Revision as of 14:26, 31 March 2010

April 2010

User:Imthatguy

Not Vandalism - As boxy (and as Ross explained to Corn, I believe), until it goes through arbitration, there's no teeth to it. —Aich on— 02:53, 22 April 2010 (BST)

Why is it that it's been deemed vandalism, and he's been warned? -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 03:04, 22 April 2010 (BST)

Because Cheese warned him off the bad (cause he does that sometimes, siiiiiiiigh) and they haven't struck it yet as the vote's since been overturned. --

03:10, 22 April 2010 (BST)

Yep. I'll clean it up tomorrow if no other sysop comes along and objects in the meantime. —Aich on— 03:15, 22 April 2010 (BST)

Someone needs to remove the A/VD entry, and warning, etc. Because of all the sysops it's cheese that still makes idiot insta-warns on cases which aren't vandalism. fuck me, cheese, don't you even think anymore? The BBK used to do this to finis over 30 times a day and receive no retribution... If Tardholioo wants to say people can't comment that's his fucking problem. Not Imthaguy (and half the wiki, mind). --

03:08, 22 April 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo

Oh thank god... that son of a bitch is going to get a 24 hour ban! -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 22:41, 23 April 2010 (BST)

Hopefully this will shut him up. The chances are slim, though.. Infrastructure 09:52, 24 April 2010 (BST)

I hope it doesn't. The more he babbles, the better our odds of getting rid of him permanitly. -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 13:40, 24 April 2010 (BST)

When you put it that way.. Infrastructure 14:02, 24 April 2010 (BST)

OMG!! OMG!! OMG!! OMG!! HERE WE GO!!! ONLY THREE MORE!!! -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 23:00, 28 April 2010 (BST)

I'm hoping it won't come to that and that they'll all just stop mucking up the admin pages by actually behaving like responsible adults. Banning him isn't a fix, despite what others may think, and I'm not eager to see him rack up escalations. —Aich on— 23:30, 28 April 2010 (BST)

I'd originally hoped it wouldn't come to that either. In reality, I think that for the average, run of the mill, contributer to the wiki,... the mass majority of the wiki users would agree with you on that. But there comes a time when you need to realize that you can't fix stupid. You just need to part ways with it. My god,... three escalations in the last two weeks, four in total, and many more warnings prior to that in casual conversation for realitivly the same thing? It's time to just weed out this particular wiki denizen. -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 00:05, 29 April 2010 (BST)

You care about this guy way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way too much. Cyberbob Talk 02:52, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Hey, you perpetuate the conversation by adding to it.... go on, prove me right. Add more to the conversation.... -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 04:27, 29 April 2010 (BST)

That's like arguing that you contribute to CO2 content in the atmosphere by breathing. Go on, prove me right. Breathe more. —Aich on— 05:37, 29 April 2010 (BST)

It's funny 'cause it's true. I've not once added to this conversation until something else has happened. You want it to end? Don't add to it... -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 13:31, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Bump ;P -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:34 29 April 2010 (BST)

OMG HAI GUISE I HERE THEIR ARE BANS HAPNIN

13:37, 29 April 2010 (BST)

OMG NO WAI. THEYRE ARE NEVAR BANS HAPNIN ON TEH WIKI!!! THATS UNPOSSIBLE. -- C h e e s e 19:32, 29 April 2010 (BST)

User:The Colonel

Editing my messages. White regards, Cornholioo 18:05, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Are you completely out of your mind? Infrastructure 18:10, 30 April 2010 (BST)

He is right you know. Impersonation, next time Kraus should stick his own signature at the end, not just edit some else his signed text.--

Thadeous Oakley

18:50, 30 April 2010 (BST)

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how he still find it possible to claim what Krauser removed. Sorry for being a bit confusing. Infrastructure 18:52, 30 April 2010 (BST)

What you talk about isn't the point, though. Colonel's edit could have the official endorsement as the utter truth by the Queen, the Pope and Kevan himself all at once, and it would be all fine and dandy, hadn't he left Cornys sig in the Danger Report (which constitutes impersonation). --Spiderzed 18:56, 30 April 2010 (BST)

I know that, I just - *Sigh** - I should just give up. This wiki isn't good for my mental health.. Infrastructure 18:58, 30 April 2010 (BST)

You probably should give up, you're not very smart. Cyberbob Talk 19:22, 30 April 2010 (BST)

We don't talk about a big deal anyway. As there isn't any vandal data on him yet, the worst what The Colonel can receive is an official warning. Which is practically meaningless but as a stepping stone towards actual bans, and which he probably knew and expected when he did the edit. --Spiderzed 19:26, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Not Vandalism, unlike the link above The Colonel had never previously edited a danger report. Seems like a newb error. Don't do it again. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:46, 30 April 2010 (BST)

He's been here for over a year..... --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 19:52, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Oh, hey woot. You back? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:16, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Maybe--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 20:17, 30 April 2010 (BST)

I was warned too for editing Zyckde's personal page when I didn't know I wasn't allowed to, and banned for 24 hours for undeliberately re-adding IP adresses when I didn't know I wasn't allowed. If we go down this road then that was unfair as well. --Cornholioo 20:37, 30 April 2010 (BST)

This is strictly a matter of impersonation. Neither of the cases you cite had anything to do with impersonation. Also, incidentally, you weren't banned for re-adding the IP addresses, since we all understood that you didn't have time to see the warning before you added them back. You were banned for adding them in the first place. Those cases were not unfair in any way, and the outcome of this case does not have an impact on your cases in the least. —Aich on— 23:05, 30 April 2010 (BST)

That makes it even easier. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to when I posted them in the first place. That makes it a newb action. See also my post of 6:09, 1 May 2010 (BST) --Cornholioo 13:51, 1 May 2010 (BST)

He's edited them before, though I will grant that that one's formatting was incorrect. I still think he should have known better, hence my vote. —Aich on— 23:05, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Thanks for the explaination. So this is vandalism. 1. because this was not a newb action (check the link above). 2. because even if it was a newb action IT IS STILL VANDALISM OMFG WTF PEOPLE?!?!?!?

Why in Wodan's name is everyone backing him up??? I've had a newb action once and I also got the warning. Then there was a miscommunication and I got a 24 hour ban! Since when is it OK to commit vandalism "because you are a newb"??? And as can be seen above, this wasn't even a newb action..... --Cornholioo 0:05, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Cornholioo, shush. We assume good faith unless we have reason to believe otherwise, and in the case of impersonation, wikinewbs get the benefit of the doubt quite often, especially if we have no reason to believe they know better, since it's easy to accidentally impersonate. In the case of posting personal information, however, we have no recourse but to assume bad faith, since there is very rarely a good reason for posting information of that nature. And the miscommunication was not why you got banned. See my previous comments here for why you were banned. —Aich on— 01:26, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Yes my friend it was. I did not read the message of Rosslessness in which he warned me not to post IP adresses, before I reposted them. I then got banned for reposting them, while I had not readed the warning. I don't care what all the others here believe, because I know that I had not read it. Then my other argument still stands: I edited zyckde's personal page were I didn't know I wasn't allowed to. And now don't come with "that's not impersonation". It's a newb mistake, just like what some Jews try to let us believe here as well. And this is not a newb mistake as well. I'm really debating with Judas here. --Cornholioo 6:09, 1 May 2010 (BST)

*eyetwitch* Once again, the fact that you reposted it didn't matter one bit. Re-read the vandal case and you'll see that it was acknowledged that you couldn't have seen the warning and reacted in time, so your reposting was a non-factor in determining whether or not it was vandalism. As for posting on Zyckde's user page, we ruled Not Vandalism for you on the grounds that we figured you made a newbish mistake, so I fail to see why you're bringing it up. The sword swings both ways, sometimes favoring you, and sometimes favoring others. Most importantly, however, let me be very clear on one point: I am not your friend. As a sysop, I am doing my best to remain impartial in my decisions, making them based on facts, logic, and common sense while being polite and courteous in my exchanges with you. I do this so that you and others can know that I conduct myself professionally in administrative matters. But do not mistake that for friendship or even kindness, because it is neither. For now, I'll just say that I do not take pleasure in interacting with you (though I do so in the interest of clearing up confusion or educating when necessary) and will leave it at that. —Aich on— 09:03, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Like I said above "That makes it even easier. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to when I posted them in the first place. That makes it a newb action."

