2009, April Discussion

Asdxiao

At least the article title makes sense. --x o x o 13:42, 7 April 2009 (BST)

BEST. SPAMBIT EDIT. EVER. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:54, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Did anyone get to see what the page actually said? I want to know. Any fractured phrases worth sharing? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:34, 7 April 2009 (BST)

It wasn't that great, just really, really incomprehensible. I'm wondering if was really a spambit or just some guy doing it for the lulz :| . Linkthewindow Talk 08:21, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Iscariot

All four. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:24, 7 April 2009 (BST)

All four unvoted pseudo-rules? Perhaps you'd care to back up your incessant whining about these with the policy in which they were approved by the community? Or perhaps you'd like to demote yourself and fuck off to cry without telling anyone again? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:13, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Oh my, I don't know where to start. Cybebob? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:15, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Oh, how I am hurt by your spiteful allusions(!) Whatever shall I do(?) I know(!) I'll demote myself, remove my crat status, not tell a single fucking person let alone start a new crat election to help the community and go into exile for a couple of months before returning and being just as ineffectual as I was before(!) Sound familiar? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:19, 7 April 2009 (BST)

*Eight days. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:26, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Bahahahah, that's right! You failed to stay away from this godforsaken place :P --x o x o 01:31, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I know, I suck at lurking. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:33, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Hey now, none of this is needed.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:32, 7 April 2009 (BST)

are you referring to the circumstances surrounding my demotion or were you asking me to help you out with where to start ;s

Cyberbob

13:04, 7 April 2009 (BST)

The later, where to start. It's not worth answering, so don't bother. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:28, 7 April 2009 (BST)

If nothing else, I believe all this warrants an escalation on the UD Wiki drama template. Oh, and I believe that you shouldn't have to give justification for liking something, only for not liking it.--Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 00:52, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Vandalism, perhaps - Depends on whether being a bully counts as vandalism. Please see his contributions at Developing Suggestions. Often makes unproven or incendiary claims (see "Blood Scrawl," where he claims this is a dupe without providing evidence, and "Joint" where he claims that another user "makes shit up on the admin pages, why should I expect any different here[?]"); his user talk page informs people that "If you are here to bitch and whine that I've removed your ad from the Recruitment page, don't bother posting at all. Instead, go here and report me as a vandal. If you are too stupid to work out why I've removed your ad, I really don't want to hear anything from you." All in all, he couldn't be called a vandal in the traditional sense of wiki vandalism - the schmuck who runs around writing "YOU SUCK" on random pages - but he does go out of his way to make things difficult for others. Implied is that other people deserve this (his rule #5 from his user page is "You will not be a moron) - but these claims aren't backed up either. -CaptainVideo 03:57, 15 April 2009 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

"Creating petty cases to harass users he has a history of constant disagreements with.--User:J3D 14:30, 6 April 2009 (BST)" I'm trying to decide between fukken loled or picard....--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:04, 6 April 2009 (BST)

try both, its what I did

Cyberbob

13:01, 7 April 2009 (BST)

User:Honestmistake

In that case I'm no longer restricting myself to the talk page.--Thadeous Oakley 15:25, 6 April 2009 (BST)

you'll note that cheese p specifically noted that spam is still off-limits. I've yet to see you make a non-spammy comment on the main page so don't think this is a blank cheque

Cyberbob

13:05, 7 April 2009 (BST)

This directly affects me because my irrelevant comment on Bob's thing above was just deleted by a fucking SYSOPS. So ask yourself, who is in the right. You, or one of the most experienced sysops on the wiki?--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:19, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I got bored of Bob baiting me and went out to get drunk... as such i have lost track of this whole thing and am unsure if that was aimed at me or WOOT or indeed at MrGame???--Honestmistake 00:41, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I wish I'd gone out to get drunk. =( Uni holidays suck. There's no-one to go get pissed with. -- C h e e s e 00:43, 7 April 2009 (BST)

well if you are ever near liverpool let me know ;)--Honestmistake 01:41, 7 April 2009 (BST)

User:Midianian

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is prefered that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

comment replaced as explaining the posting rules seems pretty relevant to me! --Honestmistake 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

comment replaced (again) as explaining the posting rules seems pretty relevant to me! --Honestmistake 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

comment replaced (for a 3rd time) as explaining the posting rules seems pretty relevant to me! --Honestmistake 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

comment replaced (for a 4th time) as explaining the posting rules seems pretty relevant to me! --Honestmistake 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

comment replaced (for a 5th time) as explaining the posting rules seems pretty relevant to me! --Honestmistake 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

How many times do you want me to replace this comment Bob? It is relevant and reasonable to point out WHY this case is made in error and as such this is the right place for it --Honestmistake 13:57, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Don't pretend you didn't think this would happen. You got involved knowing he would react to you just as he did with Midinian, and you persisted the same. You should have stayed out after the first instance, like Blake and myself. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (BST)

And the sysops aren't idiots. They can and would have read the box without your input. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:26, 6 April 2009 (BST)

As I said on my talk page, I always get involved when i see someone using that guideline to take the piss. I see no reason to avoid doing so just because it is Bob doing it. --Honestmistake 14:31, 6 April 2009 (BST)

o rly? I've been moving comments for fucking ages and you haven't said boo. nice one fuckbag

Cyberbob

14:33, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I said "when I see" I have not been very active recently and have been deliberately avoiding A/VB cos you keep acting like a prick and annoying me. We both know that my comment was perfectly fine where it was. --Honestmistake 14:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

no it wasn't you stupid fag. gb2bed

Cyberbob

14:40, 6 April 2009 (BST)

One outa 2 ain't bad ;) --x o x o 14:27, 6 April 2009 (BST)

and again...

