UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning

Archives

Talk 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

General Discussion Archives

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5
• Archive6
• Archive7

April 2010

User:Imthatguy

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

03:10, 22 April 2010 (BST)

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

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

 

 

 

 

03:08, 22 April 2010 (BST)

User:Cornholioo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OMG HAI GUISE I HERE THEIR ARE BANS HAPNIN 13:37, 29 April 2010 (BST)

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

User:The Colonel

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

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

He is right you know. Impersonation, next time Kraus should stick his own signature at the end, not just edit some else his signed text.--Thadeous Oakley 18:50, 30 April 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's been here for over a year..... --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:52, 30 April 2010 (BST)

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

Maybe--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 20:17, 30 April 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly, only Aichon got it right here. Ross's ruling is flat-out premature if not wrong, for Colonel has made dangerreport's edits before. Calling it a newb mistake is poor reasoning. He's been actively contributing to this wiki for close to a year now, he's supposed to figure out by now that you can't just edit signed comments. Your idea of a newb mistake is extremely lenient.--Thadeous Oakley 00:27, 1 May 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

Unbolded Corn's vandalism. --Thadeous Oakley 00:27, 1 May 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

01:22, 1 May 2010 (BST)

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

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

 

 

 

 

06:28, 1 May 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

06:32, 1 May 2010 (BST)

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

 

 

 

 

06:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

+1--Thadeous Oakley 13:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)

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

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

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

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? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 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... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. --  AHLGTG 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. --  AHLGTG 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.--xoxo 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. -- Cheese 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. —Aichon— 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.xoxo 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:

HiteiKan (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandal
Action taken	Permaban

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

The edits in question:

• 1st
• Second
• 3rd

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? xoxo 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... xoxo 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. xoxo 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... xoxo 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. -- Cheese 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)

1. unban - with 2 warnings being listed in his a/vd entry --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. 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

Rosslessness (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

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. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just like Mississippi! —Aichon— 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)