And no, I've got a warning for editing Zyckde's page, while it was a newbish mistake as well. That's why I'm bringing it up. 'My friend' was just a way to adress you. I do not consider you a friend of mine either. --Cornholioo 14:20, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Honestly, only Aichon got it right here. Ross's ruling is flat-out premature if not wrong, for Colonel has made dangerreport's edits before. Calling it a newb mistake is poor reasoning. He's been actively contributing to this wiki for close to a year now, he's supposed to figure out by now that you can't just edit signed comments. Your idea of a newb mistake is extremely lenient.--

Thadeous Oakley

00:27, 1 May 2010 (BST)

You can see stuff like 'ruined by the MOB' all too often, and you know that. It's EHB, but the radios and gennies have been destroyed by the NSU and others. That's a fact. The NSU destroyed 4 gennies and 5 radios. Ferals are said to have destroyed 4 radios. That is not POV, that's simply fact.

Though, this isn't the place to debate who has destroyed the infrastructure and who has not. He has edited my message and that is vandalism. 'He has done only a minor bit of vandalism' and 'he tried to make it NPOV' is no argument. He has edited my message > vandalism. Simple as that. --Cornholioo 0:11, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Dude, un-highlight that vandalism. You are no sys-op, and you are not gonna score brownie points by confusing legitimate vandalism votes. (Not that the drama with which you flood this admin page right now is scoring you any brownie points in the first place.) --Spiderzed 00:22, 1 May 2010 (BST)

I'm White and Aryan. Don't call me 'dude'. I'm not black. --Cornholioo 13:26, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Hey, dude.. You're highly entertaining. Oidar 14:31, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Unbolded Corn's vandalism. --

Thadeous Oakley

00:27, 1 May 2010 (BST)

I'm actually one of the ones that posts most of the "Ruined by the MOB" status updates around the city. We can back up our claims easily with maps that are updated daily (or a few times daily) to show which buildings are or are not ruined, as well as where our horde is located at any time. Anyone in the suburb can easily verify our presence, most likely because they are all dead. When we say we ruined a building, there is little reason to question what we have said, since we've built a reputation as being honorable, truthful, and damn efficient at killing everyone.

In contrast, even before this came to VB, I had already heard a few people complaining about the nature of your edit, on the grounds that it was untruthful, and I've heard a few different people say that they have pics showing that the NSU wasn't involved at all. For your own sake, I would strongly suggest documenting any factual claims you intend to make, because if they bring evidence and you don't, it'll be pretty obvious whose story is true. —Aich on— 01:26, 1 May 2010 (BST)

I understand your point. But this argument basically comes down on 'some people don't believe you'. I see LURCS has now also called us 'liars' again. It's a pity, and no I do not have screenshots where it would be better to have them. But no matter, we have destroyed those infrastructure, and I know we did that.

Either way, undoubtfull is that he's not allowed to edit my messages. That's vandalism. End of story. --Cornholioo 13:37, 1 May 2010 (BST)

I know a great place for cornhole to go shove it... -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 00:58, 1 May 2010 (BST)

If I am impersonating a user, then what is he doing impersonating the actions of my entire group, in fact if you look at the current revision he made, he indicates Streltsy did in fact contribute. If anything he was attempting to impersonate my entire group and in an act of good faith I corrected his error. Yes it was foolish of me not to just adjust the entire thing and drop my sig in, for that I apologize. Thad I would suggest you post pone from commenting on anything on admin pages not related to yourself as you only end up looking like a bit of an idiot and someone always brings up that little zerg list thing of yours ;). To Cornholioo I will apologize for any misgivings he may have had with said edit, it was foolish, but I can be the bigger man and apologize for it rather then baw about it. --

Timmah!

Talk

01:22, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Wikipedia is a Jewish organisation. It seems to be used by Jews a lot too. White regards, Cornholioo 5:57, 1 May 2010 (BST)

I had a big speech with angry precedents and huge claims about this case, which was hard to read. I know my word has less weight than most at this point so I'll just keep it simple: Aichon was right, this was vandalism, and (I hate hate hate saying or even thinking this but) I think there may be a bit of bias showing here... Just with this case though. No anti-op vendetta for me. Yet ;D --

06:28, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Exactement. Like I said; this is a discussion with Judas. Jews often hold eachothers a hand above the head. If I would've edited his message, that'd give me a nice one week ban, sure of that. In some way I'm glad this has gone as 'not vandalism'. Unmasking a Jew is worth a lot more than a little warning. --Cornholioo 7:54, 1 May 2010 (BST)

If you had edited his message to restore your own, it would not have been vandalism and you would not have been banned. Simply restoring your own message is the standard response in situations such as these, in fact. Had you done what he did to you, however, yes, you would have been banned, since I think all of the sysops would have agreed that you are no newb when it comes to editing danger reports, which was the factor that split us with The Colonel. And, for all of our sakes, cool it with the anti-semitism. —Aich on— 09:03, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Read carefully; I said: If I would've edited his message. He is not a newb. He has edited danger reports before and is active here for a year. I'm active here for a few months. And even if he was a newb so what? It's still vandalism. I've been warned too for newbish actions. --Cornholioo 13:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)

First off, you're arguing with me that he committed vandalism; I already agree with you. Second, you're missing an important distinction here: bad faith vs. good faith. You were escalated for committing acts of bad faith (e.g. changing someone's page so that it says the opposite of what they meant, repeatedly removing something from a page despite a sysop telling you to stop doing so, posting personal information, and removing comments from a page not owned by you). If a person meant to improve the wiki but accidentally made a mistake while doing so, we generally let them off (e.g. like if you went to help an old woman cross the street and accidentally stepped on her foot along the way). If someone purposefully committed an action that breaks the rules, however (e.g. like if you walk the old woman halfway across the street and then leave her in the middle), it doesn't matter whether they know the rules or not. It's vandalism either way. —Aich on— 00:16, 2 May 2010 (BST)

I never stated it wasn't and would be more then willing to take the warning, as it was an error in judgment on my part. I was correcting an inaccurate statement made by cornholioo and as I already stated should have just changed the status all together to properly give my group and I suppose his some credit towards the events pertaining to Krinks power station. Though I would point out that this necessarily isn't favoritism rather then a not liking towards Cornholioo, and I would offer a word of warning to him that his above comment can be considered anti semitic and he should tread carefully. --

Timmah!

