User talk:Boxy/Moderation

Main Talk • Locations • Suggest • Signature • Templates Navigation • Playpen POV Sug • Image Archive Archive Page This page is an archive page of User Talk:Boxy. Please do not add comments to it. 2012 2012 Spiderzed Re-ev. Yes? --Rosslessness 09:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Sure, why not -- boxy 10:39, 26 February 2012 (BST) Don't do it, Boxy. It's a conspiracy to replace you for Spiderzed in the next 'Crat elections. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 10:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Oh no the crats will end up doing stuff on time! ;) DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Im sure thad will find some way to complain. --Rosslessness 13:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC) I'll misconduct you for not reflecting properly on Bad Attitude Kirsty's valid counter-points. All four of you. -- Spiderzed█ 21:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Deletions So are you going to delete that stuff from Harrison's page? --Dhavid Grohl 03:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Dude, if Boxy hasn't deleted it by now, perhaps you need to look up the definition of "sarcasm". --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 03:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Yeah, cause you really needed to wait for him not to do it to realise it was sarcasm. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Grohl, I already said on the A/VB page. No one is going to do it, you might as well just do it yourself. Seriously. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC) No. That was just my way of telling harrison to STFU. I'll change back anything that needs doing, if you can tell me which bits he messed with -- boxy 07:09, 22 February 2012 (BST) 1337 people dislike this comment. didn't work--User:Sexualharrison18:38, 22 February 2012 (bst) Rev Re-ev thoughts? --Rosslessness 11:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I could go either way. The long periods of inactivity are a worry. Perhaps he needs some wiki-drama to inspire some contributions? -- boxy 02:01, 24 January 2012 (BST) Well I say yes, with a word of caution that he needs to be active occasionally. --Rosslessness 17:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Two weeks instead of one, because he showed up at the last minute? Or just plain incompetence on your parts? Christ, do tell me if I need to put up my policy for extending RE's again. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC) If something as small as a week(or a few extra days even) has had an impact on the communities input simply because Revenant has shown intent to stay then they're probably right for waiting. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 19:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Forgive me for expressing a position and asking for confirmation from my fellow crat. I could just push them both through now as passed and maybe thad could come up with a policy about that instead. --Rosslessness 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, and box, general appears to be a yes as well. Care to confirm? --Rosslessness 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC) HEY HE GOT FRENZ TO COME AT THE LAST MINUTE HE MUST BE WORTH KEEPING DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC) I enjoyed the above comment. Although I'd of spelt it Minit. --Rosslessness 12:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Thats a week without objection, I'll go do it. --Rosslessness 17:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks, Ross. Sorry about that -- boxy 11:10, 5 February 2012 (BST) Some of us do have other concerns, you know. No need to get your panties in a bunch — although I'm always happy to help. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Karek Obvious decision, is obvious. Unless you object for pointless reasons I'll cycle it in the morning as successful. --Rosslessness 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC) He is obviously too much of a threat to our positions of supreme power. Demote him at will... with extreme prejudice! -- boxy 13:02, 18 January 2012 (BST) What's this? I'M TELLING EVERYONE. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC) 2011 2011 Really? I leave this place for what feels like eons and you're STILL HERE. I am beginning to think that you are in fact, sir, a robot pretending to be a person/zombie/wiki admin. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 08:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Banbot -- boxy 05:10, 1 December 2011 (BST) RHO Just a heads-up that from Saturday on, he is due for an activity warning by a crat. -- Spiderzed█ 21:44, 22 September 2011 (BST) A/RE Vapor looks like a Keep. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:30, 7 September 2011 (BST) We'll take a chance, eh -- boxy 21:47, 8 September 2011 (BST) Demotion Whenever you can please. :) --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:46, 1 September 2011 (BST) FFS Revenant hasn't edited in over a week, just do it already.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:49, 2 September 2011 (BST) Oh, we're in a hurry now, are we, after a two weeks lead up? A day or two shouldn't matter after all that -- boxy 11:19, 2 September 2011 (BST) I was totally going to snipe this but RL has been crazy. At least I got to do Thad! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:33, 5 September 2011 (BST) Crat Its all yours again. Help yourself to whatever is in the fridge. --"Workshed" 21:34, 29 August 2011 (BST) Boxy! What is best in life? To drive others to the edit conflict screen, crush spambots and hear the lamentations of fellow ops! Feel free to claim credit for one of the two new bots, if you care. -- Spiderzed█ 13:40, 12 May 2011 (BST) I waz waiting for you to do the reporting , good work -- boxy 14:09, 12 May 2011 (BST) Bot Banning I think removing the reports would be the easier scenario, but unfortunately, I think we need to, unless a normal user one day gets caught in the net and we need to make sure they aren't improperly banned. Iirc, a bot reported recently hadn't actually vandalised yet, and had only just been created, so if this happens again (except a sysop does it, and it isn't actually a bot) it could be helpful. The way i see it, it's better if we have to put in extra work than if somebody accidentally gets banned. So, I too share your view of a report-free Utopia, but, alas, I don't see it happening... :( --Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 17:46, 25 April 2011 (BST) What information does logging the ban on the bots page, for a day or so, add? Most of those bots show no contributions once their pages have been deleted. Regular users have no way of knowing what any of them created. BTW, what is this section ([[{{TALKPAGENAME}}#Donkey|<span style="color: Red">^</span>]] of your sig for? -- boxy 13:19, 26 April 2011 (BST) I largely agree. Personally I think the documentation is a tad stupid, but I can see the reasoning behind it. And the link in my sig lets me jump to the talk page of any page my sig is on, which is helpful on admin pages, etc.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 19:35, 30 April 2011 (BST) I believe the theory was that people are more likely to see the report if it's on an admin page; you can't put to block log on your watch list, so it's more likely to get missed.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:30, 30 April 2011 (BST) It's getting pretty hard to miss. More often than not, it's at the top of recent changes -- boxy 03:43, 1 May 2011 (BST) Yes, but that's only if you log on shortly after the bot was banned.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 10:11, 1 May 2011 (BST) User_talk:Boxy. Predicting the future sine 2006. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:38, 5 May 2011 (BST) A/RE Looks like you're up, followed shortly by RHO and then Mis. Good luck to you, sir (not that I think you need it). ~ 05:35, 24 March 2011 Karloth I just thought I'd come here and point out that all of Karloth's VD is pretty much non-harmful editing and thus a perfect example of what a lot of us spent years getting on Izzy for reporting as vandalism. I don't feel like bringing it up in the A/VB drama but I did think you'd appreciate and be able to see the similarities in how he was escalated and why so many of the admin team frequently clashed with Iscariot for reporting based on strict letter. It's a good example of why Judgement and Spirit is still part of the enforcement rules and what happens when they're removed. --Karekmaps?! 04:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Yeah, but that judgement cuts both ways. I appreciate the arguement in the case of his editing of the PK page. But the rest (other than the humourous suggestions one) seem to be the fault of his friends. Perhaps he should choose different ones to mess with, ones who wont report him to A/VB for the lolz. If a third party had reported him for either of the last two, I would have said, "meh, not vandalism, they do that shit". But when the participants themselves go out of their way to make us make a decision... we have to. The thing that forces it over the line for me, then, is the reason behind the "mock" vandalism... it goes from being done for laughs between friends, to being about making drama -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:13 23 March 2011 (BST) I understand that but, there was a time where we would escalate the person actually vandalizing A/VB. Specifically the reporter and not the person obviously not doing anything wrong. It's sorta like saying it's bad faith by association doing it this way. --Karekmaps?! 05:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC) The problem is that the smart arses (and yeah, that includes Karloth, and everyone who reports him) are doing this to "promote anarchy" (or some other similar "non-conformist" form of kewl). I appreciate it as an ingame roleplaying tool, and to an extent in their wiki contributions. But that's an intergroup or interpersonal interaction thing. Once it gets brought into the admin area, especially by page owners, we've got to say enough, and treat them like everyone else -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:03 24 March 2011 (BST) Yes but in cases where it's not the page owners having a tromp about admin pages? I could understand escalating both users in cases like the Karloth one, the justification makes sense and while I would avoid it as much as possible personally in favor of targeting the person who escalates it too far it certainly does make sense. --Karekmaps?! 15:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Anarchy has it's downsides. But in this case, it all came out in the wash. Perhaps they have a point -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:55 26 March 2011 (BST) A/VD Just thought I'd provide this if someone felt up to linking my warning as I've noticed is done in many cases now. Here's the link for mine linkee. --Karekmaps?! 23:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Mmmm, Nubis breaks the deadlock. Nice -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:30 8 March 2011 (BST) I kinda had this(bid) coming as a response. It's really kinda fitting considering. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:22, 27 April 2011 (BST) Give the guy a chance In all honesty, I reckon it was far more my fault that the case exploded out of proportion than anybody else's. If you give Thad space and let him have a chance, I'm sure he'll end up proving himself to you.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Yeah, sure... pretty much the first thing the arsehole does, is post up an A/VB case, and then when a couple of sysops disagree, he decides to fill the page with whine. And it's not like I didn't see it coming. Fuck him, he's had years to impress me, and he's given nothing, unlike the rest of you who are occasional arses -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:45 14 February 2011 (BST) Fair enough, but I think you'll be surprised if you just give him some space.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC) don't you mean rope?----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 17:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Did I impressed you boxxy?--If my name was MisterGame AKA Thadeous Oakley, I would be a massive flaming faggot. >:| 23:17, 28 March 2011 (BST) Some of your mood swings were pretty impressive -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:09 29 March 2011 (BST) Probationary Sys-Op I had hoped that you'd see it on Ross' talk and save me the trouble of having the same discussion in multiple places. But it has been sitting there for some days now, so I better bring it here: User_talk:Rosslessness#Probationary_Sys-Op Your thoughts on that as someone who's been a crat for ages? Think that it would be a worthwhile policy suggestion? -- Spiderzed▋ 14:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC) I answered over there -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:35 13 February 2011 (BST) black-power hairy-head nice revertings... who is that guy? does that happen often? --  ▧  : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 09:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Just our resident nazi troll. Ignore him ;) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:09 30 January 2011 (BST) broke teh rulz Juz read teh rulz How can I delete my wiki alt? --  ▧  : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 13:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC) As long as you don't use it to avoid wiki consequences for your main account, you're not really braking any rulz -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:10 25 January 2011 (BST) If you really have no use for the account any more, though, you can get it deleted by posting it to A/SD. It is best to do this with the actual account in question though (rather than with your main account) so that sysops know that you're not just getting someone else's page deleted -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:14 25 January 2011 (BST) Thanks. In that case will just keep it, but won't use it. Deleting it may mess up any contributions that ac made. Perhaps. Thanks. --  ▧  : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 14:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC) OK, looks like you decided to nuke it anyway. It won't affect the contributions you made with the account, because we don't/can't actually delete the account (you can still log in with it), just delete the user page for it -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:21 26 January 2011 (BST) 2010 2010 Question u recently blocked my rommate with the username nexus and i assure u nexus is not a alt of me we just share a pc can u please unban him he would never vandalise wiki on purpose can u send me somthin of wut ur planning to do thanks--Zombieman 11 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC) It's probably the fact you do everything so similar. Like the fact you don't capitalize I's , or use any punctuation, or the fact you both seem to miss the "g" of words like "thinking" or "something". Oh, and editing as User:Survivor 2.0 isn't helping things at all. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Which isn't against the rules (to my knowledge) since the alt in question is neither committing vandalism, voting illegally, nor evading a ban as Zombieman has only been warned, not actually banned. Unless I am missing something. Which is like totally possible!-MHSstaff 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I'm not judging the usefulness of this, merely questioning the claim that these (now 3) accounts are between two roommates. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC) You just threw up a AVB case. What vandalism has Survivor 2 actually committed? How is this different from the Lois/Lois's alt case? This is drifting toward borderline checkuser abuse...-MHSstaff 23:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC) It's using a second sock to try to establish that the first sock (which was used improperly) was a real person, which is just as bad. 23:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. -MHSstaff 23:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Yeah. Mis explains more eloquently than I could. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC) lolroomate. Haven't heard that one before -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:01 20 December 2010 (BST) Boxy is a cunt mate dont worry about 'im aye he is jus a masive cunt ant he hatez every cunt on the planet plus he's fat--CyberRead240 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Guide That was actually me circa age 12, and tbh it's more unfunny puerile Uncyclo refs than anything else. I'll probably put delete tags on it though--Mtumbe Ngoube 03:26, 21 October 2010 (BST) sucks you're stepping down you have been a voice of reason for longer than i care to remember. good luck with whatever you are doing. ciao buddy.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 18:31, 4 October 2010 (BST) If you would just confirm your demotion request, we'll kick of a fresh crat election and get you demoted to sop. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:36, 3 October 2010 (BST) Wow... you are one of the few sane voices here and the place will not be the same without you.... congrats on your Escape! --Honestmistake 00:54, 5 October 2010 (BST) He'll be back! You all know it. :D -- LEMON #1 01:53, 5 October 2010 (BST) Yeah don't worry, boxy's my alt, just a bit busy, that's all. You're also my alt as well, DDR, you just don't know it yet. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:02, 5 October 2010 (BST) Ffffff. I've been telling people that i've been a long time victim of nightly inception. Now I have the proof! -- LEMON #1 04:35, 5 October 2010 (BST) *Salutes Boxy* --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 03:12, 5 October 2010 (BST) Thoughts? Permaban vote for Cornholioo again. You mind weighing in? -- Cheese 09:29, 25 August 2010 (BST) Request for an IP check On This guy. --☭ Soviet Russia ☭ is currently: having his arm torn off by a zombie. 