:40, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- You made the title legal when you changed your sig, and that was after the second warning was delivered. Seems pretty logic to me. If you're saying "but when I was warned the second time no one changed the title", my guess is that it wasn't done because no much time passed and the vandal report that made you to be warned for was still pretty active. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:35, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God points out that the current title of his userpage is the title he recieved the second warning for. It seemed like you were thinking that the current title was put up after the cases, though the Lord God could be wrong. It's happened before, heck he had to flood the Earth to cover up that shit. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 06:28, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- If you think that "The Lord God" is not far enough from "God" to be against the policy it's just your oppinion, and there's still your talk page's custom title. It has been ruled that it is against the policy and I personally agree with the ruling. Probably when I ask you "wich others?" you will cite Banana Bear4 example: he changed his signature to his actual page title even before the policy was enacted, so it was permitted; you changed your User page's title after changing your sign and no one is stalking you with vandal reports now. The only thing that I could warn you not to do is to customize any of your page's titles any further as it could be seen as vandalism or as an abuse of the policy (face it, we can't change our sigs every week). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:02, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God still contends that "The Lord God" is not far enough from "God" to be against the policy. The signature only solidifies the case for removal of this warning, though both are in no way valid at this point. The Lord God simply wonders why others have not been penalized as he has, and senses some theophobia in the Moderation staff. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 05:48, 16 August 2006 (BST)
Problem. Possibly Major
Unsure of something, I went and asked the fountain of all knowledge Wikipedia. What I asked + the response.
There are a lot of users who will need to be unblocked, then reblocked for the correct amount of time because of this. It's a pain, but if anyone is wondering WTF I'm doing, that's why. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:43, 28 June 2006 (BST)
Banned User Template
I added Template:Banneduser to put on the top of the userpages of people who have been banned from the wiki- any objections? --LibrarianBrent 06:29, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
- Not a mod, but is this really necessary? It seems more a way of saying "BEAT DOWN!" than a helpful notice ;). --Lucero Capell 06:31, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
- It is worth noting that as a general rule, banning Vandals is more about limiting their damage rather than punishing offenders. I think it may be useful for people wondering what's going on to be able to see whether someone has been banned, but perhaps the notice is best placed in their Talk page, rather than directly on their user page. -- Odd Starter 07:34, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
- I think it should be placed at the top of both and removed when the ban expires. --LibrarianBrent 01:04, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
What is Vandalism?
I'm considering putting on this page a list of what can be clearly called Vandalism, and I'd like some input from the community.
Wikipedia:Vandalism is a good place to start, since we tend to borrow a lot of procedure from them, but This is not Wikipedia, so we should probably come to a consensus on what we consider Vandalism, and what isn't.
My views:
- Vandalism is malicious in intent. There's no such thing as "accidental vandalism".
- Malicious Vandalism should include such things as Redirection Vandalism and Move Vandalism, as well as Vandalism of page content.
- Created pages that clearly exist for the sole purpose of insulting a group or person should probably be considered Vandalism, though I'm sympathetic to the argument that it shouldn't be.
That's a start, anyone else wish to chime in? -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 01:01, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Is there anyway we can limit people to 1 edit per min? That would limit the effectiveness of the recent attacks. --Technerd 19:50, 1 April 2006 (BST)
- Not a bad idea, but it would also limit the effectiveness of people trying to fix mass vandalism. Last night I was fixing pages at a faster rate than one a minute.--Mia Kristos 21:24, 1 April 2006 (BST)
Would altering offensive images/templates to still carry the same message but be less hostile count as vandalism? Technically, it's a "good faith edit to improve the wiki", and templates/images are not "private property" like Group pages are.--The Fifth Horseman 09:50, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- I would say that would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, simply because it's incorrect to assume that any edit that makes something "less hostile" is necessarily a good faith edit. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 18:11, 20 June 2006 (BST)
I just have to say, its not a fine line on whats bad faith and whats not. Its mre shades of gray. I really think that, with the exception of obvious vandalisim and adbots (that stuff), I really tink there should be somesort of voting system,. --Gold Blade 22:13, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- I really tink that somesort of voting system would be rilly stoopid becaz not everywon is a mooderator lol. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:56, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- And that is what the problem with the voting comes down to: Idiots who vote Bad Faith because they can. Thanks for the example Bob. --Gold Blade 22:57, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- How about only respected members of the Wiki can vote, like if you have been on the Wiki for X amount of time you can vote?--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 22:59, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- Not bad. How about something similar to mods, so you need vouches, but it only works for that? --Gold Blade 23:02, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- Ya, but the requirements are just "Good Behavior, and time" And then read what fellow Members say about you in their votes?--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 23:11, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- How about you let moderators do their job and stop interfering where you aren't wanted, Gold Blade? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 23:11, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- Whats wrong with trying to help? --Gold Blade 23:12, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- Nothing... until you cross the point to where although the sugestion "May" work in principle, and "Might" be a good idea, those of us who actually deal with the problem on a day to day basis get cranky. Conndrakamod T CFT 23:35, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- What Conndraka said, with this addition: the point at which you start encouraging members to be back seat moderators is the point at which you piss us off. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:05, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Theres a difference between what I said and back seat modding. --Gold Blade 00:06, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Sorry, something as sensitive as vandal banning is not a process that will be opened to votes by the community. Any other questions? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:53, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Owned. Nice one Bob. Cyberbob Talk 04:48, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- I was just wondering. Where do the rules say you can't say what you think, as long as it's constructive? --ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 05:01, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- As long as it's constructive? Nowhere. But you're delusional if you think a non-mod user's, with a history of vandalism no less, opinion (not saying evidence; just opinion) is going to be really taken into account on such pages as Misconbitration (which you've also attempted to influence) and Vandal Banning. Sure, you're allowed to comment, but it isn't going to influence the mod's decision. Cyberbob Talk 05:16, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- First off, theres no such word as Miscontribation, it's Misconduct. Second, I am not the only one with a vandal history as you epecially should know. Third, Not once have I done anything on Misconduct, you and Xoid NOT get reprimanded for trying to ban me. Look up the case in Misconduct under Xoid. The first line I say, is I would like this case to be dropped. Next line: Bob Hammero: Great! Although it doesnt work like that. Furthermore, the person who started BOTH misconduct cases was 3page. Fourth, since when does a regular users opinion not get taken into account on M/M and VB? I seem to be able to recall a particular case that you might also remember... --ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 05:23, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- You know damn well what Misconbitration is; it's a portmanteau of "Misconduct" and "Arbitration" usually used by users who are sick and tired of the frivulous bullshit cases started by troublemakers like Amazing or 3page. Now, onto the rest of your crap…
- You have a history of vandalism, a history of being a pain in the arse just because you feel like it, you have a history of butting in with comments lacking even a modicum of insight, you have a history of abusing pages with a proxy, and you have a history of trying to stretch the line as far as humanly possible. Occasionally, you may come up with something insightful, but I've yet to see it. ∴ your opinion, on the whole, counts for jack shit. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:45, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- And yours should count more to me because...--ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 18:27, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Er, maybe because a) he's right, b) he isn't the one with the vandalism record a mile long and c) he doesn't piss off three quarters of the wiki population with his very existence? Cyberbob Talk 18:45, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- What difference does that make to me? If you can convince me why it would, I will sell my computer. --ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 18:47, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Er, maybe because a) he's right, b) he isn't the one with the vandalism record a mile long and c) he doesn't piss off three quarters of the wiki population with his very existence? Cyberbob Talk 18:45, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- And yours should count more to me because...--ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 18:27, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- First off, theres no such word as Miscontribation, it's Misconduct. Second, I am not the only one with a vandal history as you epecially should know. Third, Not once have I done anything on Misconduct, you and Xoid NOT get reprimanded for trying to ban me. Look up the case in Misconduct under Xoid. The first line I say, is I would like this case to be dropped. Next line: Bob Hammero: Great! Although it doesnt work like that. Furthermore, the person who started BOTH misconduct cases was 3page. Fourth, since when does a regular users opinion not get taken into account on M/M and VB? I seem to be able to recall a particular case that you might also remember... --ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 05:23, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- As long as it's constructive? Nowhere. But you're delusional if you think a non-mod user's, with a history of vandalism no less, opinion (not saying evidence; just opinion) is going to be really taken into account on such pages as Misconbitration (which you've also attempted to influence) and Vandal Banning. Sure, you're allowed to comment, but it isn't going to influence the mod's decision. Cyberbob Talk 05:16, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Sorry, something as sensitive as vandal banning is not a process that will be opened to votes by the community. Any other questions? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:53, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Theres a difference between what I said and back seat modding. --Gold Blade 00:06, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Whats wrong with trying to help? --Gold Blade 23:12, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- How about you let moderators do their job and stop interfering where you aren't wanted, Gold Blade? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 23:11, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- Ya, but the requirements are just "Good Behavior, and time" And then read what fellow Members say about you in their votes?--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 23:11, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- Not bad. How about something similar to mods, so you need vouches, but it only works for that? --Gold Blade 23:02, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- How about only respected members of the Wiki can vote, like if you have been on the Wiki for X amount of time you can vote?--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 22:59, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- And that is what the problem with the voting comes down to: Idiots who vote Bad Faith because they can. Thanks for the example Bob. --Gold Blade 22:57, 15 September 2006 (BST)
My god. With a stupidity tumor as big as yours, I'm amazed you know how to log on, much less at how on earth you become a moderator. --Gold Blade 19:01, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- You know what? I really cannot be fucked replying to you anymore. You just...I'm lost for words to describe you. I give up. Cyberbob Talk 19:02, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Thus does the gold washed sword of righteousness defeat the cold grasp of tyranny, one finger at a time. --Gold Blade 19:08, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- You haven't proven me wrong. All you've managed to do is to reply me into submission. Quantity over quality seems to be your plan of attack. Cyberbob Talk 19:10, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Hardly. If I had come up with piece of crap arguments then about a hundred people would be swarming me. All I see is a pathetic attempt at denial that I am correct. I commend you for your attempt, but not your foolishness. --Gold Blade 19:12, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Alright then, smart guy, show me some proof of unfairness, that didn't happen to you - since everyone knows how objective you are when it comes to your punishments. Show me where mods have been biased. Show me where we've gotten away with things we warn/ban regular users for. Cyberbob Talk 19:16, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- I found something very interesting Jedaz. I have exactly zero doubt that if I had done the exact same thing, I would have gotten banned. And this has happened before. Gage got a warning for removing a suggestion that was almost Spamminated, but was off by 1%. Well, dumb guy? --Gold Blade 19:31, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Your doubts don't count for shit unless you actually do that - you can't know for sure that you would've. Me, I'd say that you wouldn't have. Gee, I wonder if you'll believe me. If Gage had been let off, that mod wouldn't have been doing his duty. We can't let people off just because they did only vandalised "a little bit". It's either vandalism, or not. If it falls into the former category, you get warned. Some things don't require bad faith to be punishable, Gold Blade. If you went and blanked my user page because you honestly thought it deserved to be, do you think you should be let off? Do we let murderers off for killing someone who, in all honesty, probably deserved it? No, we don't. Cyberbob Talk 19:36, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- You are so easy to trick into revealing the truth. You just said it yourself: it doesnt have to be bad faith to be vandalism. Well, excuse me for misinterpreting the rules, but I assumed that vandalism was an edit undeniably made in bad faith. You. Are. A. Moron. --Gold Blade 19:42, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Let me reiterate: some things don't require bad faith to be vandalism. If you went and blanked my user page (I'm repeating myself, I know, but you won't get it if I introduce a whole new scenario) on the basis that you truly thought it deserved to be, should you be punished? What if you blanked every user's page on the wiki, because you truly believed they deserved to be? Cyberbob Talk 19:45, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- And yet, there is a difference. Now, if I blankes the suggestions page because I honestly thought it deserved it, it would be different than if it was in good faith. In good faith means "you are trying to improve the wiki". Now, I might think it deserves it, but I wouldn't think it is improving the wiki. Oh, and you are stupid. Gage did get let off. Go read a Monopoly instruction manual. --Gold Blade 19:50, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- If you honestly thought it deserved to be blank, that counts as having improved the wiki as a whole. Gold Blade, I don't see anywhere in your arguments except for your last comment that you said Gage got let off. I don't memorise every single vandal case that goes through M/VB, so back off. Cyberbob Talk 19:54, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- No, you fail to reconize the difference. Plus, you obviously don't care that much about wether you do the right thing or not. --Gold Blade 19:56, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm going to leave it there, since your last comment did far more damage to your "case" than I could ever hope to do. Night. Cyberbob Talk 19:59, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Let's see what some other people think of this, shall we? --Gold Blade 20:00, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm going to leave it there, since your last comment did far more damage to your "case" than I could ever hope to do. Night. Cyberbob Talk 19:59, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- No, you fail to reconize the difference. Plus, you obviously don't care that much about wether you do the right thing or not. --Gold Blade 19:56, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- If you honestly thought it deserved to be blank, that counts as having improved the wiki as a whole. Gold Blade, I don't see anywhere in your arguments except for your last comment that you said Gage got let off. I don't memorise every single vandal case that goes through M/VB, so back off. Cyberbob Talk 19:54, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- And yet, there is a difference. Now, if I blankes the suggestions page because I honestly thought it deserved it, it would be different than if it was in good faith. In good faith means "you are trying to improve the wiki". Now, I might think it deserves it, but I wouldn't think it is improving the wiki. Oh, and you are stupid. Gage did get let off. Go read a Monopoly instruction manual. --Gold Blade 19:50, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Let me reiterate: some things don't require bad faith to be vandalism. If you went and blanked my user page (I'm repeating myself, I know, but you won't get it if I introduce a whole new scenario) on the basis that you truly thought it deserved to be, should you be punished? What if you blanked every user's page on the wiki, because you truly believed they deserved to be? Cyberbob Talk 19:45, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- You are so easy to trick into revealing the truth. You just said it yourself: it doesnt have to be bad faith to be vandalism. Well, excuse me for misinterpreting the rules, but I assumed that vandalism was an edit undeniably made in bad faith. You. Are. A. Moron. --Gold Blade 19:42, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Your doubts don't count for shit unless you actually do that - you can't know for sure that you would've. Me, I'd say that you wouldn't have. Gee, I wonder if you'll believe me. If Gage had been let off, that mod wouldn't have been doing his duty. We can't let people off just because they did only vandalised "a little bit". It's either vandalism, or not. If it falls into the former category, you get warned. Some things don't require bad faith to be punishable, Gold Blade. If you went and blanked my user page because you honestly thought it deserved to be, do you think you should be let off? Do we let murderers off for killing someone who, in all honesty, probably deserved it? No, we don't. Cyberbob Talk 19:36, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- I found something very interesting Jedaz. I have exactly zero doubt that if I had done the exact same thing, I would have gotten banned. And this has happened before. Gage got a warning for removing a suggestion that was almost Spamminated, but was off by 1%. Well, dumb guy? --Gold Blade 19:31, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Alright then, smart guy, show me some proof of unfairness, that didn't happen to you - since everyone knows how objective you are when it comes to your punishments. Show me where mods have been biased. Show me where we've gotten away with things we warn/ban regular users for. Cyberbob Talk 19:16, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Hardly. If I had come up with piece of crap arguments then about a hundred people would be swarming me. All I see is a pathetic attempt at denial that I am correct. I commend you for your attempt, but not your foolishness. --Gold Blade 19:12, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- You haven't proven me wrong. All you've managed to do is to reply me into submission. Quantity over quality seems to be your plan of attack. Cyberbob Talk 19:10, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Thus does the gold washed sword of righteousness defeat the cold grasp of tyranny, one finger at a time. --Gold Blade 19:08, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Wow. I am sensing some serious Anger and loathing. As a third-party observer I have something to say to both of you, to Gold Blade: Quit Bitching and just go on doing what you do, if you do then those "Scheming" Mods might let their guard down and slip and leave some dirty evidence for you. And Too Cyberbob240: Quit waving your nose in everyones face! If you stop doing that then everyone will be unable to have a good case against Bias on this Wiki. You both should just. Shut. Up. And. Quit. Whining.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 21:23, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Who else agrees with what
| Odd Starter said: |
| * Vandalism is malicious in intent. There's no such thing as "accidental vandalism". |
I definitely do. --Gold BladeVote Abstain! 21:57, 2 October 2006 (BST)
- It fails to take into consideration the fact that there are certain measures that must be taken, regardless of mens rea. A murderer isn't let loose on the streets purely because he didn't know he was ending someone's life, he is locked up for the good of society. Regardless, the point is moot, you knew what you were doing. –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:04, 3 October 2006 (BST)
Removing requests.
I'm considering simply deleting the vast majority of served and inactive requests here. I'd consider archiving them, but I'm not sure it's really needed. After a vandal's been banned, there's really no need to keep the request up, and if we have warned/banned the user previously, we can check this is the case on their talk page or the block log.
However, I thought I'd let other people have input before I do this, as this is a pretty big change. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 01:52, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- We should probably remove them but archive previous warnings and bans of users. --ALIENwolve 03:00, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Yeah, the block log doesn't keep warnings and people often delete them off of their talk pages--I'd rather not have to search through a history every time to see what level of ban they get. I'd say keep an archive by username of all warnings and bans, wihtout all the arguing and reports and stuff, just the hard data. I can set it up with what's on the page now if everyone else agrees with the idea.--'STER-Talk-Mod 19:25, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)
I purged the page again, leaving last two weeks there. It had some 160 reports, dropped to 44. I hope people have been keeping UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Data updated. The latest full page can be found in history. --Brizth mod T W! 16:27, 7 May 2006 (BST)
Reporting Multiple Accounts
I attempted to use sub-sub-sections because I was too lazy to comment on each one of those incidents, but it appears to be a little confusing since the sub-sub-sections look just like the sub-sections. Feel free to organize it better. --Lint 19:15, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
Warning Template
Is anyone using a fixed-wording paragraph to warn people, out of interest? Should we maybe have an official one anyway? It'd save time, and would be good to have something calmly neutral to reach for when people are being infuriating... --Spiro 23:21, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
Ban Duration
When did the trend for "infinite" duration bans start? Isn't this a bad thing if a vandal was using an IP address from their ISP or university, that could be reassigned to a genuine wiki user weeks or months later? --Spiro 07:25, 28 April 2006 (BST)
- I believe the IP ban is only for 24 hours. Both the ban duration and how long wiki remembers the IP. Though I'm not sure about this. Mediawiki documentation on the subject is quite scarce. --Brizth M T 07:34, 28 April 2006 (BST)
- It is a point - I'm still of the believe that the highest ban level should be a year - if a vandal is so persistent that they stick around for that long, well, even an infinite ban might be too short for them. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 13:45, 28 April 2006 (BST)
I was banned for 48 hours and my co-worker (who is on another floor, another server, but with my same company - Octi 1)had his wikiprivleages removed for 48 hours as well. they accused us of being the same player and using the same computer. I think banning the IP is stupid because co-workers/students/roomates/etc, all get accused of being 1 player --Legend X
- Learn to indent properly.
- IP addresses are automatically blocked at the moment.
- Tough luck. Stop vandalising pages, and people using the same IP address won't suffer.
- This is the whole reason that IPv6 is meant to come in. Until it does, STFU. It's a technical limitation that cannot be overcome.
- –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:24, 1 July 2006 (BST)
Alt Bans
I propose that when an alt of a user is banned the main is warned. Otherwise what will stop someone from making many vandal alts? This way, the alt is banned and the main is warned--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 02:55, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Agreed. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:19, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Likewise. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 03:25, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Ditto. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:11, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Yeah,Banana Bear 05:14, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Agreed. --Bob Hammero T•W!•U! 05:15, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Bandwagon Vote! --Karlsbad 05:20, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Yep. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 08:41, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Sounds perfectly reasonable. MaulMachine U! 21:22, 3 June 2006 (BST)
Well, traditionally, we don't make a difference between alt and main. It's not accounts that get banned, it's users (and this needs to be the case, or else there's issues as noted above)If you look in UDWiki:Moderation/Guidelines we make a note that circumnventing bans with alts means the alt gets banned for the next step up (and so on and so on). If we identify that a person is vandalising with an alt, it's not like we give each alt a separate warning list - we already do treat them as if they were the same person. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 05:31, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Awesome!-Banana Bear 05:56, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- I actually can't find anything like that in the link you provided, am I blind or is it not there? –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:13, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Hmm... There is the whole escalating bans set, but you're right, there isn't actually anything on M/G that explicitly says so. We have noted in other places though that while users can have multiple accounts, most systems on the wiki will treat them all as a single user. Perhaps it might be a good idea to explicitly state this... -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 06:55, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- As you saw with Haha/Newbienice, Newbienice vandalised a bit, was warned, then made an alt account to continue his vandalism. The alt was banned, yet newbienice only had 1 warning. There's a problem here--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 07:59, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- I was using a bit of initiative. As Newbienie vandalised, he was warned, but as this was obviously an alt purely for vandalism, I banned the alt. It was quite plain that the alt was only there to vandalise and circumvent any bans.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 10:05, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Still, perhaps stronger measures are warranted for that kind of flagrant ban evasion. MaulMachine U! 21:22, 3 June 2006 (BST)
- I was using a bit of initiative. As Newbienie vandalised, he was warned, but as this was obviously an alt purely for vandalism, I banned the alt. It was quite plain that the alt was only there to vandalise and circumvent any bans.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 10:05, 30 May 2006 (BST)
Check Every Vandal
Currently with CheckUser function, we have the ability to determine a user's IP address. I suggest that when an account is banned for any vandalism, a Check is made on the IP address to confirm that the account is not an alt. This means that all vandals are IP checked for hydra head accounts that might concurrently exist at the time of their first infraction. This should be a small check after a vandalism warning or ban is leveled. Thoughts? --Kiki Lottaboobs 04:30, 9 September 2006 (BST)
- I suppose that that's already being doing, mods can correct me if I'm wrong. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:39, 9 September 2006 (BST)
- I think that's the general practice already. Some mods forget, and some can't be bothered, but I think that's pretty much what happens overall. Making it a part of proceedure may become tedious, however, so I'm leery of that. In essence? Not too sure of whether it should be done for every vandal, but certainly a good idea for most. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)
Adbots
Lalala. Lets keep an score on who banned the most adbots ? The counting starts today. --hagnat mod 01:09, 21 May 2006 (BST)
Score
| The wonderful Adbot banning competition | |||
| Moderator | Bannings | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| since 20 may | reported | unreported | Total |
| Brizth | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| Xoid | 7 | 1 | 8 |
| Vista | 4 | 2 | 6 |
| Hagnat | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| Odd Starter | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Nubis | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Cyberbob240 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| The General | 1 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Moved from main vandal banning page
Blocked by moi. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:24, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- Xoid, next time you can go to the bot contributions page and delete all pages the bot has created (pages he only edited you might only rollback them). This kind of pages doesnt need to go through the Speedy Deletion page then. --hagnat mod 00:21, 1 June 2006 (BST)
Azk hit the main page here but I reverted it. -Banana Bear 01:54, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- Blocked. Please name the right user next time, names are case sensitive as you well know. –Xoid S•T•FU! 02:17, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- I know now. Sorry for the mix up, I'll get it right next time. -Banana Bear 02:22, 1 June 2006 (BST)
|
|
Just noticed these adbots did not seem to have been reported.
Vandalisms being this and this, respectively. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 23:45, 23 May 2006 (BST)
- Both are already banned. --Brizth mod T W! 23:54, 23 May 2006 (BST)
- Alright, my bad. I assumed that if they'd been reported/banned, they'd show in the list of adbots just above. Guess not, though. Mind cluing me in on how to tell in future? --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 23:56, 23 May 2006 (BST)
- Well, mostly Special:Ipblocklist and block log. Generally we (or at least I) don't report banned adbots here or anywhere else. --Brizth mod T W! 00:00, 24 May 2006 (BST)
- ...Huh. Strikes me as being more than a touch confusing to report some vandalism but not report others (except not always), but still have directions on the Vandal Banning page to report them here. Personally, I'd much prefer a consistent system. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 00:11, 24 May 2006 (BST)
- Generally, Vandal Banning is so that people can inform a sysop of a vandal that needs banning. If a sysop is already aware of the vandal and has already banned them, there's no real need to place it here. That's the general logic, anyway. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 03:17, 24 May 2006 (BST)
- No, I understand that part of it, but my point is that it's confusing for other users, because then they have no way of telling whether the vandalism has been dealt with or not. This then leads to confusions of the sort that started this thing in the first place. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:52, 24 May 2006 (BST)
- Generally, Vandal Banning is so that people can inform a sysop of a vandal that needs banning. If a sysop is already aware of the vandal and has already banned them, there's no real need to place it here. That's the general logic, anyway. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 03:17, 24 May 2006 (BST)
- ...Huh. Strikes me as being more than a touch confusing to report some vandalism but not report others (except not always), but still have directions on the Vandal Banning page to report them here. Personally, I'd much prefer a consistent system. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 00:11, 24 May 2006 (BST)
- Well, mostly Special:Ipblocklist and block log. Generally we (or at least I) don't report banned adbots here or anywhere else. --Brizth mod T W! 00:00, 24 May 2006 (BST)
- Alright, my bad. I assumed that if they'd been reported/banned, they'd show in the list of adbots just above. Guess not, though. Mind cluing me in on how to tell in future? --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 23:56, 23 May 2006 (BST)
- Other moderators have reported it here in the past. If you don't feel like reporting them here, just make a permanent link to the block log and the IP block list. (Although some users will be confused by them. Unsuprising since some users are barely familiar with basic formatting.) –Xoid S•T•FU! 02:59, 24 May 2006 (BST)
Discussions moved from the vandal page
Content has been archived. See below.