Talk

06:32, 1 May 2010 (BST)

It's cool, I know and I wasn't directing any criticism at you personally. There are lots of precedents and lessons we've had on this wiki to support impersonation as vandalism even if it was just a mistake or in decent intentions. Honestly, if I had the drama gusto (and if it were possible) I would try and resubmit this with evidence but that's silly and would be even more annoying than my opinion of the rulings in this case. I'm not interested in causing drama. I just think this case had a really wrong ending. It doesn't really matter in the end I guess. --

06:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)

I'd just like to chime in here, because I think some of the sysops might not realize how they messed up, and perhaps an outside opinion can add a little perspective (or not). This looks like an open and shut vandalism case. At this point, I think everyone on this wiki can agree that cornhol is a big stupid fathead. And so, I understand the desire to stick it to him to try and make his experience here as miserable as possible. Actually, social sanction is one of the best ways to deal with a racist. If we collectively snub him at every turn, the guy will either leave or hang himself with his own rope.

That being said, this does not excuse the sysops for making what was almost certainly a biased ruling. I'd wager that if anyone else had brought this case forward it would have resulted in a warning for colonel. I know we're talking about the rulings of sysops on a silly zombie wiki here, but the true measure of impartiality is gauged by how you deal with the people you least like. If you take an honest look, maybe you'll see that you had some emotional impetus in play. I know the ruling won't change now, but I hope that in the future the sysop team will do a better job of separating their personal feelings from their judgments, especially in making fairly obvious rulings like this one.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 12:53, 1 May 2010 (BST

I think it's best I don't react on the first bit. Furthermore, I just want to say that this is exactly the reason why democracy doesn't work. Only the most experienced people should be allowed to vote in vandal banning cases. (Obviously, I am not one of them.) --Cornholioo 15:56, 1 May 2010 (BST)

+1--

Thadeous Oakley

13:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Aichon I'm sending you a message. Please check your talk page. --Cornholioo 14:54, 1 May 2010 (BST)

No need to post that here, since I get the nice big orange bar at the top of my window whenever someone posts to my talk page. :P —Aich on— 00:16, 2 May 2010 (BST)

It's about something you mentioned here. I thought I'd make sure. --Cornholioo 7:46, 2 May 2010 (BST)

March 2010

User:Cornholioo (3)

I'd like to nominate him for uploading a Swasttika, which according to the last vandal submition regarding him could constitute something hateful/ethically or racially hateful under the following quote from Aichon: "You agree not to use the service to: Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is...hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable." -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 06:01, 28 March 2010 (BST)

While I in no way shape or form defend what he uploaded, bear in mind a swastika is an old Hindu symbol adopted by the Nazi's. While distasteful it pushes the bounds of what will and will not be allowed on the wiki. The Nazi Swastika yes I would say remove it, but please for the record do not classify it as all swastika's. --

Timmah!

Talk

06:52, 28 March 2010 (BST)

The swastika is not illegal in the UK (the ultimate legal arbiter of matters on this wiki) and neither has it been against policy to ever upload a symbol of the Third Reich, see the Nazi Party of Malton. Firstly, learn to fucking format your vandal cases so I don't have to. Secondly, stop trying to fucking force a user off the wiki using the admin pages. Either man up and do it yourselves or let it go. If you lot continue to use drama badly, I will demonstrate how to use it correctly. On you. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:44, 28 March 2010 (BST)

Piss off.... -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 15:47, 28 March 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo (2)

One thing I'd like to say. Cornholio mentioned being Dutch. Holocaust denial is considered illegal by Dutch law, this is a simple fact. Of course, I'm pretty sure this site lends itself to the British law so it doesn't really matter. Just saying though, some countries, mostly European ones, will prosecute people denying it. And rightfully so. --Thadeous Oakley 19:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 19:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry man, but I know my own law better than you. Wikipedia is nice for making school projects, but it's not 100% accurate.

1995, the State vs Siegfried Verbeke. The High Court of the Netherlands decides holocaust denial falls under article 137c and 137d (which you linked too). Though I may have expressed myself a bit vague by saying law since it's not specifically mentioned. Holocaust denial will get you a fine/jail time in the Netherlands by precedent until the High Court decides otherwise though. It's illegal. --

Thadeous Oakley

19:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Court opinion changes, see the basis of the reduction and subsequent repealing of blasphemy laws world wide (at least in the civilised countries). The act of denial isn't against the law, it's just at the moment courts consider it to be covered by legislation, that'll change. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating what I said earlier. I'm glad we agree with each other. --

Thadeous Oakley

21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you mentioned DORIS. Pluto is still a planet and your denial of the truth is offensive. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not fair to say i am 'bitchslapping' someone i don't like on the admin pages. I voiced my frustration, and was advices to file for vandal/banning. I did not yet see if people agree anti-Semitism is a form of racism, but I assume they do.

Racism is a reason for banning a person, for several reasons. The main one is that a racist slur is a dangerous kind of false accusation. A false accusation, as everyone knows, is very problematic since a victim has no good way to defend itself, while the stigma of the accusation stays. To clarify: 'the Jew' does not exist, therefore, Jewish people have no way to defend themselves, but the accusations linger on in peoples subconscious.

Cornholioo talks about Jews as beings with intrinsic negative attributes. He makes them look treacherous, deceiving and generally dangerous. Secondly, cornholioo sees a Jewish conspiracy ruling the world. For example his claim that Jews invented racism as a way to silence opposition, reveals that he sees a Jewish plot controlling society. This is a key element in most anti-semite ideologies. His holocaust denial is another example of this, where he apparently claims that Jews have made up the holocaust, and have (through some masterly ingenious conspiracy) convinced the rest of the world it happened. All these elements make cornhoolio out to be a racist. The amount of incidents has exceeded 4 many times over.

--zyckde 16:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I talk about Americans with intrinsic negative attributes. I make them look stupid, fat and hypocritical. Secondly I see a Fundamentalist Christian movement influencing the American government to breach human rights and oppress citizens. Should I be banned? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 17:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think nationality and political believe are qualified by anyone as "race"? I sure hope not.

Anyway, erroneous as it is, you seem to thinks that cornhoolio's anti-Semitism in not a form of racism. That was the last straw of my argument, too bad. It was worth the try. --zyckde 19:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who thinks what about racism, there's a process to follow instead if shouting "BAN" from the off. If and when Cornholioo is given enough warnings to warrant it, there is always a permaban vote at the end of this process.

19:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the offenses warrant a ban, so I say so. I greatly appreciate that those who have the burden/privilege to decide on these matters follow the process from there on. I hope you too will look at the facts too. The incidents of what (in my view) is racism, have been piling up, and no crat/sys/arb has undertaken any official action on it. So I did. --zyckde 20:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." While I can understand what you are trying to prevent here the fact of the matter is that he will be allowed to continue to post until he makes it a problem, while yes some of his typing could be considered anti-semitical (I don't even think thats a word but whatever) until there is something clearly showing it like in the case of w00t where he clearly used a racial slur, then Cornholio will be allowed to continue posting, and your insistent spamming of A/A and A/VB with want to ban him (mostly A/VB hes been spamming A/A) will only end up getting people on your case about posting these things over and over. The 'Crats and sysop are well aware of what he is doing, and are keeping an eye on him but until he does something that justifies a perma-vote, just stop spamming these pages. --

Timmah!

