Revision as of 00:56, 7 December 2009

November 2009

User:Iscariot (3)

"whydontyougofuckyourselfyousmarmyfuckingcunt."

Not your best burn, I'm afraid. Cyberbob Talk 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hush now, the non-smarmy cunts are talking. :D -- SA 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Still not doing too well. How does the comment of mine you quoted relate to this discussion at all? Cyberbob Talk 04:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't supposed to. :( -- SA 04:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said then. Not a good burn. Cyberbob Talk 04:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I intended it to be a burn from the start to be honest. Without how shitty a burn attempt it was I don't think I tried. :/ -- SA 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

NO U R NOT GUD COMBAKS LOL!--CyberRead240 07:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Necrofeelinya

For creating this page, and striking out the Israel Building to rename it the Palestine building. I reverted it. --Haliman - Talk 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's some serious long-term planning. He's been maintaining that page for eleven months. Plus the article shows the name changing back and forth, obviously a simple joke. This isn't vandalism.

23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's his page (which it is), then obviously he can put up whatever he wants. --

Thadeous Oakley

23:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a location page. --Haliman - Talk 23:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's humour, in the form of news for the location.

23:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncatergorise it, and then move it to his userspace. Problem solved.--

Thadeous Oakley

23:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

They crossed it out at the very top and on the mini-map too. I reverted it. --Haliman - Talk 23:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Smart. Either you completely revert it, and leave a link to the revert edit, or you leave it alone. Not half like you did. The strike at the top of the mini-map goes a bit far though. The rest of strikes, is just petty humour. --

Thadeous Oakley

23:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why I didn't revert those. Here it is, master. --Haliman - Talk 23:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thad, you arn't allowed on this page, and you're talking shit anyway -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:28 28 November 2009 (BST)

So is thad going to get a case for breaking the arbitration ruling, or are you just going to let him continue to break it over and over and show that the bindings provided by arbitration aren't worth shit?-- SA 00:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gimme a sec ruling on many cases --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC

hm yase. sa is the wimp. ddr you are the bravest sysop evar~ Cyberbob Talk 11:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

huh? do you ACTUALLY take everything people say on here seriously? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

yesssssno? Cyberbob Talk 12:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think a statement consisting of "hm yase. sa is the wimp. ddr you are the bravest sysop evar~" is being serious, you need to learn more about the internet!-- SA 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It was cause of this you fat ugly dumarse. I thought even someone who wasn't aware of my tendancy to try and bully you would still be capable of understanding it was a joke :/ --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe I wanted to use a tired internets phrase?-- SA 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldnt you have used it on Bob then??????????????????? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't use it on "yesssno?". It had to be yours you cry babby.-- SA 22:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"hm yase. sa is the wimp. ddr you are the bravest sysop evar~"? Moron says what? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So why are you calling yourself a moron? ;) -- SA 22:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

omg! come on wave already :*( --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Argh you just did yay --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, faggot.-- SA 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

lol Cyberbob Talk 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Be honest with me now, Izzy. Do you just like to cause trouble or something? --Haliman - Talk 16:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In terms of setting precedent he's certainly being difficult. Image arks should most certainly be allowed, but the reasoning behind the creation of this one and the specific images included in it isn't exactly good faith. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course image archives will always be allowed, just not ones specifically used to misrepresent things like the unused image list during votes -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:35 28 November 2009 (BST)

Image arks were always allowed in the wiki, but they often consisted of hand-picked images in both unused and used images list. Izzy simply tossed them all in his ark in order to bait cyberbob into a 'lie'... clearly bad faith --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:A11an0n

This guy is most certainly going against the intention of the A/A ruling, but he's not in violation of anything that I'm aware of. Really, I think boxy and Rosslessness nailed it down: he feels slighted by the system, so he is trying to change the system. He's quickly going to run out of options--since he doesn't seem to be able to just forget about the whole issue--and then he'll either drop it or start doing things that will be actual vandalism. So I say let him try, but I think the general consensus from the community thus far isn't going to give him the results he wants. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 11:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So now I see why Boxy is a 'crat. I say we let him go for it and nail him if he tries to spam bids later. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 15:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:J3D

