Revision as of 23:37, 30 April 2010

May 2010

User:Craptalker

Dare I bait him into the 3-edit rule...? ;D --

05:43, 30 May 2010 (BST)

You shouldn't. If it's a vandal alt, it will either deactivate or 3-edit itself anyway; there's no reason for you to put yourself in a situation where you as a sysop and A/VB member are trying to get someone to commit vandalism. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:09, 30 May 2010 (BST)

DDR a sysop, what? —Aich on— 19:59, 30 May 2010 (BST)

If not in title, in heart. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:33, 30 May 2010 (BST)

I was hoping the wiki fairy visited yesterday, gave him back his title, and I had somehow missed it. Now I'm sad. :( —Aich on— 23:44, 30 May 2010 (BST)

The bureaucrats don't shouldn't have to put up with such homophobic jibes :p -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:17 31 May 2010 (BST)

haichu —Aich on— 23:15, 31 May 2010 (BST)

If it makes you feel any better, the forget fairy stopped by and visited me! If you want DDR to be an op so bad, just harass him until he takes the job back (or kills himself). Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:49, 30 May 2010 (BST)

You're both right, it's a pretty immature thing to do, so it's probably for the best that he didn't take the bait. Oooooh I feel so much like Iscariot right now with all this newb baiting ;D --

02:18, 31 May 2010 (BST)

User:Saromu (2)

Sonny makes 3 cases and that is the same as Iscariot's reign of terror and J3D's war against Bob? I'm impressed that his 3 cases added up to that much! The two links you give have SEVERAL links to cases and arguments, but Sonny's 3 little cases are CLEARLY just as bad! Please backseat mod with your opinions of punishment some more. I imagine you shaking your fist angrily as you do it.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:59, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Where the fuck did you came from? Begone, demon! --

Thadeous Oakley

14:06, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Shaking fists? Hardly. Your comeback deserves such imagery. 1. It's 4 cases (count pls). 2. The precedents don't have to show that this is as bad, just to show that its a punishable offence. 3. Iscariot and J3D both actually posted and maintained substantial positions in the community whilst they were doing this which make Sonny's "visit UDWiki once every month and bombard ops with misconduct cases"" seem a little more obvious, yes?

Got any other stupid claims/positions Nubis? Pls just keep posting as DCC from now on, makes it easier to follow. --

14:07, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Iscariot actually claimed to not contribute to the wiki in one of my A/M cases when I actually tried to defend him and say he was a useful member. I can dig up the quote/link. J3d's "contributions" were adding ALiM links and categories to every fucking page that he could. Shining examples of contributions! DCC or --– Nubis ^NWO 14:14, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Quotes mean dick, especially if they were coming out of anything as biased as Iscariot's mouth. I'm talking about actual evidence, ie. contributions and time spent around Admin pages and matters. They were both pains but they were around. Sonny? Maybe in 2008 when the wiki was fun for trolls. --

14:19, 24 May 2010 (BST)

To be quite honest, I think this should sticked under the case below. In my humble opinion, one vandal case about spamming was enough. This is only adding fuel to the fire. Though at the same time Sonny should receive a warning for the second case against Cheese, because that was just frivolous. If anything this is again starting to blow beyond proportions. In before SA makes a sneak in here. Also, fist. --Thadeous Oakley 14:14, 24 May 2010 (BST)

I don't think this is a particularly bad idea, though I don't think it's specifically right. Yes, Sonny should be warned for something in his stupid shit-stirring. As long as the ops have the right decision in doing it for something he's definitely guilty of, rather than maybe knowing about a case that was uncharacteristically up for a couple of hours. The choice goes to the ops. --

14:19, 24 May 2010 (BST)

If maybe I didn't have a team of guys pulling punches cause of hi-and-bye fuckbags like Sonny and Nubis here making bi-monthly shitfests, maybe we'd get some actual rulings done. Argh and the like.

22:14, 26 May 2010 (BST)

User:WOOT

Hi, can someone explain to me why this is Vandalism when he was seriously trying to become a sysop? Vandalism requires an edit in bad faith. He may not have done it in good faith like to cure cancer, solve the Palestinian problem, or end world hunger but that doesn't make what he did bad faith. Him and I spoke about it and we decided it was time to truly get him into the sysop community. Y'all just racist. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 09:33, 20 May 2010 (BST)

Honestly, until you guys brought it up again, I had completely forgotten about the fact that his race has come up in the past as an issue. At the moment, I have no idea what race he is, you are, or pretty much anyone else on here is for that matter, and, to be frank, I don't care to know (in fact, going further, I don't want to know), because it doesn't matter and shouldn't enter into my thinking (and so far has not). In terms of why it's vandalism, he was up for promotion a few months back. What criteria has he worked on or improved since then? None, from what I've seen, so it's hard to treat this as an honest effort to become a sysop. He also has a history of doing this sort of thing, which means he can't get off by saying he didn't know better. Couple that with the precedent of the previous escalations and it's a pretty clear case of vandalism. —Aich on— 09:48, 20 May 2010 (BST)

He's from Costa Rica, making him Hispanic. Misanthropy has already showed bias against Woot for being Hispanic. Making this a touchy subject when the sysops constantly go after Woot for no reason in particular. Not meeting the criteria to be a sysop shouldn't be vandal worthy since its really a matter of opinion. Simply meeting the requirements does not make someone automatically a sysop, it has more to do with opinion. It is my opinion that you're a basement dwelling, anti-social, asspie faggot who should be as far away from responsibilities as humanly possible. But my opinion doesn't matter, I'm not a sysop. YOU are a sysop, your opinion matters. When you use your opinion in a biased way you abuse your powers. If Woot is punished for trying to be a sysop so that he can clean up the wiki then I will bring miscontribution on every single sysop involved. Because this has nothing to do with rules, its about your dislike for Woot and his ethnicity. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:36, 20 May 2010 (BST)

He's recieved bans for it twice before now, so he has no reason to still be making this form of bids. Saying "Not meeting the criteria to be a sysop shouldn't be vandal worthy" is completely strawman, and has nothing to do with this case. This case, as per the other two I just linked to, is about him spamming admin pages with bids, fully knowing that if he does not attempt to be a member of this community beforehand, he will get a vandal case. Just because he's ignored the past two warnings doesn't give you the right to storm in here and accuse us of misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:50, 20 May 2010 (BST)

We are making a statement by not conforming to your faggotry. Woot is a freedom fighter like Che Guevera. He will not take part in the system unless its changed. That is why he wants to be a sysop. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:53, 20 May 2010 (BST)

"this has nothing to do with rules, its about your dislike for Woot and his ethnicity." Yes, clearly I disliked WOOT's ethnicity, despite the fact that I didn't know what it was until you just told me (despite the fact that I made it clear I didn't even want to know). Your astounding display of logic has caused me to rethink my shameful ways. I'd respond further, but you're just trolling now, and I'm tired of playing those games. When you want to have a rational conversation, you already know plenty of ways to find me. Use one of them. —Aich on— 02:43, 21 May 2010 (BST)

He never wasn't trolling... You actually think he cares about WOOT and didn't think he would be banned for putting up an A/PM? --

03:06, 21 May 2010 (BST)

Why do you still try sonny? You used to be hilarious because you could get people to come to you and make a dick of themselves. Now you're so desperate for a reaction, every single one of your comments is just deliberate, idiotic and obvious rather than cleverly devised. --

02:00, 21 May 2010 (BST)

Unlike you, DDR, I speak with all honesty. If I have any motives I make it clear from the beginning. I have no intentions of getting Woot banned or in trouble. My intentions are to make him a sysop so that he can get rid of the rest of the faggot sysops. There's no secret here. Now put your tinfoil cap back on and go back into your hugbox. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 19:22, 21 May 2010 (BST)

No, seriously, why are you still trying? --

03:40, 22 May 2010 (BST)

To get rid of the faggots. I thought I already said this. I apologize if I use too much big words. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 21:07, 22 May 2010 (BST)

If you wanted to do that you could have put someone else up, or yourself. You knew woot would be put for vandalism for the third offense, and you aren't an idiot. Too scared to do the job yourself, I see. But you knew that, so I'm still expecting a proper answer. Though I think I already know it, as its been your same motive for 4 years --

00:54, 23 May 2010 (BST)

Remind me again, when did you become the Sonny Spokesman? Because I don't remember ever knowing Woot would be VandalBanned considering he isn't breaking any rules. I had a feeling you faggots would rage, but that is the point since we want to get rid of you. I have no one else I can trust with the job except maybe DCC but I know Woot better. And I don't have time to be a sysop, Woot does. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 21:08, 23 May 2010 (BST)

Playing dumb too hard sonny sorry. Still not convincing anyone. Proper answer plz --

00:49, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Nice to see the Misconduct case was voted on by all the Ops that voted on the Vandal case (in less than 24 hours). Sysop voting Block FTW. It would be a shame to actually let the case sit long enough to give the other ops a chance to read it. Might as well vote for the permaban since the Op clique seems to be active right now. -- #99 ^DCC 13:17, 20 May 2010 (BST)

QQ? Oh no, the troll haven that was 2008 UDWiki isn't here anymore. Shouldn't stop you, Sonny, Woot and other tards from coming to try to restore it to its former glory, then cry when all sysops have a common interesting in keeping you fags out of here (mistakening it as a clique). You're the clique, you're the idiots, now fuck off. --

14:32, 20 May 2010 (BST)

"Nice to see the Misconduct case was voted on by all the Ops that voted on the Vandal case (in less than 24 hours)." I'm sorry, but who would you prefer voted on these sorts of things? Of the nine sysops we have, six are currently active on A/VB and A/M. One of them was involved in the two cases so couldn't vote, and of the remaining five that are active here, four voiced their opinions within 24 hours. So unless you're suggesting that we bring in circus clowns to start voting on our behalf, it sounds like you're getting hot and bothered because the sysops actually did their job in a timely manner. And voting the same on open-and-shut cases does not a voting block make. Go look at something divisive and see how they voted then. —Aich on— 21:51, 20 May 2010 (BST)

For all fucking things holy, can you guys just ban him already and stop the source of all this prepubescent moaning? --

02:44, 21 May 2010 (BST)

User:VashX20

Hmmm. I was about to say that I thought Not Vandalism was a good stance at this point but having seen the link where Whesker, prior to being permabanned basically admits that his main is Vash (my interpretation), I think my choice would have been to vote vandalism (for avoiding ban, even suspected to be avoiding ban is enough to vote vandalism). --

02:17, 18 May 2010 (BST)

And seriously, nice detective work Thad, Good work :D --

02:17, 18 May 2010 (BST)

User:Spiderzed

I have decided your further messages on my talk page are unwelcome. That message alone should be clear enough. They are unwelcome. End of story. I've decided that they are unwelcome based on this quotes:

- "Is NSU now going to employ its stated standards and list my group Hetzjagd auf Nazis as an enemy? Or do I have to write Sonny-style on my user page that Corny is a moron who's even incapable of enforcing his very own standards within his very own group?"

- "Sir Tintin of Tulips, my fine and prospering group Hetzjagd auf Nazis actually consists now of more then one single alt: Evidence and more evidence. I'll take you by your word."

- "Why does only my FU buddy get listed as enemy, and not me? I've done the same and PKed you once, what seems to be sufficient to get the one-man-group of his PKer alt listed as an undying nemesis of the NSU. I demand that my one-girl-group Hetzjagd auf Nazis gets immediately recognized as an nemesis as well!"

- "We don't even do guerrilla tactics. We just sit around in the open, have a coffee in Krinks' rest room, and then we decide occassionally to shoot up some NSU. I have sat inside of an unlit EHB school with just two babah zambahz in the whole green burb, and in retrospect I have to say that it felt more threatening and exciting then the whole "2nd Battle of Krinks". "2nd Battle of Krinks", you remember? Ah, yeah, of course you remember, that so-called "event" consisting of three smashed radios that Corny is so desperately trying to create such a buzz about, just to make a name for his group. (Or are it already four radios?)"

- "Why doesn't the NSU fight back? By now, FU's PKer alts in the area have killed two gnatzys, while suffering no single casualty yet. You should really know some of us now, today one has thrown Batavian out of a window in Budgen Building, while mine asked him outside to stand up so she can give him a headshot. (And she has killed Cornholioo in Krinks before that, too.) Fighting NSU is more like painting the wall, the only thing moving is oneself while the wall allows everything to happen to it."

- "I'd have a dumbwit of Cornholioo today in Krinks, and an screenshot image of Batavian in the same area from April 10th. Now if there would only be a screenshot of either of them in the time inbetween..."

Also, you have once edited the time one of my messages was placed. But I guess you have not done that deliberately so I'm not reporting you for that.

Furthermore, this isn't the first time you're posting on my talk page after I made clear your messages are unwelcome. You've done that before. That time you had posted this: "I know that I'm not welcome on your talk page, but in this case I think it's important to let you know that action has been taken: UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_04#User:Cornholioo. Maybe your own reaction will save you from a formal warning (or maybe not), but in every case that data will be purged as soon as another sys-op sees it. (Feel free to delete this comment now, it has served its purpose by alerting you.)"

I have not reported you that time. I'm neither making a second case for this, where I could. Though, it has been enough now. Since you've done it again, I am reporting you now. What you're doing is simply ignoring the message on top and then trying to justify it. That is unacceptable. --Cornholioo 21:00, 2 May 2010 (BST)

I admit that I've posted not the nicest thinkable posts on the talk page _before_ I was deemed unwelcome. (And I can't remember to ever have changed the time in any foreign signature, so I'd welcome a pointer about that.)

And yeah, had I posted anything like that after the warning, I'd be the first to understand why I receive a warning.

However, after the warning, I've only done those two comments, and both have been kept informative, brief and in good faith, as they both have been purely helpful. --Spiderzed 21:20, 2 May 2010 (BST)

This time I have deleted it an hour after the post, before I filled in the arbitration. --Cornholioo 21:01, 2 May 2010 (BST)

Sorry, I don't get the relevance. If you want him to be escalated as a vandal, he has to be breaking one of the rules. Since we don't have a policy in place regarding disallowing users to post on each other's talk pages, the only way to do that is to get an arbitration ruling that he cannot post on your page. Breaking the terms of an arbitration ruling is considered to be vandalism, and we can rule on it as such at that time. Until then, these cases are frivolous. —Aich on— 21:12, 2 May 2010 (BST)

Ross told me to write down at the top that his messages are unwelcome and take him to vandal banning upon still posting on my talk page. --Cornholioo 23:41, 2 May 2010 (BST)

While yes Ross did say that, there is a difference between someone nicely attempting to point something out to you for you to fix, and the pictures I spammed on your page. If you totally want them to not post on your page, then take them to an Arby and ask that they not have permission to post there, otherwise minor things that someone may post there to help you, are gonna get laughed at and thrown back in your face much like this right here. --

Timmah!

Talk

23:54, 2 May 2010 (BST)

Here's what Ross said. If we take what Ross said at face value, then Spiderzed's comments were not harassment so there isn't a reason to rule vandalism. If you want a restraining order on all his comments to your page, you should take him to arbitration. —Aich on— 00:28, 3 May 2010 (BST)

I'm gonna be sort of honest, Ross is wrong. It's been a while but we used to have users spam other users for hours a day without getting in trouble at all. In fact, it's a shame the history purge happened because I can't show you :( but Boxy might remember... If it ain't backed up by arbies, it shouldn't be escalatable. Sorry cornhole. --

01:04, 3 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, my original comment, which I trimmed back, mentioned that I wasn't sure about the harassment idea and would need to look into it to see if it, as it would apply here, would be a valid means for escalation. Regardless, it doesn't apply to this case, so there's nothing at all for it to stand on. —Aich on— 01:23, 3 May 2010 (BST)

You guys are free to ignore precedents en masse anyway. We used to spam the hell out of finis, it was great, and he had too much pride to take us to arbies over it so he just wiped our comments, about 50 times a day. Ha ha --

01:46, 3 May 2010 (BST)

And also, I realise this is the second time in 2 days I've tried telling ops what is vandalism and what isn't, this isn't as black and white imo as the last one, and it would be a good idea in the long term to start escalating users for this stuff in long term harassment situations, and only for deliberate harassment, not just jumping into to conversations to offer (what should be) welcomed input. --

01:54, 3 May 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo (2)

Judaism is a religion, not a race. The idea of Jews being racially different stems from anti-Semitism. Thus you, yourselves, are the ones being prejudice. Cornolioo is simply being a moron. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 04:47, 15 May 2010 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_03#User:Iscariot. --

13:34, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Cornhole

Is this going to close or not? --Thadeous Oakley 14:16, 9 May 2010 (BST)

See This to find out why it hasn't been. -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 14:20, 9 May 2010 (BST)

Cheese and Ross are both still active around here, so I've been leaving it open to get their feedback. Those of us that have ruled already aren't all in agreement, after all, and I prefer having a decision that's more conclusive if possible. I'll close it in another day or two if they don't rule on it. There's no particular rush to have a ruling with this case, though I can understand why people are eager to see the ruling close as it is now. —Aich on— 19:49, 9 May 2010 (BST)

I'm in no rush,... just that I love it when you all dish out punishment.... -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 20:39, 9 May 2010 (BST)

You're pretty creepy. Cyberbob Talk 09:42, 10 May 2010 (BST)

You guys will be trippin' balls if you merge the two Corn cases. --

08:24, 10 May 2010 (BST)

HEHEEHEHEHEHEHE CORNHOLE ROFLROFLFOFLROFLFOORORROFL Cyberbob Talk 09:42, 10 May 2010 (BST)

HEH HEH I have no bungholio HEH HEH -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:08 10 May 2010 (BST)

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 05}}
 {{:UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Bots}}

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:37, 30 April 2010

Contents

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives

May 2010

User:Craptalker

User:Saromu (2)

User:WOOT

User:VashX20

User:Spiderzed

User:Cornholioo (2)

Cornhole

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