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 2011

User:Laughing Man 2

It is pretty clearly implied that a handle is expected. If we're being legalistic about this then I would note that "handle" is not actually defined, so there isn't actually any limitation on counting the whole sig as a "handle". Furthermore, I would point out that it says "reader" and not "editor", implying that there should not be a need to edit the page in order to find out who wrote a comment. Furthermore, a red link still clearly shows who actually signed the post; what is effectively I blank space doesn't. I'd also note that I can easily click a red link whereas actually clicking n the 1px by 1px box took a lot longer. To be honest though, we shouldn't need to argue this: There isn't really a grey area in the intention of the policy; there is merely attempted abuse of the fact that the policy wasn't written by a lawyer.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:28, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Handle is a pretty commonly-used term. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:51, 30 April 2011 (BST)

True, but I thought "easy" was a pretty common term as well but some people seem to be having problems with the concept.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:37, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Alright, how about we take a page out of Thadeous's book, shall we? Ahem. "Alright you dumb motherfuckers, give me the exact rule that has been broken, none of this "spirit" bullshit that just makes you look like an asshole looking for a reason to ban someone. If you can't, shut the fuck up and drop it already." Hmmm, that's an awfully good impression if I do say so myself, better watch out or I might get warned for impersonation. --モッズはホモです 17:02, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Thads book only has three pages and it took him ages to do all the colouring properly. --Rosslessness 17:09, 30 April 2011 (BST)

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:34, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Outside now, let's settle this once and for all. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:40, 30 April 2011 (BST)

That doesn't seem that fun. --Rosslessness 17:50, 30 April 2011 (BST)

How about the one which says "Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". Tell me how the decision to change his signature in such as way that it may comply with the precise wording of the rules but certainly not with the intention, and doing so purely in an attempt to spite the sysops, was a "good-faith attempt to improve this wiki"?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:37, 30 April 2011 (BST)

If signing with a “.” was fine (and it was, and it was a sysop doing it), I don't see how this is really any worse. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:42, 30 April 2011 (BST)

In my opinion,it shouldn't be but that's neither here nor there. For me, at least you can see a "." in order to click it; despite knowing that the link to his signature was there, the fact that the box is invisible meant that it took me half a minute to actually be able to click it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:13, 30 April 2011 (BST)

So what you're saying is that he is following the rules. Great, glad we cleared that up. Show's over folks, pack it up. --モッズはホモです 17:51, 30 April 2011 (BST)

No, are you being deliberately dumb? I am saying that he may be technically following the specific policy on signatures (and if he is then it's only by the strictest possible reading of them) but by attempting to abuse a loophole in the rule he is breaching the general rule that bad-faith edits are vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:58, 30 April 2011 (BST)

"I am saying that he may be technically following the specific policy on signatures" Looks like this whole thing is a waste of a nice Saturday afternoon then. --ShaqFu 18:06, 30 April 2011 (BST)

"but by attempting to abuse a loophole in the rule he is breaching the general rule that bad-faith edits are vandalism."--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:13, 30 April 2011 (BST)

If "bad-faith edits" were as bad as you're making them out to be then 90% of this wiki should be deleted right now. That said, who are you to say whether or not it's in good or bad faith? Are you Laughing Man? No? Then stop assuming you know what you're talking about. He could have easily just left it as it was, but no, he actually changed it so it's within the rules. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. --モッズはホモです 18:33, 30 April 2011 (BST)

I don't believe that 90% of edits on this wiki are bad faith. The point is: If you want to argue technicalities then, yes, there is a rule which he has breached and it is a rule that is there precisely because of cases like this. It is the job of the Sysops to decide whether or not it is bad faith: hence the rulings at the bottom of each case. In this case, it is blatantly obvious from his comments that Laughing Man is not acting in good faith. No, he couldn't have left it as it was: That was a clear breach of the policy; the rules aren't optional.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:17, 30 April 2011 (BST)

You are breaching the general rule that you're not supposed to assume bad-faith as per Supreme Wiki Law handed down from on high by the Mighty Jimbo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith . If the rule as worded is ambiguous, rewrite the rule. This is the Urban Dead wiki, not law school. --ShaqFu 18:37, 30 April 2011 (BST)

No no, this is actually a legally binding court. Judy Herself looks to us for precedent. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 19:36, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Frankly, nobody here gives a fuck what Jimmy Wales has to say. As the General, 100%.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 19:39, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Sorry that His Majesty Jimbo disagrees with you, I know that it must be hard to deal with. Life is hard. --ShaqFu 20:03, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Just so you know, Jimbo Wales said: "I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think."

1)That rule is not present on the Urban Dead Wiki. Jimbo isn't our "benevolent dictator".

2)Wikipedia says that "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." i.e. You assume good faith until you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

3)Wikipedia says that Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden.

4)I plan to, but I find it rather sad that it is necessary to spell out that which should be obvious (and is to most people).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:17, 30 April 2011 (BST)

5.) This is not Wikipedia. (Not that you would get far over there with a sig like this.) -- Spiderzed█ 20:56, 30 April 2011 (BST)

No but all of the things that he's brought up have always been applied here. Specifically that gaming the system to make a point is still not ok and the assumption of good faith is given until demonstrated otherwise. Generally trying to abuse the letter of the rules to spite the spirit proves the second and is the first. It's always been understood that signatures need to be easily identifiable as to who they belong to and the policy was frequently enforced as such.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:21, 30 April 2011 (BST)

You know what my favourite rule is? "Avoid submitting reports which are petty." --モッズはホモです 21:44, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism To quote thad the last time he threw his weight around, since aparrently it is okay to do so, Shut the fuck up. Also do people seriously not have other things to do? This is incredibly petty. Serious Post Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:12, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Obviously you don't have better things to do. And please don't make mock rulings on the main page in future. Tah -- boxy 00:28, 1 May 2011 (BST)

who was mocking? it was a serious post, as denoted by "serious post" in my LINKED SIG. Seriously, do your job and dont tamper with votes. Thad gets away with it because he's in the special club, and mine doesnt stand because i dont know the secret handshake or whatever. I'm disappointed at the blatant favouritism and vote fixing displayed by you boxy. Serious Post Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01:03, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Vandal banning isn't an open vote. Sysops make the decision -- boxy 03:41, 1 May 2011 (BST)

User:DCC

WIKI LAW – Nubis ^NWO 22:44, 19 April 2011 (BST)

So, if I understand this correctly. Two accounts voted in opposite ways on the same topic; effectively canceling out that vote. And you think they could be the same dude because of something in a profile that reads like a troll? Really? Is all this really necessary? Also, I too am Nubis/DCC.--ебут этом гомосексуальные земля́, ebut ėtom gomoseksual'nye zemlя́ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_{Retarded things go here -->} 2 3 4 User:MisterGame 22:46, 19 April 2011 (BST)

It's me, I'm Nubis. (really though they're not the same guy heh) عبد الريحم بن حسين بن عبد الرحمن العراقي المصري‎ 22:48, 19 April 2011 (BST)

No, I am Spartacus Nubis. --モッズはホモです 22:50, 19 April 2011 (BST)

I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO

Thank god for the vigilance of Yonnua Koponen, this WIKI LAWbreaker must pay.--ебут этом гомосексуальные земля́, ebut ėtom gomoseksual'nye zemlя́ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_{Retarded things go here -->} 2 3 4 User:MisterGame 01:26, 20 April 2011 (BST)

User:Sykic

Interesting. Trying to keep a post NPOV in accordance with wiki standards gets you banned for vandalism. Nice to see where the priorities are. I'm just surprised you haven't tried lynching him for not signing the thing. --Laughing Man 23:50, 14 April 2011 (BST)

I was thinking of fixing that page as well by adding a comment under it pointing out exactly why the previously edited now reverted comment was dumb. Is it still possible to do that? Or would I be banned for vandalism since I'm in The Dead? Sorry, I'm not sure how these wiki things work!--DerpDerp The Magnificent 01:16, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Some discussion moved to the main case header on the main page

Broken

Not even halfway through the month yet, and A/VB is already broken for template inclusions. —Aichon— 06:39, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Blame teh bots, man. I'm surpised it didn't break sooner, honestly. I was waiting on it. ~ _{06:46, 14 April 2011}

That and the long long discussions that haven't been moved here yet but should have, templated sigs, those are a killer too. Oh, and Bots should probably be included through here instead of A/VB proper that way it breaks here first, I'm sure there are a few ways we can work that to behave that way.--Karek^maps?! 06:48, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Maybe it's just time to give the Bots their own separate page and stop including them on A/VB? Toss a link up in the Administrative Services box ("Vandal Banning (Bots)") and call it good? —Aichon— 06:55, 14 April 2011 (BST)

That's probably the simplest, most effective solution. Who do we ask about linking on RC? A crat? ~ _{07:16, 14 April 2011}

The simplest solution would be putting it all on A/VB and then moving the page to the archive once a month via Move. That's also probably how it should be being done but wasn't for an obvious lack of willingness to deal with that at the time. --Karek^maps?! 21:43, 14 April 2011 (BST)

I'm thinking that simply having normal vandal discussion and bot reporting on the same page is a problem. Way too many template calls, especially later in the month. Like milk and hard liquor, best to keep them separated. ~ _{22:19, 14 April 2011}

The bigger problem is the mass template calls on the A/VB page that block it's inclusion. In that case you could probably have A/VB/B as an inclusion with A/VB/A's being moved back to A/VB proper which should fix most of the issues. Then maybe get the sysops to stop using Templated sigs, those things really are horrible to pages that have to suffer massive amounts of inclusions like this one. --Karek^maps?! 01:26, 15 April 2011 (BST)

It's more of a this is a place for discussion of only cases. As that's all that's archived here and the inclusion break was on A/VB proper, along with general non-case discussions. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:23, 16 April 2011 (BST)

Should this be here? I'm not sure how much the system has changed for discussions like this since I left. --Karek^maps?! 04:39, 16 April 2011 (BST)

Meh, I think Aichon's original comment belonged here since he was commenting on this particular month's archive. Now, though discussion of this subject is all over the place. ^{~ ~} _{07:20, 16 April 2011}

User:WOOT

What about the co-conspirators, Kouchpotato, Irishmen, and Goofy Mccoy? Based on the timestamps, it looks like they were all in on it, coordinated by IRC. Shouldn't they be given escalations as well? --VVV ^RPMBG 21:37, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I can't remember a single case where people got escalated for voting on joke bids. While the timestamps are fishy, I still assume good faith, especially as none of them has a history of spamming A/PM (and being told to stop it) like Woot has. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:41, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Plus also, that would just be meatpuppetry, which is apparently allowed on the wiki. Ultimately, voting on a suggestion/bid/PD which is later ruled vandalism is never vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:01, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Not that its a vote. We come to a conclusion on shazam yet? I need to sort the vd. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:02, 10 April 2011 (BST)

:P Obviously. Shazam got a week ban, iirc.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:09, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Yeah, I see thad did it. So we not looking at the 3er thing?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:11, 10 April 2011 (BST)

3 sysops against perma, and with mis' resignation, that's enough to block the perma vote, so I'm guessing no.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:13, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Sorry but, seriously? This case is just kinda sad really. --Karek^maps?! 23:22, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Irishmen said:

I suggested he run again because I thought the urban dead wiki should have rakuen as a sysop

Irishmen, when asked "you think he was totally serious?"

Can't say for sure.

Irishmen is out of touch enough to not understand the situation, and must have honestly believed it to be a good idea. WOOT probably knew better, but given that he had someone telling him that he could win, he should be cut some slack. --VVV ^RPMBG 00:02, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Woot's last banning was a result of me pushing for him to run for sysops, both of us knew full well what would happen. I took absolutely no responsibility when it happened but I felt bad, but if asked if I should be escalated I'd probably say not. He's the author of his own misfortune when push comes to shove. However if people genuinely think the above is vandalism I'll take a warning by association etc. Though I don't think it's necessary. Warning people for vouching on a joke bid/ voting on a joke suggestion has always been fine IMO. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:02, 14 April 2011 (BST)

User:Bankschroef

Free speech only goes so far. Massively NSFW link and possible incitement to keel teh Joos? Vandalism Come on guys. Do you want to set a precedent for allowing this kind of shit? --Penguinpyro 21:48, 9 April 2011 (BST)

[1] --VVV ^RPMBG 22:37, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I don't mind swastikas or Nazi images. what I do mind is hate speech, and the fact that this page has nothing to do with a zombie apocalypse. -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 23:03 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments moved from main page.

The "blatant rascism" was mostly about the fact that he's saying that the Jews deserved to die.. Smyg 19:12, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I read the page 3 times, I don't see the line where he says that unless you mean the image. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:38, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Really? You can't see that from the picture with the Jewish man being shot in a mass grave with the text below it saying everyone gets what they deserve? For reals? --Karek^maps?! 19:42, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Eh, sorry, you're probably right. I'm probably misinterpreting the context of the image. It's just that I find the way this wiki handles nazi's confusing, because we do allow swastika's and we do allow this. We shouldn't allow it, IMO. But we do, and I'm trying to figure out how that relates to this case. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:56, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Well, there's two major differences there. The first is that that looks to be an anti-group group Queer Jew and the like were around for some time iirc. The second is that those other pages are using nazi symbolism but are not being blatantly racist, you can actually have one without the other and as distasteful as using the symbols of that group can be to some people it's not actually racist. --Karek^maps?! 20:07, 9 April 2011 (BST)

So basically, it's all about in what context it's placed. Is logical, I guess an all or nothing attitude doesn't apply here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:11, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Plus, the Nazi Party of Malton aren't actually, you know, Nazis. Just out to offend by using Nazi symbolism. Smyg 20:14, 9 April 2011 (BST)

Well maybe Cornholio isn't a nazi either, just a massive troll we don't know that. But that's irrelevant here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:16, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I mean that the NPM aren't actually trying to look like Nazis, they're obviously just trolls. Corny on the other hand is trying to appear like an actual genocidal maniac. Smyg 20:20, 9 April 2011 (BST)

I Promise you there were more real nazis in Nazi Party of Malton than there were in any of Cornholioo's groups put together. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:01, 10 April 2011 (BST)

I figure from that you had two real nazis? -- Spiderzed▋ 15:09, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Pretty much! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:41, 10 April 2011 (BST)

User:Shazam

Because this relevant and early formational quote about how the wiki is, has always, and should always be meant to be run/treated/ruled just seems appropriate.

Odd Starter said:

Well, no. Since the spirit of the rules always trumps the letter of the rules, even without perfectly written down lawyer-style rules, it's pretty clear that Images follow the same policy of pages. You are, like you often do, attempting to manipulate the written version of the rules in order to claim that a violation has not taken place. While that works in a real life court, such tactics cannot work here. You have, quite consistently I might add, performed this trick. I am now officially saying to you that we do not consider the letter of the law, only the spirit of the law. As it turns out, I can also beat you on the letter of the law, but trust me, I don't need to.

It's one of those things that's just a facepalm and a really?. The rule exists for users like this.--Karek^maps?! 04:02, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Link for context would be nice. And without trying to start a personal fight again, it has to be said that you're taking a lot of effort for something that's currently being voted in favour of your POV anyway -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:25, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Actually it's not because I want him banned, though I am totally in favor of getting rid of this kind of contributor. It's because I think you raise a valid point that it's worth discussion if even in a case this far it's worth not doing, and thus why I'm seriously asking if you'd like another A/VB case so it's per letter, I don't want this to be like what they tried to do with my A/VB case with Iscariot, that was crap when it happened. There's a legitimate case here and if it's felt by even a portion of the team that the extra step needs to be taken I gladly will.

I also felt it was worth discussing the use of user made precedent to justify a user's opinion, which has generally been a non-starter. Things like if I were trying to point to the banning of Airborne88 for misusing WelcomeNewbie as precedent for WelcomeNewbie being vandalism were avoided for that reason but it seems to be a common happenstance, at least in the last few days I've been here, even though it's always been considered if not irrelevant at least poor form.

Btw, the quote is the only relevant part actually, it's from the Amazing misconduct case and that's the only reason I included it but, Boxy's comments on the case you linked are probably relevant too. I was just pointing out that why the policy exists is generally more important than the policy itself and that has been and should continue to be a guiding principle on the wiki. This was just a relevant place for me to bring that up. --Karek^maps?! 04:36, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Fair. I wasn't sure if you were serious when you put forward putting individual cases. Personally, if it can be gotten away with to escalate him as per separate types of vandalism then so be it, as long as it's not edits he's already been escalated for obviously. I don't know whether you mean now though, if you do then I'd say wait till this case is concluded.

If users go on sprees like this to seriously damage the wiki then there's legitimate argument that they should be permabanned. Unfortunately our rules and the interpretation of them don't allow it, yet. If the sysops want to vote in favour of permaban in this case, then like other times I'm voted against in vandal cases, I'll accept the decision and take in on board in the future, though I think something like this would be better achieved via ammending the guidelines via A/PD. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:49, 8 April 2011 (BST)

Let me just start by saying that it wasn't pressure from any user that made me look at the possibility that Shazam was a 3 edit rule violator. I was (and still am) ok with just going up proper channels and dealing with each case of vandalism as it occurs. What changed my mind in this case was the fact that upon closer inspection, none of Shazam's edits IMHO were constructive nor benefitted the wiki. Feigning group activity for a disbanded group of which you do not belong may or may not be vandalism, but surely it can't be considered constructive. Adding a history section to a single location page, while arguably constructive, does not benefit the majority of the wiki. And so by the letter and by spirit of the rule, I feel that was 3ER was met and was overlooked in past vandal cases.

Now having said that and after reading the comments in the Misconduct case brought on Aichon, I can see that this type of interpretation of 3ER is not really the consensus and I can see how a ruling of this type could possibly create precedent for others deeming less clear-cut bad faith edits as either nonconstructive or unbenefiting to the wiki. So I'm really torn here and it may prevent me from ruling in this case altogether. There is just a lot of gray area with 3ER and I'm sure I'm not the first to deal with this. I know it's been said but it should be re-written or there should at least be some consensus of the proper interpretation of the rule. I'll hold off on changing my ruling for now. I'd kind of like to hear what boxy and some other ops have to say about it. ~ _{07:03, 8 April 2011}

I had a small ponder and what I think is a major difference from this situation and what happened with the Aichon case is that Aichon did it straight off the bat and it turned out to be wrong. As I said before somewhere, I'm happy to let the sysops as a team stretch the 3ER policy towards something more applicable to users like this, and I think this situation where it's being discussed and voted on is a very important difference between this and the aichon case and past cases. I'm still not sure whether it's something I agree with. But taking it as a case by case basis by vote is probably the method I will most agree with personally -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:12, 8 April 2011 (BST)

User:Spiderzed

Comments moved from main page.

You may want to check the history of Jerrel. He got an escalation for putting himself up for promotion multiple times, despite being told not to. Also we did move dumb bid's like these to the talk page before, see WOOT. I don't know why we stopped doing so in Grim's case, but there was a time spam bids were just moved. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:07, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Actually, as it turns out, if they were ever "just moved" that's the fluke, not leaving them, and it shouldn't be done in the future. Bid stays up until the user refuses to accept it and the precedent you were referring to actually should have led to either a misconduct escalation for any crat that closed the case or a vandal escalation for whoever moved it. To compare the Jerrel bid, a serious one, or the current bid in question to, just a reminder, This is absurd on ever possible level and if you can't see that difference then leave now, you'll probably wind up demoted for legitimate misconduct within three months and have no clue why. --Karek^maps?! 13:59, 2 April 2011 (BST)

....what? I'm honestly having trouble understanding what you're trying to say. This is almost Iscariot's level of English. If I understand correctly you think Jerrel and WOOT should not have been escalated, and bids no matter what should never be moved? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:21, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Reading comprehension is your friend, especially when you're a sysop.

1) Jerrel was escalated on unrelated precedent and, yes, the removal of his bid, not the bid itself, should have been taken as vandalism because it was a user removing a bid because they didn't like the person putting it up. 2) WOOT's bid was vandalism. Read the bid, it's blatantly both spamming and not in good faith. It is not, however, in any way related to this bid or, for that matter, Jerrel's because of the content of that specific bid being why it was vandalism not the subject of the bid. It is not vandalism for a user to be put up for promotion simply because of who they are. --Karek^maps?! 14:26, 2 April 2011 (BST)

_{Note I am not a sysop and this is not a ruling, it's emphasis. --Karek^maps?! 14:27, 2 April 2011 (BST)}

Of course it's not vandalism for Jerrel if someone else puts him up for a bid. And no, this case is indeed not related to those other cases. Nor have I said otherwise. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:51, 2 April 2011 (BST)

finally! i knew this would come in handy.-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 14:39 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, surely this case fits those criteria as well, Karek. It wasn't made in good faith (good faith would be actually willing for that user to be promoted, and spiderzed has said that it was a joke) and it was created solely for the purpose of spamming admin pages (putting something on there other than the intended (i.e. a bid)). In my opinion, it being April Fools isn't a defence.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:23, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Actually Yonnua, the intent to lighten the tone of the page after some perceived drama is about as good faith as it gets. It isn't spamming admin pages because it's a legitimate bid on a page with no specific rules against why someone is put up for a promotion bid, unlike A/VB, A/M, or Suggestions which all have rules specifically regulating when it's appropriate to report someone and it in no way hurts the usefulness of the page as the page is low traffic and fairly simple and easy to follow even with 4 bids running at the same time. He didn't break any rules, He didn't make anything worse off, and his intent was obviously to lighten the mood. Without coming to the discussion with some idea that not using the page how you'd prefer it would be used being bad faith(also known as assuming bad faith) there's nothing he did in violation of the spirit or letter of the page, wiki, or rules. --Karek^maps?! 19:13, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Well, as the page exists to promote users to system operator I'd say he actually probably wasn't using it as it was intended. Ultimately, you've done nothing to convince me it isn't vandalism, and I've done nothing to convince you that it is, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:54, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Yonnua, the page exists to discuss user's suitability to being promoted to system operator not to promote them. That's your disconnect here. It's not vandalism to post a fake suggestion on Talk:Suggestions who's purpose is to develop suggestions, A/PM is the same thing. It's not a matter of convincing me that it is, you are responsible to show how what he did was in bad faith and as it's been shown quite clearly that non-serious bids are historically not vandalism your ruling can't reasonably be based on that with you actually having reviewed the relevant links posted or precedent cited.

So I ask you, is there some external user specific reason why this doesn't mesh with what has always been the established way of ruling these cases or is there some personal drama between you and him that gives you reason to see what he's doing as intentionally damaging to the wiki? Because, frankly, if you can't come up with something more you probably shouldn't be ruling on questionable cases about degrees like joke edits. --Karek^maps?! 20:04, 2 April 2011 (BST)

How about that posting non-serious cases/bids/suggestions that amount to nothing constructive or contributive can actually be interpreted as bad-faith and/or spam especially when done repeatedly? I know I'm not going to convince you, but you should realize you haven't any actual point at all why this isn't vandalism besides your own opinion/interpretation, hence making this discussion indeed a case of disagreement rather than being right or wrong. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:21, 2 April 2011 (BST)

I think you're missing the part where relevant precedent was shown. I can find more directly comparative links if that's what floats your boat, I can think of at least five off the top of my head that we didn't escalate for that match this almost exactly. Here's a link with three in which Yonnua rules the fake bid as not vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 21:04, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Read the case and you might learn that it wasn't vandalism because Sonny hadn't repeatedly been put up for promotion before, whereas Jerrel has. But do keep trying to bully people in to changing their rulings, Karek. It makes you look really mature.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:18, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Yonnua, it was not vandalism because Misanthropy didn't have a history of putting up fake reports, does Spiderzed? Keep in mind I have no dog in this fight, I'm bringing this up in the discussion because it needs to be brought up. I don't actually care if he gets escalated I care that you guys are actually using precedent right and the precedent relevant to joke bids like Sonny's, like both of Iscariot's, like Grim's, like The Surgeon General's all point to it not being vandalism to post or cycle a joke bid. If you feel I'm being bullying maybe it's because I'm refusing to go away quietly into a corner until this very simple but all important point gets picked up. You don't make up the rules as you go, you follow the precedents relevant to the case and in this case Spiderzed obviously had every possible reason to believe this to be an acceptable edit because it always has been. --Karek^maps?! 21:31, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Sorry, but I still have to disagree with you. In my opinion, it isn't an appropriate use of an admin page; Spiderzed intended it as a joke, which isn't what the page is for (I have a perfectly good humour admin pages page in my namespace). The reason it typically isn't vandalism for first time offenders isn't because it's "acceptable", it's because they might not know better. In this case, Spiderzed most definitely did know better, and so I still believe it's vandalism. It may be more appropriate for him to have a soft warning (I'm impartial as to whether it should be a full or soft warning, but I'm leaning ever so slightly towards full as it stands, because he should be setting an example for more casual users who are breeding drama on that page). I get where you're coming from, and your help is appreciated, but I don't see myself changing my mind failing the discovery of a completely earth-shattering precedent that I'm unaware of.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:45, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Every case I brought up was made by established knowledgeable users. What basis do you have that he knew better, what can you point to that shows that he had any way of knowing this wasn't allowed before the creation of this case and your ruling? That's the standard for ruling it in bad faith, without that you're essentially manufacturing intent.

It's worth note that Soft Warnings are actually not vandalism rulings but with the distinction that the user gets the good faith notice that it's not OK that didn't happen before the action. --Karek^maps?! 21:52, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Look, I'm really not interested in you trying to pretend I'm biased, and I'm not even going to bother acknowledging comments of that nature again. In terms of why I believe he knew that what he was doing was wrong, he copied a bid which was a) removed from the promotions page and b) ruled vandalism, changed it ever so slightly, and then posted it on the page. In more general terms of spamming admin pages, he obviously knows that that isn't on, and as a wiki regular, he shouldn't be doign either of the above.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:01, 2 April 2011 (BST)

I'm not pretending you're anything. All you'd previously said was that he should know better and didn't give a reason when pressed. It is, however, worth noting that he did, in fact, not rule on that case. Nor was it escalated for what he's being escalated for now. You can't escalate him simply because he put Jerrel up for promotion, and Jerrel being escalated previously for spamming A/VB with monthly bids without regard to why they were being removed/failing. It was user specific. So again, I ask, how would he know as both the points you just made obviously aren't the case. --Karek^maps?! 22:13, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Naw, Yonnua, you couldn't be biased because Spider has an alt in a group that has been kicking your group's ass for well over a year. Cause you're a reasonable unbiased neutral Sysop. (You know, the kind that would never abuse your position and post someones IP address on your DA forum. Oh wait, nevermind.) Yeah you couldn't be out to wave your E-Penis around again after losing the last E-Penis swordfight you were in with...who was it again? Oh YEAH! I remember now. Gee, I just can't imagine why 99% of the UD player base avoids the Wiki like the plague. Not when a harmless April Fool's joke would never be trumped up to score a few petty points. That sort of thing would never happen around here in our paradise of reasonable unbiased neutral Sysops.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:08 3 April 2011(UTC)

It's nice precedent, which I have seen before, but I do still believe there's a limit on how much you can push these sort of non-serious bids. I don't believe the limit has been reached yet, as you can I see I haven't voted vandalism, but if Spiderzed would do this sorta thing again in the foreseeable future I would not be so lenient. And again, the precedent is nice but there is a subtle difference, mainly that the user in question, Jerrel, is inactive for months and the fact that Spiderzed didn't contact Jerrel on his talk page. I can see why Yonnua voted for Vandalism, (and Vapor for Softwarning), since this I can agree with them this shouldn't be encouraged, although an actual escalation goes to far. Do you think the bid should have stayed on for two weeks? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:25, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Oh no, I understand that. I'm not arguing for a ruling, I'm arguing for the rule. Obviously repeatedly doing this is soon would qualify as drama mongering on an admin page and vandalism.

Jerrel's isn't different from Grim's obviously in the regards of activity, there was nothing wrong with removing the bid. The problems start when A/VB is being made to create new rules about all joke bids imply bad faith to the act of doing it, that's not ok. --Karek^maps?! 21:31, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Just for the record, I wouldn't have kept the bid around for 2 weeks. I'd have removed it myself over the course of April 2. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:34, 2 April 2011 (BST)

BTW, as an avowed, according to Iscariot, hater of Iscariot I think it should be worth noting that Iscariot generally had immaculate english. The problem was what he used said grasp of the language to try and say not his ability to use it. It was difficult to sort out how he couldn't understand why the rules existed not the meaning of the arguments he put forth. --Karek^maps?! 14:50, 2 April 2011 (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)