UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 09

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning

Vandal Report Discussions

Old Content has been archived. See below.

September 2008

Please make your reports short and sweet...

... and then try to stay away from A/VB. Because any added insults, drama, speculation, or just plain commentary on the ongoing vandalism/sockpuppetry only serves to increase the disruption that is the aim of persistent vandals -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:05 19 August 2008 (BST)

I like the change that has gone on recently from what A/VB used to be, a hotspot for anger and arguing etc. I am strongly hoping it stays like this for a while more. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:10, 19 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, but at the moment, the whole page is totally inaccessible! Perhaps that's only temporary. But... still... The problem with making it too inaccessible (and the way it's looking at the moment, it's seeming like rather the pain in arse to get to...) is that people will shy off from making vandal reports because it's too much effort. Which just ends up making an admin service even more the province of only a select group of people who can be arsed to go through the hoops... I'm not sure that's the best way to go about things... My two bits worth. --WanYao 01:34, 1 September 2008 (BST) Ok, well apparently it's all here? Huuuuh? It's all rather confusing... Which kind of illustrates my point, IMO.... Hmph... --WanYao 01:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Well then let's see if this will be any easier.--Karek^maps?! 07:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)

So, hur... it's fine to break A/VB in several montly pages but it's not fine to break promotions in a page per candidate... due the amount of pages one would have to place on the watchlist... and nice seeing this place still is a living bureaucratic hell. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 02:16, 22 September 2008 (BST)

We're testing the system before implementing it on everything. I'm also not here, I've only been able to get on today this week and won't be on for at least another two so unless someone else is doing it it's not gonna happen until after then.--Karek^maps?! 02:38, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Hagnut, you fuckhead, the promotions don't matter. Crats pick who they like any way so why bother with the extra pages? This wiki isn't a Democracy. Thought you knew that. -- #99 ^DCC 03:25, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Zeug (Case 2)

comments about the second case, This same thing happend with me, and I was told to take it to arbys. is there a rule that says a person can choose who can and cannot post on his or her talk page? I thought only an arby ruling could decide that.--'BP^Tmz 00:50, 23 September 2008 (BST)

found the quote I was looking for,

Vantar said:

You are allowed to do what you want on your talk page and can post rules to govern your talk page but those rules are not official policy. You can go to A/A and get him banned from commenting further on your talk but until that is done you can't call vandalism on his comments.

. this was back when he was a sysop--'BP^Tmz 01:02, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Moved to talk

Please do, Iscariot. Because I, too, have been operating under the same assumption regarding "barring" people from your talk page. It's just never become an issue for me to have to bring it to VB. --WanYao 19:43, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Zeug (Case 3)

Commenting because I'm, unfortunately, involved in this fiasco... Anyhoo... I'm actually almost willing to give zeug the benefit of the doubt in that he was trying to create a new version of the page that isn't subject to the kind of controversy that the old page is causing. And that page is protected, after all. Note, however, almost willing... Thing is, Zeug's been around a while, so should know the rules of the wiki. Zeug also represents as some kind of interwebz stuff "expert"... so you'd think he would have been smart enough to have done all this differently, hell ever heard of a sandbox? And, finally, I'm sorry but IMNSHO Zeug has a little bit of a Nietzsche-wannabe complex... as demonstrated by his openly smug and condescending hostility, his self-perceived superiority and his stubbornly trollish sniping and name-calling in response to people's legitimate attempts to dissociate themselves from his project. See, none of this would have been happening if zeug were respectful in the first place, if he just knew how to play nice with others... I think he does, he just chooses not to. Oh how existential. Anyooo... IMNSHO, this was therefore done in bad faith... --WanYao 22:01, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Moved to talk. Please keep personal commentaries off the main page. Next time its a soft warning wan. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 01:15, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Zeug (Case 4)

I'd just like to point out that the URL of the tool is still http://uzm-urbandead.com/, making it quite justified to use that redirect. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 15:26, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Barhah.com - no mention on the Barhah page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:30, 29 September 2008 (BST)

But it would be perfectly justified to mention it there. You know, like disambiguation in wikipedia? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 15:32, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Bold text

Archives

Monthly Archives

e Vandal Banning Archive

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

User:Doudomida

One little instance? Whatever... Several little instances? Report him. And nah brahbram! --WanYao 21:03, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Please keep inane useless banter off the main page. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 21:12, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Policy regarding the contributions of vandal sock puppets

I was wondering if there's a policy regarding the contributions of vandal puppets. Specifically, if a puppet is created by a banned user for the purpose of editing the wiki, and then subsequently that puppet gets banned, hasn't that banned user accomplished their goal? It would seem to me that the responsible thing to do would be to revert all the edits of the puppet in question in order to deprive the banned user (aka she who must not be named) of the very thing they are banned from doing. What say you, wiki sysops? --Stephen Colbert DFA 18:14, 17 September 2008 (BST)

General Discussion Archives

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5