10:16, 24 August 2010 (BST) Done, and it's a different IP, atm -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:04 24 August 2010 (BST) Would you be able to weigh up on the decision to ban it based on the evidence and suspicions labelled just above ===Conholioo (3)==='s case? Trying to decide on a joint decision atm. --         11:44, 24 August 2010 (BST) User:Arminius - Him too, please --☭ Soviet Russia ☭ is currently: having his arm torn off by a zombie. 20:51, 24 August 2010 (BST) Check VB.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 20:53, 24 August 2010 (BST) Well, it does seem like Corny, but we might never know for sure due to the open proxy this guy was using. But we're all positive it's Corny. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:55, 24 August 2010 (BST) Sysop bid So, you guys didn't mention your reasons on the bid. I figure lack of activity is probably the biggest (heck, look at how long it's taken me to ask this), but am curious as to whether there is anything else I should work on if I'm looking to run again at some point? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:17, 17 August 2010 (BST) Oh wait, no, you did discuss it (on this very talk page!), I just didn't read low down enough. Fair enough. Question still stands. :) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:20, 17 August 2010 (BST) Yeah, mostly the activity thing. Promises of future increased activity doesn't help much. Nominating a long banned member, after having a run in on A/VB yourself, didn't really do much to make it look like you were going into this for the right reasons either. Just keep doing what you're doing, and if you're still keen, put up another bid after a while. As I said elsewhere, I have no real problem promoting you if you can demonstrate the increased involvement -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:22 19 August 2010 (BST) Cheers mate, and fair enough. That reminds me – am I due for de-escalation yet? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:07, 20 August 2010 (BST) Without trying to sounds as intrusive and as blunt as it seems- as are a budding sysop you'd probably find it beneficial seeing about that yourself, since most of the cockups from the sysop team revolve around lack of understanding of the A/VD and de-escalations system --         11:12, 20 August 2010 (BST) But I try to avoid VD as much as possible! D: ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:25, 21 August 2010 (BST) Lol fair. --         07:58, 21 August 2010 (BST) You are, by about 20 contributions.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 11:42, 20 August 2010 (BST) Sounds great. I'll have one of those, then, if I may? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:27, 21 August 2010 (BST) Post in on DE. Pretty sure you have to now, because of a policy a while back.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 10:38, 21 August 2010 (BST) Augh. Fine. Five bucks says the extra red tape was Iscariot's doing. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:37, 26 August 2010 (BST) Nope. He voted against it.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 12:40, 26 August 2010 (BST) I'm afraid you have me to blame for the red tape this time. *blushes* Although it was inspired by an Iscariot cluster fuck.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 13:00, 26 August 2010 (BST) Meh. It works well. A more transparent system is a better one.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 13:28, 26 August 2010 (BST) That was what I meant, yeah, although now you mention it… (Also, thanks Yonnua.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 18:50, 26 August 2010 (BST) Sysop input requested There's a sysop-only vote taking place, and we haven't heard from you yet. Check here. —Aichon— 20:24, 9 August 2010 (BST) Clay pigeon shooting, dressed as a pigeon. I'm away for 4 days, at a stag do. Basically unless anything mad happens, mis has the overwhelming support of the community and I have no concerns about reapproving him. ta. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:10, 5 August 2010 (BST) Dressing up as a discus like object? Pics! :p No problem, have fun -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:13 5 August 2010 (BST) A/VB Discussion I was kinda surprised you moved the useless discussion started by me when I clicked the Edit tab as I was about to move it myself. But since you got to it, I won't complain if you put me up for A/VB for the Asian discussion...I'll take whatever warning you SysOps give me. I won't complain about it since I knew the rules of discussion... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 15:01, 5 August 2010 (BST) I hereby sentence you to a dacking, and to be laughed at mercilessly for a period of time not exceeding 10 minutes -- boxy talk • teh rulz 15:10 5 August 2010 (BST) Uh...Not quite what I was expecting...I'm guessing you're gonna let me pass this time around, huh, Boxy? >< --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 15:17, 5 August 2010 (BST) Just move it to the talk page earlier, next time... or better still, put your reply there in the first place. It would only be a soft warning (at worst), at this stage, in any case -- boxy talk • teh rulz 15:22 5 August 2010 (BST) Yep. Axe, you're being too hard on yourself, we move stuff over to talk lots but it's only for repeat offenders who ignore soft warnings, or users who really go ape on abusing that leniency who actually get escalated. --         16:20, 5 August 2010 (BST) Racism Racism is a word invented by the divide and conquer pedozionists, which is ment to kill any way of debate; paralyze every way of thinking. Like the word 'heretic' in the Dark ages. History repeats itself when the first time no one was listening; patterns. That said, there is no thing like 'roleplay' here. In real life I'm exactly the same. Germanic Hailgreet, CORNH卐LIOO REMEMBER WHAT THE FIGHT IS FOR 14/88!!! 10:50, 5 August 2010 Admin pages are not the place to "debate" such issues, any more than it's a place to debate global warming or alien abductions -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:57 5 August 2010 (BST) Did I post anything wrong on the VB page? --CORNH卐LIOO REMEMBER WHAT THE FIGHT IS FOR 14/88!!! 11:26, 5 August 2010 Listen up, fucknut. I don't want to debate race politics with you. And it has no relevance on the A/VB page, so keep it off there -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:53 5 August 2010 (BST) Corn posts comment about how no one listens. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:58, 5 August 2010 (BST) Thad bid UDWiki:Administration/Promotions#Thadeous_Oakley Hmmm. Basically, 12 hours or so to go, and I'm kind of wandering to yes. The central questions for me are, do I think he's overcome the umbrella spat, and can a former zerger truly reform. Convince me one way or the other box. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:11, 3 August 2010 (BST) While the Umbrella conflict seems to have finally died a natural death, the alt abuse thing is something that I don't think I can get past. Making a mistake is one thing, but it seems to have been a deliberate tactic, that even extended to sockpuppeting at least one A/BP vote here on the wiki. If we had different classes of sysops, so that he could be kept away from A/VB and A/M type decisions, it would be less of an issue -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:20 3 August 2010 (BST) There we go then. We both have concerns. I'll leave the judgement up to you, as i sorted out grim and rev. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:11, 3 August 2010 (BST) I was planning on placing a notice similar like on Ross's page but it seems you're already doing business. Too be honest, if I get rejected I would really appreciate some criticism on my current contributions and a chance to work them out. I agree that mistakes were made some years ago and need to be taken into account here but if the decision is based solely on those mistakes, then it pretty much boils down to not ever trying A/PM again for me, and even Jerrel received more hope than that. I can (and did, in my opinion) reform and improve but building a time-machine to change the past and take those concerns you have away is sadly beyond my capabilities. --Thadeous Oakley 23:32, 3 August 2010 (BST) I know it's not really my place to get involved, but if you all don't mind my opinion, and even if you do,... at a quick glance, it would seem as if the vote is fairly well split. There are two ops with concerns.... could we simply leave it with "Run again in a month"? I know posting for promotions several times has been deemed vandalism,... and I'd hate to see him try again on his own in a month, just to get slapped on the wrist. But really,... I think Thad is okay,... but needs to provide more substatial proof of that. A months time should work out the kinks.... -∞ Poodle of Doom ∞ 23:41, 3 August 2010 (BST) He's not going to get VBed for another promotion bid in the future (after a reasonable amount of time) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:50 4 August 2010 (BST) You should really move this back to my bid, because you're now basically playing for crat, and that's why there is community discussion. I appreciate the support, I really do, but now I'm already regretting putting that bit above up. It was something meant for Boxy and Ross only, I don't want other people's opinion at this point, otherwise I'm changing Boxy's talk into a part of A/PM discussion. --Thadeous Oakley 23:52, 3 August 2010 (BST) Frankly, it's nobody's place to get involved, except for Boxy and Ross. They should decide, and are perfectly qualified to do so without cajoling.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 23:46, 3 August 2010 (BST) That said, they're also perfectly capable of deciding whether to listen or not... -∞ Poodle of Doom ∞ 23:54, 3 August 2010 (BST) No. Your opinion isn't wanted so shut up and let the crats talk without flies buzzing in their ears. --         00:20, 4 August 2010 (BST) Seriously. Much like Peter Mcnicol in Ghostbusters 2, you are like the buzzing of flies to me. Thad, in the next few days, we're going to have a major update. I'd advise you to take it on yourself to help create, edit and fact check how the changes effect the game and the wiki. A big project is the perfect way to show your sop materials.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:47, 4 August 2010 (BST) Your name has come up... ...in relation to a Misconduct case. I apologize for not having mentioned it earlier, but it completely slipped my mind to notify the affected parties at the time that I posted the case. —Aichon— 04:44, 29 July 2010 (BST) One Red Hawk Re-evaluation is ending in two days, I'm assuming that unless there's a sudden surge of nays, you'll have no problem with a successful reappointment. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:52, 22 July 2010 (BST) Sure -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:33 23 July 2010 (BST) One of you guys should probably post this on his RE bid then. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:46, 26 July 2010 (BST) A-HA! Diligence! I KNEW you were Crat material when I voted!! ;D --         11:48, 26 July 2010 (BST) Boxy and Ross still beat me and SA though ... :P Linkthewindow  Talk  11:52, 26 July 2010 (BST) Woops, looked at it the other day, and thought, "no, not quite 2 weeks yet". D'oh :D -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:00 26 July 2010 (BST) Well, it's an easy mistake to make. The whole RE is 1, PM is 2 thing always throws me for a loop.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:02, 26 July 2010 (BST) The Joy of promotions Anyway, to summarise. Grim. Absolutely not. Even if I was too consider it, the fact he's not made a single edit in the last 9 days suggests that the bid is nothing other than a revenant dare. As for Rev? Well. I still have no idea if he's being serious. Yes, he's massively active in the game, and on several sites, and I feel he would be an asset in some ways. But im not convinced he has the wiki knowledge. I think his response to GFJ in his own promotion bid sums up my position. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:34, 19 July 2010 (BST) I agree, I've no real problem with Rev overall, but would like to see the promised increase in wiki presense before promotion. Being a sysop is not required in order to change the system we've got -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:49 20 July 2010 (BST) you want to pass judgement, or shall I? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:39, 20 July 2010 (BST) A/PM Community discussion closed on two candidates.-- Adward  18:05, 19 July 2010 (BST) So, wait I'm not allowed to defend myself on my own A/VB case now? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:52, 5 July 2010 (BST) Regarding that case, boxy, you know as well as any that a soft warning is the standard first step and that without trying to get the person to stop first it's not considered vandalism. Making that an escalation offense is just plain poor form. --Karekmaps?! 17:42, 11 July 2010 (BST) hardly. --         18:39, 11 July 2010 (BST) Soft warnings for talk page spam? Really? The first time I remember this sort of thing coming up, is Codename V, and while he'd been told not to be annoying with his promotional stuff it similar (non talk page) situations, he was warned as soon as he was brought to the VB page -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:27 12 July 2010 (BST) Codename V was not the same thing. This is closer to "hey, vote on my suggestion/policy plox" which has always been given the curtosy of a hey knock it off before escalation unless something has changed drastically. --Karekmaps?! 15:45, 20 July 2010 (BST) No, this is more like getting everyone who voted on the suggestion but against what you wanted them to vote for, and spam an obnoxious pre-written template on their page threatening them with in-game PKing (even in light-heartedness, the ethics of it is questionable, especially in the roleplaying manner they were trying to convey) if they don't change their vote. There, any other flawless examples to liken this too? --         15:51, 20 July 2010 (BST) Actually it's more like you're a shitty admin that began simply mr chip on your shoulder long ago and should have left when all your comments and rulings became about your ego. The fact that you can't see a difference between this and semi automated group spam just shows this in spades. This is not the type of thing the rule was made for, and shitting on metafun on the wiki is not the type of thing sysops exist for. --Karekmaps?! 16:03, 20 July 2010 (BST) Better practice this rant for all the sysops that agreed then, not just mr chip. I fucking love the metafun and that's what I actually am fighting for, you fucking imbecile, I love the roleplaying fun and I'd like everyone to have a piece of it, but when a pissy title like mayor of malton suddenly becomes such a fucking dramafest because people like Jorm and Rev have to go over the top simply to "win", then that ruines the metafun. Tell the people who voted for their mate and were subsequently spammed and threatened by Revenant this, and ask them if they enjoyed the metafun after that. --         16:12, 20 July 2010 (BST) yup, keep on proving that point DDR, maybe some day you'll be taken seriously if you keep justifying it as drama when you blatantly just don't agree with who's doing it. --Karekmaps?! 16:26, 20 July 2010 (BST) Again, really, I don't understand, please provide any sort of evidence that I don't like Revenant? I thought you were better than conspiracy theories Karke, sure you didn't give your account to SA after his perma? Sheesh. --         16:29, 20 July 2010 (BST) Bump Much excitement. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:00, 5 July 2010 (BST) Meh -- boxy talk • teh rulz 22:59 5 July 2010 (BST) DanceDanceRepromotion Ends tomorrow. or tonight. or something. thoughts? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:19, 14 June 2010 (BST) Can we permban him? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:52 14 June 2010 (BST) Sure --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:23, 14 June 2010 (BST) Thank you and sorry Thanks for unbanning me! I promise to destroy all of wiki...I mean not to destroy all of wiki (ban put back in place).lol Now in all seriousness, thank you. Also sorry, for putting you guys in work for something a small as me. I'll try to product only helpful content.--Lonercs 15:24, 9 June 2010 (BST) PS. I have no clue where to place this It's not me that you should be apologising too -- boxy talk • teh rulz 17:51 9 June 2010 (BST) what the fuck is going on in this wiki everything's gone to shit (or has it?) Cyberbob  Talk  05:16, 8 June 2010 (BST) Dunno why you came to boxy about this, since he's the only one doing half-assed moderating at this point. --         05:28, 8 June 2010 (BST) i dunno just clickin around and clicked his name, what does it matter Cyberbob  Talk  05:32, 8 June 2010 (BST) Just taking shit too seriously, same old. --         05:34, 8 June 2010 (BST) "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWW! I'M DDR AND I'M ACTING LIKE A COMPLETE FAGGOT AND EVERYONE HATES ME! I NEED GORRIBUS TO LICK MY TAINT AND MAKE ME FEEL BETTER!" That's what you sound like. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 05:38, 8 June 2010 (BST) huh? follow people around and QQ in all caps , butthurt much?--         05:43, 8 June 2010 (BST) One has to have a reason to be butthurt. Ever realize that people just don't like you? You've never done anything to make me upset. You just happen to be a complete faggot that needs to be purged. Do not flatter yourself. You've never done anything worthy of upsetting me. Also, choke on a dick and die. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 05:58, 8 June 2010 (BST) Prove me wrong and leave this place and stop harassing me? ;_; --         06:05, 8 June 2010 (BST) Probably just that time of the month -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:11 8 June 2010 (BST) Today Hai, i've seen all the crap you're dealing with today and thought i'd leave this picture of an incredibly cute cat here for your benefit link ♥ Moonie Talk | Kyle For Mayor 12:43, 7 June 2010 (BST) Here, let me return your serve ;) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:08 9 June 2010 (BST) VB Sorry, dude. You understand, though.--Jorm 09:35, 7 June 2010 (BST) Actually, he could say what he wanted thenceforth. I just wanted it memorable, so that it's very visible when he's looking for 'crat promotion.--Jorm 09:39, 7 June 2010 (BST) No he can't, he's not a sysop, and he's not an involved party. And even as a sysop, you can't expect to say whatever you like on the main page. Now please keep further biffo to the talk page. You can still link to it in the future for whatever you want -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:43 7 June 2010 (BST) Respect (to you); we're done. I'm satisfied.--Jorm 09:47, 7 June 2010 (BST) I think he's talking about Yonnua. Because there's nothing I did in this little fagfest that was wrong. --         11:26, 7 June 2010 (BST) You better get the case ready now Box. Because it is absolutely preposterous that you can one little shit to force what miscellaneous comments HE wants onto HIS OWN A/VB case against the sysop's will by simply just going into a merciless editing war, and delete rulings and warn notices, and not be paid for it. It's a joke, and "just do what's not right to subdue all drama ASAP" been your attitude towards this for the last month or so. Get back in the right mindset you had when you did the job properly and stop bowing down to some fucking ignoramus. You get your cases ready and I'll get mine. Because given the proper evidence and precedents there is a much bigger chance Jorm will end up the loser out of this, not me. --         11:26, 7 June 2010 (BST) He's an involved party, and the comments were on topic, and give context to why he was so peeved. You knowingly added your 2c worth, despite not being an involved party, swearing and insulting in the process in a way you knew was inappropriate on the main VB page. Jorm simply answered, and then made it clear that he was happy for your insults to remain. As an involved party, he has that right, within reason, so as long as further douchebaggery goes on the talk page, we should allow it. If you don't like it, may I point you to A/A for resolution -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:15 7 June 2010 (BST) Are you actually going to argue that a rant about why RPing is dead in the game is in any way relevant to that matter? Because I won't buy it. And no, I don't give a fuck whether Jorm "allows" it to be on the main page with the added bonus of his 2c, because he doesn't have control over that. He only has the "privilege" of being an "involved party" because he committed fucking VANDALISM, remember that. And being the involved party carries with it no such concessions. Don't be an idiot. I'll see how far this has to go before I consider A/A but I'd assume you'd see sense in this well beforehand. --         12:19, 7 June 2010 (BST) Revert war isn't solving anything, by lookin at RC... --Thadeous Oakley 12:11, 7 June 2010 (BST) No, it isn't, so Boxy might as well submit a case to A/VB (and myself submit one on Jorm) and let the ops decide there in a big shitstorm of drama, or just stop reverting an edit which by Boxy's own admission is fine because "DDR isn't even an involved party". I even said that it would be moved to talk in the comment. --         12:19, 7 June 2010 (BST) Well good luck, I would give my opinion, but I'm off to Uni, so you two have fun. --Thadeous Oakley 12:30, 7 June 2010 (BST) Then why didn't you do us all a favour and put it on the talk page in the first place, seeing you knew where it was supposed to go? Jorm choose to answer it before it was moved, so we can't move some of his comments and leave others that were also responding to the tone you (as a non-sysop, and uninvolved party) had already set. Your comment gives his response context, and needs to be kept -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:35 7 June 2010 (BST) Dude, have you been here for years, or minutes? We don't need to keep an involved party's comments on the main page for shit. Never had to. There are precedents up the wahzoo, almost monthly, that prove this. I'll get some in our case, but can do so now if it'll make you change your mind on this clusterfuck. Why did I add myself to the main page when I knew it should have been on the talk page? I don't know, but since I'm not a long term abuser of the main/talk rule I often like to think I have the privilege of being able to add stuff to the main and have it moved to talk on a case by case basis without facing an A/VB case, as the comments are made. I could be wrong and if in an A/VB case it were established that I were, then I would happily stop. --         12:42, 7 June 2010 (BST) I've decided that the idea of Arbies over this matter will actually be quite fun. Let's get it on. --         12:32, 7 June 2010 (BST) Cheesey Poof's Re-evaluation Thoughts? I think I echo Wan's comments. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:57, 20 May 2010 (BST) Sure -- boxy talk • teh rulz 06:46 21 May 2010 (BST) Special:Blockip There's a typo on this page. It says "only" twice. I think you can fix this, but I can't see that I can.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:46, 9 May 2010 (BST) I fixed it, but you should be able to edit it. Search for the text on system messages (which can be found in the "More..." menu on the sidebar) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:43 9 May 2010 (BST) Ah, I see now. Thanks.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:52, 9 May 2010 (BST) UDWiki:Administration/Promotions#Yonnua_Koponen Tomorrow, decision, etc. Thoughts? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:13, 6 May 2010 (BST) Time to give him a go, the wiki seems ready for it -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:58 7 May 2010 (BST) Sure. Mind if I do the speech and promotion, you can sort it out when I fuck up the permissions.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:30, 7 May 2010 (BST) I'll keep an A/M tab open, in anticipation ;P -- boxy talk • teh rulz 15:40 7 May 2010 (BST) I hope you vaguely agree with my comments. I think Ive done everything but cycling, but I'll do that in a couple of days time when we discuss the generals re-evaluation.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:53, 7 May 2010 (BST) Yes, I agree. Yonnua has put a lot of effort into the wiki, and the only way to evaluate his performance further is to throw him into the pan ;) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 16:18 7 May 2010 (BST) Settling it once and for all User:Aichon/Other/Iscariot's Vandal Data. The name of the link says it all. I'm not asking for your input, necessarily (though I would welcome it), but I do want to make you aware of the page. I'm gonna try and contact all of the sysops and former sysops who are still active around here and have been involved with his data or might have an interest in it. Even if I miss a few, I figure enough people check all of your pages that most people who need to see the link will see it. ;) —Aichon— 01:29, 21 April 2010 (BST) Good luck. A couple of relevent links. #De-escalation and talk A/VD -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:19 21 April 2010 (BST) Aichon Hey. Whatcha think about Aichon's bid on A/PM? I like the guy. I think he'd be good on the team. --         05:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC) It was only 3 days, but it was a relatively straightforward bid with lots of support, so I hope you didn't mind me cycling it as successful. --         08:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC) dw, you're the 4th straight sysop to do this this is now illegal since this made its way onto the page, remember? --         09:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, been inactive for too long, obviously. Is that suitable? Thinking about demotion to sysop for a while, actually. Going to be pretty busy for at least a few weeks more, I expect -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:30 21 March 2010 (BST) Yeah, that's great. While it isn't actually necessary to retroactively do the older ones it's welcome too :D. Honestly, I'm considering beginning to A/M the repeat offenders in terms of A/VD... SA's already done it 4+ times and I've warned him twice about it. Either ways, yeah, fair enough on demotion. My demotion is more or less non-negotiable atm, maybe a double election is in order, or one straight after the other, or something. --         09:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Misconbulation 3 Misconduct cases, all interlinked so there no real way we can rule on them. Care to take a glance? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) A/RE Rooster's A/RE 2 week period finishes on the 27th, and I will be on holidays and without internet access, so I'm just giving you a heads up incase you actually intended on asking me about my opinion; I won't be here. You should know my answer anyways. --         03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC) It turns out it's a 1 week period (we all pretty much forgot :/) so in the interest of not having 2 weeks surplus waiting time, I just cycled Roosters RE bid and took the liberty of cycling Bob's too (if that's cool- it was more or less similar to Roosters). --         23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC) That's fine. Sorry I've been inactive for so long. Demoted me yet? ;) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:18 10 March 2010 (BST) No worries on being inactive, things have been pretty smooth lately. --         12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC) SA I guess it's about time we gave loopy the keys to the door again? --         00:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, hey, DDR was telling the truth. You did have a post here already. :/ -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC) You... You thought I was lying? :*( --         00:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC) ;) -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 18:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC) nonexistant A/VD records in cases like this where the warning/ban gets overturned via sysops voting not vandalism, do we just strike the warning on A/VD or do we just remove it completely? You've done these before, and I haven't, so I'm not in the loop. --         05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Strike or wipe, makes little difference really. Striking is probably what most have done in the past (not that it comes up often) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:29 6 January 2010 (BST) Amending "Crit 7 by Proxy" scheduled deletion Unanimously (with the exception of Sexualharrison's joke vote) passed on A/D/S. Considering the nature of this proposal, would it be okay to write it directly into the current Crit. 7 by proxy deletion, or should it just be entered as a new scheduling?--~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 01:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC) The title is "Amendment"... obviously they voted for the amendment to the original rule. --         02:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Alrighty then. I'll tack it onto the origional.--~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Just make a note - "Amendeded 5 Jan. 2009" Linkthewindow  Talk  05:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC) 2009 Potential Troll Just a heads up that we've had a character called GasCandle swing by the DHPD forums asking for membership - you can find his user page here: User:GasCandle. He seemed to be trying to tempt us into letting him join by presenting himself as a Neo-nazi. I notice he's now a "Crazy f*cking n*gger" and has created a wiki template for himself as such. He talked to some of our more level-headed members in our chat room who were of the opinion he was a troll and an unpleasant one at that. I realise that there's not a lot you can necessarily do (and thankfully he seems to have lost interest in us), but this is a warning to be on the look out. Louise 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Holy shit boxy panic theres someone on the wiki saying fuck and nigger! To the a/vb mobile! xoxo 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC) VD Hate to sound like Iscariot, but doesn't Mister Game only have 1 unstriked warning? Surely he shouldn't be escalated to the ban yet, or is there another reason?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) When it comes to arbitrartion: Not [abiding by the ruling] will be considered Vandalism, and such vandalism attempts will be treated as if the vandal has already received two warnings. So, since he already had a 24 and 48-hour ban on record, he was escalated straight to a week ban. —Aichon— 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I assumed that was the case. Just wanted to check regardless. Thanks!--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) A/D/S You bring a somewhat valid point. I'll resubmit the idea with the inclusion exeption. Should I amend the current request, let it run to term, or pull it and put the new version up right now?--~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 00:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC) You'll have to withdraw it, and start again. I suggest that it doesn't include templates or images that are in use elsewhere, and makes it clear that it has to be wiped by the only significant contributor, rather than just the original author -- boxy talk • teh rulz 05:35 16 December 2009 (BST) DDR brings up a valid point as well about the fact that this already happens with Crit 7 via proxy and Speedy Deletions. I'm starting to think that a change to Crit 7 might be in order to prevent it from removing templates, but I suspect I'm missing something obvious. —Aichon— 01:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) The obvious thing to me is that with speedydeletions, there is a sysop involved. They don't have to delete templates just because they've been requested under crit 7, and should check for inclusions -- boxy talk • teh rulz 05:33 16 December 2009 (BST) Box my man, I'm making things easier on you though. Not harder, as you can still infer it as a no. lrn2engleeshplz. ;) -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Yeah, thanks a lot. It only takes one smart arse, and then every idiot and their dog think it's kewl. English, or GTFO -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:54 17 December 2009 (BST) Rakuen Look, I understand that he's the most prolific user that's ever graced UDWiki, but I just don't feel safe giving him the buttons. He'll just do all the work and make all of us look bad. I hope you and the community understands my incredibly bold decision not to support his promotion. --         01:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC) LOL, no -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:10 10 December 2009 (BST) If you do not promote this wonderful man I will be bringing you to misconduct my good sir. That is a promise!-- SA 11:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) The thought of you sending me to misconduct for this reminds me of Iscariot. What reminds me of him even more so, the likelihood that you actually won't. --         02:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I will, I've just been busy and tired. Give me a day or two. Okay honey?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC) LERN TO TKAE A JOKE Cyberbob  Talk  13:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) ...You...you serious? the whole comment was a crack at Izzy, sheesh.... --         15:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC) LERN TO TKAE A JOKE Cyberbob  Talk  16:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC) :/ admitting one is wrong hurts sometimes.... --         03:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC) dude now you're just making yourself look worse and worse... the secret to this one is I was myself joking Cyberbob  Talk  07:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC) You honestly call something like that a joke? You and jed would actually get along very well IRL --         08:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Since when was sarcastic caps and spelling mistakes not a joke that you get? Cyberbob  Talk  09:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC) So how about that getting engaged of youse twoo?--Thadeous Oakley 10:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Here's hoping we both stop this argument and just turn on you now, for being such an annoying, bottom-feeding, retard faggot. --         00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Misanthropy What do you think? I don't mind letting this one in. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Worth a try -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:32 3 December 2009 (BST) Alrighty. Been a while since we let a guy like this get through the net, looking forward to seeing how he turns out in the long run. In the meantime, I've processed his bid as successful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for doing the grunt work ;) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:44 3 December 2009 (BST) Np =D I don't mind being the fist. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) The fist into the anus of the wiki?-- SA 12:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Yonnua Koponen Early by BST, but it's 29th by Aus time. What are you thinking with Yonnua? Basically, as I guess I've said in the last couple of months, I don't really dig. Sloppy with conflicts/drama etc. You? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Wants it too badly without an obvious need, and doesn't have much of an idea of dealing with conflict effectively -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:33 28 November 2009 (BST) Alright. Processed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC) you are active ont he wiki and not striking me despite being fully aware that i am due a striking, if you make another edit without striking me i will report you to misconduct as per this precedent. xoxo 09:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Oh good. Looks forward to that -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:08 15 November 2009 (BST) Hey box, wasn't Grim only banned for 6 months? Why is it still showing up as infinite? His ban should have been up by now, whether he wants to come back or not.-- SA 19:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Requested. The misconduct case of him trying to do what he did gave him six months as a show punishment but Grim had already banned himself permanently before that case started. As a self requested ban for personal reasons, it stands. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, that's right. He banned himself first. Forgot about that. Thanks.-- SA 19:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC) dumb. And stop re-using unrelated headers. Asshole. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC) It's not unrelated here, and you can get over it.-- SA 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC) J3D Don't post here. xoxo 09:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I startedthis header so it belongsto meeeeeeeexoxo 09:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC) But it says you can't post, dumarse. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC) You idiot -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:27 22 November 2009 (BST) How did that threat to misconduct me work out for you, BTW? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:29 22 November 2009 (BST) Just great! Turns out your friends got to vote on it and then vote on me :( I don like it here anymore :( xoxo 06:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC) But aren't we fwends? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I don't think i've ever been so lost for a witty reposté. xoxo 06:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC) also: I'm REALLY tired, but isn't J3D still 3 edits away from reaching 250 edits since his last infraction? Special:Contributions/J3D --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Nubis made me do it! Meh. He had plenty of edits from that day on the second page. Perhaps he'll misconduct me over it :) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:18 14 November 2009 (BST) You stole mah misconduct! Bastard -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:35 14 November 2009 (BST) And where does all this leave me in relation to getting a striking? xoxo 09:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Keep posting, numbnuts, you'll get there soon ;) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:06 15 November 2009 (BST) Well, 243 edits = Misconduct. So, I would think that 247 = Minor Misconduct. I say go for it! -- #99 DCC 15:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Nice! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Red Hawk One Whatcha thinking? I actually like this one, although I'm a little worried by the lack of community support he received in the bid. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Yes. I don't rate the "you dont need the buttons to contribute" though, and the "needs moar drama" isn't very realistic. We don't really need more people getting involved in drama for the sake of getting noticed. Now that there are reevaluations we can probably be a little freer to trial users if they've shown good judgment otherwise. I'm marginally in favour of promotion, given is good, judgment, work and understanding of the wiki, however the number of against is a worry -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:16 14 November 2009 (BST) The thing that bugs me is that he has been doing plenty of legitimate and impressive work for so long, as long as I can remember him being around, and I don't think he deserves to be thrown into the dust with a come back in a month message- I agree with what you've said and I think sysops with no ego, no drama aspirations and a good gnome attitude should be promoted. I think I'd be willing to take any wrap for promoting this kid. So what say you? Yay or nay? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I'm going with a "for promotion" -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:34 14 November 2009 (BST) Strike time I am hearby requesting a striking of a ban from my vandal record as i have reached the requirements as per policy. I will be placing this request on an assortment of your peers talk pages so as to insure that this time, my striking isn't mysteriously postponed so as to further tarnish my record despite no wrong doing on my part. xoxo 08:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Rorybob What are your thoughts on Rorybob? I have no issues in promoting users like Rory who only show an interest in maintaining the wiki and aren't prone to waltzing into drama they can't handle. I'd normally be suggesting we hop onto IRC for more conveniant chats, but I'm upgrading to W7 so bleugh. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I've got no problem with promoting people who arn't overly involved in the drama areas of the wiki, especially since users have been discouraged from contributing there unless absolutely necessary. However, I do think a few more months of experience would be good. Even in his claimed area of expertise, deletions pages, he has recently made mis-placements (SD on deletions, for eg). This suggests that he doesn't have a full understanding of the system just yet. He is obviously willing to help, and learn, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was promoted with full community support by the end of the year -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:43 12 November 2009 (BST) I support this. Shall I?--DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Sure -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:49 12 November 2009 (BST) Unless this is such an ego-shattering rejectiont hat he leaves and never comes back. :c -- SA 15:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Admin is not the place for a fragile ego, so good either way :p -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:34 13 November 2009 (BST) Yeah ditto. If he quits now he'll prove our point. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Well, it wasn't really a point I was originally trying to make, but yeah... ummmm, anyway... hope he doesn't quit -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:05 13 November 2009 (BST) Ah boxy we all know this is about keeping your little sysop clique together and not letting outsiders in, don't kid yourself otherwise, fucker. xoxo 08:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Rosslessness III I'm practically ready to promote Ross on sight tomorrow, any issues you'd like to discuss? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Should I take that as a no? =D Basically, promote at will my friend, I have no qualms with Ross' promotion. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Promote him quick, and put the demotions page up for deletion -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:13 9 November 2009 (BST) HA! No! 2 weeks is more than enough for him to do his dastardly deed! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Oh.. Forgot wiki time is early. promoted him half an hour before 2 weeks. Bleugh W/E. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I should bring a misconduct case against you.-- SA 23:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Do it, so I can make a quick ruling, demote him... and RULE teh wiki -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:31 9 November 2009 (BST) lol i dono how make misconderct cases. can u tech me-- SA 23:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Level 3 header with sysops name there, then a big angry butthurt rant below. That's what I did anyway when it came to Nubis --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Seriously? Where's my "rosslessness has been promoted" news story? Such slackness. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 08:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Slackness that you are soon to fix up, yeah? You're our saviour to the sysop team! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I swear by Odin's raven I will never again ask for demotion --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC) You better fucking not. >:| -- SA 14:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC) The only one allowed to vow in Odin's name is Ron Burgundy. Are you Ron Burgundy ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 16:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC) No. But I Love Carpet. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I am Ron Burgundy!-- SA 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Advert Nope. I probably should've Crit 7'd it a long time ago. --RahrahCome join the #party!11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Is that a crit 7 request? Cause I can get rid of it now, if it is -- boxy talk • teh rulz 22:08 31 October 2009 (BST) De-escalation Alright, the template doesn't work with your TOC, so I'll just tell you. You're due a de-escalation on A/VD. Enjoy! --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC) While on the topic of De-escalations, this very thing got me talking to Iscariot, and I talked to him about why he wants the edit to his data reverted. The way he's thinking seems to be that it would be best to have it how it was before, instead of how it is now, because both are wrong. (Apparently, I don't know enough about the situation to tell). Would it be that much trouble for the edit to be changed back to how it was before, at least until the data is made how it should be? --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC) If he had ever made any effort at all to explain why it's wrong, I'd have considered it... but meh. He's had ample chance to make a case, he'll just have to put up with it the way it is now -- boxy talk • teh rulz 06:46 28 October 2009 (BST) Oh please. Actually read Talk:A/VD and understand that we've asked plenty of times for him to actually tell us what the problem is and he's refused to look us in the eye and say it. Even read the conversation you had with him on his talk page yesterday- Surely as a sysop-in-training you were perceptive enough to see him so transparently dodge your request to have it explained. Everybody loves to fight the unjust, but even the most irritable of complainers don't know what the hell Iscariot is on about when it comes to his vandal data on this occasion. When he explains himself, we will kindly oblige. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Please note that Boxy has never has to explain why his version is correct, apparently the same logic doesn't apply. You'll also notice the pettiness of going out of his way and further forging my A/VD history even when I've repeatedly stated the only change I want effecting is a complete reversion of his dishonesty. He's a hypocrite. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I will not "please note" any such thing as he cited the history of A/VD and the results and happenings of several archived relevant misconduct cases, which, with nothing else to use as a basis, is the best we've got. I don't agree with him destriking you like he did yesterday, but whatever. It doesn't change the little squabble at hand. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC) He did all this? For review first given the difficult circumstances? Or did he just make the changes he decided he liked and then stone walled the discussion and refused to listen further? I can bring you his exact quote to this effect if you'd like. No he did certain things to make it look like a valid edit, but it isn't, the edit isn't even consistent in itself with what it did, hence fraud. Also, saying you disagree is great and all, still doesn't mean you'll actually do something does it? Given that you don't do stuff you said you'd do either, I shouldn't be surprised. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC) And given you don't explain things when asked, you shouldn't expect any different. The offer is always there. I only hope one day you take it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I've already told you where to look, I know I have to put banned user templates everywhere, but do I really have to do every one of your jobs for you, or you actually going to do it yourself for once? I'm not asking for my data to be wiped as compensation for various fuck ups, I only want it putting back before he started to forge it. Given it can only damaged me, the one who is requesting it, how is this an unreasonable request? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Because the entire fucking A/VD system is designed to do damage to people, you fucking prick. That's what it's there for, and your escalations have been put on there and Boxy has fixed them up so it is at leased at its correct form and you have 6 fucking days of ban time up your sleeve. That's the best we can fucking do about it so shut the fuck up and relish in it rather than be a nuisance. Do our jobs. Pfft. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Cleverly avoiding answering the question there, given that Boxy's edits are wrong, how is it unreasonable for them to be reverted to allow the correct ones to be investigated? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC) And your avoiding of the issue at hand isn't as clever; They aren't wrong. At leased, until you can actually manage to try and prove otherwise. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC) You mean "At least".... "They aren't wrong"? Really? Willing to stake your status as a sysop on this definitive statement you've made? Didn't think so. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Of course I fucking am willing to. My sysop status means nothing to me if I can have justice done, and if staking it on a "bet" to get you to fucking own up and tell us what the problem is with your A/VD, of course I'd put it on the line. Granted, what you have to claim must be correct. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) So if I can demonstrate that the current record is incorrect you'll demote yourself? I'll be wanting an arbitration ruling to back that up that includes a provision against seeking or accepting promotion within six months first. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I can't believe it had to come to this, but sigh. Just hurry up and tell us what is up already. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC) You've said you'd do something before and didn't do it, I'll be waiting for my cast-iron arbitration ruling to enforce your side first. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC) You touch that arbitration page and the deal goes dead. The entire point of me putting this "badge" on the line is because I want this done quickly and efficiently, the way it should have happened a month ago. I'm trying to fucking help you out here to at leased try and have what is "right" (by your opinion) done. If you think you can drag this out into a massive circus fest with extraneous bullshit, I'm walking out of here. And don't even try and say it is because I am scared. Just show me this stupid evidence and see how it flies. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not going to start the case, you are. You've said to me before that you'd do something and then not done it. Unless there's something to prevent you from just deciding not to uphold your side. It doesn't need a circus, you and I can act as dual arbitrators (there's nothing against an arbitrator being an involved party) and we'd have an agreement drawn up on a case page in 24 hours, given a week (Halloween is approaching) and I'll present a nice full page proof, you can alter A/VD and then go demote yourself. It'll be my easiest sysop kill ever. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC) As pitiful as it is, they aren't my terms. You just tell us, like a normal person would, what the "problem" is. That's as simple as it needs to be. Then A/DM we go. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC) No, they're my terms. My terms stand, otherwise there's nothing to prevent you just deciding not to go through with the agreement, or bouncing back up two weeks later. Accept them, or does that badge mean more to you than you've stated? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Absolutely not. You have no right to have such a bet on your terms, as I'm doing this for your fucking gain, and putting something on the table for me to lose. It's a joke if you are going to think I will abuse the admin system with something so personal when it can be completed here and now, where it should have been done. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC) It's hardly abuse, I don't think you do the things you claim you do, your side of this rests on that quality, we have a disagreement that needs enforceable resolution. If you want me to throw something personal in, I'll stake a one month ban if I can't prove any fault with the entry as it stands. A whole month without me if you're as sure as you seem to be, surely you can't pass that up? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Don't flatter yourself; I'm indifferent to your presence. It is abuse and as such I will not be taking this through the admin system at all. I don't have the time to pursue this anymore. Now I can't say I didn't try and get you to fess up. I guess the A/VD entry will stand. Your loss anyway. And before you ever try and say I pulled out because I didn't want to lose my badge, I'll say it now, I'm disgusted that I even had to try and put my position of authority on the line just so you could have your justice, and the fact you still insisted on having this done on your terms, well, let's just say you must have some very concerning issues when it comes to asking for someone to do you a favour, lest one you claim to deserve. Compared to that, my "OCD" feels like a charm. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC) You offer terms, I ask you you ensure they're enforceable given my doubts about your 'word', you refuse citing you have something on the line and I don't, I offer an appropriate stake to your own, you pull out of the whole thing claiming that it's not about the obvious conclusions.... and then followed with a personal "You must be fucked in the head" personal attack, smooth. I know how this will be viewed. Someone who is sure about their convictions, theories and data, as you claimed to be, would never hesitate to back it up with an enforceable agreement. You're either aware that the entry is forged, or you really like that badge, it matters not to me but might to you. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Neither. I just want you to shut the fuck up about your persecution with the most easily solved method of all: having yourself tell us what the problem is. If I go as far as this without an answer, the hell I'm going to make a spectacle out of it on A/A. You had your chance, now you can wallow in the cesspit of bitterness once more. And in terms of you being fucked in the head, don't take it so personally. I'm just bouncing back some well deserved "Let's clinically diagnose the other party with a mental problem based on their wiki behaviour to get them fired up". In some ways you should be flattered you've been observed for long enough for one to even conclude something like that. I have work now. See ya. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC) If it's neither then I see no reason why you'd be reluctant to make it enforceable, after all if the badge means nothing and you're sure of the entry then I must lose, mustn't I? I lose and I go away until nearly Christmas, when you'll need me back to get rid of all the stupid festive suggestions. Let's remember that you were the one to offer the incentive but offer absolutely no assurances that you'd go through with it. "Brave Sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away away. When danger reared it's ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about and gallantly he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!" -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC) You fool, you really don't get it. It's not about "winning" or "losing", it's about finding the truth, and making the best out of a bad situation. Even doing the above stunts, if I can't get you to just tell us a simple opinion, then fuck it, you don't deserve to have A/VD "fixed". --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Look, I'm not trying to start a screaming fight, and you comign in here guns blazing won't help, Iscariot. If there's any way to achieve a solution, it'll be through discussion. Now, I agree, DDR, Iscariot didn't explain what he actually thought should be correct, but all he wants is for it to go back how it was before Boxy made the edit. Both are technically wrong, and if he wants to go with the solution which is harsher on himself, then by all means, I see no reason for it not to happen. In your opinion, why shouldn't the data be reverted?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC) As I predicted, the lies not only don't get removed, but he falls back on his argument of prove it without doing the same himself. And then takes the extremely petty action of targeting me again, he doesn't go de-escalate any other user, just fucking me. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Because thanks to a series of absolute and almost certainly unreversable fuckups, Iscariots history will never truly be what it should have been, Iscariot knows it and that's why he isn't co-operating with us anywhere near as much as he'd like to imagine. If Iscariot did have an "ace in the hole" in regards to fixing the A/VD problem and proving us wrong, he would have used it by now instead of bleating madly and then falling back on a sulk-fest. At leased boxy looked through the histories of what the wiki can behold, and based his action on that. And I say it now that it is a whole lot more correct than the "reverted state" that Iscariot wants. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC) "Unreversable", I think you mean "irreversible", why aren't those fuck ups irreversible? You're happy to use the "override policy whenever they decide" clause to try and force through something on J3D's talkpage, but not in this instance? It's easy to see which situation that clause was actually there for.... I'll also point out that I've told you where, when and how far to look back/at to fix this, yet you're happy to allow fraud and argue for the continuation of it, but not fix it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Once again, Iscariot, don't try to argue, or you won't even be able to reach a compromise. I've had a look, and I see what you mean about it being screwed up DDR. And there isn't really any way to fix it further than what it is, unless someone turns up with the perfect answer all of a sudden.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC) A time machine is needed, obviously. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Until you prove, and I mean PROVE otherwise, as opposed to just whinge, there is no fraud to have been done. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I have to 'prove' things beyond all doubt and Boxy doesn't? Double standard much? Why doesn't Boxy have to 'prove' everything in detail beyond doubt before he changed it? That'd be because he can't, and you won't even put the data back to how it was before he started to meddle and lie to help any future investigation. Anyone else would have got this... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC) No no no. Stop making me repeat myself more. Boxy looked through the history, exactly the way you asked him/me to, and changed it. That's enough proof. Especially until you can bring yourself to bring a more definite method of fixing this to the table. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC) So, what's the real edit supposed to look like? What should the A/VD look like? If nobody can answer this, why should it be changed? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I can't remember exactly, somewhere along the line I think Nubis incorrectly escalated Iscariot without grounds, after Link de-escalated it as per the ruling in a misconduct case. Something like that. Regardless, the end result was Iscariot's A/VD was fucked up beyond comprehension. Boxy and I backtracked through the histories of A/VD and A/M and Boxy eventually "fixed" it as much as could be done, with the exception of a week ban which Iscariot was given despite it only should have been 24hours, meaning he can theoretically justly avoid multiple bans when the occasions arise. It's all on here. Inb4 "that's not right at all DDR but I shall refuse to actually explain what the "correct" outcome should be". --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC) The first actual acknowledgement of part of the fraud? Altering one section but not another which then implies it to be the correct escalation to be taken? And no fucking where has Boxy ever said that I can 'claim' that time back on future bans. If he had that thought (and I severely doubt given his petty conduct that he ever did) then the correct place to lodge this would have been on VD itself rather than secreting the information away as thisis where any escalating sysop would go to check things, no? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Awww, you finally explained it, that wasn't so hard, was it? What a shame there. He did say it. In fact, it was the first thing he said once he fixed it. Check talk:A/VD. Sheesh. Can't believe this whole QQathon was just because you were incapable of reading a statement. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC) That's not even half of it, and you know it, why else would I have told you when to start from? Talk:A/VD doesn't address the intentional falsehood, nor the pure hypocrisy in that one part. I'm sure you'll offer to change it, but you're prone to saying you'll do stuff and never doing so. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC) I offered to change it once I'd heard what "it should have been changed to", and why do think I never changed it? Because you never explicitly explained to me what your version of the "truth" was, nor have you yet. The offer stands. God knows how many times I'm going to have to say that before this shitfight ends. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC) You've offered to do things before and not done them, why should I expect different? Why is it unreasonable to ask sysops to look over a disputed VD record? Especially given that I gave you the starting point long before this began... You're a sysop, you volunteer to do work on this wiki, do some yourself for once. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC) The way I remember it, you did ask, we all looked, and we changed it accordingly, and that's what got us into this massive bitchfest. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Please link me to the edit where I say "Please de-escalate me". -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Lol, you are incapable of asking for anything so politely. I might dig up some quotes of "*throws link at DDR* There is something wrong with my A/VD. Here are links. Enjoy looking through page histories for the next hour" and the sad thing is, I wish I was joking with that impersonation. The fact is, you requested we look through your A/VD history and have it rectified, with no notice as to what exactly the problem was, Boxy did the same as I and changed it accordingly. You cry? Until you can explain exactly what was done incorrectly, keep crying. End of story, I've had it with this ping-pong event of "Explain yourself" "NEVER!" attitude. Come to us with the good or nothing shall happen. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC) there you go CLICK ME NOW FOO delete please k thanx bye! Also you have a LOT of crap on this page O_O --    Timmah!     Talk   18:29, 17 October 2009 (BST) thinkin bout a/vb for jed, you down? Cyberbob  Talk  07:10, 17 October 2009 (BST) Meh. If he starts another stupid group like it after this one goes, I guess. Maybe a soft warning at this stage? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:13 17 October 2009 (BST) I'll verbally warn him on his talk page Cyberbob  Talk  07:15, 17 October 2009 (BST) Signatures Why has no one gone on about Iscariot's signature yet? It's clearly in violation of the policy. Moreso than many past banned user's signatures. Either you guys are playing nice becuase you don't want to start a troll off with him or you've decided not to enforce the policy as it always has been. There is no clear link, it's impossible to tell it's him without looking at codeview, the image is clearly oversized and against policy spirit, deal with it plox. --Karekmaps?! 12:58, 17 September 2009 (BST) It takes 2 seconds to go to his talk page and find out that you're wrong, idiot. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:33, 17 September 2009 (BST) A whole 2 days wrong, I may add. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:34, 17 September 2009 (BST) Oh, so because you don't know the policy I'm wrong? Nope, not quite. Your comment on his page was incorrect, we've banned users for trying to do just that in the past. The intent of the signature policy is to make it so that 1)The signature doesn't get in the way of the usage of the page. and 2)That it's clear who the user signing is. If he were to replace the mouseover text on the first image with User:Iscariot that would be acceptable to that purpose. Making one character a link to a user subpage is not and users have been banned for that in the past regardless of whether you're willing to take the time to familiarize yourself with the enforcement and reasons for the signature policy or not. I'm not saying ban him, I'm saying enforce the policy as it's meant to be since it clearly isn't and hasn't been here. I don't care if that means telling him on his user page or telling him through A/VB but it means telling him, and apparently you, what the policy limits and why we have the policy in the first place. --Karekmaps?! 13:56, 17 September 2009 (BST) One would assume consistency was your strong point. One would think my image links made it easy enough to "see who made the post", as that's all that matters, yes? I've told him his sig is illegal. He mentions that it was the intent of my post on his User:Iscariot/PD/1 page. He has a week to change it, and if it isn't acceptable afterwards we can deal with it through A/VB or further via his talk page (depending on whether my description of what was legal is wrong or right), at leased I did something about it, so don't say no one's gone on about his signature. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:07, 17 September 2009 (BST) Sorry, I missed it in the page content. Yes, he was talked to, it's not the issue I'm commenting on but he certainly was talked to and I missed it. The issue here still needs to be address, a few of them do actually. The image is against the spirit of the current and last update to the sig policy(it's functionally equivalent to {{Blink}} even if it's not text). The user needs to be easily identifiable from the signature itself(making the first link mouseover User:Iscariot or Iscariot would do this). These are things necessary to the purpose of the signature and since I'm obviously not able to bring the issue up with him directly in any real manner without it devolving I'm bringing it up here. The rest is because this isn't something easily missed due to the widespread use of the signature in current discussions on administrative pages, the fact that it hasn't been brought up yet is a matter to be hassled over since I tend to work on the assumption that one takes the time to familiarize themselves with general enforcement of a rule along with it's purpose and that doesn't seem to have been done here. Just because he wants to change the policy doesn't mean it's an issue you drop for the week or so, that week exists so as to provide a clear show of unwillingness to address issues as brought up, not to let him use it for a week before it's addressed. Basically, no one's addressed the problem qualitatively, Just doing it is not the same as doing something about it. --Karekmaps?! 14:37, 17 September 2009 (BST) It's my first time enforcing something that breaks the signature policy, I just did it in the method I thought was right, so I accept it if I didn't do it correctly. I do agree with the issue that it hasn't been brought up further but maybe the sysops were just content that he was warned in the first place, dunno. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:44, 17 September 2009 (BST) One reason I havn't gone on about it, is that I haven't had time for my usual share of dealing with drama lately... and it's down the priority list, given that it's a templated sig, it is obivous who owns it, looking at the code, unlike last time it came up. But I do agree that it should be changed, before the week is out, because people shouldn't have to go trawling through source code, page histories or click on the image to find out who signed a post -- boxy talk • teh rulz 15:00 17 September 2009 (BST) That "invite only" (ie. circle jerk) policy discussion is based on a flawed concept. First line (after the threats) is "Whereas user creativity is at the core of the wiki concept and new and different ways of expressing one's self and personalising the wiki experience is to be encouraged". There is plenty of space for "user creativity", but signatures is not the place to let creativity overshadow functionality. Signatures have a very clear function on the wiki, to make it easy for others to identify who has made a comment in a way that doesn't detract from the text based discussion it is inserted into. By the look of the history of his sig, Iscariot has made it his goal to make a signature that is as hard as possible to identify the user link, and he's been warned for it before. It's bad enough that images are included in sigs now, but this introduces into policy a concept that will encourage every newbie to "express themselves" by inserting images into every discussion they are involved in. Sigs are there to identify the poster first and foremost, secondly they should not detract from the readability of the text discussions that go on on a wiki, and way down the list, they can provide a level of personal flair, but it shouldn't conflict with the main purposes of the sig. When multiple "user owned" images are used, the reader has no idea which one redirects to what page (plain links, FTW). Suggesting that images currently named after users can just be overwritten is just not on. The whole required "set-up process" is just going to go out the window, because every newbie that turns up will just do it, probably by including images from others signatures... it's the way the wiki code-stealer concept works, it's human nature. It's writing into policy something that, if it becomes widespread, will be a complete pain in the arse, both from sig functionality, and from an administration perspective -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:44 17 September 2009 (BST) Basically yes and, I understand the invite only thing isn't enforceable on his part, he's asking for discussion limiting it on a policy proposal without bad faith isn't a viable use or page ownership. I know this. I don't think it's worth starting a fight over it though. I'd rather make the issues known and then consider a more constructive way to address it such as starting a discussion on other methods of dealing with the issue. In particular a more noticeable and content correct guide to signatures(Signatures Guideline) seems the most appropriate method coupled with redacting from the policy as necessary. However, this is currently one of the most concise and simple policies on the wiki, the most it really needs, as far as I can tell, is an exception for moderating them as opposed to enforcing, signatures outside the policy that obviously don't break the spirit should be able to be kept and it should be saved to truly bad faith signatures and truly bad faith refusals. --Karekmaps?! 15:01, 17 September 2009 (BST) I've been thinking... I may soon apply for sysopship. What would be your opinion on the matter? (And in fact, if you're reading this, and aren't Boxy, what would be YOUR opinion?) I've made a substantial amount of edits of recent, primarily to the suburb pages. I've been archiving news posts, which I'll be doing again on the 12th, and I'm in the process of adding icons to the headers of the suburb pages. Although I've been trollish in the past, I've worked on it recently, and would do even more so if I were to run for sysop. I tried asking Link about this first, but he hasn't responded yet. So, what do you think? Should I run, or not?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:11, 6 September 2009 (BST) Ah, you've been the one adding these icons, eh? I find them annoying, as it stuffs up the links in edit summaries... um, anyway... you'd probably be advised to contribute more around A/PD type discussions, showing an understanding of the way the wiki works -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:14 7 September 2009 (BST) Ah well, I asked before originally starting the adds, and there was no oppositiion then, so I assumed it'd be okay.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:55, 7 September 2009 (BST) I'm a hard user to please when it comes to A/PM, and if you were to do anything that improves your chances I would recommend engaging with the users in the admin spots like deletions, vandalbanning, misconduct, policy discussion, etc. I vouch users that have experience with the userbase and have clear experience with the parts that the admin job entails, it can about doing masses and masses of work, but I like it when ops do a fair bit of both. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:38, 7 September 2009 (BST) derpa derpa iron hard veteran~ Cyberbob  Talk  13:46, 7 September 2009 (BST) ddr's right though - getting involved in admin discussions a bit more would improve your odds via showing people how you'd generally go with ruling on cases and whatnot if you were promoted. Cyberbob  Talk  13:46, 7 September 2009 (BST) Well, I frequently view them, but I keep out of things like a/vb, because as you've said, I'm not experienced enough to make real judgement calls, even on the talks. I make a comment now and again, but not really so much. I'd add myself to the arbitrator list, but personally, I feel we have too many arbitrators already, as we get very few abries cases, and when we do, several hundred arbitrators jump on the case. I ask for the occasional speedy delete on stub pages, but haven't done much. I'll be sure to pay more attention in this field.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:55, 7 September 2009 (BST) There's nothing wrong with that, but usually those that stay out of drama nests do a lot of work to become ops. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:57, 7 September 2009 (BST) Fair enough. Well, I'll try to do more in the way of a/vb and such then. I assume you mean discussion on the talk for it then?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:58, 7 September 2009 (BST) Yeah, just try and help out everywhere where you find wiki activity, really. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:01, 7 September 2009 (BST) Needs moar drama. A/VB, A/A (though that one very rarely happens), A/M, and A/PD.--Thadeous Oakley 13:48, 7 September 2009 (BST) Conn Reevaluation UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations#User:Conndraka Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  08:24, 3 September 2009 (BST) I think it's clear that he hasn't had community support/trust for a long time -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:28 3 September 2009 (BST) Sounds about right. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:55, 4 September 2009 (BST) Yeeeehaaawwww--CyberRead240 09:56, 4 September 2009 (BST) quick someone make a template.--xoxo 04:31, 5 September 2009 (BST) killing the wiki, your job to save it now! Yo. We've had this talk before a few weeks ago but I need you to review my creation of the page UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Scheduling/Archive to archive the protection bid, on account of me not being able to find an archive for scheduled protections (maybe they were just purged after a while)? I'm tired and it might actually be out there... Or maybe the scheduled protections that already existed were made so through policy, I don't know atm. Basically, can you check the page UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Scheduling/Archive if that page shouldn't be there, please consider this a request for crit 7 (and a crit 1) and delete it on sight after reverting this edit please. Also while I'm here, check out A/RE and move it/fix it accordingly if I bunged anything up? thanks, tired ddr 15:39, 19 August 2009 (BST) Looks pretty good to me. Buggered if I can find those old scheduled protections. Probably purged -- boxy talk • teh rulz 21:40 19 August 2009 (BST) Thanks. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:39, 20 August 2009 (BST) SIGNING YOUR POSTS IS SUPER FUCKING IMPORTANT!!! EVERYONE SIGN YOUR POSTS OR BOXY WILL LEAVE A VERY MEAN .GIF ON YOUR PAGE!!! :[ :[ :[ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnonSantlerville (talk • contribs) 11:17, August 17, 2009. Too right... and they should learn how to use headers too -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:28 17 August 2009 (BST) uh oh somebodyws gettin wurked up about her wiki rules!!!@!1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnonSantlerville (talk • contribs) 11:34, August 17, 2009. You are a complete bitch Go fucking clean the sand out of your nasty ass cunt AnonSantlerville 03:45, 16 August 2009 (BST) Dammit, I already used the tears of impotent rage image on Read. Cyberbob  Talk  03:55, 16 August 2009 (BST) Talk about a header fail as well. I see you've learned to sign as well. That's always good. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:00, 16 August 2009 (BST) Yay -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:01 16 August 2009 (BST) Chekken Do you think the creation of that Colonel bustass page warrants a trip to A/VB? Cyberbob  Talk  04:23, 10 August 2009 (BST) I told him not to do it again, on his talk page, before noticing the group page thing. Just a newbie (perhaps n00by) thing, I think. If he does similar again, I would though -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:28 10 August 2009 (BST) Righto. Cyberbob  Talk  04:31, 10 August 2009 (BST) So let me get this straight...I can't create pages on groups and people that entered into a rather sizeable siege on a fort and were rather important players, but you can go ahead and make slanderous comments on your talk page about me for all the world to see? Talk behind my back? That just goes to show that authority is not always right. And don't go saying things like "you did the same thing slandering Bustass and her group": you know for a fact that it was intended to be humorous. Lighten up! It's a joke. -- Chekken 03:23, 11 August 2009 (BST) Only it's not very funny... creepy does seem to fit though -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:27 11 August 2009 (BST) After having heard about the requests on IRC for naked photos I'll second the "creepy" motion. Cyberbob  Talk  03:32, 11 August 2009 (BST) Acutall Chekken, you were a lot more slanderous about it, and the way you went about it. That's why I said something originally to Bob on his talk page. -Poodle of doom 03:40, 11 August 2009 (BST) That doesn't mean that you can be slanderous to me on a different page. It's practically the same thing. I find it hard to believe that you would use hostile terms towards somebody who is new to your community. But you did. That is slander. -- Chekken 03:53, 11 August 2009 (BST) We don't need a reason to be slanderous ;p Seriously though. User pages and group pages shouldn't be edited in such a way, unless you're very sure that the people who own them would approve of what you're doing with them. I see no indication that Col. Bustass wants you making up shit about her, and the group she used to belong to, so keep your fantasies to your own group or user pages, please -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:57 11 August 2009 (BST) Here we go again. More insults. "Fantasies"? Pardon me, but what in the blue hell are you talking about? I'm going to say it for the millionth time: it is satire. If it isn't funny, I'll take some suggestions and rewrite it. It is not a "fantasy", I am not TRYING to be creepy. It wasn't even finished yet; it was a work in progress. Now if somebody had BOTHERED to show me where the template for that is, I would have put it on my page and accepted criticism as humbly as I could. If it isn't funny, you comment on it on the discussion page, not send it immediately for deletion. --Chekken 04:04, 11 August 2009 (BST) Don't bother answering, Boxy. This one is well-versed in the art of self-convincing. Cyberbob  Talk  04:07, 11 August 2009 (BST) How do you figure I was being slanderous towards you Chekken? I'd like to see proof of that. WAIT!! I GOT A BETTER IDEA!!! Let's take your attitude towards me and the rest of the community to Arbitration if you really think I'm that dead set on brining you down. Shit! Maybe even boxy or bob here would like to volenteer as Arbitrator? -Poodle of doom 04:13, 11 August 2009 (BST) I have no attitude towards "the community" at all; how can I even have an opinion in the first place? I haven't MET the community yet. And if my welcome party will be a bunch of people insulting and excessively criticising my work, then maybe this is not where I should be spending my time. My problem is you GOING AROUND on MY PAGES...the pages I myself have written...and insulting me. If you have a problem with me, then you can be man enough to go on my talk page and send me a message explaining what is wrong. Yeah, you really expect me to go to Arbitration so that I can participate in (what I assume will be) a one-sided, biased session and be ganged up on? Well hell, if you want to so badly, I would love to be insulted further and embarrassed in front of the community. Oh, and your spelling is off. Might want to fix that. --Chekken 04:22, 11 August 2009 (BST) Sigh. Cyberbob  Talk  04:25, 11 August 2009 (BST) Shouldn’t put down a dyslexic fellow for having a few spelling issues. On that note,…. Bob, Boxy,… either or both of you care to join us? -Poodle of doom 04:29, 11 August 2009 (BST) I think Bob's trying to drop me a subtle cue to let it go.... right? -Poodle of doom 04:31, 11 August 2009 (BST) You know what? This is really stupid. I don't even understand what we're fighting about anymore. Delete the damn article if it's such a poke in the butthole for you guys. Just...can I have suggestions first before an article is deleted? I will observe the rules about group/individual wiki's in the future. And Boxy, I'm sorry. --Chekken 04:35, 11 August 2009 (BST) Can you re-upload an image? Image:Firulais.jpg was deleted last month for lack of use. However, it is still in use in the Dulston News Archive. I've asked the deleter, and learned that deletion cannot be undone. So, I'm asking you, as the original uploader of that image, to upload it again, if you still have it. -- Kittithaj 20:36, 30 July 2009 (BST) Done -- boxy talk • teh rulz 21:24 30 July 2009 (BST) Page move Hey can I get that Smooth Criminals page moved now please? Thanks --    Timmah!     Talk   03:05, 27 July 2009 (BST) A/MR.--xoxo 03:06, 27 July 2009 (BST) Done'd -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:17 27 July 2009 (BST) yeah don't worry about procedures or anything. How about i just make A/MR redirect right here??--xoxo 09:36, 27 July 2009 (BST) Hey, hey chuckles. Don't sweat it. There's already been a request put on that page for this move, and I said I'd do it once the deletions request was served. We don't need to go through A/MR for moves anyway, it's just more convenient to do so for non-sysops -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:43 27 July 2009 (BST) There is nothing in the guidelines to say a sysop can only move pages via A/MR. It is only deleting things and, I think, protecting things. --ϑϑℜ 09:55, 27 July 2009 (BST) And banning things ;) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:56 27 July 2009 (BST) yawn thanks for that charlie.--xoxo 13:25, 27 July 2009 (BST) If that's sarcasm, I won't be impressed... --ϑϑℜ 13:27, 27 July 2009 (BST) Sorry, it was :P come down one weekend and we'll hit it up a'ight? --xoxo 13:34, 27 July 2009 (BST) Can i get a clean up in aisle 4 that or your opinion on my a/vb-ed comment.--xoxo 14:03, 15 July 2009 (BST) Disk Space is Cheap! I'm back. Oh yeah, never gonna leave you alone, I'm back, oh yeah...--User:Axe27/Sig 00:19, 15 July 2009 (BST) You was so smart UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Pornography --xoxo 11:10, 7 July 2009 (BST) Seriously Leave me alone and mind your own damn business. I'm not causing any problems, and your precious Grim who you put so much faith in to deal with my previous cases turned out to be the fascist bastard I always said he was. Leave me alone and you won't even know I'm here. Messenger 02:55, 5 July 2009 (BST) I think I've made myself clear with my last few edits; I'm willing to be a vandal if you're going to treat me as one. I'm not going anywhere. I've been banned for nearly three years; yet here I am. I've tried merely slipping under the radar, doing my own thing and not bothering anyone. Even months after any previous activity, I am hunted down as soon as any hint of my identity is uncovered. I can be a good girl; or I can be a stinking, rotten vandal, and muck up your time with A/VB cases day in and day out if I really must. It is your call. Can you live and let live, and let the last two and a half years serve as my punishment, or must we continue the song and dance of old? Don't prove yourself an arrogant fool. I have no bad faith, despite your arduous claims to the contrary, I'm only a vandal when you force me to be. So what is your say, Boxy? No Escape 07:32, 5 July 2009 (BST) REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anti-Bureaucracy This user hates bureaucracy and encourages wiki-revolution! DOWN WITH THE CRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Imthatguy 18:25, 3 July 2009 (BST) New Scheduled Deletion Hey, I'd like to ask a bit of advice regarding the new scheduled deletion which I approved today. I've added it to the list of Scheduled's on the administration guidelines, do you also think we should strike the crit here? I added a note, but was concerned striking it would lead to users thinking it was invalidated as C12. Thoughts? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (BST) Just leave it as an SD criterion, although we perhaps need to discuss putting a list of scheduled deletions on the page as well, so that people can nominate them using the A/SD page if needed -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:29 30 June 2009 (BST) You read my mind! Not sure though, cause scheduled deletions are generally deleted as they come, not many users look through the depths of specialpages for them, and if they do, they know what they are doing anyway. It would help, I guess. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:18, 30 June 2009 (BST) Well it needs to be made clear that posting lists on SD from the specialpages isn't helpful. They are got to when they're got to, but if a scheduled page is come across, or created by someone who wants it gone, they can request it on a/sd. But perhaps a discussion on talk SD to see what others views are -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:48 30 June 2009 (BST) omg you guys are are sooooo like intune!!!elvn --xoxo 12:22, 30 June 2009 (BST) You'll need to fight to get your sweetheart back ;P -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:48 30 June 2009 (BST) nah boxy you're all mine and i know it.--xoxo 13:15, 30 June 2009 (BST) haha jed ur like teh king of sayan shit deliberately wit bad grammer to make wat ur sayan really really sarcastic (with lots of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(and some numbers)11 --Cyberbob 22:03, 30 June 2009 (BST) Me too :) --xoxo 22:34, 2 July 2009 (BST) Thanks for fixing up my typo on the Guidelines. I must have had a brain explosion because I hit the wrong Crit. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:18, 2 July 2009 (BST) Erm Voting on that scheduled thing isn't over yet mang. --Cyberbob 13:34, 21 June 2009 (BST) Which, wat? Redirects after page moves are already sched'ed, otherwise I don't know what you're talking about -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:37 21 June 2009 (BST) Oh, it was from a move? I didn't spot that, nevermind then --Cyberbob 13:39, 21 June 2009 (BST) idiot!!!!!--xoxo 16:10, 23 June 2009 (BST) Quick Q What's the go with this? Did someone just get his evaluation bid and franekstein it to his original promotion bid? I wasn't around at the time so I'm seeking clarification before I consider giving it a move. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:47, 17 June 2009 (BST) I'm guessing they did... could have even been me (d'oh). Yeah, it should be split off onto it's own page -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:56 21 June 2009 (BST) Silly Boxy!!! I fixed it up now. Also, I'm a little confused by this... Is there any reason why Nubzor bolded the I in two of the cases? Is there some symbolism because he self-banned himself in it (reading into this alot). DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:19, 21 June 2009 (BST) There's no I in team! :D -- boxy talk • teh rulz 15:05 22 June 2009 (BST) lmao, general was literally like 12 back then... little baby --Cyberbob 14:07, 21 June 2009 (BST) Warning For your misconduct case. This should have been done already, but that's what I get for thinking another op would do it. ;_; --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 06:28, 15 June 2009 (BST) I feel is appropriate here ;) --xoxo 09:19, 15 June 2009 (BST) Haa! :D -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:12 15 June 2009 (BST) Well played. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:19, 15 June 2009 (BST) hahahahhaahahshshahahaha hshsdjhahahahhahasjhashah jskahahaquisajjsjq hahhahahahahhhshahshahhaha hjsahjqnzmahhahahahahhaha hhahahahahuhsuahsqihsahhhaha --Cyberbob 14:30, 15 June 2009 (BST) THAT WAS FUNNY!!!!!! I LUL'D FOR LIKE TEN BILLION INFINITY HOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD--Cyberbob 14:30, 15 June 2009 (BST) One day i will break through your shell bob and your heart will truly be mine.--xoxo 14:50, 15 June 2009 (BST) You should fry it in a light garlic butter for 15 - 20 mins and serve with chips and beans. -- Cheese 16:32, 15 June 2009 (BST) The Use of E-tard Regarding your judgement: I'm allowed to call someone a "retard" but not a "nigger"? You know, that's real discrimination right there, at the favor of skin color and at the cost of disabled people. How do you reason?--Thadeous Oakley 22:44, 7 June 2009 (BST) Calling someone a retard is making a somewhat legitimate critique on their ability to perform the job they are applying for on A/PM. Shouting NIGGER is nothing but shitting up admin pages, and he probably wouldn't have got a warning this time if he hadn't already plenty of them before for similar things. He doesn't believe the person is black, or he wouldn't be shouting that at them -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:31 7 June 2009 (BST) You can't honestly see the difference? Calling someone a retard is a figure of speech, calling someone retarded is a quip about them being mentally deficient. Nigger can't really have a context outside of that, being a nigger. And either way, J3D didn't call anyone nigger. He just spouted it out in bold on the promotions page, as input that could not possibly help the crats at all. That is essentially the part which constitutes vandalism. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:14, 8 June 2009 (BST) Personal details and whose personal details have I posted on this wiki? --Roorgh 22:59, 28 April 2009 (BST) These. Even if it was just bullshit its still not on. Behave or you'll get banned. -- Cheese 23:16, 28 April 2009 (BST) Sorry, but I don't understand; may be the lack of sleep. Was he joking, like: "hey, I bet you're 40 and single" or he was seriously saying: "hey, I know you and you are 40 and single"? --Janus talk 23:33, 28 April 2009 (BST) Oh, it's nonsense. Then, why the warning? --Janus talk 23:35, 28 April 2009 (BST) I wasn't even attempting to say "I bet you're 40 and single" Janus. I have no idea who Linkedthewindow is. It was a totally stupid post in response to his "I think I may regret this..." comment on his earlier post. Stupid as in clearly a 3 minute fabrication, 1 of those minutes to google the SSN format as I claimed he was from the US. I was having a joke with Linkedthewindow on a talk page, and who is yet to tell me that he found this distasteful. --Roorgh 23:45, 28 April 2009 (BST) Tasteful doesn't equal good faith. But like most people, I didn't even know this was in reference to Linkthewindow... The details were so wrong I thought it was about Callista. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (BST) Karek Demotion UDWiki:Administration/Demotions#Karek Any chance you could archive it? (I've seen that only 'crats have ever edited the archive.) Linkthewindow  Talk  07:08, 25 April 2009 (BST) Done, but I'm sure no-one would mind if you'd have done it after so long -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:48 25 April 2009 (BST) UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions/February 2009. Scheduled Protection, I noticed. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:22, 1 May 2009 (BST) Done. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:39, 1 May 2009 (BST) A/SD Pardon my idiocy on the Speedy Deletions page on the Scheduled Deletions. Until that point they were something I didn't totally understand, hence the oversized lists etc. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:56, 2 April 2009 (BST) DDR's Bid Thoughts? I personally think that it's a bit too soon for this "new DDR" to be promoted. If he can show that he's reformed for good, maybe, but if he goes right back to being an immature arsehead then we'd be pretty stuck to boot him out, eh?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 21:36, 31 March 2009 (BST) I, of course, agree -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:36 2 April 2009 (BST) Demotion's easier to obtain than you think. Just get 50% of the active sysops to agree and run the case through when DDR's inactive and his mate who would usually defend him in his absence has been unreasonably banned for 48 hours.--xoxo 03:34, 1 April 2009 (BST) you just lost the right to call anyone bitter ever again. --Cyberbob 07:42, 1 April 2009 (BST) You shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. Let's learn from that mistake. --– Nubis NWO 11:08, 1 April 2009 (BST) Nip Hey Boxy. I've deleted the image. Sorry, didn't realize it would cause any offense. Thanks for letting me know. --Lady Clitoria 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC) PS - It wasn't porn!!! --Lady Clitoria 20:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your co-operation -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:57 28 March 2009 (BST) you mean input, right?--xoxo 14:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC) It was a poorly made image with exposed nipples. It needed to go for many reasons. The replacement looks better and covers the nipples. I think it is fine.--– Nubis NWO 14:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC) The replacement was just as poorly made! But yeah, my nips are now hidden. --Lady Clitoria 14:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC) YOUR nipples eh? So that was you? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:10, 29 March 2009 (BST) Nuerotoxic2213 My Name is Nuerotoxic2213, and i have noticed that someone has vandalized one of my images on the Ackland Mall Security Page. now someone has been going all over the air-waves in game slandering us , which is fine, but vandalism on the wiki is another story. since i am not "wiki" literate enough to figure this out, was wondering if you could help me. the image in question is here http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:Ams.jpg as far as i can tell it was Lady Clitoria who vandalized the image since before hand it was only Officer Otep back in 2006 who had touched the image. i tried to click on the (rev) thing next to the names and such but like i said, "wiki" illiterate. Nuerotoxic2213 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Talked to the user about it. Should be good, don't think its VB worthy, it was just a newbie mistake. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Nuerotoxic2213 --- those wiki revisions were from ZOLAM, (Lady C is my wiki account). You said it was okay to amend. This wasn't vandalism. Let me know which badge you want and I'll amend as you wish. Sorry about the confusion. I thought you would've realized when we put the new map up, as that was also by Lady C. ---- ZOLAM (--Lady Clitoria 06:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)) Recruitment Ad Page Maintenance Sorry to bother you, but I think I ought to inform you that all youknowwhat may be about to break loose. I informed DK13 on their talk page that I had hidden their ad as their image is too large. They (rather politely) responded tell me that their ad was supposed to have been approved as is. I can only presume that they were referring to the guideline changes that many of us were discussing on the Recruitment Ad talk page and which now seem to have stalled. I hid the ad again this morning and explained my reason for doing so on their talk page. It is under the Recruitment Ad heading at the bottom of the page. I was polite, as well, but I sense that this could quickly become an issue.--Lois talk 10MFH 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wanyao So, since he finally managed to let us know of his acceptance on the bid, what do you think we should do? I think we don't need to let it go on for more than 2-3 more days before we make a decision, plenty of time for him to make replies to comments and stuffs. Sound good to you? Or should we consider his acceptance as the actual start of the Com. rev. part of the bid, and give him two more weeks?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Tell me again why he should be granted an exception to the two week rule? The initial period ended before he posted. I smell yet another foregone conclusion... --Cyberbob 07:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC) You know you're more like iscariot then you realise.--xoxo 11:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) hurf durf wikistalking --Cyberbob 13:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) durf hurf watchlist?--xoxo 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I think, given how long it went before he accepted, that (at the very least) a note should be left on the main page to say that he has now accepted the nomination and opinion is still being asked. I think he deserves the promotion but not until he shows evidence that he is around enough to make promotion worthwhile... a number of others seem to feel similarly and the early vouchers may reconsider in light of a 2+ week absence, letting the whole thing run an extra week seems like a fairer alternative than just starting over.--Honestmistake 13:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I thought he made it pretty clear that he won't be active enough to justify promoting him. Any further "clarification" or "explanation" would just be backpedalling. --Cyberbob 13:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Well he says he will not be as active as he was... thing is though, he seemed to be active about 8 hours a day and that can't be healthy (or good for continued employment prospects) If I could be sure that his reduced activity would still see him checking in most days and dedicating a good few hours a week being constructive he would have my vouch now, as is though i would like a month or so to judge before he puts himself forwards.--Honestmistake 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Alrighty then, sorry I've been absent, I was in a play, and we just finished performing, and then tearing everything down yesterday. I'll take a look again and let you know later tonight, alright with you? Again, sorry for my absence. Crunch time and all, I'm sure you understand right?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Also, does my talk page look that bad? It surprisingly relaxes my eyes and doesn't hurt them like this blinding white background all over the wiki. :/ --Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC) WOOT's Bid I'm just going to go ahead and call it failed, as it's apparent the community doesn't think he needs the status. If you disagree, then I'm sorry for just going ahead, but I didn't think there'd be anyway you'd think he deserves it right now.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 01:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Good idea -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:53 5 March 2009 (BST) T_T --/~Rakuen~\Talk I Still Love Grim 22:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Links Sysop Bid Going to decide on it?--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 00:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC) So, I suppose it's that time to talk about the candidate. What are your thoughts?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC) You're new. You're supposed to flip a coin. What's this about "thoughts"? :P --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Gotta make it look like we actually try and discuss the candidates, right?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Oh come ON!!! Remember Grim? ;D DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:30, 26 May 2009 (BST) I'm all for Link's promotion. The major reason for against votes seems to be that he isn't keen to get involved in A/VB drama. I have no problem with promoting people who want to steer clear of A/VB unless it's cut and dried. I expect any sysop to deal with obvious vandalism, but don't mind if they keep out of the borderline cases unless they have strong views, and a good understanding of policy/precedence relevant to the case. Basically, I can't fault Links dedication to the smooth running of the wiki. Pure good faith editor, who has shown a willingness to work in areas that would benefit from the added sysop abilities -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:48 2 March 2009 (BST) Alrighty then, I guess he's a sysops now, as that's about what I was thinking. I really do not want him jumping into VB if he can't make a decision, but I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to realize "LOL U SUCK" being spammed on a group page is vandalism. Would you like to do the honors, or shall I?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC) There's another one User:DangerReportTimekeeperBot. Could you demote it accordingly? Thanks. --  RoosterDragon  20:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC) No worries. Thanks for letting us know -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:49 2 March 2009 (BST) Thanks Oh ok, thanks, I didn't realize how this all worked.--OmarJXII 03:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Omar A/D#Zombykiller_user_page Can I create a redirect then? --Janus talk 14:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC) From your link, it should be obvious that I think that it depends on the situation... so explain, and I will give an opinion -- boxy talk • teh rulz 22:48 27 February 2009 (BST) Zombykiller/Bhuwannabe posted a deletion request. I contacted him by pm and he said that he'd like to keep his old user page as redirect to his new one. Question: Can I recreate the page as a redirect? --Janus talk 14:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) *pokes* --Janus talk 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC) For some reason... Anywho, you may or may not know I run Project NecroWatch. I try to keep new guys from making mistakes, but every now and then it happens with scan images. One such mistake is the BuildingBuildingNecronet.png. As it's no longer linked to anything I figured it would get cleaned up eventually, but just today another person posting a scan mistakenly linked to it instead of their own scan image. I blame my semi-confusing template, which becomes an issue when users are switching from the "no current scan" static GIF to their new PNG. Anywho, if possible, would you please delete this image for me in order to avoid any further misunderstandings of this nature? I was going to post this request under speedy deletions... and while it has been a while... but those requests don't seem to include reasons for an image deletion. Let me know. --Mobius 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) It can go through speedydeletions as a crit 1 if you can show where it is duplicated elsewhere on the wiki. It's too new for me to delete on sight though. Best to go through A/SD -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:15 23 February 2009 (BST) Can we keep him Uncle Boxy? Plz? =( -- Cheese 19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC) And can we have this one too? =( -- Cheese 10:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Sure. You have to take them for walkies, daily, though! :P Seriously though, Nubis' status has been confirmed, and I have posted on Karek's talk page, asking if he wants to remain a sysop. Unless Karek says that he wants a demotion, I agree that both should remain sysops -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:05 21 February 2009 (BST) I agree. Karek's done a damn good job while he was a Sysop, no point in removing his powers until he's sure he wants to leave.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 13:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you! If I mess on the carpet... uh, rub Karek's nose in it. It's the only way I will learn! --– Nubis NWO 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Unsuccessful Promotions On the category page for archived unsuccessful promo bids, Jerrel Yokotory's bid is under U for the title of the page, not J for his user name. Is there a way to change it to look like all the others? --Pestolence(talk) 02:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) It's a result of not specifying the category within the code. To categorise correctly one must not just add a [[Category:Whatever]], but must put the desired title within as so [[Category:Whatever|Jerrel Yokotory]] otherwise it defaults to the category title, or page title, I can't remember. Jerrel's promotion bid should not have been archived, if Nubis wishes to use precedent in regards to his own bid he must also abide by the precedent set by Xela's bid, but do you really think our sysop team will do that? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC) It defaults to the full page title. Precedent shouldn't always be followed, though I do think it should've been one of the crats to archive it. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 10:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Should be fixed now -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:40 16 February 2009 (BST) Thanks, Boxy. Some of us have OCD about that kind of thing :) --Pestolence(talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Zink Since he's cleared his page, here's my comment, with the same amount of sarcasm. :P I'm sorry, I could have sworn that this comment: Quote: Cheese "I give up trying to get decent diffs. All you need to do is just compare the contribs. They all match up. Its like he's talking to himself in places. I've also come across two more alts (User:Zink and User:Zinkthekiller and the most telling page of all User:Ahrimmagicks/Zinkthereviver. -- Cheese WTF!RandomSysOp? 00:05, 4 July 2008 (BST) " had shown that Zink was a known sockpuppet of Zinker, and would have been banned when you said you were banning all his known alts. My bad, I guess I was thrown off by those comments that are apparently not that confusing. Sorry for wasting your time. Anywho, previous sarcasm aside, on the archive of that case, it links to the current Zink, which would mean he had made the account back then. The owner just hadn't made any edits to confirm it. So shouldn't your comment be saying something about banning an account that hasn't done anything yet instead? Maybe you should read up before you try to +1 me next time, eh? :) --BFFs +SA+NSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN 4 EVA!!! 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC) So it was, sorry about that. Cant have used the same IP, or had any zinker-like edits at the time. Anyway, next piece of vandalism will probably see him gone for good -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:42 13 February 2009 (BST) Oh, its no problem boxy. Sorry about the large amounts of sarcasm in it, but you called me numbnuts for no reason that time. :'( --Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 12:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Semi-protection No one else seems interested, and I know why. But you suggested it, so I'd be great if you checked it, please. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC) ? This and User:VRastignac and this? --Janus talk 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Looks like Matteusz has created another account, but still doesn't get how to link to an actual user page. PK is an ironically n00bish group -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:57 10 February 2009 (BST) Ehe, ok. Though Matt's user contributions don't show he created the old version of User:VRastignac. Or am I missing it? :| --Janus talk 15:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC) History of old page -- boxy talk • teh rulz 15:15 10 February 2009 (BST) Oh, I've just realised that history is moved along with the page. lol. --Janus talk 15:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC) CE areyou sure the crat elections spose to start? I haven't looked into it at all but this discussion would suggest its another 2 weeks til its due...--xoxo 01:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC) "After 3 months with no elections on a bureaucrat position, an election is called for the bureaucrat position longest without an election." The last election finished on 4 December 2008, therefore the next on would be due on the 4th of March (barring resignation or crat inactivity). As you can see from this example, where the June crat election ended on the 22nd of June and was followed by one starting on the 23rd of September -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:25 8 February 2009 (BST) okay i'm totally lost. You just said the 4th of march which is like 3 weeks away...--xoxo 03:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I don't think I can make it any clearer... yes, 3 or 4 weeks away -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:08 8 February 2009 (BST) But a new ones started...unless you're saying it won't end until march the 4th? --xoxo 04:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, that's what you're getting at. No. I meant that the one that cheese just started didn't need to be done until March 4 -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:51 8 February 2009 (BST) Hey My bad on Promo, I thought you made a mistake. I didn't know that you purposely put BFF instead of Angel.--BFFs +SA+NSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN 4 EVA!!! 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) honestmistake While grateful for your support in the promotion bid I feel I really should point out that I simply do not have the skills or patience to do many of the technical functions that a sysop normally does. This is not to say that I cannot and will not learn enough to help out, rather to point out that I currently have no clue as to how they work. If you were voting for me because you trust my judgement on issues like A/VB and Misconduct then thank you… if you think I can be trusted to maintain the wiki infrastructure then please change your vote to abstain because I am crap at editing stuff let alone fixing other folks mistakes.--Honestmistake 14:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC) lolwut? It's not really that hard...--xoxo 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Just withdraw the bid if you doubt your ability to do the job -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:18 4 February 2009 (BST) I think it's more a bizarre form of sucking up, but i must say i'm rather confused as to the motive...maybe trying to get get a/vb-ed ala woot? --xoxo 06:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Its more a case of making sure that no one is under any illusions as to my technical know how. Boxy is probably already aware as he has fixed a few of my errors over the years but as I sent this to all who "Vouched" for me I thought it best to be consistent and include Boxy too. As for "sucking up"... that would make sense only if I really wanted the promotion and would probably be better done by targetting those who abstained. I am more than willing to accept promotion and be useful if people think I can be (hell i might even enjoy it?) but not getting it really will not send me into a spiral of bitterness like it did Bob. --Honestmistake 13:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Okay fair enough. I just think technical know-how isn't really a criterion for sysopship. As long as you can delete a page and follow some red tape in the process, it's just the same as being a normal user. Oh, aside from being able to place little apostrophes around your decisions on a/m and a/vb cases. --xoxo 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Probably should be but only for users who want to edit protected templates, which most don't. --Karekmaps?! 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) plz to be strikan my vandal escalation? --Cyberbob 02:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Good enough for you?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 02:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Aren't physical threats bannable on this wiki? I can't find the policy which covers it, though. I bring this up in regards to this this. Darkmagic (it's him, right?) made two such comments... To be honest, I'm a little miffed that hagnat took the liberty of letting him off the hook. He ought not to have done so, imo, b/c I thought we were zero tolerance on that kind of shit. Especially since he did it twice and there's no way it could be taken as "sarcastic".... Are our hands tied now, then? In any case, any thoughts on how one should proceed with something like this, whether hag's imnsho non-standard warning sticks or not? Thanks. --WanYao 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC) If Iscariot feels threatened by it, and wants to report it, I'd warn him for it, given he's made it clear it's supposed to be a R/L threat. But really, it's hard to take such bullshit seriously -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:08 2 February 2009 (BST) Stop being a whiny cunt WanYao, before I find you irl, rip your throat out, and shit down your neck--/~Rakuen~\Talk I Still Love Grim 23:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC) :D Only case i can think of though wan was nick saying this guy should watch his back. He didn't get any punishment although it served up a small helping of drama...--xoxo 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Boxman! What do you reckon? I'm not entirely sure about this one. =p -- Cheese 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I think it's pretty clear that the community is happy to have him as a sysop, and rightly so, seeing as the only major problems he's caused are far in the past. BTW, please don't archive the bid straight away. Make your ruling, and leave it for a few days so that it's easy for people to find out what happened rather than having to navigate through the archives (not knowing which category it may have went in) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:13 29 January 2009 (BST) Warm, Comfy Socks I think the wiki martyr case is a closed deal, so I'm not going to add anything else. I think my view of sockpuppets is best demonstrated by this template. --ZsL 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Promotion Bid Well, they've had two weeks now. What do you think? Yay or nay? -- Cheese 14:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC) It's a pretty clear decision, community supportwise, I think. His contributions in the admin area have been fine, it's just that they've been limited to one section, speedy/deletions. I'd like to see his opinions in the policy discussion area, on a wider range before he goes further -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:24 20 January 2009 (BST) That's pretty much what I was thinking. I'll do the shifting on A/PM now. -- Cheese 10:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC) job well done I was just looking for an active sysop to look at "user: wiki martyr" when I saw you had already gotten him. Funny but obviously a No-No. --Honestmistake 09:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Warning stuff So... Im I "unwarned" :D? All did was "revert" my sig to my original signing when I posted. There were too many intermediate versions to just undo Leroys changes. --Obi + Talk!|TZH|MDK 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Show me the diff comparison where you originally changed all those sigs to what you say you've reverted them back to, and we'll talk -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:02 15 January 2009 (BST) These are my original "posts" -> [1],[2],[3] then leroy did this so I changed them back to my original signing. --Obi + Talk!|TZH|MDK 12:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC) The page's history, as you can see it has a lot of intermediate versions. --Obi + Talk!|TZH|MDK 12:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Undeletions? Sorry, I don't know wiki well, and I couldn't find an email or anything to request the undeletion of an old - and rather historical - police station from M-ville. A link to the deletion request in question. - Umm, I'm not sure, sorry.  :-/ A reason for undeletion. This should be short and to the point. - I'm assuming because it hadn't been updated in quite some time... A signed datestamp. It was: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Brewer_Street_Police_Dept < Brewer Street PD was one of two main operation bases for the humans/survivors working with the M-ville PD - Monroeville Police Department - which was, if not the, among the most powerful and organized survivor groups back then. It would be greatly appreciated if it could be undeleted for historical references. Hopefully I'm talking to the right guy, like I said I don't know wiki well, so if you could forward it on to the right place if this isn't the right place to request, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! - ChiefyMan 05:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC) It's been moved to Brewer Street Police Department (Monroeville) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 05:36 9 January 2009 (BST) administration question Hi, I was browsing around this wiki's administration policy and I was a little confused with this guideline, the one that states a user may be warned or banned 'When acting in accordance with approved policies.' What does this mean? Isn't doing this good? Liberty 08:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Boxy will no doubt move this around to the right part of his page, please try and follow people's conventions on their own pages. The user in the guideline you quote is the sysop doing the warning. The sysop may warn when acting in accordance with approved policies. It's the future proof clause, it allows a sysop to warn a user even though a policy wasn't approved when the guidelines went through, it elimates the loophole of "You can't warn me because the guidelines don't mention or apply to that policy because it wasn't invented". -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC) What Iscariot said, basically. You've got to read it in the context of the whole paragraph. "System operators may only warn/ban a user when... [snip]... acting in accordance with approved policies." -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:48 3 January 2009 (BST) Did you log your edit of that protected policy page on any admin page for oversight? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC) No, but thanks for watching my back. Does this mean we're friends now, and I can use your talk page too ;) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:13 3 January 2009 (BST) So let me get this right, you decided to alter a policy voted in by the community and not note this edit anywhere so that the community or another sysop could exercise oversight or voice some sort of concern? Yes, of course you may post on my talk page, provided you have edited this page in the same way as Gnome and every other unfit sysop. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC) If it was an edit that changed the meaning of the policy in any way whatsoever I would bother, but seeing it was a simple grammar edit (taking out a couple of superfluous "when"s), it's a totally good faith edit -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:26 3 January 2009 (BST) As is proven by this user's question, it does change the meaning of the policy, because the policy said something completely different. I don't care if you believed (which I doubt) that your edit was good faith, the fact is you edited a protected page without logging the change. You broke the guidelines, that same as Cheese was misconducted for. Going to go to A/M and write up your own case for review? Didn't think so, there's your "good faith". -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Making a policy easier to understand by removing the excess padding around the important bits is not bad faith. In fact, most of the policies we have are very long-winded and could probably be summarised in about 4 or 5 bullet points. -- Cheese 12:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC) As was proven by the original user, it was a complete change of the written meaning of the policy. If you could even comprehend the precedence this sets.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Oh noes!1!!!1!!!1!!eleventyone!!1!!0!"2B!!1 =( I r 2 st00p1d 2 reed Engl15h? Seriously, fuck off. Don't sit there and attempt to say I'm thick. That is not on. -- Cheese 12:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The edit in question -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:02 3 January 2009 (BST) Which is now logged, even thought there is little need for grammar edits to be so logged -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:04 3 January 2009 (BST) I wonder when you guys will realize that he doesn't actually have a point and realizes it. He's just a troll, stop the feeding.--Karekmaps?! 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Is the amusement he creates as a troll greater than the frustration he generates as one? I lean toward No, but some of you have more tolerance than I do. Is he really a troll we should seriously look into? I already have my answer (and case) ready, but I thought I would get a feel for the general opinion.--– Nubis NWO 06:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC) No, I am not a troll, it was a serious question, and sorry Boxy for putting my question at the bottom of the talk page. I read the template at the top and thought it implied I should press the '+'. Sorry. And thanks. Liberty 00:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I doubt they're talking about you, Liberty, but rather Iscariot -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:31 5 January 2009 (BST) And thats the second paragraph I've totally read wrong infront of you guys. You must all think I'm blind. Pardon me Liberty 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Sexylegsread's banning I hate to say it, but you're probably going to A/M for that one. It was a witchhunt and nothing more, a 48 hour ban is ridiculous.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 18:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC) 48 hours was his next escalation level.--Karekmaps?! 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Yes, but it should never have been vandalism. Vandalism is defined as a bad-faith edit and this wasn't one.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC) He made plenty of bad faith edits to increase the effectiveness of the impersonation's "lulz", General. On the vandal's talk page, on A/VB, and on A/M. It was a joint effort, in the planning, and the implementation... and that's only if you buy the story he tells -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:58 2 January 2009 (BST) Yes it was, this was meatpuppetry. It was him trying to get around the rules by telling someone who he knew and wouldn't be punished to make a throw away account and do it in his stead. Sockpuppetry is vandalism, this is the same thing with an extra layer of insulation.--Karekmaps?! 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC) A friend suggested it, not him. While it was very bad form to say "it will be lulz", I can't see that as vandalism. I feel we're getting a dangerously close to a vendetta here.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC) A friend that has never edited the wiki and wouldn't know who Cyberbob is? That is/was one of the worst cope outs I've ever heard/read.--Karekmaps?! 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) lol, read, good pun :) --xoxo 23:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC) 2008 2008 2007 2007