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't.--Honestmistake 14:27, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't.--Honestmistake 14:27, 6 April 2009 (BST) And again... --Honestmistake 14:33, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

How many times do you want me to replace this comment Bob? It is relevant and reasonable to point out WHY this case is made in error and as such this is the right place for it. I am now asking for a Sysop to decide where the comment belongs as it is clear that this edit war will continue until someone does. --Honestmistake 14:41, 6 April 2009 (BST)

ARBIES pretty please? --Janus ^talk 14:46, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Why? The box is perfectly clear and this has never been a problem before. If what I was doing was against the rules I'm sure a sysop would have let me known somewhere along the way.

Cyberbob

14:47, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I am finishing work now and cannot be bothered continuing to post via mobile, as such I am requesting that a Sysop (any sysop) look at my comment and decide if it is was relevant to the case and either replace it or explain to me exactly why they consider it inappropriate. I accept that I should have done that an hour ago but Bob's trolling annoyed me far too much to just let go.--Honestmistake 14:53, 6 April 2009 (BST)

excuses excuses

Cyberbob

15:00, 6 April 2009 (BST)

to mutilate a Churchill quote... "I am drunk, but tomorrow i will be sober. You sir are a troll and tomorrow you will still be a troll!"

don't really give a crap if you understand that cos enough people will!--Honestmistake 00:57, 7 April 2009 (BST)

um honest sorry to break it to you but being a troll is generally a choice whereas being easily trolled is simply a result of over-reactiveness, which is a personality thing. your lolish comparison is completely arse-backwards soz d00d

Cyberbob

12:58, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I mean shit even when you're pulling your "ho ho ho imma ignore teh stoopid trol :rolleyes:" act you can't help but advertise it in way too many words, which is p much the very definition of feeding the trolls (its actually far more nourishing than regular anger due to its irony)

Cyberbob

13:01, 7 April 2009 (BST)

User:J3D

First, this needs to be under the april header. However I don't have a clue how to do this. As for the actual case: I am sorry but your dragging him down to A/VB because he made petty cases against you? Aren't you doing the exact same thing now? Someone confirm Irony for me.--Thadeous Oakley 20:40, 1 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I never would have thought all of it VBable but I guess I never took the time to think of J3D's actions as specific bad faith as opposed to just being bitter. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 22:55, 1 April 2009 (BST)

Well, it'd be hypocrisy, not irony. Man, I can't believe how many people misuse the word "irony" these days... --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:40, 1 April 2009 (BST)

Good to see you posting on the talk page.

Cyberbob

23:45, 1 April 2009 (BST)

If I were Nubis I would have waited for a third example of a petty case from J3D before making a VB case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:07, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Luckily you aren't! One is enough.--x o x o 03:24, 5 April 2009 (BST)

It's just two is hardly a spree of petty cases. It's like that saying "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.". D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:09, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah i agree with you, i don't think either of them were that petty and i don't like this punishment for bringing up misconduct cases, any report by anyone should be allowed to be discussed openly and a decision made. --x o x o 07:15, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Of course you don't think they are petty, you made them. I don't think they were the most solid of misconduct accusations, but its hard for me to believe he genuinely thinks he's being 'harassed' by you when you've only made two cases against him, one of which in my opinion was genuinely worth looking upon (the self-ban case). D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:35, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah thats my point tho. Surely if even one person thinks its valid it should be allowed on the page and if its agreed its nothing then thats that.--x o x o 07:38, 5 April 2009 (BST)

The presence of Honestmistake on the wiki means there will always be at least one person who thinks a case is valid, so that argument is a little facetious.

Cyberbob

09:14, 5 April 2009 (BST)

You do know that I have voiced an opinion of "not Misconduct" on the last 3 cases don't you?--Honestmistake 12:15, 6 April 2009 (BST)

He hasn't been around much, you scare him off? Seriously though this case is annoying me. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:32, 6 April 2009 (BST)

No Bob has not scared me off, i just have better ways to spend my weekends.