Talk

20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Martino

Am I guilty of exposing how disgusting nazism is? I guess. I went to far? Maybe. But just notice that it was never meant to be disrespectful against the victims in the image. It was just supposed to be shocking, I'm tired of people trying to erase what nazism was. (and I put that on LG page because she killed an anti-fascist and thus she started to actively helping the nazis). Now it's up to you. --Martino 16:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Nazism is disgusting and one of the most terrible things humanity has ever brought. However, I don't see why the urbandead wiki is the right place for nazi condemning, this place is for all things urbandead related not a platform for historical discussion. Also, while we're at it, are these images going to be deleted or not? I wouldn't call the shock-value good-faith...--

Thadeous Oakley

16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

They'll get deleted one way or the other, either as a vandal edit or as a result of the Deletions case open on them right now. —Aich on— 16:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

But what is more more shocking: these images or the fact that there are groups in UD actively supporting this kind of racism and genocide? --Martino 16:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing that point. Whether one is more shocking than the other is not important when the question is whether what you did was acceptable or not. —Aich on— 18:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

These images. Honestly, the internet is full of all kind of idiots and disgusting people like neonazi's, this really isn't much of a surprise. --

Thadeous Oakley

18:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also as Aichon. --

Thadeous Oakley

18:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I was surprised, I said that the real disgusting thing is that there are actually people who support the actions portrayed in the pics and that seems to be acceptable. I illustrate what these neo-nazi groups mean and suddenly I'm the bad guy. Maybe I went a little bit over the edge, but come on... --Martino 18:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The point isn't that nazism is right or wrong, it's that those images are overly graphic, and the exact same statement could have been made with an external link to Wikipedia or a google image search. We don't need to host images like this for you to make this point, but you're free to make the point itself.

20:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You said almost the exact same thing I did in a previous version of my comment. The images are by far more shocking. There will always be idiots spewing nonsense, so that is hardly shocking. What is shocking are pictures of when the idiots actually get their way. —Aich on— 21:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Devorac

Hello,

A user called Devorac has been causing vandalism to the Battle of Krinks page. He has been re-adding subjective texts after I've removed them. See also this link: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Battle_of_Krinks&diff=1677678&oldid=1677674 Could you please give him a warning or something?

Thanks in advance,

cornholioo.

User:Misanthropy

Racism against a user. I expect more from sysops. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 22:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If your really going to walk down that line I have numerous anti-gay remarks by you. Very distasteful is what they could be referred as, the lot of them having to do with very negative things about homosexuals. Just a thought there sonny ;) --

Timmah!

Talk

00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Precedent has been set for racism, not homophobia. If a sysop wants to slap a warning on me for homophobia then that's fine. However, this is about Misanthropy, a sysop, breaking his own rule on racism. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then to be technical Woot's saying compared to Misanthropy's. One is racist, another is a drink. If you needed further references here you go Woot's and Misanthropy's. While the comment is in bad taste, its technically not racist. --

Timmah!

Talk

04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. And when I call people fags I'm calling them cigarettes. Get your head out of your ass. "Dirty Mexican" is a derogatory phrase on par with calling someone of Italian descent a "wop" or of Chinese descent a "zipperhead". It's still racism. And if people want to make the argument still that its a drink then I will fight Woot's one month ban since this drink exists. So does this one and this one. Making racism nonexistent since a drink of the same name exists. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Not Vandalism. The word 'nigger' has one purpose and one purpose only: to offend. even as a joke, it has 0 joke value. This was a simple joke and before you cry elitism (which I know will come Sonny) I've stood by this time and time before with J3D, even, in back-to-back cases. --

08:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said either were humorous. Misanthropy said an offensive comment towards Mexicans. If you call a Mexican a "dirty Mexican" he will be offended as it is racism. I am warning right now, if you do not keep precedent I will miscontribute you. Also, you're a buttfucking faggot. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 09:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If I was a Mexican lesbian, and had just finished a bout of mud wrestling, I would indeed be dirty. Not Vandalism --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 09:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

But Woot is none of these. Misanthropy said this knowing that Woot lives in Central America. And look what I found, DDR DEFENDING the use of the word "nigger" as long as it isn't used as spam. Right here. In fact in the Archive of his talk page J3D also said it here. Funny. It's fine for it to be on DDR's talk page, but if Woot says it on his own talk page it isn't. This isn't elitist, this is pure "I'm a faggot with power so I'm going to get away with it as long as my faggot friends are also in power." Fuck your shit, he racially insulted a user on this wiki. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 09:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That was before it was found to be against the TOU. Otherwise, listen to ross. --

09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, a day and no reply? So you were taken aback by the fact there was an actual reason this wiki became strict on the rule? Oh no Sonny, where to now? There must be only one more way to turn to have this fixed up: To A/M! --

22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Double standards are cool. --Goofy McCoy ^{mfd HK-47 talk} 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Racism is still racism. If I called someone a dirty mexican, or other similar derogative, I'd expect to be ruled as a vandal, because IT'S CLEARLY A FUCKING RACIST COMMENT DEAR GOD WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE? Just because Rak, Jed and Sonny do it(And get in trouble for it) does NOT mean it's okay.--Big Cat 02:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't close this just yet, anybody, till the a/m cases are up, methinks. --

11:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You could just change your votes and the cases will be dropped. SA already made it clear that this was racism. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 12:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

or not. Because I'm pretty sure me and DDR thinks it isn't vandalism. I think that's clear. a position we haven't changed regardless of the misconduct cases. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm quite good thanks? I'm not the one in any sort of hurry to have this closed. --

12:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Racist. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 12:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism: whether or not his comment was racist or offensive is irrelevant here - an off-the-cuff remark like that simply isn't vandalism. Chief Seagull talk 14:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Only sysops can rule on vandal banning cases.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're an idiot. Vandalism is any edit in bad faith. Racism is bad faith. User:Woot was already banned for a month for a racist comment. Go back to your fucking hugbox. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Look guys, being that we're from a pretty diverse set of cultures, there is going to be confusion with some phrases. It was still a rather racist comment in some countries and areas though. So how about this, it was Vandalism, but due to the nature of languages, it will end up as a soft warning. This time. Any future racist comments will be thoroughly discussed, and punished if necessary. The practice of calling people faggots and retards is still acceptable though. Does this sound appealing to the other sysops?--Big Cat 23:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So, racism against Latinos isn't considered racism. Nice job guys. Now you get to establish precedents on a case-by-case basis to determine which ethnicities/groups are okay to slur and which ones aren't. Maybe one of you geniuses who ruled "not vandalism" can whip up a chart or something for the rest of us to follow.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 12:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You've supported aussies being racist against other ethnicities before, why stop now? --

12:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Say what? When have I ever supported aussies being racist? Are you confusing me with someone else?--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 12:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

He's referring to you voting keep when SCC was proposed for deletion.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think you're probably right, which is absurd. I'll defer to the many overwhelming and well-reasoned opinions expressed on the discussion page, rather than reiterate the full argument here. However a relevant quote comes from boxy: "Links to racism have nothing to do with why I put this up for deletion." The deletion vote was never about racism, it was about a wiki-feud between DDR and Jed, and I don't see how a "keep" can be construed as support for aussie racism.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Saromu (2)

For spamming up A/M with silly little cases simply because we voted Not Vandalism on a case he brought. Just making frivolous misconduct cases and arguing on them till the death, just to cause drama. --

22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You think I'm being silly? Obviously you do not care about rules. The Guidelines of this wiki state that Sysops are above wiki rules and are held to the same standard, the only exception being Kevan. If you want that to change then write a nice little letter to Kevan asking him to make you as special as he is. Until then, fuck off and stop trying to elevate yourself above wiki rules. You blatantly abused your sysop position to discriminate against one user for living in Central America and bail out a fellow sysop. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 22:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I didn't know he was from central america and I gave less of a shit than Misanthropy. --

23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and we know you are less than capable of being serious at the best of times. --

23:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop. Not my job to take what I do seriously. If you don't like it, quit. Nothing of value will be lost. And Misanthropy knows that Woot is from Central America. Thinking of reversing your not vandalism now? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the only thing I've learnt from this whole debacle is this Central American thing.

23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh also vandalism. May as well.

23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are voting Vandalism because he made an A/M case? So, you are basically saying that it is bad faith to try to hold the sysops accountable and in this case, object to racism? Congratulations, you are the worst Sysop ever. And I know a thing about bad sysops.--

#99 ^DCC 23:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna stop buying the paper, this is far more entertaining.

23:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

3 cases isn't properly spamming A/M, Iscariot's far better at it. If Sonny isn't happy with a ruling let him challenge it. Not Vandalism. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 23:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing. It isn't ruled on. Only two sysops have voted and the case isn't closed. He's jumping the gun in massive proportions just to have his way. --

03:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this is new. So, the actions of one or two sysops don't matter if the others over ride it? So you could ban users and as long as the other ops vote against it or correct it it's not misconduct on your part. I see...--

#99 ^DCC 23:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism Oh, and ddr? It's not afraid to come here so much as I really hate the clique, best-bud bullshit just about every single op is pulling lately. Oh, and the fact that you're being a power-badging cunt still.--Big Cat 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, if you stopped playing 'the little guy' act you'd probably find that your perspective of how I behave is actually nothing of what you say. You'd probably find the same conclusion if you actually spend time here other than when drama strikes. --

08:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah fuck I can't be arsed with dealing with your e-peen spewing. Wrote a metric fuck-tonne with links, proof, fancy words, the works! Then remembered you and your tendency to ignore everything and go ego-defensive one-liner mode. So a shortened version:

A) YOU begged me to come back last November, and since then multiple users have come to me and asked me to come back and check in, whether it was to review cases, projects, fix the shit the ops team is causing in general, or just come back and help out.

B) You consistently act like a cunt whenever my name comes up or I do ANYTHING but follow your little flute (and quite a few times, you've used that little badge of power against me and other users in the process), or when anyone even slightly pisses you off. Look at the Nezhaulcoyotl II case. Look at the irc logs of you saying how you were going to demote CB the moment his A/RE came, even if the community disagreed. Look at you sharing his private info with the wiki. Look at how you treated EVERYONE involved with the text links not counting as used for images discussion on your talk page (WHAT THE HELL?!?!? is the header you're looking for). Look at you being a bully towards me defending my own case. Not to mention you being a dick in general. Again. That's not even all of the list I made. 'Tis but a small sample. I could get out the irc logs, msn logs, google wave logs (unless those got deleted from inactivity. I haven't been on wave since before new years), hell, even myspace had some examples of you plotting and being a dick towards users on here.

What ddr's reaction will probably amount to: no uve changed sa im still the same you just cant accept the fact that things have changed here with you but not in the way you want and youre wrong about me im not a dick you just think i am cuz u changed

In short: DDR, please piss off and retire already.--Big Cat 11:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I begged you to come back and found a user who had no interest in actually helping out the community (to the point of making the deliberate wrong rulings in A/VB cases "for the lulz", something only hagnat had done before you) and as such I argued against your behaviour. Talking about apparent bullying and vendettas, you've found yourself ruling the opposite to me (and actualy citing my ruling as either an influence, a critiquing point or the actual reason you ruled against it) since new years now I believe... And, oh yes, in relation to Cyberbob, I believe (Want the logs too?) it was you who initiated the idea that if you made it into crat position by the time Bob was there you would tinker with the idea of demoting him regardless of popular opinion. I was happy to demote Bob if the situation asked the task and the choice was in my hands rather than both me and boxy's, but it never came to that so I happily kept him. Regardless, it is you who has become more of what you hated (come once a month, have a love-in with the drama and leave) than I have, so don't come crying to me.

And yes, I will happily resign when my term ends, and before you materialise any thoughts of accomplishment or grandeur it has nothing to do with you or the annoying mosquitoes you've become so much like. --

11:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

But meh, whatever. After looking at your recent string of edits on RC it looks like you didn't approve of me saying you were afraid of coming here. Obviously I didn't mean it in a literal sense and my displeasure, whilst directed at you, was more of an umbrella hatred towards being one of the only 3 active ops (now CB has gone) on udwiki. Look at A/M for fucks sake, the cases can't physically be ruled on at this current state. It's a joke. I just want more ops who take the job seriously. And that is where I first had my problems with you recently. --

11:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd love the logs, if the offer is still on the table. Talk page or email, whatever's easier. Cyberbob Talk 14:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you drink too much DDR? Because now, it looks like you're conveniently forgetting the MSN and IRC conversations where you've said these, and it looks like you're pretty much going "no u", without the usual insults. It's more polite, but the fake sophistication isn't needed.

It was right before I came back, because you and CB were usually "butting heads in A/VB, waiting for boxy to come and rule and show who was right". Remember that? His behavior "degraded" to where he was the "low point on the scale of being an 'op". His degradation was while I was gone, so I had no idea what was going on until you came to me (by the way, I took the liberty of making your quotes a bit more coherent. You know how it can be in chats, what with us improperly spelling and not caring about basic grammar. Hope you don't mind :3) and asked me to come back because everyone else wasn't doing shit and you were tired of the 1v1 matches the place was turning into.

Two cases where I made the "wrong ruling", which is hilarious because you've made the wrong ruling your self on some cases since I came back. Oh, wait, rulings are based on what a sysop thinks aren't they? Oh shit, that would mean that there is no inherent right or wrong ruling, especially combined with the rule that p much says we can do what we want! D: But yeah, two cases, in both said user was boned no matter what I ruled. "He's boned in this case anyway right? It's not like it matters. :) -- SA 19:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)". Since then I haven't done anything like that, and every case that wasn't entirely serious was Red Rum and I having fun, and we didn't ask anyone to bring it here.

I told you from the start I was trying to stay away from here, and that I didn't want to come back, yet you asked me to come back anyway, due to lack of sysops. I had a little fun here and there when my fun would not overly affect anything.

I ruled on ONE case using you as my reasoning, because at one point, you decided that arbies rulings can't really do shit and we should let users go forum shopping, mind you, the case I was using as a reference was this one. And so what? We're system operators of a wiki. We're SUPPOSED to use each other as references, and use each others past rulings as precedence. So the whole "no ur the one being vendetta-y" is kind of bullshit. Please try another tactic.

"Regardless, it is you who has become more of what you hated (come once a month, have a love-in with the drama and leave) than I have, so don't come crying to me."

That has fuck all to do with this situation, as I never called you out on any counts of inactivity. I just love how you're fishing for things to make me look bad. Like the little "And yes, I will happily resign when my term ends, and before you materialise any thoughts of accomplishment or grandeur it has nothing to do with you or the annoying mosquitoes you've become so much like. --DanceDanceRevolution (ask/talk) 11:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC) " comment. Pretty sure it was established awhile ago that you were leaving because you wanted a break, not because of us little mosquitoes biting the shit out of you. But again, making me out to be oh so bad, amirite?

*Prepares for DDR and his tendency to fight for the last word*

Oh, and CB? I'll have the logs for you as soon as I can. I forgot that I'm on a new pc (bought so I can splurge on DoW2 on ultra and play Shattered Horizon at max. 'Tis wonderful! :B) and gave the old one to my little brother. So I gotsa to get the hard drive contents to send them to you. If I don't have them by the end of the week, I've probably just forgotten and need a nudge. :| --Big Cat 19:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

inb4angerywallsotext--Big Cat 19:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus F*cking Christ, SA...--

Thadeous Oakley

20:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oooookay. I read less than 10% of that (skipping through and laughing at how much of it is absurd) and I have no intention of attempting a reply. Everything about Bob is true. I spend most of my time on this wiki hating what he does, I didn't think that was so subtle, and if you ever thought what I say on MSN and IRC is as serious as what I say here then you're the deluded one, as you behave in the exact same manor. But I never lied about what you instigated too, and the fact that you had to look through a year of IRC and MSN logs proves you are taking this much too seriously. Fuck me, SA. If you actually spent this much effort doing work on the wiki I wouldn't have a problem with you :/

Either way, if you wanted me to admit I'm wrong, then you haven't got you're wish, but if you wanted me to leave the argument, you won, with the biggest wall of text since this doozey.

Now (this may be a little hard for you, right?) We have 3 misconduct cases. We have 6 A/VB cases. We have 8 items in A/SD. I have uni, and you're sitting in your arse drowning us in your tears. DO SOME FUCKING WORK --

21:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You're in Uni? How's getting that degree in mental retardation working out for you? Man, I haven't seen someone believe he's so right when he's wrong since Grim. You don't feel the need to give a proper reply to SA, yet you continue to harass in a way that's so arrogant it's almost sick. But hey, why try to have an adult discussion when you can play Mister Big. Do everyone else a favor, and go in demotion early. --

Thadeous Oakley

21:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved party say what? --

21:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see those classes paid off. You almost had me convinced that you were bored mentally retarded and not chose to live that way. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

to the point of making the deliberate wrong rulings in A/VB cases "for the lulz", something only hagnat had done before you - now i know what was pulling me into udwiki... it wasnt simple boredom, but someone using my name in vain again. When did i ruled on a case wrongly for the lulz ? I used to take my job as a sysop really seriously, only acting for the lulz when no sysop action was involved or it was a clearly closed and ruled case. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm always surprised when DDR makes some reference to past events on the wiki how often he gets almost every detail wrong. J3D was the one that made decisions for the lulz that eventually led to his demoting over Check user abuse. Hagnut just made BAD decisions with a straight face. Why the fuck do you people keep DDR in power on here? --

#99 ^DCC 03:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Shit, I've been trying to get people to get rid of him for a long time. But this wiki is so fucked up there's no way to repair it. Promotions and demotions aren't votes so it means the same group of sysops get to keep themselves in power. It's one big Gay Train headed for Sodomy and Fellatio. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 04:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

J3D was never a sysop in my mind, I wasn't around when he was here and as such I don't refer to the shit he did very often. Hagnat used to rule for the lolz, and you're all retards if you can't remember (for example, hagnat even admits its joking and SA is even there to tell him off about it). Oh how times have changed. --

07:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I remembered, which is why I didn't defend hagnat when you made that comment. I don't think that makes everyone retarded, just not all of us comb through old logs. I guess we should stop taking this so serious, eh? 'Cause you know, apparently I'm looking through year old logs instead of the ones in the past 4 months for your new behavior, and 1 month for an old behavior comparison.

"Now (this may be a little hard for you, right?) We have 3 misconduct cases. We have 6 A/VB cases. We have 8 items in A/SD. I have uni, and you're sitting in your arse drowning us in your tears. DO SOME FUCKING WORK --DanceDanceRevolution (ask/talk) 21:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)"

If you'd been paying attention, I just solved one misconduct case, showed you circle jerking fuckstacks how it should be done when it comes to ruling on racism related cases, I have work, and then later this year, going back to uni myself to finish my degrees, oh and I'm trying to think of an entirely spectacular way to end all this bullshit on the admin page that's related to the racism cries. But yes, tell us some more about how you're life is so busy, you know?

And to top it off, there are 5 A/VB cases, as I see it now, three racism related ones, which I've been working on (oh, but that doesn't count does it, amirite?) and two that should have been done the moment Mis ruled on them, being as straight-forward as they were. And only one A/SD that I saw (because, you know, I'm kind of used to you and CB always getting to the SD and Ds before I have a chance, so I don't check that very often. Guess I have to now, right?).--Big Cat 10:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And last, but not least "and if you ever thought what I say on MSN and IRC is as serious as what I say here", that right there should show you're full of shit. Of course what you say in private is supposed to be taken more serious then what you say in the open. You're not worried about the people you're talking about hearing you, so you can be truthful about how you feel. And with the number of people you have vehemently insulted via these mediums, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say you weren't lying.

But please "qq", as you would say, some more about how I don't do jack shit (at least when I do my job, I'm not being biased about it, right? I managed to get over that before I came back. Your turn now.), and how you "have no intention of attempting a reply." when you're still attempting them. And failing.--Big Cat 10:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you actually did the deeds I requested. I was wrong about you. Despite your frothing, I no longer have an issue with you at this point and am happy to see that I got through. --

11:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I still absolutely disagree with about everything you said, but, meh. --

11:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So can you just retire already? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You've waited 11+ months, I'm sure you can wait another 2 weeks. --

12:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought if I tried that whole "acting nice" thing I could get you to do it now. Well I guess acting nice doesn't do shit. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 12:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bots Discussion

Return of old, already banned, bots

Over the past couple of days, bots who were previous banned have been spamming again. Has the recent update of the wiki somehow unbanned them? -- boxy 10:35, 27 December 2014 (BST)

Hmm

It's been a few years, but we're getting a wave of bots again. Thoughts? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

More spammers stuck inside? I gather fraud attempts are way up at the moment. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 08:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, like acne. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you think the captcha needs to be updated? If so I can try to get in touch with Kev. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering we all have better things to do than continuously ban spambots, probably worth asking! stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 20:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess whoever has his ear, go for it. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

I was just working on this talk page, and noticed it was a redirect to this current month archive. If i were to go ahead and change the current redirect to the feb archive, all undergoing discussions in the january archive would be forgotten and hidden from the general public view. Thus i changed this page redirect to a page with a templated header and calling the two talk pages (the current one and jan one) into it. After some thought, i realized that by doing so i would lost my ever so precious and new found ability to create new headers with the + button. So, what are my options:

leave this page as a redirect to the current talk page
lose the + button functionality, leaving this general discussion section at the bottom (so that people using the + button will know they are creating a new general discussion sub-header)

opinions ? --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better this way. It functions now the same way as the main page (A/VB). --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As midinian. It's just fine to keep it the same as VB. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:46, 8 April 2009 (BST)

This page is fucked

It's not showing the main a/vb stuffs, just the bot section.--x o x o 01:16, 27 July 2009 (BST)

New form of Vandalism?

Just click on the link in my siggy :).--Thadeous Oakley A Challenge you ought to try 21:12, 13 August 2009 (BST)

I would definitely consider that a significant form of vandalism. But it also begs the question of why such code even exists (at least for the wiki). Is there any way to disable the Random code so that is has no effect? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, check the talk page. Though the random page seems to have been deleted...--

Thadeous Oakley

20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous. Wasn't sure if it had been dealt with since this header was still here with no comment. Glad to see it was resolved quickly. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

user page creation for vandals

can we please stop this behavior ? its kind of silly (not to mention stupid) to create a page (sometimes two) for a vandal user just to slap a template or two in them. Can we please stop this ? Im not sure if nonexistant pages can be protected, but even if its not possible, what possible gain does this wiki have by creating and protecting such pages ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:44, 9 September 2009 (BST)

I dunno. I never really got the protections thing anyway. I mean, what are they going to do. Create a new account and spam their old page? And even if protecting them is important, there's no need to create a page just for it. I agree with hagnat.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:46, 9 September 2009 (BST)

That has been done (vandal coming back and vandalising old user pages) many times before in the past. It also stops others commenting on the talk pages of vandals. Again, that used to happen quite a lot. -- C h e e s e 21:57, 9 September 2009 (BST)

DISK SPACE = CHEEP Cyberbob Talk 00:13, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Basically, no. At worst it's harmless and the BannedUser template is a good one. Cyberbob Talk 00:21, 10 September 2009 (BST)

It's pointless and I agree with hagnat... I don't think we should be making a page for them. Still use the BannUser template on permabanned vandals with a page, but there is no reason why we should be going out of our way to spam the wiki with pages that aren't needed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:39, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Vandal Data

My vandal data is not accurate and is missing at least one report. Do your job sysops, and fix it. --Thadeous Oakley 15:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the magic word? Cyberbob Talk 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuck?

...Remember Bob, sysops are tools of the community, not the other way around. Sysops have their chores, and this isn't something I should ask for in the first place D: --

Thadeous Oakley

16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Actually yes it is something you have to ask for - VD is too big for us to be monitoring all entries all the time) Cyberbob Talk 00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus with an entitled and unhelpful attitude like that this might take a while. VB cases have to be sorted through and matched to the current entries under your name, strike dates have to be checked... how's January suit you? Cyberbob Talk 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ReSpeCt Ma AuThority! pretty pleaz --

Thadeous Oakley

10:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Goddamn it. Why did I think it was this? The worst bit is I swear when I was striking you a week ago I was wondering about this but never followed it up. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've double-checked everything and added the 24hour ban, along with the timestamp of the ban from the logs, plus an explanation. Thanks for being an honest boy with us, Thadmeister. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Stop being a moron and tell us where and when we should be looking for this missing report. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

CB's being a bit of a jerk by stringing MG along, but MG was also presumptive, rude, and didn't give a lot of information. Why don't you guys just cut each other some slack? Of course, you could also just ignore me if you so choose, but you know that it would be easier if you guys were more civil to one another... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We've just had the exact same issue with another more formidable annoyance in Iscariot when it comes to A/VD (and not specifying where or what the issue is)- and our subsequent 'fix' led to even more turmoil and unrest than it would have been to leave it. We are past the "My A/VD isn't right- fix it NOW" attitude and if Thad wants anything done he can come and talk to us in a co-operative matter or we won't think dick of his request. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd be better if MG would just ask you guys to do something and it happened without a big fuss; must we always have wiki drama? Asking someone for something has nothing to do with being subservient, it's common courtesy. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 05:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you wouldn't call up a tech support help line and tell them, "my computer is broken; do your job and make it work" without offering any additional details about the problem. That’s just not how things work. Providing details about the problem is the courtesy that needs to be offered here if a productive result is to be expected. Until that happens, the rest is just chatter. —Aich on— 06:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At the moment you've created more drama than Bob and Thad ever did. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh, drama is as llama does, and I consider myself more of an aardvark, really. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow sysops failing with A/VD again - i'm putting in an unprotection request, if you guys can't handle it and readily admit it maybe its time to hand control over to the hoards.x o x o 16:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Works for me!-- SA 16:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Do it faggot- and here Iscariot thinks I don't go through with things I promise to do. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sup kids

Alright, long story short, a recently-ish perma'd vandal came to me via MSN and asked for another chance. I talked with box about it through email, he told me that he doesn't see much of a problem with giving out another chance, but to bring it here for more POVs. Here is the relevant bits of info on this:

Verdict	Vandal
Action taken	Permaban

lolb&. 3 edit rule.-- SA 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits in question:

And the reason why they want back:

S/he said that they'd like to start a user page, and overall just contribute to the wiki. I forgot to ask why she vandalized in the first place, but my guess is that it was just another user messing around with the wiki and "having fun" without knowing our rules.

I really have no problem with it, Hitei was very nice and polite in asking me, wasn't demanding, just wanted to know the procedures of coming back. And s/he hasn't tried to send dirty pictures of themselves upon initiation of the conversation (god damn porn spammers. If I wanted porn, I'd find my own. I HAVE PREFERENCES YOU KNOW!). So what say you fellow 'ops and regular wiki users?-- SA 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Prepare the flood gates. --Haliman - Talk 00:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust you and box's decision after making such an opinion after conversing with the user about it. Just make sure we keep an eye out for them. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No flood gates will be opened. No other banned user has come to me and asked me politely about why they were banned, and what they could do to rectify it. And if any other banned user comes I'll judge the case on it's merits and talk it over with the rest of the team, just like now.-- SA 00:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I trust you. Prepare for the wrath of Izzy. --Haliman - Talk 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuck Iscariot. His only weapon is his ability to write a shitload of words; he can be ignored as readily as any other user. Cyberbob Talk 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the technical term is "bitching"; see synonyms at "whining". Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable with it if she came back with an escalation or two to keep her on her toes. Cyberbob Talk 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting her off with 2 warnings. Letting him work them off from there. Sound good?-- SA 00:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think she should have to work off his warnings just like any other user. He shouldn't get a pass just because her apology was polite. --Haliman - Talk 00:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk page edit could be seen easily as not vandalism, I just used it as ban material. Thats where I get the two warnings instead of starting at the 24h ban mark.-- SA 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I wouldn't even count the second as vandalism, I would have just reverted the edit and told off the user. But 2 is good imo. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that anyone gives a crap, but I support the return+two warnings. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, see, I care. This isn't something that happens very often, and I wanted to hear what anyone who cared enough to respond had to say. Thank you for coming and saying something.-- SA 01:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the first person who should be given a 2nd/15th chance is izumi, i admit to not knowing a lot about it but when s/he came here asking for another chance it was shot down. Why such a different attitude to this user? x o x o 09:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Izumi had a long history of vandalism before any ban, and just got worse and worse and the first reaction wasn't to apologise, but to threaten further vandalism unless she was let back in on her terms. This one did a few silly things, once -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:25 16 November 2009 (BST)

But if doing a few silly things once is a reason to allow someone back in, why not get rid of the 3 edits rule? It seems to be anyone permaed under that rule has only ever done "a few silly things, once" - i say make it policy that people who do a few silly things once get maybe a month ban rather than perma and give it a grandfather clause or something. This style of letting people back in randomly doesn't rest well with me... x o x o 09:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Go write policy then -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:32 16 November 2009 (BST)

Coz i don't think people who were perma-ed should be let back in. However if they are, i certainly don't think a haphazard request for random opinions on a barely used talk page is the way to go about getting it done. x o x o 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

People with A/VB watchlisted will see this... hardly a "barely used talk page", as evidenced by the quick responses here already. It was one of the first pages you found, eh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:48 16 November 2009 (BST)

Why not just get rid of you? I think that would solve far more problems than the 3 edit rule. Cyberbob Talk 09:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can just imagine you patting yourself on the back for coming up with that one, good work! I wish you weren't quite so predictable though, seeing you in my watchlist is just 0 fun anymore... x o x o 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

everym ove i make... knownin advance...??????// Cyberbob Talk 09:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, shock of shocks, as predicted I'm against this. Yet no-one seems to have worked out why yet. For starters I like my language, it's a beautiful thing. Perma is a shortening of permanent, which means that the ban is not subject to change. Perma certainly does not mean permanent until someone is nice over MSN. Then there's the point that perma bans came in through policy, approved by this community, going blatantly against the will of the community is wrong. Finally, have you worked out what this is? It's favouritism. That's right this is only here because this person was nice to SA, if they'd gone on MSN and said "Oi, fucko, go get my perma undone you prick!" we wouldn't be seeing this before us, this user is only here because SA favours them due to their conduct. Perma bands should not become avoidable just because sysops like you.

