Revision as of 17:02, 1 March 2009

2009, March Discussion

Scorproyale

Remember kids, according to Cheese, a newbie is someone who's been on the wiki since at least December 2007. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. -- C h e e s e 10:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And lo do we see the incompetence of this sysop, even though this user was warned against this behaviour in September 2007 and instruction given as to signing correctly, it is still a newbie error. Vandals be advised that repeating deliberate acts 18 months after you have previously been instructed mean this will be ruled a newbie error, go crazy. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Newbie is as newbie does -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:15 24 March 2009 (BST)

herp derp history wipe --Cyberbob 11:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bobs have it. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No fucking kidding!
He's still a user that only pops in to the wiki very rarely... once in 6 months. It makes it hard for them to understand wiking skills or terminology. I see no bad faith in his edits, just misunderstanding as to signing protocol that is hard to explain to someone who is active so infrequently -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:36 24 March 2009 (BST)

As Karlsbad explained it to him in September of that year, he also had it explained a month beforehand by Suicidal Angel. He was active over at least August to December of that year based on two warnings on his page over his conduct, that also explained how he should alter it, and an official warning given for vandalism by yourself. User was round often enough, had it explained often enough, this isn't a newbie error, he's not a newbie and it's been adequately explained to him previously as I have linked. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to understand, and the official warning I gave him was for a page wipe, not for screwing up his sig -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:54 24 March 2009 (BST)

I just discovered that you knew that this wasn't impersonation (you can't impersonate a crit 11), only 2 minutes after making this A/VB report. Stop wasting our time just because someone posts some POV comments that piss you off -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:11 24 March 2009 (BST)

So, let's be very clear on this, it is acceptable according to you and not impersonation, to create a page for a user that does not exist in the user space and then sign as that user linking the created page? Because that's going to create a whole host of fresh problems, especially around history wipes. Also, given that Nubis' creation of a Wiki Martyr account was ruled not vandalism even given the fact that I'd signed as it previously, I can only presume that another user taking this name is indeed legal? There also the fact that if some new user decided to register that name they would be attributed posts they did not make, especially concerning the aforementioned history wipe. Just so we're clear. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Condrakka created, and was warned for the wiki martyr incident, I believe, the problem arose as to wether the sock got a permban or not... but that was a deliberate act to annoy anther user. This is totally different, it's someone who is trying to sign under one of their UD characters name, which is different to their UDwiki login name. It's not bad faith to do so, unless it can be reasonably expected that they understand differently -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:34 24 March 2009 (BST)

The fact remains that he does not control the account he signs as, making it impersonation. An actual newbie (you know one that hasn't been around this place for over a year and has had things explained twice) could come along and register that account quite legally and be loaded with the posts made by this moron. This is entirely different to me signing my name with any name I choose and still linking back to my user page because even then if it appeared to be a future user, the clickable link shows it to be my contribution. However if I took over a non-existent user page and then started signing, any future user that appeared on the wiki would not be able to disprove that they made the posts in the event of the periodic history wipes. This is the letter, and underlying spirit of the signature and impersonation policies, that you may sign your name as one of your characters if you so choose, but the link in the sig must return to your actual username. He does not do this. This has been explained twice previously as demonstrated. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Go and fix the links to point to the newb's actual userpage then, if you want to be helpful -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:49 24 March 2009 (BST)

What? And have Conndraka, Nubis and Cheese rally round and escalate me for impersonation in that unbiased way they do? Fuck off. You're a trusted user, go demonstrate why we supposedly trust you. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

TRUSTED USER?????? It seems you are the only one who totally and forever biasedly nit picks ever single action the administrative teams makes, and then flames them all to no avail. Why don't instead of bashing them all and throwing out insults like a nine year old you present your case in, God forbid, a civil manner and rather than resorting to pulling out the beloved trusted users and thank you for your input phrases that everyone laughs at when someone dares to disagree with you, you could just make your points and leave it? I could guarantee that if you would ever do that for once in your life, a few sysops would probably readily agree with you and even help you with the points you are making, especially in this case where you have a valid point in saying he's not technically a newbie.--SirArgo ^Talk 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

IGNORE HIM--Karek^maps?! 14:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC) AHHHHH! -- Bob the Builder 17:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooooooooooooooo, bright flashy lights! Wait, what was going on? --Johnny Bass 18:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot is riled up that someone who's had an account for a while here got off without a warning because he was a "newbie." Bias all round, troll troll rabble rabble. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Scar

LoL that was a threat? what a pathetic excuse --Imthatguy 03:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Imthatguy

Ten bucks says Met fan. _■^■ 02:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

God, this guy is retarded in game and now he has found the wiki to screw around on...--SirArgo ^Talk 02:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And no, it's a separate guy. Trust me.--SirArgo ^Talk 02:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He has a bias I've Pked him multiple times --Imthatguy 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean Sir Argo --Imthatguy 02:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Metfan

Woah woah woah. Wait. This wasn't a flame war. We did it because it was funny, and you can even ask him. --Haliman - Talk 20:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And "it was funny" makes it not vandalism how, exactly? --Pestolence^(talk) 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that we didn't cause any real harm to anything? --Haliman - Talk 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed not really vandalism as its clearly a joke. However, the admin team can't know this. If more people would be doing this it would be impossible for sysops to decide whether its real vandalism or "just for teh LulZ" per case. So no vandalism, but certainly harm.--Thadeous Oakley 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

When the owner of the page steps up and says "We did it because it was funny," and it's all on pages belonging to them, then it doesn't really count. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that I know that it doesn't look like a joke to other people we won't do it anymore, but seriously. Is a warn and a ban necessary? --Haliman - Talk 20:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just get Met in here to clean this up, its not that hard.--ScouterTX 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's banned right now... --Haliman - Talk 22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Then someone should unban him ASAP. He just told me it was a joke via MSN.--ScouterTX 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement. It sounds like Nubis jumped the gun on this one. Also, you're a joke? Hooray! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am a joke, but so are you. And Nubis (but he's a goon so its not his fault I guess...) . And everybody else on this wiki. DURRR.--ScouterTX 23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hooray! And especially goons, I'd say. Wikinet - Srs Bsns. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, here's the problem with the current system. You don't have to be the victim to make the report. If someone files a case it has to be handled. If we don't handle it we run the risk of letting a vandal tear things up and make unwanted edits which makes more work to fix. If we do handle it and it turns out to be 2 people that know each other just goofing around then things like this happens. However, most of the cases aren't 2 people screwing around. And when it comes to Haliman/Umbrella people there have been a lot of cases that were legit vandalism. I didn't "jump the gun" by handling a case posted on A/VB. Maybe you should mention to the person that reported it that it's an ok edit. That's the person that should have spoken to the people involved before making the case in the first place. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not an easy task when anyone could report it and we're not exactly clairvoyant on the subject - someone could report it, a sysop see it, and have punishment metered out before either of the joking parties knew what hit them. And leaving a note "I'm his friend, blah blah, just messin' around" isn't going to get everyone to ignore it when it looks like it could be vandalism. Could you at least remove the ban from his record so it doesn't have to escalate if he commits actual vandalism later? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ban removed. we're not exactly clairvoyant on the subject applies to sysops, too. However, in cases like these it can and should be reversed when it is discovered it was made in error. The first edit was not "vandalism" and the second link was not specific enough to be investigated. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Oh Lord! Here comes the noise! *Braces for Iscariot's hate/swear filled multiple timed italicized "defense"*--SirArgo ^Talk 05:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This one's going to be messy...--Super Nweb 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Get your hard hats and flak jackets out, people. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 06:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Always wanted to use this qoute, and now I can, "This is going to be one wild night" --Super Nweb 07:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Always act in good faith, never bad faith." I don't think bashing religion on a wiki about a zombie GAME is in good faith.--Super Nweb 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant when you're talking about a crucifix suggestion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:56 5 March 2009 (BST)

The suggestion was to use it as a melee weapon for 1dmg and 25% accuracy..... how is that religion? That is using a block of wood (or metal) to hit someone! It had nothing to do with "Divine or magic" it was completely normal. There was no reason to make personal insults to someone because they suggested something you didn't like, and there was no reason to mention molesting minors. Or insulting someone's beliefs for no good reason " torture, murder and discrimination perpetrated by a group of ignorant zealots for the last 2000 years" hitting someone with a crucifix has nothing to to with discrimination.... This is an ongoing trend with him and it is hurting the wiki as a whole.--Super Nweb 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably the "while shouting religious phrases" part. --Janus ^talk 22:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is in flavor since it is useless to shout them but people still do it isn't "You call upon god to smite these zombies for OAP doing 100DMG"... It is just flavor text and even if you don't agree with it I don't bash you for what you think.--Super Nweb 23:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It may just be my limited experience with the sysop process talking here, but I don't think this is about the "facts" of your statements, Iscariot, it's about the statements themselves. You can say "six million jews were killed by Hitler" and you'd be correct. Your statement would be factual, if not relevant. But if you then added "and good riddance" there'd be a problem. No one here is trying to debate you on the facts or what you're saying, they're trying to make you stop using said facts (true or otherwise) to harass people. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He's not insulting the suggestions, he's insulting the people bringing the suggestions, and even people discussing them. Anyone he sees who has a different set of beliefs than he does gets it. Quote: "Awww. Argo, are you one of these delusional fuckwits who believes that some omnipresent father figure will spank those who are mean to you after you die?" That has nothing to do with the suggestion, the entire statement is meant to belittle other users simply because they don't agree. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 08:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what you need to take into account is these are personal attacks. He wants to make these people feel bad. Just because it is a crucifix suggestion, that has ZERO to do with suddenly going lol priests but raep kids. Anyone who believes in a Gawd is a dumfuk. In fact, if he had posted it like that, this case would be ruled vandalism in a snap of the fingers. He uses the good grammar as a shield, as I have said in the past. This is not commenting on the suggestion or even what it's about, but rather a post to hurt people. It is a personal attack and it's blatant trolling.--SirArgo ^Talk 08:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, even your "worst case" pseudo-quote would be unlikey to have been even brought here, and even if it had, ===> arbies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:58 5 March 2009 (BST)

And as Nubis said above, that Iscariot tried to quickly dismiss as bias, is that this isn't an isolated incident. This is an ongoing thing.--SirArgo ^Talk 08:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no civility policy, and many people have made much worse comments on crucifix suggestions before today. Just my 2 cents. --Pestolence^(talk) 12:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no formal civility policy but a 'Crat was demoted (and ultimately banned) for constant harassment of users and others have been banned for death threats. There is a clear pattern of abuse here. The bias here is that one user can make a comment construed as a death threat once and get banned but another user can constantly torment and bully users and get less than a slap on the wrist sometimes when the attending sysops have the balls to stand up to his whining about being persecuted. The pattern and history is clear.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe he was in fact demoted for removing a nomination, which ended in a farcical demotion, and then one pissed off 'crat deciding to leave.-- Adward 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The case started from the nomination thing, but quickly evolved into a case about his behaviour. The only punishment for his bad behaviour was demotion from crat to sysop. That's right, he wasn't even demoted to a regular user. He was banned and demoted because of the coup. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Now let's have the accurate version. The case was about the nomination as an example of his continuous bullying (he didn't have to remove it - he could have voted against it). The community voiced that they were tired of his attitude and his subsequent actions through the case made many other sysops sour on him also. The actual punishment (demotion to user - because lose of crat status was a given) was still in question when he posted his manifesto and de-opped everyone (including ops that weren't involved). He then banned himself permanently (which the sysops agreed to reduce to 6 months). It's a great cautionary tale that others should live by. Don't be an asshole.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't accurate. The punishment had already been voted on and it was determined to be demotion from crat. It's all right here, at the beginning of the section before Grim's rant. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Its obvious that Iscariot is in fact the reincarnation of Jezus, spreading (read:harrasing) the true word (read:drama) of God (read: Grim). And now he is being crucified on the same crucifix he denied power. Irony? --Thadeous Oakley 16:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw mention of the host TOS being brought up in the case. I can't be 100% sure, but if no acknowledgment of the TOS's existence was made at our signup, I don't think that we're bound by it. You can't just be arbitrarily forced into accepting a contract without being made aware of it's existence. --Johnny Bass 22:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We as users may not be bound to it, but Kevan (and anyone who pays for the host's services) is. There's precedent for things being removed or edited on the basis that Kevan would be liable for their existance. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 22:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. You are bound by it because the site is bound by it and as a user of the site you are bound by the rules of the administration. We enforce ToS violations, that's Kevan's edict, you're not forced into a contract in any manner, you're simply required to behave reasonably. Also, a note, stop listening to Iscariot, you know the type of shit he does, you should know better than to trust his version of things by this point and it sounds very much like you're commenting here because he whined about admin abuse in a channel you share. --Karek^maps?! 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot can be pretty much of an arsehole, but, much like Boxy, I'm not seeing the cause for a vandalism case here and the two voters who have gone for Vandalism in their votes have such an obvious agenda that it borders on the hysterical. Citing a four-day-old TOS page (which is still a work-in-progress) in a case such as this just reeks of desperation in the same way as some of Iscariot's own cases have in the past. Fight fire with water, not more fire. --Papa Moloch 23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Should probably clarify. The ToS isn't a work in progress, the wiki page regarding it is but the ToS has been around for a while and has always been binding. Users have been permabanned in the past for ToS violations but it's rare because of the extreme behavior required to actually put the wiki itself at risk. It's a perfectly valid thing to cite just not particularly relevant here. --Karek^maps?! 04:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"stuck up, hostile, mean spirited, and petty" Hmm, maybe we should promote him and stand back while he attempts a coup... Not the quickest solution but it has worked in the past ;) --Honestmistake 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Shut up, you delusional fuckwit. Did your non-existant god tell you to say that? Tell him to fuck off. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Abcvirus

What the fuck? If there's ever proof of bias in the sysop team against certain users, this is fucking it! 13 edits, ALL vandalism and a slap on the wrist from Boxy. Well thank fuck for you!

Let's look at his edits that you deem 'constructive' shall we:
Removal of factual information
Impersonation of an admin
NPOV tactical planning
Wiki-fying earlier vandalism
Blanking of a community page
An alteration to earlier vandalism

That's not to mention the systematic blanking of every page belonging to the largest event in the game. So you fucking tell me which of these edits was constructive you biased twat. If you had any fucking pride you'd take yourself over to Demotions for such incompetence.

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

These four edits to the Shackleville page] were an attempt to be constructive by a total newbie (possibly a n00b, we'll see if he has the ability to learn from mistakes), even though they totally stuffed up the page and violated the NPOV conventions of suburb pages. As I said on the main page, it was a close call, and perhaps one that other sysops may want to over-rule. Hell, any more trouble from him without clear contributive edits, and I'll over-rule myself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:23 1 March 2009 (BST)

Yeah, go ahead and try and justify it any way you choose. Edit like that to suburb pages have been ruled vandalism in the past, people who have committed such blatant vandalism have been perma-ed in the past. Your unrepentant bias is the reason the metagame avoids this resource. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 04:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Iscariot on this. Maybe the Shackleville edits were "constructive," but the wiping of the other pages is clearly destructive. That, and he basically insulted (vaguely) whoever created the page of being an idiot. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The disagreement isn't about whether this was vandalism or not, he got a warning for it, it's whether it should have been an instant permban or not. There is no provisions for anything in between, it's either an A/VD escalation or a permanent ban if there is no indication of positive contribution -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:58 1 March 2009 (BST)

I realize, I was saying I lean towards the insta-perma. More harm done that good, and showed some actual harmful intent. :P --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Boxy knows full well he's showing bias, if someone did the same thing except did The Dead's page, The Random's or The DHPD's it would have been an instant perma ban. One rule for sysops and their chosen causes, one for everyone else.

A single warning compounds that, I count six acts of vandalism:
Blanking a category page
Blanking a user sub page
Blanking another user sub page
Blanking a user's personal page
Re-blanking a category page after his vandalism was reverted
Re-blanking a user's personal page after his vandalism was reverted

According to this policy, six individual acts gives a one month ban. Is it ruled that way? Oh, no. Remember people going on a vandalism spree is now fine, just update a location danger report before you do and attack a group the sysops don't like. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A vandalism spree (regardless of how many individual edits is contained in it) has counted as a single escalation as long as I've been here. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A vandal spree from a new user with little to no contributory edits generally results in a perma ban though.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 14:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is a strictly defined exception. And it isn't "little to no constructive edits", it's "no constructive edits". --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Which the content of his edits can be contested. Boxy says his edits were "trying" to be constructive. I don't think they can be really classified as that.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 15:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... me neither. My point was just that if one of the edits was found to be constructive, he should only get a warning, not a one month ban. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So now he doesn't know how VB works anymore. It's like Iscariot gets dumber every day.--Karek^maps?! 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether he deserves a perma or not, I do agree that this is outright unconstructive.--Thadeous Oakley 15:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it's right on the borderline for me. The page blanking is obvious, bad faith vandalism, but some of the suburb page stuff seems to be the usual misunderstanding that suburb pages are survivor territory, and shouldn't be giving away "super secret survivor intel". Just rule for a permban yourself and let a third party decide, if you think he deserves it. I really am ambivalent about the outcome -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:47 2 March 2009 (BST)

Um, the above post was on the main page, and was more a reply to SA than Thadeous Oakley, but meh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:20 4 March 2009 (BST)

Let me do the math here. The sysops are biased against Iscariot. Iscariot is biased against new users (like Sgt. Raiden, this guy, and others) But it is the sysops' fault that the "metagaming community avoids this resource". Makes perfect sense SYSOPS!!!!! --– Nubis ^NWO 15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The main reason that the metagaming community avoids the wiki probably has more to do with the basic nature of the wiki itself. It's designed to be used as an information source that is easily accessed and updated by everybody. That's basically incompatible with the interests of metagaming groups, given their need to plan in private. It's also an unwieldy for use as a "chat" forum -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:20 4 March 2009 (BST)

Considering he has begun to post every day, I think he would take even a short ban as a bucket of cold water to the face. It might be enough of a wake-up call to get him to straighten up and fly right. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 10:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This case is closed. Making a new case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

2009, February Discussion

User:Iscariot

It's unethical but not against the rules. Like drowning puppies.--x o x o 10:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you see "Removed" in this section? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure drowing puppies falls under animal cruelty which is in fact against the law.--Thadeous Oakley 11:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

He's Australian, if the kangaroos do it it's legal. --Karek^maps?! 04:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I do so enjoy living in a country where I can legally feed a live puppy to a burmese. It makes me smile whenever I remember that the Andrex puppy is just a happy meal with legs. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 09:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P sure you can't do that. --Cyberbob 10:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely sure you can. Live feeding is legal in the UK and the law makes no distinction between mice, rabbits and puppies. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Where in the UK are you Iscariot?--DiscoInferno 11:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The northern bit, the City of Steel. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My father was a Leeds man. Don't know enough history to talk much about it. I myself lived in London for two years, right near Craven Cottage.--DiscoInferno 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Serenas

Izumi? Again? No shit? Wow, isn't that like 30 alts?--SirArgo ^Talk 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

63, not counting these new ones.--'BP^Tmz 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Spartan King Leonidas

lol cheesys drunk :) --x o x o 08:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

That's a fucking great idea.--x o x o 01:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I see there is that because it's not an official warning, he may just delete it off of his page with extreme prejudice.--SirArgo ^Talk 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You missed the bit where a soft warning is elitist bullshit that allows sysops to warn people who haven't violated any policy or actually committed vandalism.--x o x o 01:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not an official warning, it's telling them to stop. I could do it if I wanted to. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's official in the sense that 3 from a sysop can equal a vandal escalation. And considering not one of the actions that got the warnings is in itself ban worthy a problem arises.--x o x o 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So? You're told to stop doing something bad, and you're escalated for continuing to do the bad thing. Common sense. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The catch is the soft warnings can be about anything, not necessarily the same thing. Also it's not a "bad thing", it's generally engaging the sysops in discussion regarding their decisions. Why argue back when they can move your comments to the talk page and 'soft warn' you :P --x o x o 03:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about this case, and SA saying that this will "serve as a last chance" is exactly the same as saying it's a "soft warning"... only he's not actually going to say the words, and hence you won't jump all over it like it's some sort of great conspiracy -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:06 8 February 2009 (BST)

kudos to SA then. You could learn a lot from him you know.--x o x o 04:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So you've got no problems with people getting a non-escalation warning to stop doing something... you just don't want them called soft warnings. Excellent... now can we move all this rubbish to the talk page without you crying conspiracy? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:55 8 February 2009 (BST)

No.--x o x o 06:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:J3D

Look at the case below you and please report everyone for the sake of the wiki and not your bitchfights, Bob. Liberty 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Edge of Extinction

I would like to bring this group to the attention of the Sysops for a few reasons. I will start with the smallest first:

Harassment at our forums. Members from this group are continually visiting our forums to spam and make vulgar remarks to members. They have been repeatedly banned and posts deleted in vein attempts to keep them from coming back.
Supposed editing of our wiki pages. This is yet to be confirmed since I do not know how to track I.P. addresses.
Hacking, coinciding with their re-appearance there have been attempted hackings of both my U.D. accounts and personal accounts non-related to Urban Dead, this includes my AIM account and e-mail. Fortunately my AIM account is old so it appears they got little out of it other than changing my password.

Indeed I cannot link the hacker(s) to EoE, but, since the coincides fit so well, being that these jerks hate UC so much and apparently me in particular, with the hackers connection to U.D., I thought it warranted such actions.--President Jackson 14:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

arbies Linkthewindow Talk 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not even arbies, they've apparently done nothing on the wiki -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:16 4 February 2009 (BST)

*Faceplams* I assumed that there was at least some element of hostility on the wiki, and arbitration has been used previously for solving those disputes. So meh. Linkthewindow Talk 02:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We have nothing to do with outside forums.
We don't have the IP they are using on your forums therefore we can't tell if it is the same as the ones editing your page. And even if we did we wouldn't really do anything about except revert the vandalism and warn the account.
Hacking issues on UD accounts should be taken up with Kevan. Hacking non-related accounts has nothing to do with the wiki. If they tried to hack your wiki account we can ban your account and you can make a new one.

Basically, this isn't the place for this complaint. ---– Nubis ^NWO 00:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WOOT

pasted for the sake of me not getting VB'd for deleting Argo's unconstructive comment- Liberty 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Constructive edit is Constructive--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yea, cause I am totally trying to troll... fucking idiot --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, he cussed at me! Oh dear Lord I am defeated! He must not be a troll after all!--SirArgo ^Talk 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

People have been warned in the past for spammage, Argo. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem now its been moved to talk though? Liberty 03:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize, but if you wish to put up a case against me go ahead, I am guilty.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That was in response to your vandal report: Check his contribs, he has to be breaking some policy. See here-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So I should have posted all of the links, when someone could have just as easily checked his contributions and had instant actions to them all?--SirArgo ^Talk 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't need to post all of links. I was just showing you precedent for spamming people's talk pages. You've done nothing wrong. :) -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thank you then! Next time I'll just put up the links myself, I stupidly did a rush job on this one.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh now I understand what you did on my page. But spamming is fun, so I wouldnt care.--Thadeous Oakley 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's precedent that says this is OK provided you spammed under 20 talk pages, which you did. If you care enough to track it down feel free, i can't find where it is. I do remember it being referenced in relation to user:nallan spamming people's user pages with invited to the ALiM Party but i don't recall where it was discussed...--x o x o 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just worked through all of the archives, and I didn't see any cases of Nallan getting V/B'd for it. :/ --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 00:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

<3 --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i did the same, not sure if i'm going crazy or if it was discussed on a talk page. It's come up in relation to other people too, some guy wanting people to join a group or some shit i think...anyway it doesn't really matter. I think karek has something to do with it, then again i could be making up this entire thing... :| --x o x o 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably ruled on it or addressed a ruling on it. I have on similar cases in the past, spamming is against the rules when it's obviously spam. When it's not and more along the lines of mass recruiting the general rule of thumb is ~20. The example that would probably stand out the most for my involvement is WelcomeNewbie, there have been at least two cases, one where I reported it under the ~20 rule and one where I reported a user because he was spamming WelcomeNewbie templates on users who had obviously been gone for a year or more. --Karek^maps?! 00:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

lol airborne.--x o x o 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea.... maybe if I cared enough... thanks anyway--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 00:03, 4 February 2009 (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)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{:UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 03}}
+{{:UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 02}}
 = General Discussion =

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:02, 1 March 2009

Contents

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives

2009, March Discussion

Scorproyale

Scar

Imthatguy

Metfan

User:Iscariot

User:Abcvirus

2009, February Discussion

User:Iscariot

User:Serenas

User:Spartan King Leonidas

User:Iscariot

User:J3D

Edge of Extinction

WOOT

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox