UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 01: Difference between revisions
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 01|January 2011]]= | =[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 01|January 2011]]= | ||
==[[User:Chrysalis]]== | ==[[User:Chrysalis]]== | ||
Okay, how does checkuser confirm? Hasn't the IP been banned for three times now?--[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | Okay, how does checkuser confirm? Hasn't the IP been banned for three times now?--[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style="color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style="color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
:Yep. I'm presuming the accounts were made beforehand (which explains the user bans being ineffective), but I've banned the IP itself twice, so I have no idea what's going on there.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | :Yep. I'm presuming the accounts were made beforehand (which explains the user bans being ineffective), but I've banned the IP itself twice, so I have no idea what's going on there.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
::Then there is something wrong here. This has happened before though, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_07#Izumi_Alts where] Izumi somehow managed to bypass an IP block and created 17 puppets. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style= "color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | ::Then there is something wrong here. This has happened before though, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_07#Izumi_Alts where] Izumi somehow managed to bypass an IP block and created 17 puppets. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style="color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|12px]]</span> [[User_Talk:MisterGame|<span style="color: black; background-color: white">'''''Talk''''']]</span> 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::Frankly, I don't honestly care, because we can just keep banning her accounts when they crop up and reverting her edits. She'll give up before we do. Also, there's no evidence that it was just one IP in those cases. The idea was that she had access to several.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 23:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | :::Frankly, I don't honestly care, because we can just keep banning her accounts when they crop up and reverting her edits. She'll give up before we do. Also, there's no evidence that it was just one IP in those cases. The idea was that she had access to several.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 23:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
::::Proxies, maybe? --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 00:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC) | ::::Proxies, maybe? --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 00:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
::You need to uncheck the " Block anonymous users only " box, or it only bans anon's (who can't post anyway, so it's a bit of a redundant option here anyway). I unbanned and rebanned it. It should stick now <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:32 7 January 2011 (BST)</span></small> | ::You need to uncheck the " Block anonymous users only " box, or it only bans anon's (who can't post anyway, so it's a bit of a redundant option here anyway). I unbanned and rebanned it. It should stick now <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:32 7 January 2011 (BST)</span></small> | ||
:::Wrong, wrong, and most definitely wrong. Did you ever stop to think that just maybe I'm better at this than you? FYI I have a single IP. I simply know how to mask it from your primitive blocks. I'm not even doing this for any real reason anymore, aside from laughing at your attempts to keep me from coming back. It's not going to work. ^_^ [[User:Via|Via]] 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
=={{Usr|Lady Fate}}/{{Usr|Pikachu}}== | =={{Usr|Lady Fate}}/{{Usr|Pikachu}}== |
Revision as of 21:19, 8 January 2011
Archives
Talk Archives
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General Discussion Archives
General Discussion
JISOR/Halfdan and Mekhan/Tarpenz
Assuming these 4 are all ruled vandalism, are their votes in the election all struck? Would remove 2 additional votes from Stelar, leaving them at 23. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- We'd strike only the second (time-wise) of the votes for each candidate; e.g. JISOR's first two votes would remain, but any by Halfdan Pisket would be struck. Same with Mekhan/Tarpenz — Mekhan's votes remain, but Tarpenz's have been struck. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 12:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- I corrected the title for clarity. I have not been connected to the other two accounts. -- 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- JISOR’s final vote was made after both of Pisket’s. If a user has two votes, I believe it would make sense for all votes struck after the first two votes by a single user. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 14:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Sister Mary
moved from main page
Blanked User talk:Sniper4625 - normally I would give benefit of the doubt, but they seem quite hostile, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. Regards~ Sniper4625 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I won't need any benefit of doubt, thanks for considering my feelings though. After reading I wanted to have my talk page protected both Sniper and Dragontard came to write on my page - if you don't want any hostile behavior I suggest you fuck off and leave me alone :) I don't even know who the fuck you guys are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:37 June 3 2018.
- Oh right. Ban the fuck outta my account if you feel like it Mr. System-Operator-Boss. I have no problem editing some page to get my message across to people who have a hard time getting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC).
- -- LABIA on the INTERNET Dunell Hills Corpseman #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Now now, there's no need to be rude and start flinging insults. --Dragonshardz (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Might I inquire why you decided the best choice of action to a harmless greeting was a rule-breaking act of vandalism? Quite rude. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Given talk pages are a pretty important element of regulating user behavior without needing to ban anyone the instant they step out of line, I'm really not sure Sister Mary has any interest in learning or following any of the community norms of the wiki. Swissaboo (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per their talk page now they apparently have gotten many such pages deleted, which somewhat confuses me. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Adding onto this, in their protection request they clearly have no interest in bothering with the proper formatting for responding to other users and on their talk page they have placed the nominated for deleting template without any actual nomination for deletion having occurred. I don't know how much of this is actually against wiki RULES (except perhaps that last one?) but they're very clearly running roughshod over the expected standards of behavior. Swissaboo (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure you meant WIKI LAW when you said RULES. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This was exactly the point of having my talk page protected - the horde/jack/whateverzergs can't seem to leave me alone :) Sister Mary (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Jack got run out of town on a rail. Try again. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The reason is pretty simple, and I thought you got the message, but okay, I will clarify for you why = I don't like you :) I will eat my warning with pleasure, don't worry about it! But.. this isn't your first time harrassing people, correct? I like that you feel like you have the upperhand over a guy that made 200+ edits within the last 24 hours, and only vandalized a single page of a user that didn't really go about making "a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki" by trying to trigger me by invading my talk page. Im looking forward as to how this will play out. I will just make another account and keep on editing from there so I didn't lose anything catching myself a warning, other than shifting focus to you ugly bunch of motherfuckers :D Sister Mary (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (See, I use my template just like you want to!)
- Isn't sockpuppeting to avoid wikipunishments in itself a punishable offense? You just keep digging. Sniper4625 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)
- Are you back, Jack? Because you're making the same "alts!" argument he did, and he was similarly disproven. I'm not sure how I put words in your mouth when you said "I will just make another account and keep on editing from there," but well, I did appreciate your attempt to sic Aichon on my compatriot. Too bad it failed. Sniper4625 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)
- You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- AHHHHHHHH :D I was actually just waiting for someone to pull out the "you're a Yocum" card! Sure dude - let's say im a Jack. I must be a great Jack. I mean, I edited 2 suburbs completely and have been editing the EMRP for 6 months on another account - but sure! YOU GOT ME! :D Im getting the idea that your dick is all so im gonna leave you to play with that! I will be back with another account, to edit another 200+ locations. Meanwhile you guys will have to enjoy yourself being annoying towards someone else! :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2018.
Vandalism and a Warning. Don't blank other's pages. I'll serve the warning officially over at the Sister Mary page, but I assume you'll see it here as well. And yes, warnings carry over between accounts. —Aichon— 02:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- So...how does the wiki handle a user rage-reverting their own edits? --Dragonshardz (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Rage reverting? I edited 3 locations due to them being wrong :D Aichon you said something about the parties in question should talk, the rest should shut up. If this doesnt qualify as harrassment I don't know what will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC).
Sounds to me like someone is finally bored of this game and is getting one last laugh out of the community by being as much as a cunt as possible on his way out. Either that or it's his time of month and he's out of pads.---- FoD PK Praise Rando!06:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah" A ZOMBIE ANT 00:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
User: Revenant
Now think about it, I have a very distant memory of a user who used to remove all signatures of everyone else on their talk page as a kind of norm, but I can't remember who it was, or if it actually happened. Might have been Iscariot, maybe even Finis. Does this sound right to anybody? A ZOMBIE ANT 22:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was somebody, but fuck if I remember who it was. I think the logic was that if there was no signature, they could do whatever they wanted to the content and it didn’t count as impersonation? ЯЭV€NΛИ† ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
User:The Goth Store Owner
*snif* *snif* I smell drama. Is there drama ? OH MA GOSH IS DRAMA!!! --hagnat 21:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The sooner they learn that 90% of this dispute should be on A/Arbitration the sooner I can sleep at night. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a minimum time cases need to stay on the main VB page? Can't this shit just be moved to archives and locked? --KCLZA 21:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- A/VB is now archived on an annual basis, so it'll be cycled in January 2016. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
So quiet
* shuffles around looking for drama to feed on, finds none *
What happened to this place ? --hagnat 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me to drop the DramaLevel. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hagnat spamming an administrative talk page was the excuse I needed to fulfill our VB case quota required by Kevan. To the wikicourt with him at once! -- Spiderzed▋ 21:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you can update the DramaLevel to the lesser level of drama. This place is so quiet. --hagnat 16:23, 2 February 2016 (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? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 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)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 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)
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)
January 2011
User:Chrysalis
Okay, how does checkuser confirm? Hasn't the IP been banned for three times now?--Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. I'm presuming the accounts were made beforehand (which explains the user bans being ineffective), but I've banned the IP itself twice, so I have no idea what's going on there.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then there is something wrong here. This has happened before though, where Izumi somehow managed to bypass an IP block and created 17 puppets. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't honestly care, because we can just keep banning her accounts when they crop up and reverting her edits. She'll give up before we do. Also, there's no evidence that it was just one IP in those cases. The idea was that she had access to several.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Proxies, maybe? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't honestly care, because we can just keep banning her accounts when they crop up and reverting her edits. She'll give up before we do. Also, there's no evidence that it was just one IP in those cases. The idea was that she had access to several.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- You need to uncheck the " Block anonymous users only " box, or it only bans anon's (who can't post anyway, so it's a bit of a redundant option here anyway). I unbanned and rebanned it. It should stick now -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:32 7 January 2011 (BST)
- Wrong, wrong, and most definitely wrong. Did you ever stop to think that just maybe I'm better at this than you? FYI I have a single IP. I simply know how to mask it from your primitive blocks. I'm not even doing this for any real reason anymore, aside from laughing at your attempts to keep me from coming back. It's not going to work. ^_^ Via 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then there is something wrong here. This has happened before though, where Izumi somehow managed to bypass an IP block and created 17 puppets. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Lady Fate/Pikachu
I just noticed a similar editing pattern by Lady Kikyou. Might be worth looking into. ~ 06:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
So do you guys run a checkuser on any new accounts that make edits to the Lockettside Valkyries page?--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 14:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. A couple of sops have Izumi's favourite pages on a watchlist and if anyone edits them they go look at them, and its a case by case thing. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone might want to checkuser Sixclaw as well. If Vapor's talk page isn't hint enough, check the timing on Lady Kikyou's last contib and Sixclaw's first contrib. Even if checkuser doesn't come back as a positive match, it's still worth checking anyway. —Aichon— 08:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)