So is this added to the upcoming harassment banning case or does J3D get the Iscariot 2 years of "Get out of Jail Free for being a Prick" treatment?-- #99 ^DCC 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyberbob240

Rosslessness said:

Not Vandalism. As the boxman states.

why did you have to wait for him to rule for you to rule? Baaaaaah. Get some real sysops around here plz--CyberRead240 10:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Like to show me any other time I've waited for boxy to rule on this page? I must admit its strange for people to agree on UDwiki. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 11:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like you Ross to show me a drama case where you where first to rule. No offense, but it's always Boxy, DDR, Bob or SA who make the first rulings, with you always following the majority ruling after that. --

Thadeous Oakley

12:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Like this one? UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_11#User:Kkkkkkkkkooo. I fear that by the global nature of the wiki I'll always be following others. (Looks suspiciously at the Australian sops and frequent vandals) --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but I said drama case, not a piss easy case like that. Also timezones, really? --

Thadeous Oakley

14:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. Thats what I do, shun drama. Thats why I volunteered to represent you in arbitration against Iscariot. Avoiding drama. Also, Timezones? Yes.

Any of these good enough for your standards? UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_12#User:Jerrel_Yokotory or UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_06#User:WOOT or My crazy standpoint here? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's okay ross, I don't think you're a sheep.-- SA 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Baaah. It takes this long (Medium length pause) before I can see a real one. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm tired or stupid (probably both), but that didn't make sense to me.-- SA 18:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Its a way to show that I live near real sheepses. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And also, a lot of ops are aussies, and a lot of cases, requests, and all that shit are put forward during the aussie time zone.-- SA 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are a sop, and you are so certain that it is a VBing, and you are online (which he was), why dont you just vote Vandalism. He is a sheep. Baaaah.--CyberRead240 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

I thought the official like was that no one but kevan "ranked" higher than anybody else? Or have the ops finally dropped that blatant bullshit? x o x o 09:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that a sysops can tell someone not to strike something if the sysops was in the right. But I also couldn't think of how to word what I was saying properly without bringing up a fake rank idea on hagnat's part. :/ -- SA 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)ADDENFUCKINGDuM Also, what he said v

abloobloobloobloboblbobobolblvbsbgflbglbooblboblbonowyou'rejustmakingdramaup Cyberbob Talk 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

good editing thar. x o x o 09:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Winman1

I don't quite remember what we do when we find multi-account abusers, but Check User confirms Shut up noob as an alt, and he's using it to vote on his own things along with his main. So, I have to leave, I need groceries, but here you guys go.-- SA 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We ban the alt, Shut up noob in this case, and warn the main. All multi-votes are then struck. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter if that's useful? It seems like something that should be on the talk page since, no matter how interesting is, it's not from a Sysop or an involved user. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Contributive posts are not removed from cases as they add directly. Chatter and thread drift is removed. This is not one of these. As an uninvolved party in the Winman case Thad is in breach of his arbitration ruling. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

'right then. But sorry, I haven't breached my arb ruling, since I didn't actually posted a thing, unless your seriously counting the direction towards the talk page.--

Thadeous Oakley

20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"MisterGame is not to contribute to admin pages that don't ask for community input unless he is an involved party (the talk pages are still open to comment though). Admin pages such as A/D ask for community input (votes), while A/VB is discussed by sysops and involved parties only (reporting an A/VB case counts as being involved)." It could be seen as you being contributive (And also antagonistic by removing a genuinely helpful comment when a sysop asked for direction) by removing posts.-- SA 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You should really look up the words "contributing" and "removing", I can assure you that you'll find that they don't much in common.--

Thadeous Oakley

21:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You should not be a dick when I'm simply trying to tell you that some people could see it as that. And also, the words really depend on context. You can be contributing to hostilities by removing posts, after all.-- SA 21:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing would be implying he was simply getting rid of the comment. He actually moved it to talk, he was attempting to cause drama under the pretext of contributing towards the maintenance of the page. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 21:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I seriously thank you for that SA, it's just that I respectfully disagree. Contributing to hostilities is of completely different meaning. The question here is: By removing Iscariot's comment, what do I contribute?

Anyway, we still need to settle our wedding SA. I think Boxy is a great choice for making it official, having him lead the ceremony, just like our Arb Case. I was thinking about asking Cyberbob to be my best man. You can take DDR's as yours. J3D can be the Maid of Honor, with Nick and Read as bridesmaids. Iscariot and Yonnua can be flower boys. Sounds good hun? --

Thadeous Oakley

21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was on your side right up until that spammish comment at the end, Thad.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, no I wasn't. My mistake.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

lol Cyberbob Talk 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dawgjz

Vandalism because he should be doing it properly, not just randomly wiping shit. And I really doubt that some eployer is going to care that a guy plays games on a computer in his spare time.-- SA 11:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be wrong there. These days, employers do actually check allot of possible aspirants through all means, including Google. The words "urban dead" might be enough to imply terrorist activity for some 50 year old desk worker, you don't know that. I do agree it's pretty stupid to use your full name so loosely on the interwebs. But I'm sure he has learned his lesson, and it's not that his name has such a big historical impact on this wiki. --

Thadeous Oakley

12:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the word "cheater" may be of more interest than urban or dead... But perhaps the name itself could be blanked out, if it's ruled to be revealing "personal information". But definitely not taking out whole sentences to change the meaning of discussions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:20 3 November 2009 (BST)

Wow. Vandalism or not you guys are fucked up! And by "you guys" I am referring to SA and Iscariot. Understand, I have never once, in my time on this wiki, resorted to slinging vulgarities at another user. Sure, I've had disagreements, but I do actually believe in and try to practice civility. Normally. And so I have never resorted to base, personal attacks. Not once. Until now.

And I doubt either of you will give a damn what someone else thinks about you since you've both proven yourselves to be so utterly fucking devoid of class and human sympathy. But I'm going to say it anyway, because you ought to hear it, and I want you to understand that I am not just flaming you but that I am actually very upset and disgusted by your behavior. Now then -

You two plotting, heartless, maniacal, smarmy little nigglers are a disgrace to anonymous internet dickheads around the world. I fucking pray neither of you shit monkeys ever end up in a position of any real authority or have the outcome of another human being's life placed in your sweaty little hands because you fuckers don't deserve an ounce trust. Not one ounce.

This poor dude is trying to get his name off a stupid zombie wiki for a game he stopped playing 2 years ago because it is interfering with his ability to make a living in the real world. He lied about why he was removing his name (probably because he didn't want to draw more attention to it) and he broke wiki policy with his edits. Granted. But then he clearly explained his reasoning on his talk page and asked for a little understanding and a little help.

Now at that point, any reasonable person, anyone with a modicum of respect for themselves and for others would understand and say, "Oh ok, let's get your name off the wiki and get you on with your life." Not these two fuckers. Instead of helping, Iscariot goes out of his way to be a complete fucking douche. When Iscariot is normally being a pain in the neck, he at least does so under some poorly argued false pretense. But now the pretenses are gone, and his true colors have shone.

He tried to permaban Dawgjz so he'd have no chance to come back on here and remove his name from the wiki. Then he snidely mentions making a user group with the guy's name on it so it will be permanently linked to the wiki. How smug. How fucking smug. And why would he go through such measures? utilizing backdoor bullshit and loopholes and bureaucracy? Basically, just to be an asshole. Because he can fuck over another human being from behind the veil of his computer screen and revel in the knowledge that he ruined someone else's day. How fucked - up - are - you?

And then SA chimes in on the talk page, full of mockery and spite, which would be one thing. But then he goes the extra mile and shakes Dawgjz down for cash! WTF? The fact that SA is a 'sop here, voted to restrict Dawgjz editing privilege, and then took his money to make the problem go away is paramount to fucking extortion.

Go ahead and defend yourself. Tell me why I'm wrong and you were really just trying to help. Bitch about my wall of text. Iscariot, get to work on a bulleted list of arguments. SA tell me why I don't know shit about the wiki and call me something really nasty. Go ahead. But you both crossed a line and you should be ashamed of yourselves. And that stands.

Seriously people. This had nothing to do with the wiki or some zombie game. It had nothing to do with following the rules or any other BS excuse you're likely to come up with. The truth is, you both saw a gleaming to opportunity fuck somebody over and you delighted in it. What does that make you?

Sickening.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 14:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And the most brilliant part of all, is because Google can take up to 5 months to re-cache websites, the information coming up on Google isn't likely to change the results for his name at all. So this whole argument, at leased in the foreseeable future, is absolutely futile. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Giles, Giles, Giles. The man brought it upon himself. He cheated. His employers deserve to know he cheated. If they decide that it doesn't matter that it was just a computer game then there's no harm done, if they think it is important then we've helped a company remove an undesirable candidate for employment. After all if he can cheat at something for fun, then perhaps he might go cheat for fun and profit at work. I wonder if he's a banker? This whole argument is moot really, given a Texas burger site shows up on page one of google, you can imagine what a quick google bomb will do if there's a nice off-wiki page to link to that contains a history of what happened. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because somebody is a zerg at UD, he doesn't deserve a job? His employers deserve to know? Why don't you do us all a favor and fuck off. --

Thadeous Oakley

18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It proves he cheats. If his potential employers decide that it's important and that they don't want someone who cheats working for them, then it's relevant. You're just unhappy because you're just as much of a cheat as he was. See, the Zerg Liste. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I care about that? Or you thought my name really was Thadeous Oakley? Like I said before this isn't about dawgjz, this is about you abusing someone else reality problems for you own wiki drama. Oh well, this over since Boxy is blanking his name anyway.--

Thadeous Oakley

20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is all pretty sad, though I doubt anyone (or SA) was serious with the whole money extortion thing. And I also doubt Iscaridiot cares much about Dawgjz himself, he is just misusing another person's problems for his own little wiki crusade. Only shows Izzy puts others real-life problems below his virtual troll needs. --

Thadeous Oakley

15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

An incompetent arbitrator, who like the person in question cheats at a browser game, has no business passing judgement on players that don't cheat. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good thing then that I don't need your permission to judge you. --

Thadeous Oakley

18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Iscariot but you don't get to "prove" anything. It is not your place to try and keep this guy's personal information public just because you feel he "deserves" it. Cyberbob Talk 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - I'm sorry, but you can't just wipe your history from this site because you were silly enough to use your real name for a character here. However, if Iscariot (or anyone, really) creates a page to further sully the name through their own actions, then yeah, that would be vandalism on their part as well -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:37 3 November 2009 (BST) "

This perhaps needs to be looked at. You realise you've given me a character that can now get away with anything? DHPD can't issue warrants, the DA can't put me on their blacklist, so as they don't offer public evidence (they use the wiki) the RG will consider every kill of this character a PK? That's before all those little groups start trying to put this character on their enemy list.

Also, where are we drawing the line between personal information and publicly available information. There's a least one member of this wiki that has a page at a often used entertainment site and has linked career details on public forums, repeating public information cannot be considered against this policy, any more than saying that DDR is an Aussie could be. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is cari a sysop? If he is, then why the fuck does he still have privelages? If he isn't then why has he posted on the front page of A/VB for the past two cases with no reprocussions or removal? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

*In before Iscariot's needless insults* Because he brought the case up, he reported him. Reporters are counted as involved, involved users (as well as sysops, he isn't one BTW) are allowed to post on the main page.--

Thadeous Oakley

20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because CB is the one who goes nuts over that shit. :D -- SA 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, as someone who took care of hiring people at my old job, I would never use being connected with a game, or the texas burger up his ass comment as a reason to not hire him.-- SA 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Cyberbob Talk 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Only because I've disagreed with you.-- SA 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If by "disagreed" you mean "say anything other than 'it doesn't matter what we think; we don't have the right to make that kind of judgement'" then yes. Cyberbob Talk 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicted twice grr. This case troubles me. Someone who played a few years ago has come back and asked for his name to be removed from the ~~zerger~~ cheaters list. After this statement, Iscariot posted a comment by someone of the same name as the user from a different website, and he (Dawgjz) removed the name from that comment. That's the vandalism being discussed. Granted, the comment itself was unneeded, though it could easily have been found anyway.

To me, this proposed vandalism came about because of what Iscariot said in reply to Dawjgz's comment. The only thing I really don't understand is why, instead of just saying that it couldn't be done, the user in question was met with sardonic replies and unneeded comments, namely the rather vulgar message under his name on texasburgerking.com, or something similar. Also why do his future employers deserve to know that he cheated at a game?Comment by Rorybob at 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

"Combined with repeated edits to a group page he is not a member of, request perma" it wasn't just the impersonation edit, but those too. Read my reply on Giles page please for an explanation as to why I was being a dick.

Also, an employer deserves to know about a persons past if they go to hire them. Like I said though, anybody that would hold a game connection, like UD, against you probably isn't worth working for.-- SA 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, you still don't get to make that kind of call. Cyberbob Talk 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to drag that scary big world in again, but in the current economical situation I don't think many people consider being too "good" for their employers. --

Thadeous Oakley

22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Right bob. We'll just follow your OH SO AWESOME AND COMPLETELY DEVOID OF PAST FUCK UPS way of doing things and your OH SO UNBIASED opinions.

Bob, if if I want to tell this guy's potential employer that the guy he's considering on hiring is actually kind of a dick to people or something, I have every liberty to do it. There is nothing stopping me from doing, no laws, nothing.

And Thad, I actually know what you're talking about. Since I sold my share of the tech store and quit, I've been playing the job field, temping and shit. What I'm saying is that if an employer turns you down because of it, the guy would have been a shitty boss anyway.-- SA 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So sorry, but if that involves disseminating his personal information on the internet against his will then no - you don't. As far as your really rather inept attempt to insult... lol. Cyberbob Talk 22:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pleez to be quoting UK law rather than your own moral opinion plzkthxbai. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to quote law. Cyberbob Talk 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So then why are you trying to force us to follow your opinion? And saying it all in a rather factual manner?-- SA 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because. Cyberbob Talk 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Right then.-- SA 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

While I can't "force" you to do anything, that doesn't mean I won't bring you here or email Kevan (which I have already done with Iscariot). Cyberbob Talk 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And you completely have that right to, I'd never deny that. What I'm talking about right now is how you've been pushing your opinion as factual information up until a bit ago, not your right to take us here.-- SA 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

my price for stopping is 40 dollars Cyberbob Talk 23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How about instead, you give me ten and I'll blindly follow your decisions for a month?-- SA 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Now see, the problem is you keep saying we can't do this, I can't do this. The thing is, I wasn't trying to keep his personal info on the wiki. I was having a problem with the way he was trying to remove it. Admit it, the only reason why you care in the first place is because Iscariot made the case. ;) -- SA 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

whydontyougofuckyourselfyousmarmyfuckingcunt. Cyberbob Talk 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

nou-- SA 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just give him a soft warning. He did it in a completely stupid way, and he shouldn't have done it that way at all. Hence, it's vandalism. As shown by his comment on A/PT, he wasn't aware. So, give him a soft warning. If he wants his real life name removed from a wiki, he can feel free. He just shouldn't have left it disjointed and screwed up, impersonation, etc. Boxy's fixed that, the only real issue now is if him removing the names was vandalism, which, let's face it, it was. But, he didn't know, and apologised afterwards. Soft warning, and enough with the personal attacks at each other. :D --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a chance to calm down after my last edit. When I wrote that I was extremely upset, but that's no excuse. I believe strongly in treating others with respect, especially in anonymous situations where there is no consequence for being a bastard. And so, in resorting to vulgarities and personal attacks, I've violated my own principles and I'm embarrassed to read my own words. Iscariot, SA, I went after you both in a very personal way, and I'm sorry.

Please understand that I meant every word, but I shouldn't have said it in that way. I do think you both treated that guy very poorly and got caught up in the freedom and anonymity of the internet, but then I did the same thing to you. There is a big difference when it comes to screwing with someone's ability to make a living, but still. In the future, I hope you'll both think twice about the way you deal with other people online, and I promise I won't be such a dickhead when I get angry.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 12:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot, it's not your place to be judege, jury and executioner of this man's employment chances -- over an allegation of zerging. You take delight in having a man's ability to support his family ruined because he was an alleged zerger 2 years ago? You take UD way too fucking seriously, you asshole.

On the other hand... It's not the wiki's responsibility to clean up every stupid thing every user and player may have typed. The wiki is not responsible for this person's stupid choices at another point in his life. This person chose to post his real name to several public forums -- not just the UD wiki... Is he contacting the this texas hamburger blog to ask his name be removed because he freely and with full cognizance wrote "I'd stick that ham-Dog up my rectum! :)"? Is he asking to be removed from this site where he's kind of a rude, trollish jerk? But if you think removing this gentleman's freely shared and posted information is the right call, then be prepared to honour every similar request in the future, warranted or otherwise. Your janitorial job just got a lot busier....... --WanYao 08:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal information has always been removable on sight anyway, hence why Personal Information is a scheduled deletion. Our janitor job has always had to encompass this. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

User:Joshuamonkey

Potatoes - C h e e s e 15:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This was a genuine ruling. =p I decided that the accused was potatoes of vandalism. -- C h e e s e 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalisms. x o x o 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Suicidalangel

Moved from main page.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

hurr sa is so bad, at least he isn't bullying people with his 'cratship.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 02:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm calling it like I see it. Tell me I'm wrong about you. And if I was a bully with my position I wouldn't have promoted him and then waited for him to stuff up to start bullying him. --

02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"a real folly by the community in allowing you to become a sysop cause you're a 'great guy' and 'headstrong'" And actually, it was your folly. You let him in, along with box. Dumbass.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 02:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Tell me a crat is anything but an elected tool of the community, you fool. --

02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Show me a 'crat who wouldn't promote someone if they actually wanted said user to be an 'op. You've already shown how biased you are as a 'crat.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The next fucking time you bring up your cratship in an argument I'm taking you straight to Misconduct. You tried it on me a few weeks ago and now you're trying it with SA. Enough. Cyberbob Talk 06:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha. Unfortunately, as SA and I were discussing in IRC just after the event, you don't understand the context of which I was saying it, which is why you would have pitifully taken it the way you did. Take me to misconduct at will, idiot. Which brings me to; are you blind? When in this argument did I even try and use my status to bully people in an argument? Even if I needed to in order to win this fight, I obviously couldn't, nor would I, nor did I. --

07:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Practically no one knows that you plan to retire after you drop being 'crat soon. Because you haven't said it publicly as far as I know. Well, except what you've just alluded to. Anyway, the fact of the matter is, to anyone who didn't know about it, it looked like you were threatening CB about his re-evaluation. I told you that didn't I?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

oh sorry I forgot that you weaseled your way out of it by saying "the community" instead of "me". whoops, my bad! by the way you're not particularly good at the Angry Wall of Text (too many awkward adjectives), maybe steer clear of that next time :) Cyberbob Talk 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You really are a fucking idiot (perhaps look at Misanthropy's bid and examine what I said at the very start followed by the community's involvement, then you'll understand properly the words I said, TIA). And why would I stop, they work on you so effectively. --

07:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, and no. If this is what you call "working so effectively" then lol@what you call "working badly". Cyberbob Talk 07:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything close to the way you work in this wiki, chump. Now , given I just interpreted your above ruling correctly, shut the fuck up and actually read the above case properly pls --

07:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Er. Did you just switch definitions of "working well" on the fly? Because by your original usage I'm working quite well here - you can't quite make yourself not reply to my posts. Cyberbob Talk 07:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Coming from the one user who has had a solid 2 year history of fishing for every last word this wiki has ever offered, that isn't much of a bother. --

08:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

...And again (also nice try at a change of tack). Cyberbob Talk 08:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As a point, SA wants all this putting back on the main page as he says it forms part of his defence as an involved party. As I've been threatened once today with an unwarranted escalation, I'm not doing it, and DDR has already refused to put it back and allow SA to defend himself. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

logs. pls. oh man, they are forged!!!1 --

10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved it because this doesn't involve the case. It's mainly about DDR being a crat, and if he's abusing his power as a badge. Frankly, that doesn'taffect whether SA changing the text penis in to a smilie was vandalism or not.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What I told SA in IRC. He thinks it somehow related to libellous claims I made against him in the post where I abused Misanthropy and gave a rant about impersonation, which I don't particularly agree with, imo. There wasn't anything particularly important which was moved and incase there is, there's a link to here for when the sysops review the case. --

11:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This case isn't vandalism. SA is merely contesting the size of Charlie's e-penis. A dispute, therefore, take it to arbitration.--Thadeous Oakley 10:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

For someone who was warned around July for the exact same thing, you seem to be pretty poor at establishing knowledge of the rule. --

13:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

lulz, laern to taek a joke, k?--

Thadeous Oakley

15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't even pretend to try and tell me you meant that post as a joke. Although it would make sense since like 95% of your other stupid admin posts, it's entirely wrong. --

20:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

SA is merely contesting the size of Charlie's e-penis that sentence alone should be an enormous indication that I'm in fact, get ready for it, not serious. Don't take everything so heavy, you of all persons should know with Bob as best friend. And of course its wrong, it's a joke, jeez. --

Thadeous Oakley

20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So what's your excuse for every other post regarding admin issues that you've made in the last 4 months? --

20:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I need an excuse? I'm sorry, where in the rulebook is mentioned normal members can't participate in admin issues? Nice, that sysops only elitism you have there. Sure, you may disagree with my edits, and they might not all be right, but I was unaware making mistakes is forbidden as well. --

Thadeous Oakley

21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't Ban SA - I loled at the edit. --Haliman - Talk 14:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't about whether we lold. It is, as Bob said, a well established rule and he knowingly broke it. --

20:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:| --Haliman - Talk 05:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

User:MisterGame

You lot should all be serving bans for ruling vandalism on that case. Don't any of you dare try and use the "spirit of the rules" line again when you've used the most petty and incorrect piece of rules lawyering to remove a user you don't like one last time before that ruling expires.

The relevant section from MG's arbitration ruling states:

"MisterGame is not to contribute to admin pages that don't ask for community input unless he is an involved party (the talk pages are still open to comment though). Admin pages such as A/D ask for community input (votes), while A/VB is discussed by sysops and involved parties only (reporting an A/VB case counts as being involved)."
Emphasis mine.

The relevant section of the A/M guidelines states:

"All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, not the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered."

All he's done by putting his comment directly on the main page is to save someone the trouble of moving it. It's not like you've even chosen to make this example on a real misconduct case either. Rak's been escalated before for his promotion bids, and given his contributions the case itself is a case of spamming admin pages with no real reason, but none of you are interested in dealing with that.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

First time you've gone for the 'ashamed' route, is it because you have no way of actually having us 'punished' for this outrage? --

06:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I summed up everything in my original post. Thanks for taking the time to explain everything to anyone who might read instead of making another petty point... --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

He had an arbitration ruling which said that he shouldn't contribute to admin pages unless they are ones that "ask for community input", and it was made clear that vote pages were the ones that asked for community input. Misconduct is decided by sysops, his input wasn't required, so he is in violation of arbies ruling.
But I'm sure he'll appreciate your unyielding support -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:15 18 December 2009 (BST)

Yes, that unyielding support that no doubt originates from a true sense of friendship - nay, kinship - between the two of them and not Iscariot's well-known affinity for the dramatic. Cyberbob Talk 12:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Karloth vois (2)

Verdict	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Wrongfully banned me from the #party channel in IRC. He would not accept the teachings of the One True god. Perma-ban requested.-- SA 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also support a perma-ban. Don't worry SA, he can't hurt you anymore :( -- Adward 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, how dare he demote us all :< --

^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't put joke reports on the main page, essay -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:59 10 December 2009 (BST)

It was not a joke! Can you not see the others that have suffered at the hands of Vois?-- SA 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

He gave me ops afterwards. It was glorious. I was like a god amongst ants. --DT

^PK 15:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I also support a perma-ban, but only for the "giving DT ops" part. That was a silly idea. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if you apologize for hurting my feelings.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 21:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Karloth vois

I again love how Iscariot gets to post all over uninvolved A/VB like he's a sysop. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Involved party idiot. And even if I wasn't providing the precedent that is applicable to the necessary escalation, I am one of the standard representatives of the Order on this wiki and it was our page that was vandalised. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

*checks* PK stands for Philosophe Knights. Doooooy. That was idiotic of me. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If i may

In relation to this [1] I do believe I made a very valid point on his discussion page in relations to this "impersonation." His talk page can be found here [2]. Its a pretty valid point that Guy is a member of Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service and given Umbrella's history of signatures, he is just going with the everyone else. Last time i checked, being Umbrella wasn't a valid reason to ban someone, despite what im pretty sure is several users wanting it as a reason. Also I wasn't sure if this should be put on the front page or the discussion, feel free to move it up front if it should be there. --

Timmah!

Talk

10:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, it was actually for this edit, not for code-stealing, I'm pretty sure. Dw. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was. Although the sig read I'm that guy, it was still a link to Mister Games Page. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 10:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

>.< and that would be why i need more sleep. I didn't even see that it was still linked to MisterGame's page. --

Timmah!

Talk

17:19, 6 December 2009 (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	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

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)

Revision as of 23:11, 6 December 2009 (view source) Suicidalangel (talk \| contribs) m (→‎[[User:Rosslessness]]) ← Older edit		Revision as of 00:56, 7 December 2009 (view source) Lelouch (talk \| contribs) (→‎[[User:Rosslessness]]) Newer edit →
Line 156:		Line 156:

	Vandalism, 48 hour ban!--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel\|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 23:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)		Vandalism, 48 hour ban!--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel\|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 23:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

			'''Misconduct''' - Demote the cunt.{{User:Lelouch/sig}} 00:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:56, 7 December 2009

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives

November 2009

User:Iscariot (3)

User:Necrofeelinya

User:Iscariot

User:A11an0n

User:J3D

User:Cyberbob240

User:Iscariot

User:Winman1

User:Dawgjz

December 2009

User:Joshuamonkey

User:Suicidalangel

User:MisterGame

User:Karloth vois (2)

User:Karloth vois

If i may

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

Search