I tend to think this is not Vandalism though... Neither case was misconduct, the image deletion was a difference in opinion regarding a contentious judgment call and the self banning was again a grey area but both were still reasonable cases and Nubis gives as good as he gets in the frequent exchanges between him and J3D.--Honestmistake 11:52, 6 April 2009 (BST)

oh yes being in arguments with someone is definitely an argument that would support the hypothesis that case one party brings against the other isn't petty.

jesus christ you're a fucking idiot. i honestly hope you die

Cyberbob

11:54, 6 April 2009 (BST)

He pretty much sums up my view of the case though. Besides the "the hate/fighting is mutual so it isn't harassment and the cases aren't petty." bit. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:58, 6 April 2009 (BST)

yeah I was p much only referring to the bit you mentioned

Cyberbob

12:00, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Let me put it in small words for you Bob. J3D and Nubis do not like each other, if Nubis does something wrong J3d will pull him up for it... his dislike does not automatically mean the case is petty. The fact that the two of them argue so much does not make it harassment unless all the arguments are started by one person; they do not seem to be. Even if they were, Nubis brings 2 examples of cases that are not just petty attacks but voice valid concerns and therefore bringing charges of Misconduct is not vandalism. --Honestmistake 12:15, 6 April 2009 (BST)

yeah you're still pushing the argument that them being in arguments makes it less likely that the cases are petty. plz die asap tia

Cyberbob

12:18, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I have not said it makes it less likely, I said it does not make it automatically petty. There is a huge difference there and you know it. --Honestmistake 12:31, 6 April 2009 (BST)

yes there is a difference but that's not what you're saying. way to change your message on the fly chump

Cyberbob

12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

How the fuck have i changed my argument? I at no point said that their arguing made it less likely that they would be petty, only that these 2 cases were not petty. The 2 of them have a history of ill will towards one another which does indeed increase the likelihood that pettiness will factor into their dealings but that is not harassment and it can go both ways. The evidence offered by Nubis in this case does not convince me. I will say it again; both cases were valid and I do not feel they constitute harassment and thus feel that this case is not vandalsim. Is that clear enough for you?--Honestmistake 12:58, 6 April 2009 (BST)

no it isn't, please say it again using different wording. I might get it next time, promise

Cyberbob

14:28, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Err, not that it matters but i don't dislike nubis. I just think he's a bad sysop. --x o x o 14:24, 6 April 2009 (BST)

And makes a lot of really bad decisions and stretches the rules like no one since hagnat.--x o x o 14:26, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Conndraka said:

Oh.. and by the way... Demote him because of this serious fuck up is a whole lot different than demote him because HE is a serious fuck up.

Yeah Conn, Thats a personal opinion, see civility policy, or lack thereof. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:50, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Umm no. Thats 12 years in retail management with specific real world training in personel management talking, NOT opinion. You can say somone's actions are retarded all day long...the moment you say THEY are retarded it goes to harassment. Now wether or not some of you want to go by that or not, I don't care, thats just the way it technically is. I know it seems like bullshit but hey...rules and regs on defining harassment usually are. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:17, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Interesting. I was referring to J3D's comment, I didn't know J3D had 12 years in real world training and personal management to be able to say "Nubis didn't just fuck up he IS a fuck up" as a fact rather than an opinion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:39, 7 April 2009 (BST)

There's a lot you don't know about me DDR. Also afaik that's not an actual quote...--x o x o 12:35, 7 April 2009 (BST)

hahahahaha going the deep and mysterious route lolololololol

Cyberbob

12:54, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Sorry all...We are in AP Test Prep and I'm getting even less sleep than normal. DDR I thought you were referring to the example in the quote as a statement of Opinion...Back to Essays. I'm the one with 12 years in Management before I went back to school to get my License to teach. yay me. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:38, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Teaching what, out of interest? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:16, 9 April 2009 (BST)

PE prolly

Cyberbob

09:43, 9 April 2009 (BST)

I think he said English or summin' like that one time. Which is why he shouldn't be here. Teachers think logically, we do not. Bad mix ja?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:17, 9 April 2009 (BST)

History primarily. Advanced Placement U.S. and World, Regular World and Pre-AP World History. I'm also licenced to teach Psycology, Ecconomics, Government, Pre-Law, Sociology, and Civics. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:39, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Ah, thats right, you were History and Goolina 'was the English teacher. Wow, how did I mix that up?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:48, 9 April 2009 (BST)

*Looks at his own spelling and sentance structure* Beats the hell out of me... lol. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:27, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Lol. I would have been a history teacher too if I went down the teaching road. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:00, 10 April 2009 (BST)

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

I was just working on this talk page, and noticed it was a redirect to this current month archive. If i were to go ahead and change the current redirect to the feb archive, all undergoing discussions in the january archive would be forgotten and hidden from the general public view. Thus i changed this page redirect to a page with a templated header and calling the two talk pages (the current one and jan one) into it. After some thought, i realized that by doing so i would lost my ever so precious and new found ability to create new headers with the + button. So, what are my options:

leave this page as a redirect to the current talk page
lose the + button functionality, leaving this general discussion section at the bottom (so that people using the + button will know they are creating a new general discussion sub-header)

opinions ? --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 19:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better this way. It functions now the same way as the main page (A/VB). --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As midinian. It's just fine to keep it the same as VB. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 12:46, 8 April 2009 (BST)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning

Contents

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives

2009, April Discussion

Asdxiao

Iscariot

User:Cyberbob240

User:Honestmistake

User:Midianian

User:J3D

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox