Other discussions

appropriate posting on this page

I was currious who is allowed to post on the moderation vandal banning page since all I see is mods posting here. Manattack 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone, both here on talk and the actual vandal reporting page. --Brizth ^{M T} 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

are there any rules regarding the use of the actual vandal reporting page? Manattack 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

like official rules or precedent? Manattack 03:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the rules on top of the page itself? Well, there's this at least, probably something else somewhere, though I can't remember what nor where. But no, there are no written precedents, except the vandal banning page history itself. --Brizth ^{M T} 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unique

Since it's a unique account now I would like my alt unbaned please. The block can be seen here. Thanks. - Jedaz - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 08:36, 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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)

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... :-) Conndraka^{mod 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)

Yes. Cyberbob Talk 22:33, 4 October 2006 (BST)

Kiki, that user is a sock puppet. Look here. Rings a bell?--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 22:41, 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)

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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 05:15, 23 September 2006 (BST)

I'll miss you, 3pwv. --Gold Blade 05:32, 23 September 2006 (BST)

He was definitely more personable than PQN was, I'll give him that much. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 10:02, 23 September 2006 (BST)

Indeed. His death should be a little less painful. Just a little.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 10:09, 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)

Archiving would be nice, it's getting pretty big. --Rueful 19:38, 12 September 2006 (BST)

Previously, it was just deleted, what Brizth is saying "instead of deleting crap when it gets too big, why not archive it so we can find older cases?". –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:17, 13 September 2006 (BST)

Yes, it'd be an idea. I never really saw why it wasn't the case before. Lazy mods? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:17, 13 September 2006 (BST)

Sounds good, I'll take this conversation to the Vandal Banning Talk Page so it's a bit more public and has more input on how it should all be done ect. - Jedaz - 13:09/21/11/2024 14:57, 17 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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 - 13:09/21/11/2024 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)

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 2^nd 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)

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. Conndraka^{mod 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)

Why what would do what? Cyberbob Talk 18:50, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Why his opinion should count for more, and those reasons, coming from another moderator, aren't going to work.--ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 18:54, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Wait, what? Jesus Christ, do you even read your comments before submitting them? You're making precisely zero sense. What reasons? The reasons Xoid's opinion should count for more? And then why they aren't going to work? What? The? Fuck? Cyberbob Talk 18:56, 16 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)

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 Blade^{Vote 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)

Works for me. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod | W!} 10:56, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Alright, I've started work here. Can't do the whole thing today, I'll keep working.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:49, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

The data page is now up to date and old data has been flushed here. Please add data to the page as users are warned or banned from now on.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:44, 17 February 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)

The provisional guidelines need some work. Apparently, until I fixed it, we were to delete pages that people asked us to protect. Something a tad screwy there. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:00, 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)

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

Moderator	Bannings
The wonderful Adbot banning competition
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)

L111 and Booby

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)

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)

I'm afraid you've lost me. Are you replying to me or Brizth? --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 06:52, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Brizth. I had to write that message in a hurry, so I didn't make sure it was placed correctly. (Now fixed.) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:22, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Alright. Butting out, then. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 08:36, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Discussions moved from the vandal page

Content has been archived. See below.

Zombielord 2

Sorry, but I don't trust EVERY mod. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where trust comes into this. Remember - you aren't a mod. Your bid failed, remember? Cyberbob Talk 07:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Some mods assume good faith and some others just don't: that's where trust comes to play IMO. Also, Gage, the guy seems even more confused than before. Why speedydelete his page? It's an userpage of an existant user, there's no need (or precedent) on deleting "unused user pages" or "alt accounts user pages". And don't bring issues that don't pertain the situation just because they will give you more advantages in a possible discussion Cyberbob: you know that I didn't say anything for you to bring that up. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 07:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's no good reason for an alt account, that account is banned and the user page moved to the main's userspace. That's been standard practice for some time now. We do know how to do our jobs, OK? Get the fuck down off of that high horse, because obviously we're more qualified than you to figure out how things are done - being actual mods and all. Cyberbob Talk 07:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Matt: you brought up the issue of being a moderator and chose to make it an issue central to the argument, not Cyberbob. Your initial report reeks of arrogance. That got on Cyberbob and Gage's nerves. Cyberbob merely gave you a much deserved bitchslap to knock you off your high 'n' mighty perch. Most of your commentary was utterly irrelevant to the case, the rest was a mish-mash of inaccuracies. Bitching about it getting moved is irritating.

As we can plainly see from the outcome of the situation, it was a case of miscommunication, not malice or incompetence that led to Gage's actions. For someone who has oft misunderstood what everyone else thought was easily comprehensible your errant belief of Gage's assuming the worst reeks of hypocrisy. ZombieSpray's grammar was far from perfect the first time around. You have made frequent reference to your less-than-exemplary English skills before — something that has been at the route of miscommunication before. This is eerily similar to those instances. You should've cut Gage some slack. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 11:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:TheUncleBob

Here's the deal: A member of the group "Angels of Mercy" has added me to their group after I made it clear on that group's talk page that I had no desire to be a member of their group. They added me once and I removed my name - to which they added me again.

Now, if I'm correct, since this page is a Group User Page, it can be freely edited by "members" of this group - therefore, as long as this group (or members of it) continue to claim that I'm a member of their group, I think I should be allowed to freely edit "my" group's page, correct? TheUncleBob 01:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Request - http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki_talk:Moderation/Arbitration#Need_an_arbitrator...

Comite

So people aren't allowed to know that Caiger Mall fell and all the zombies are celebrating? And people say it's only a rumor that Kevan hates undead people. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 20:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh god Sonny. Shut the hell up while you are ahead. Kevan had no problem with somone calling it Barrah Mall... he had a problem with 2 warnings being given at once. Just... shut up. You are mouthing off to the owner of the wiki. Just... leave it.--Gage 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bub was actually in the front lines throughout the fall of Caiger... --Kevan 20:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I know Bub was. Which was a complete surprise to Warlord Xyu and I. Which caused the bigger surprise about why you'd support a constant vandal that vowed to continue vandalizing the page. People like this are usually banned forever before being placed on the vandal data page. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, this is different than page blanking. This is an NPOV issue sonny. These are good faith on his part. Don't speak of which you don't know.--Gage 20:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kevan has a sockpuppet?! -GASP- but we just passed a rule against that! Don't worry mods.. I got this one. Warned! :D -wonders if people still get jokes on the intraweb- --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Months ago, during Big Bash, a C4NT dude vandalized Central Malton pages. He didn't blank it. He just put what he wanted and got rid of anything zombie. he was banned on the spot. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 20:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave the First and second warning simultaniously since Comite had made the same edit (which I considered Vandalism) Multiple times before and During the same time I was in the process of Warning Him. I Further felt that the rarely used "3 minute Ban" would be enough to end the edit war and get Comite and Sony to work it out... Guess I was wrong. again. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 20:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of pursuing this any further. Sonny can stomp his feet and demand that I be banned for "vandalizing" if he wants to - at least one reasonable person here understands where I am coming from. If Kevan says that the line stays, it stays. I don't agree with him, but I'm not going to butt heads with him over it. There is no point. I spent my last APs on those barricades in the NW corner as the first breakins were occurring, after sitting through two sieges over the timespan of almost a year. It's very frustrating for those of us who poured our hearts and souls into Caiger to see this happening. Still, I'll walk away from this one. --Comite 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. Zombies have spent months being the underdog. Always losing, always getting nerfed. It get's very frustrating. And now that you all die and have to spend at least 2 weeks away from the Mall you cry. Go to Tynte Mall. Try falling every week. You'll know what it is like to have a Mall fall and struggle getting it back up. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 02:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, Sonny. Caiger meant a lot to a lot of people. Things won't be the same now that it has fallen. Regardless, this is not the appropriate place for this discussion. --Comite 02:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

--Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 02:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Things won't be the same, they will be better! Barrah!--Gage 02:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding

Since it is against the rules to use proxies shouldn't the user be banned also? Or do you just ban the proxy in cases like these? And what this guys been around since like July, around the time of the god and tito accounts, don't tell me that this isn't him (even more so since hes using a proxy, would be just like him to put something like that in his userpage). Manattack 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We just ban the Proxies unless teh user is using the Proxy to circumvent another IP ban. Or can be proven to be a sockpuppet of a banned individual. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He said that he is "just simply amazing" how clearer can it get? Burn the witch! (is it still allowed to say that here?) Manattack 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am amazing. Are you going to ban me now? Saying shit doesn't mean anything. Plus, amazing is a commonly used adjective.--Gage 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am Amazing! --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I am Amazing!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm Awesome!--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sparticus! Manattack 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am Spartacus--Gage 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazing may be a commonly used adjective, but remember that amazing was capitalised and that Outstanding was the name of his zombie.
Considering that this user voted against The General's bureaucrat candidacy (check Outstanding's contribs), and the sheer obviousness of it, plus the fact that it's a proxy? Most likely another established user just dicking around. If they don't vandalise, the account can stay, but I see no problems with the way this turned out. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 01:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The General

I recieved email confirmation from 3page that General is (was?) the "N3PWV". He's been feeding them CheckUser history details, as well as being involved in numerous vandal sprees. I can only assume that it is his underlying desire to be accepted by Amazing which led him to do this - which isn't surprising, as 13-year-olds (yes, General is 13) can be very easily influenced. Requesting permabannage. Cyberbob Talk 01:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's sekrit evidence. Assuming this is even legitimate, shouldn't this be on M/M, not here and in the Demotions page? -- ∀lan Watson ^T·RPM 01:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Need proof please. Otherwise this means nothing... - 343 ^U! 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Screenshot pending. Cyberbob Talk 01:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

He's right. I told you this should go on the M/M page too on your talk, when you posted it on the Moderator Demotions page. - 343 ^U! 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Since part of General's betrayal involves vandalism, which has nothing to do with his mod powers, I'm putting that part of it here. Cyberbob Talk 01:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Screenie's on M/M. I don't want to clog up this page anymore than possible, so I won't be putting it here. Cyberbob Talk 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've rebuked this already on the M/M page. I don't need to "be accepted" by amazing, i'm already a bureaucrat on his wiki! The claims of me being 13 could easily be considered libel, without proof, and don't have any relevance except to try to discredit me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute... HIS wiki? God, I hope I didn't play any role in promoting you... -Certified=Insane^☭

18:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh, what do you mean?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And I quote "I don't need to "be accepted" by amazing, i'm already a bureaucrat on his wiki!" Are you saying this is Amazing's wiki? I seriously hope you aren't... -Certified=Insane^☭

22:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, General means completely different wiki. --Brizth ^{M T} 22:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I see... That certainly is interesting... I retract my comments then, though my disaproval of The General remains... Amazing's own wiki... I shoulda know... -.- -Certified=Insane^☭

22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Xoid can back up your age, so are you sure you want to keep denying it? Cyberbob Talk 21:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Certified=Insane, I was talking about Amazing's wiki. Cyberbob, you have yet to back up that accusation with any proof whatsoever, or to say what the point of it was other than to try to defame me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's in my conversation logs... but wait. I forgot. I'm a lying, cheating serial faker of evidence. Cyberbob Talk 02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're 13, get over it. Trying to hide it won't help you. And yes, the fact that you are 13 lowers some people's trust in you. Early teens and 30s are the worse, just wait another 50 years and you'll have my full trust (no, I'm not claiming to be 60... but the % of 60s that are greivers is extremely low). Just face it, 13s cant be expected to have as much emotional stability as older people. -Certified=Insane^☭

03:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not in bob's conversation logs, I know that for a fact. Anyway, the only reason he's bringing this up is to try to strengthen his "case" against me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 07:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And how do you presume to know what is and what isn't in my logs? Cyberbob Talk 08:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also; why the hell else would I bring your age up? HURR. Cyberbob Talk 08:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I know I didn't talk to you about it! Anyway, I think you've made my point for me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You must've missed the part where I said "Xoid can confirm". If you had read that part, you would know where I got it from. Cyberbob Talk 11:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Xoid hasn't confirmed it. I would ask him about it, but he's not on msn at the moment.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't been on in ages. Cyberbob Talk 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Age has no relevance in this or any case, only the actions of the user. --Zod Rhombus 01:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of bringing up General's age was to demonstrate the tendency of kids to side with the "bad boy" in the search for excitement. Cyberbob Talk 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If that is the basis of your argument, it is weak. Age has no relevance, only actions. Either he did something or didn't, that's the burden of proof. There is no age issue. --Zod Rhombus 01:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree... not relevant. There are mature 13-year-olds and immature 30-year-olds. We have to keep to specific, known, actionable incidents and related evidence of them, not suggestive probabilities/guesses based upon tendencies/stereotypes (which, to be clear, I'm not judging any other evidence here--I'm just objecting to raising the age issue). Barbecue Barbecue 01:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you both find your way here so close together... but no matter. The age issue is not the basis of my argument. General's longtime tendency to side with Amazing, as well as the fact that he is in Amazing's close good graces, as well as the fact that he doesn't really like anyone on this wiki, coupled with a number of little hints pointing towards him, have led myself (and, indeed, most of the moderating staff) to suspect him. The only thing separating me from them is that I'm willing to go on gut instinct, when General's use of proxies makes it forever impossible to pin him down. He is the only mod with motive, and the only mod with the kind of suspicious connections conducive to betrayal. Cyberbob Talk 02:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting rediculous, please don't tell me that no one passed a policy since Amazing that would allow the demotion of drama-creating and/or untrusted sysops/bureaucrats to lose their status if the community desires it? Someone should get working on it... -Certified=Insane^☭

02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There have been attempts, though none were recieved well by the other users. Mods have no actual obligation to be polite, believe it or not, although it is preferred. Untrustworthy mods have no place being mods, I agree, but there is no rule saying mods have to be trustworthy, either. Unfortunately, a history of hairsplitting and spirit-of-rule-breaking users (the most prominent example being Amazing, but there are many others) has resulted in no freedom for mods to use our own judgements. Cyberbob Talk 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Geeze, I take a few days off and look at the shitstorm that ensues. For the record, after the Jedaz debacle, no one in good standing is getting banned without some serious evidence. I wouldn't put it past 3 Page concocting this purely to shift blame from the actual culprit, or indeed to 'force our hand' too early and let the 'mod on the inside' continue to operate with impunity. Honestly though? I. do. not. care. Everyone has divided loyalties, what matters is not when those loyalties may possibly conflict but when they do conflict.

If we started banning people on mere suspicion, I doubt much of the wiki would be left. The case is even weaker than that against Jedaz — at least he did a half decent job of making himself look guilty, you cannot claim the same in this instance.

One other thing; if age is a concern, then what are you doing as a moderator on the wiki, Cyberbob? You're 16. You've displayed bad judgement on occasion, just as The General has. As we all have. If The General is unfit to be a moderator, show us where. Ad hominem attacks mean nothing. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 01:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say that age = unfitness? I was only enforcing the point that it is entirely possible that General has been influenced by Amazing. Nowhere did I say that it was entirely due to his age, and nowhere did I make that the main point of my attack. I love how people have picked the smallest aspect of this case and have turned it into a major point of contention. Cyberbob Talk 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it is one that frequently resonates with people. I know it does with you; you don't want people judging you on your age. Perhaps a better question to ask is; why did you bring it up at all? : no duh. About the "influenced by Amazing" bit, irrelevant though it is; no duh. Of course he might've been influenced by Amazing. Does that mean we have proof that the General is doing something worth banning him for? No. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said. It was just another piece of the puzzle. *shrugs* If you're going to continue harping on it, I don't see anyway clear of this case bar archiving it. Cyberbob Talk 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know how concrete proof can be gotten. I look up N3PWV on google and I found that he was posting on this forums/topic: http://www.goodphp.com/index.php?do=topic&id=9769&PHPSESSID=d3e7764cbed0ec26b0fb8463da318b14#post100024667 about when the old vandal boards got shut down. All you have to do is get the mods there to confirm the ip of that poster :). 3page..6? 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rueful

Same shit we have all come to know from Rueful--Gage 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say give him his second ban, but i'd like a second opinion on this, as I don't want to be hauled into M/M.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Did it before I reloaded and saw your edit. Seems like definite vandalism to me, though I didn't check if he ought to have lost his warnings under the new system.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i'd agree with you. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't just me looking at it from a biased point of view. I don't think he should lose his warnings, as I don't think he's made enough edits.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bah, it's not vandalism if he's right, is it? ;) It is, after all, as simple as he said. -Certified=Insane^☭

01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone ask you of your opinion? No. Are you the arbitrator? No. Did 3 people agree that it was vandalism? YES.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, very mature mods we have here, no? Not that I expect much of him anyways. -Certified=Insane^☭

01:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I handled your pointless drama making rather well actually. I could of told you to "go fuck yourself", but I didn't, although I have now.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Was that supposed to prove you are mature? -.^ -Certified=Insane^☭

01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it was more along the lines of "Stop wasting our time".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I continued this on his talk page, as it was no longer of any relevance to Rueful. I just hate his guts, won't hide that. -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

General Abizaid

Removing comments from middle of conversations. --Brizth ^{M T} 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't do that. They were my own comments and I'll delete them if i want. I created them and will delete them if i wish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by General abizaid (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Wow, this guy makes Gold Blade look good. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have something to add, kindly remove yourself from the conversation.--Gage 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Warned.--Gage 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what you all say. I will delete my comments I posted because I created them and their my property since I made them. I don't care about the other peoples comments. But anything I wrote is mine and can erase if I want. Thats all I want but just to satasify you annoying mod's I'll put it in the speedy deletion request or whatever its called. General Abizaid 19:13, 21 December 2006

You cannot 'copyright' your comments after publishing them in the public domain, ergo your claims of ownership are false. You made them, but the UDWiki owns them. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 19:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He never published them in the public domain. From Project:Copyrights, All content on the Urban Dead wiki is owned by the individual user who created it, and may not be reproduced without their express permission. So, not public domain. --Toejam 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we take the comments down, and put "comment removed" in their place? That way, the comments are gone, but the structure of the conversation remains, so it's clear that people aren't talking into thin air. --Toejam 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you deleted the last part because ToeJam had a point, the comments are my property as stated by that one page so I think I'll delete them but put "comment removed by owner" to not make people look like there randomly talking. Thanks for your help Toejam, if I ever see you ingame I'll thank you. Also since that one page proved I did nothin wrong I should be removed from this list since I had the right to delete those posts. General Abizaid 2:25, 21 December 2006

Ok sry about posting in wrong area, but with Project:Copyrights page which states I own the comments of mine. I can delete them now and will do so but also request to be removed from the vandals list as my actions by that one page are justified and inturn I'll just put "comment removed by owner" when I delete a comment. Case closed now. General Abizaid 2:40, 22 December 2006

Sam?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So what does this mean I'm right and am clear of vandal page and can change my comments to what I suggested. General Abizaid 2:58, 22 december 2006

No, you cannot. Removing parts of a conversation breaks the continuity and flow of a conversation. You may not remove your comments, and I will ban you if you do it again.--Gage 03:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

But thats were you little moding powers can't stop me. That page states that those comments are mine and I can do what I want with them. I'm just gonna put "comment removed by owner" besides those comments arn't important, the main point of them is long gone and there pointless. I also want off the list since since I own those comments and can do what ever, I didn't do any thing wrong. General Abizaid 3:10, 22 December 2006

You want to get banned? Do that, and you should be set.--Gage 03:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you shutup with that banning crap for a sec and listen. That link in one of my earier post clearly says that those comments are my property. Which in turn mean I can do with them what I wish. Which in turn means I can modify them no matter what you say and if you don't let me I'll take it to a admin to get you little word over ruled. General Abizaid 3:16, 22 Decmeber 2006

I am an admin, and the other admins agree with me. It has been established by precedent upon precedent that comments, once responded to, cannot be edited/removed. Wanna play this game with me buddy? Try me.--Gage 03:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well than fine can I just put a deleteion request in for those comments on giddings talk page as they are serving no purpose. Also when is the eariest I can get off the list. I see the lastest a person is on there is Oct 2006. General Abizaid 3:26, 22 December 2006

As someone who's tangled with Gage before, let me give you a word or two of advice. Give up now. You're not getting anywhere, and it's only going to get worse for you from here. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 03:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:P--Gage 03:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

General, deletion requests are for whole pages, not parts of pages, and that page has no reason to be deleted. As for your record, it will remain forever on this page, though the warnings may be invalidated, they will never be completely removed.--Gage 03:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read the newly rehashed wiki policy to which I'm going to quote:

"Moderators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a moderator's best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored."

So.... suck it?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok you mods win but I don't care now as I don't use the wiki for edits but for info on surburbs. I think I left my mark anyway on how to stand up till the end and I respect you mods for the jobs you must have to do except for animesucks, I hope you get punched in the mouth because all you are is mouth. Good day to you gentlemen. General Abizaid 3:46, 22 December 2006

If AS is all mouth, why the need to specify where he gets hit? Cyberbob Talk 04:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, jackhole, but I'm not a mod.. I'm just someone who has a clear understanding of how to edit the wiki.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Gage, Anime, and predisposition towards precedent FTW. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 09:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, precedent FTL. Check out this policy to make reverting your own edits or removing content you just added not be vandalism. It was withdrawn when both Vista and Cyberbob said it was already part of the rules. --Toejam 01:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, that only means if the comments haven't been responded to: in this case, they had.--Gage 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Toejam 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone who knows about these things should should write a list of all the obscure rules here, and publicize it. There's no way that the average user can be expected to know about something if it's buried in previous vandalism cases. --Toejam 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Commonsense covers that. Just because various idiots lack any doesn't mean they need to be coddled. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 20:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Xoid, there's coddling, and then there's usefully heading off classes of problems in advance. I took another look at UDWiki:Vandalism and find that there are some well-established, general, and fairly consistent precedents that should be documented there, including the issue that started this whole case. To which should also be added the broader definition of impersonation that is de facto in use, which includes edits of others' comments--the current document largely characterizes impersonation as wholesale crafting of comments that are attributed to others. I would strongly recommend that we put forth a policy proposal that adds the former as a bullet under "Some examples" and that impersonation be clarified/expanded to reflect current meaning. I'll try to get to it unless someone else does first, or unless someone can point out why this would not be helpful. --Barbecue Barbecue 21:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Users creating User pages

Example

Is there rules against this? I honestly find it rather odd, and it's can't be any good... But I fail to see how it breaks any rules. I've noticed 2, randomly, within the last hour, and I was wondering what others thought about this... -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't a criterion 11, then it doesn't break the rules by creating it. Though the content might, depending on exactly what you put there. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2006 12