There are only two acceptable ways forward from here, uphold the perma or seek the approval of the community through a new policy. There are several options in how to structure a new policy, I will assist if you require the help. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Iscariot? You know how you make fun of me for my lack of signature, shitty grammar, and all around being a dumb colonial? Well guess what? YOU SPELLED BANS WRONG LOLOLOLOL

But seriously, it wasn't about them being nice to me, it was their conduct while we talked about the ban. If I was playing favorites, I'd go and try to unban zoomi instead of someone who was at first just a one-off vandal to me.-- SA 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling me you would have let the conversation continue if their first words had been "Oi fucko"? It's a chance being given to one user that other users might not get. The ban system doesn't serve to punish, it serves to protect this wiki and the community, it's proven that this user vandalised, now you want me to take the word of this vandal that they won't do it again? "Ah, ok Dr, Lecter, if you say you won't kill and eat anyone else we'll let you go....". If we are going to be overturning permas we need a way that all banned users can do so fairly and without bias, Izumi is the obvious example here. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not to punish, it's not to protect. It's to reform people who have committed acts of vandalism. The power to ban is for protection. The ban system is to reform those who have fucked up.
Hannibal Lecter is a different story, and fictional at that. We do not have someone killing anyone here, your comparison has no power.
Izumi had her chance. I called for a vote on it, this being her last chance to get in. It failed. She had her permaban reversal chance. I wish it had gone through, but it didn't. The community at the time didn't really care to let her come back either.
I would have let the conversation go on if they started off with "Oi fucko!" because some people start their conversations like that, whether they're assholes or not. I myself start off with an "Oi prick!" frequently.
We already have a way for perma's to be undone. If enough of the community show's that they would like the ban over turned, it will be done. The problem is getting the community to actually chime in on these things.
If it comes down to it, Hitei can be re-banned if we find that she lied in less than two seconds.

In short, you have no real reason to go against this other than not trusting the user. It doesn't have to do with policy, that's covered. It doesn't have to do with bias, that's also covered. There is no favoritism, that's covered. And finally, if the community decides they will let her back, it's not going against the community. So that's covered.-- SA 17:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for new policies

Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it. —UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines

SA is asking for community input. I, as part of the community, am OK with removing the perma as long as all warnings the user received be kept (with the perma being listed as a 24h ban). Its a lot better to have this user editing the wiki with his former account than having him create another. And if he had plans to continue vandalizing the wiki, he could have just created another account. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

not if I blocked account creation and ip blocked :trollface: -- SA 16:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

like IP ban ever prevented users from switching IP and creating new accounts --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. :c -- SA 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandal banning system is not supposed to be a means of punishment, rather it is meant to be a means of guidance and instruction on what the community find acceptable. The over-all aim (I always thought) was to reform folk before they get to a Permaban.... in this case SA even admits (sorta) that he was heavy handed on the third edit as vandalism thing to stop what seemed like the start of a career vandal. If this user is genuine in their desire to come back and be productive then I would think its reasonable to allow them too. As Hagnat has already said, they could always have started a new account anyway and probably not have been caught! I would say start them off with 3 warnings to work off though as just 2 is a bit easy for anyone who is actually active. --Honestmistake 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I like two because if they mess something up again while learning or something and another 'op decides to be heavy handed again, then bam 48 hour ban. I don't like the thought of that.-- SA 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Precedent. Unban him. If he messes about we can easily sort it out and reinstate the ban. Our dear friend Karek put it best during the failed misconduct case that this idiot brought because he got his nose out of joint:

Karek said:

I don't know why more would need to be said but, this could easily be classed as overruling another sysop and misconduct would only come in with the lack of showing their decision on A/VB. The point remains though, the wiki doesn't exist to ban users and nothing is gained from losing members of the community because they weren't given the benefit of the doubt. No harm, no foul, drop it.

I miss Karek. =( He was always good with those wordy thingys. -- C h e e s e 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, on that note case closed.-- SA 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Unban HiteiKan vote

There is little more to be discussed here. If the user were to vandalize the wiki he could have done so with another account. The guidelines already allow a ban to be reverted should the community desire it, so i am starting a simple vote here. Lets not drag this unnecessarily, so a simple 3 days vote, with a minimum of 10 votes, more than half of them in favor unbans the account. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

lulz, who put you in charge >.> --

Thadeous Oakley

17:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

since when is someone in charge here ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to take this in the spirit I think Haggie meant it... ie a call for a simple show of community opinion. Sure it has no weight and can be ignored by the sysops if they so wish but if you don't voice an opinion you have no right to take issue with it being ignored. --Honestmistake 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

unban - with 2 warnings being listed in his a/vd entry --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Unban - with 3 warnings to reflect the seriousness of the previous "offence" Basically i say treat it like there was at least 1 constructive edit in the chain! --Honestmistake 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the unban/warning has already happened Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no vote to be had here. Normal users get precisely zero fucking votes regarding bans, and like promotions this isn't a vote Hagnat, or no goon would ever get an escalation no matter what they did. This is Hagnat again trying to exercise authority where he has none, much like when he tried to 'warn' me against reverting his vandalism. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This vote is invalid hag's. Sowwy. If you want to make a neat and organized section for community input that lasts more than 3 days, be my guest.-- SA 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Rosslessness

Verdict	vandalism
Action taken	lulz

For this edit here; the last person to actually abstain on one of Winman's god-awful trenchcoat rants was a confirmed alt. Also, they both have the letter "n" in their name. COINCIDENCE?

Where do I got to create a humorous A/VB case? Also, I'm pretty sure I spelled his name wrong. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You could just add it here I guess. And the spelling is correct. Remember, always double S. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 09:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just like Mississippi! —Aich on— 12:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, 48 hour ban!-- SA 23:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - Demote the cunt. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

wrong page n00b-- SA 01:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to write my opinions on Talk:A/VB any more? ohes noes; alert imthatguy and the other idiot! Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

there are far too many idiots on this wiki for "the other idiot" to single out any one of them in particular :\ Cyberbob Talk 02:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So true. --

Thadeous Oakley

10:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The only other idiot that's into the whole dumb "wiki revolution" facade. I wish I could type that word correctly... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WanYao? Cyberbob Talk 03:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please; if all the crats' disappeared, who would he have to complain about? I mean the dude who runs around with the bolded down with the crats in his signature like a freaking wiki-trenchcoater or something. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I said wrong page because on A/VB and it's talk, we use Vandalism, or Not Vandalism. Dummy. >:/ -- SA 11:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So now I'm only allowed to use certain words on certain pages? Am I not allowed to mention vandalism on A/M either? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you also can't use the abbreviations anymore either. Or the letter I -- SA 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

O thonk that's redoculous. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your sig still has all the i's in it.-- SA 13:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And you abbreviated that is to that's.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He didn't use an i though so it's okay.-- SA 13:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/TalkHeader}}
+{{:UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 04}}
 {{:UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 03}}
-{{:UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 02}}
 {{:UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Bots}}

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:26, 31 March 2010

Contents

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives

April 2010

User:Imthatguy

User:Cornholioo

User:The Colonel

March 2010

User:Cornholioo (3)

User:Cornholioo (2)

User:Martino

User:Devorac

User:Misanthropy

Saromu (2)

Bots Discussion

Return of old, already banned, bots

Hmm

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

This page is fucked

New form of Vandalism?

user page creation for vandals

Vandal Data

Sup kids

Unban HiteiKan vote

User:Rosslessness

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox