UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 02

Archives

Talk Archives

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

General Discussion Archives

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5
• Archive6
• Archive7

2009, February Discussion

User:Iscariot

It's unethical but not against the rules. Like drowning puppies.--xoxo 10:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you see "Removed" in this section? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure drowing puppies falls under animal cruelty which is in fact against the law.--Thadeous Oakley 11:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

He's Australian, if the kangaroos do it it's legal. --Karek^maps?! 04:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I do so enjoy living in a country where I can legally feed a live puppy to a burmese. It makes me smile whenever I remember that the Andrex puppy is just a happy meal with legs. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P sure you can't do that. --Cyberbob 10:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely sure you can. Live feeding is legal in the UK and the law makes no distinction between mice, rabbits and puppies. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Where in the UK are you Iscariot?--DiscoInferno 11:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The northern bit, the City of Steel. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My father was a Leeds man. Don't know enough history to talk much about it. I myself lived in London for two years, right near Craven Cottage.--DiscoInferno 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Serenas

Izumi? Again? No shit? Wow, isn't that like 30 alts?--SirArgo ^Talk 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

63, not counting these new ones.--'BP^Tmz 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Spartan King Leonidas

lol cheesys drunk :) --xoxo 08:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

That's a fucking great idea.--xoxo 01:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I see there is that because it's not an official warning, he may just delete it off of his page with extreme prejudice.--SirArgo ^Talk 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You missed the bit where a soft warning is elitist bullshit that allows sysops to warn people who haven't violated any policy or actually committed vandalism.--xoxo 01:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not an official warning, it's telling them to stop. I could do it if I wanted to. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's official in the sense that 3 from a sysop can equal a vandal escalation. And considering not one of the actions that got the warnings is in itself ban worthy a problem arises.--xoxo 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So? You're told to stop doing something bad, and you're escalated for continuing to do the bad thing. Common sense. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The catch is the soft warnings can be about anything, not necessarily the same thing. Also it's not a "bad thing", it's generally engaging the sysops in discussion regarding their decisions. Why argue back when they can move your comments to the talk page and 'soft warn' you :P --xoxo 03:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about this case, and SA saying that this will "serve as a last chance" is exactly the same as saying it's a "soft warning"... only he's not actually going to say the words, and hence you won't jump all over it like it's some sort of great conspiracy -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:06 8 February 2009 (BST)

kudos to SA then. You could learn a lot from him you know.--xoxo 04:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So you've got no problems with people getting a non-escalation warning to stop doing something... you just don't want them called soft warnings. Excellent... now can we move all this rubbish to the talk page without you crying conspiracy? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:55 8 February 2009 (BST)

No.--xoxo 06:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:J3D

Look at the case below you and please report everyone for the sake of the wiki and not your bitchfights, Bob. Liberty 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Edge of Extinction

I would like to bring this group to the attention of the Sysops for a few reasons. I will start with the smallest first:

• Harassment at our forums. Members from this group are continually visiting our forums to spam and make vulgar remarks to members. They have been repeatedly banned and posts deleted in vein attempts to keep them from coming back.
• Supposed editing of our wiki pages. This is yet to be confirmed since I do not know how to track I.P. addresses.
• Hacking, coinciding with their re-appearance there have been attempted hackings of both my U.D. accounts and personal accounts non-related to Urban Dead, this includes my AIM account and e-mail. Fortunately my AIM account is old so it appears they got little out of it other than changing my password.

Indeed I cannot link the hacker(s) to EoE, but, since the coincides fit so well, being that these jerks hate UC so much and apparently me in particular, with the hackers connection to U.D., I thought it warranted such actions.--President Jackson 14:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

arbies Linkthewindow  Talk  14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not even arbies, they've apparently done nothing on the wiki -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:16 4 February 2009 (BST)

*Faceplams* I assumed that there was at least some element of hostility on the wiki, and arbitration has been used previously for solving those disputes. So meh. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• We have nothing to do with outside forums.
• We don't have the IP they are using on your forums therefore we can't tell if it is the same as the ones editing your page. And even if we did we wouldn't really do anything about except revert the vandalism and warn the account.
• Hacking issues on UD accounts should be taken up with Kevan. Hacking non-related accounts has nothing to do with the wiki. If they tried to hack your wiki account we can ban your account and you can make a new one.

Basically, this isn't the place for this complaint. ---– Nubis ^NWO 00:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WOOT

pasted for the sake of me not getting VB'd for deleting Argo's unconstructive comment- Liberty 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Constructive edit is Constructive--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yea, cause I am totally trying to troll... fucking idiot --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, he cussed at me! Oh dear Lord I am defeated! He must not be a troll after all!--SirArgo ^Talk 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

People have been warned in the past for spammage, Argo. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem now its been moved to talk though? Liberty 03:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize, but if you wish to put up a case against me go ahead, I am guilty.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That was in response to your vandal report: Check his contribs, he has to be breaking some policy. See here--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So I should have posted all of the links, when someone could have just as easily checked his contributions and had instant actions to them all?--SirArgo ^Talk 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't need to post all of links. I was just showing you precedent for spamming people's talk pages. You've done nothing wrong. :) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thank you then! Next time I'll just put up the links myself, I stupidly did a rush job on this one.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh now I understand what you did on my page. But spamming is fun, so I wouldnt care.--Thadeous Oakley 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's precedent that says this is OK provided you spammed under 20 talk pages, which you did. If you care enough to track it down feel free, i can't find where it is. I do remember it being referenced in relation to user:nallan spamming people's user pages with invited to the ALiM Party but i don't recall where it was discussed...--xoxo 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just worked through all of the archives, and I didn't see any cases of Nallan getting V/B'd for it. :/ --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 00:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

<3 --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i did the same, not sure if i'm going crazy or if it was discussed on a talk page. It's come up in relation to other people too, some guy wanting people to join a group or some shit i think...anyway it doesn't really matter. I think karek has something to do with it, then again i could be making up this entire thing... :| --xoxo 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably ruled on it or addressed a ruling on it. I have on similar cases in the past, spamming is against the rules when it's obviously spam. When it's not and more along the lines of mass recruiting the general rule of thumb is ~20. The example that would probably stand out the most for my involvement is WelcomeNewbie, there have been at least two cases, one where I reported it under the ~20 rule and one where I reported a user because he was spamming WelcomeNewbie templates on users who had obviously been gone for a year or more. --Karek^maps?! 00:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

lol airborne.--xoxo 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea.... maybe if I cared enough... thanks anyway--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)