UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 05

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration‎ | Vandal Banning‎ | Archive
Revision as of 12:51, 2 May 2011 by Revenant (talk | contribs) (→‎User:Underisk: Night, mate; will do! :) Not far from bed m'self actually.)
Jump to navigationJump to search


Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:

  • A link to the pages in question.
Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.
  • The user name of the Vandal.
This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.
  • A signed datestamp.
For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.
  • Please report at the top.
There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.

If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.

Before Submitting a Report

  • This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
  • Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
  • As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
  • Avoid submitting reports which are petty.


Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice
Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works. Sometimes assuming good faith and speaking with others can avoid a lot of drama, and can even help newbies feel part of this community.
Administration Notice
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.
Administration Notice
Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.



May 2011

User:Sykic

Deliberately signing with an illegal sig on the case about that sig -- Spiderzed 13:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)

If you'd paid more attention and tried to see through your hatred of Goons, you'd notice my signature changed about an hour ago. But hey, we can't let a little thing like "facts" get in the way of a good witch hunt, right? --Achtung! Goonden!||||||||||||||| 13:29, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I'll give them a day as a grace period before I rule, but if they don't change them, then yeah.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 13:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)

AbstainConflict of interest. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 13:30, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism-- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism Bless. --Rosslessness 13:35, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Read the sig policy properly before bringing folk to VB over it. -- Cheese 13:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Also, until we sort out the mess below, don't keep spamming VB with goons. -- Cheese 13:43, 2 May 2011 (BST)

User:Laughing Man

Deliberately signing with an illegal sig on the case about that sig -- Spiderzed 13:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)

AbstainConflict of interest. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 13:30, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Read the sig policy properly before bringing folk to VB over it. -- Cheese 13:38, 2 May 2011 (BST)

User:Capt Schwartz

Isn't it against the rules to post Humorous suggestions on the main page?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 10:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism - Why yes, yes they are. --Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 10:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism -- Spiderzed 11:37, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not funny, ergo Not Vandalism.
It is, however, crap, just like its subject material. Last I checked there was no rule against crap suggestions, but you better believe that I am watching it like a hawk for enough Spam votes to appear so that I can sysop spaminate it. Shifty >_> <_< ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:02, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Technically, I believe it only requires intent for it to be humorous rather than actually being funny.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:30, 2 May 2011 (BST)

User:Deadman Walken

Pointless account designed to impersonate thad and prove some point about impersonation by signing as such on admin pages. Thanks. Banned under 3ER--Rosslessness 00:48, 2 May 2011 (BST)

This op approves of the action. Also, filled out verdict. -- Spiderzed 00:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)
I love the ones we can nuke. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 13:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

User:Underisk

Using the Template:Goonsig in his signature counts as impersonation.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 00:33, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Will hold off on that for now until the case below is sorted out. There are more than them two involved. -- Spiderzed 00:39, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Fair enough. Yeah, I know more than two of them involved. I've put this guy up because he said in the case below that we should be A/VBing the people who are using the sig.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 00:44, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Gonna go ahead and point this out now for you WIKI LAWyers: I haven't used this signature anywhere but on this very page, where it's currently being discussed. --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Underisk (talkcontribs) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (BST).

not vandalism - You could at least wait for us to outlaw the template officially before trying to get everyone on here. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 03:34, 2 May 2011 (BST)

AbstainConflict of interest. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 06:47, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism We can start escalating the use of this once the case below has been solved, but not earlier. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:09, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Nothing for now - We can do a case about it after the case below is ruled on.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 10:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

So, yeah, now that the case below is sorted out: Vandalism. Creating such a sig is one thing, and a thing that has been resolved by getting it fixed. Using the non-fixed version on an admin page despite knowing that it is against policy? That's different and blatant bad faith. -- Spiderzed 11:36, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Shouldn't he get the required notice and grace period specified in the signature policy? It's only just changed, FFS; there's a reason those provisions exist. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:06, 2 May 2011 (BST)
There is a difference between a casually active user making an innocent mistake in his sig formatting, and deliberately switching to an illegal sig to comment on an admin page on the very same case that is about the illegality of the sig. -- Spiderzed 12:13, 2 May 2011 (BST)
It wasn't established as illegal at the time he signed, though. We don't throw out due process just because someone does something we don't like; in fact, we should adhere even more closely to process to avoid personal bias. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:23, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Why the hell would anyone have a personal bias against this guy? He hasn't done anything to anyone here. No one cared what he did, until he decided to post a sig that he knew was controvertial (he was responding to the controversy after all) on the one page that would ensure it would be noticed (and nowhere else, as he proudly proclaimed above).
Counting coup. Meh -- boxy 12:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)
“Personal bias” as in a personally biased viewpoint. It it so hard to ask people to rule by the rules we have rather than making up new ones or citing vague, conveniently unlinked “precedent” and using the sysop badge for intimidation? (I don't think you're guilty of this, but some certainly are.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:55, 2 May 2011 (BST)
It's a self evident fact that sigs become worthless when a dozen individuals start signing with exactly the same signature. It is so obvious that no one ever thought it needed fucking spelling out in a specific policy. And so the sysops are given the power to enforce such unwritten (but obvious) rules if they ever come up. It's not personal bias. It's common, fucking, sense.
None of the goons are stupid. They know this. So please, stop already -- boxy 13:18, 2 May 2011 (BST)
In order to prove my lack of personal bias, I've added cases about the others doing the same. No one's gonna say that I'm singling out Underisk. -- Spiderzed 13:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)
So we're just ignoring Signature Policy altogether now? Wow, it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 13:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)
RE: Boxy:
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

—Albert Einstein

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 13:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I grow tired of your responces (across numerous discussion) to out of context snipets while ignoring the actual meat of the post. Good night, have fun toying with others -- boxy 13:40, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Night, mate; will do! Happy Not far from bed m'self actually. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 13:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)

User:Revenant

For creating this piece of stupid and encouraging people to use it which basically undermines the very principle behind the use of signatures. Policy? God no, for something this obvious all that requires is the sysops team to have the balls to enforce some common sense. This doesn't require much additional discussion. Sharing signatures falls under impersonation, and should hereby be prohibited through precedent. I see little point in escalating the different goons using this sigs for now, though they will be required to change it.

The bad-faith is dripping of this one. Seriously Rev, what the hell are you on? -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:36, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Random. Is rev finished with the template yet? I initially thought the green box was going to signify the actual user signing it from the long pink list. If only there was a way of explaining that the current signature was against policy because of impersonation and clarity concerns. Somewhere like here. Oh look vapor just beat me to it. --Rosslessness 23:02, 1 May 2011 (BST)
I thought that too, but I think it's just because Katthew's colour is green.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 23:32, 1 May 2011 (BST)
Explaining that these sigs are illegal is like explaining 1+1=2. They, and especially Rev, should know much better than this. Oh and look what Vapor is getting as reactions, can we even fake a surprised face here? -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:38, 1 May 2011 (BST)
I don't really expect much to come of it. So far I've pretty much received the answer I expected to get. ~Vsig.png 23:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much, but hey drama, if you dont want to deal with it, then you're in the wrong place. I'm sure rev can argue his case here. He's a sensible fellow. --Rosslessness 00:11, 2 May 2011 (BST)
That should be fun. Seems he's claiming ignorance of the law. The WIKI LAW. ~Vsig.png 00:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
So is "bad-faith" the new buzzword for things that you don't like but can't find a rule against? Serious question: which Goon ran over your dog/set your cat on fire/raped your sister (select as applicable), because you're awfully mad at us and there's no way a few wiki edits could trigger this kind of reaction. Thadeous hates Goons, can we even fake a surprised face here? --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sykic (talkcontribs) 00:02, 2 May 2011 (BST).
I'll wait for Rev to explain himself. However, I want to make it clear that using that piece of wikicode shit as sig is absolutely unacceptable. It either gets massively altered, or it is clear-cut escalation material for everyone using it. -- Spiderzed 00:20, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Non Involved chit chat moved to talk page.

Vandalism - As thad. I will not be responding to questions, statements or qq about my ruling in this case. My reasoning is as thad's introduction. I have no intention of getting dragged in to the drama involved in this case.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 23:32, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Nice to know how fair, unbiased, and un-prejudiced you really are. Icon rolleyes.gif ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 02:03, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Forgive him for knowing what you're like when a vandalism ruling is imminent. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 03:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Don't you start. Icon rolleyes.gif I know what you're like with ad hominem, personal attacks and poisoning the well. “Boo hoo Revenant actually makes arguments to defend himself and won't take his shafting lying down like a good little user!” ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 03:47, 2 May 2011 (BST)
users that need to deal with it -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 03:53, 2 May 2011 (BST)
See this right here? Yeah, that's why no one is voting for you. If you're unwilling to put forth the effort to work towards a solution for a problem, you probably should not hold any position whatsoever, much less be promoted. --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:33, 2 May 2011 (BST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laughing Man (talkcontribs) 03:33, 2 May 2011 (BST).

Why are you putting the person who created the template up for vandalism instead of the ones using it. If I dig up one of your templates and start using it as my signature will you put yourselves up for a vandal banning vote? --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Underisk (talkcontribs) 00:14, 2 May 2011 (BST).

I too have an issue with the suddenness and unwillingness to believe that this is anything other than vandalism because the person who made it was a goon. Suddenly, it's "bad faith" and "Sharing a signature = impersonation," even though it's got a lot of clever wiki-code that gives each goon a different color and only shows the link to the goon posting at the time. Yes, you could put forth a convincing argument that sharing a signature causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and that the policy should be altered to ban it. That's a fucking stupid idea and I don't see this as anything other than an attempt to de-legitimize a candidate in the current Bureaucrat election. --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laughing Man (talkcontribs) 01:12, 2 May 2011 (BST).

Vandalism' - creating a template that can have no other use but to cause confusion as to who posted a comment, and then encouraging others to use it. It violates the whole point of signing to have multiple handles in a signature without any way of making it damn clear which one is the the owner of the comment. And just because there is no specific rule against it, doesn't mean that it's not vandalism to use it. We can't pass policies on every single thing that poster may or may not do, but it is amply covered in our existing policies and precedents -- boxy 01:18, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Ruling changed, see below -- boxy 11:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Firstly, let me state for the record that this sig would have been created with or without my involvement. As a responsible member of the community, I have endeavoured to ensure its creation in such a way that it complies with relevant policy and provides minimal load on the server.

Now, let me quote some relevant policy (emphasis mine):

Required Link

The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one of its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature. Superscript adornments, images and other parts of your signature may link to other locations provided that such links do not violate the rules below.

What wouldn't be allowed
  • Signatures which impersonate another user.

Signature Policy

[A] user shall be guilty [of] impersonation if they improperly sign comments to mislead readers into believing that another user posted them, or that they were posted at a different time. A user shall also be guilty of impersonation and bad faith if the user makes an edit that alters, deletes, strikes, re-words or adds to another user's signed comments. Impersonation includes altering another user's words that the editor finds offensive. Impersonation also includes creating a user account with a name so similar to an existing user's name as to create confusion between the two. Impersonation also includes an editor making changes to their own signed statements after posting.

Exceptions:
Any user may strike votes that are improperly formatted or violate existing rules;
any user may add an unsigned comment tag to the end of an unsigned comment;

Impersonation Law

See also: Hivemind.

Now, then, in your considered opinion, signing with this template constitutes impersonation because…?

Edit: Edit confliiiict! Grr! Argh! *shaking fist* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 01:28, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Because it is misleading. Simple. I have no idea which goon is signing with it since more than one goon is using it and it isn't unique to any individual. You could also easily argue that its just a bad faith attempt to game the system by finding "loopholes" in the sig policy. Whether it was your idea or just under your guidance doesn't much matter. You created the page along with the instructions for its use so you own it I'm afraid. ~Vsig.png 02:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
So, wait… you're telling me you don't routinely view pages (especially admin pages) via history/diffs? Please tell me I'm not the only that does this. I know Boxy knows his way around them – hell, so does Sexualharrison.
The template was created so that issues with Goon signing could be addressed in a standardised manner, since there have been a number of hassles with these. Tell me please, what would be your suggested changes? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 02:41, 2 May 2011 (BST)
What? I don't need to view diffs to see the sig is misleading. The evidence is right in front of my eyes. My suggestions? Stop trying to share a sig. Use a normal sig like everyone else. ~Vsig.png 03:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
He means that we can tell who made what comment by viewing the diff comparisons. But that is a red herring. We shouldn't have to search through diff comparisons to tell who said what, and it will become almost impossible to tell who said what in a very short time. Even someone logging in for the first time today just know would find it extremely time consuming to sort it out if I hadn't been inserting unsigned notices. Seriously, it would be extremely simple to fix this sig with just the addition of a variable for the name of the poster being inserted into a spot where it would stand out as the handle portion (ie. a larger coloured section just at the start), while still keeping the ideal of having all goons sigs looking identical. Do that, and encourage any goons using this sig to change over, and I'd consider changing my ruling. But as it is, it remains obvious this template only exists for drama creation purposes -- boxy 03:52, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Hmm. That's a good idea. Might do that. I'll take a look and see what the best method is. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 03:56, 2 May 2011 (BST)
He took what we were going to do anyway, and made it in such a way that it followed the rules currently in place. I'm not sure how I see that implies bad faith on his part. I guess since you are assuming our intention was in bad faith you're unfairly transferring that onto him when he explained pretty clearly that he was attempting to do this in the best way he knew how, which seems like the definition of good faith to me. Maybe if you guys didn't spend so much time pouring over every goon edit looking for bad faith you would find less of it. --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laughing Man (talkcontribs) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (BST).

So does anyone care to define what actual rule this guy broke, or is this just a case of behind-the-scenes asshurt? Because all I'm seeing here is "He made a thing I don't like". Might I suggest deleting the offending signature template? I'm sure there's a WIKI LAW for that.--ебут этом гомосексуальные земля́, ebut ėtom gomoseksual'nye zemlя́ You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Retarded things go here --> Rosstika.gif 2 3 4 User:MisterGame 03:09, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I found the idea fascinating and quite clever, but as I looked through more and more of the code I realised how much of a clusterfuck it had been built to make. Had much more useful potential but deliberately giving multiple users a means to mask the the author of a comment between a score of other names is not helpful and can not conceivably be done with good intent. Vandalism. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 03:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Part of the reason it's been left that way is because there've been users with links to multiple user pages in their sigs before and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. Unless this really is just because it's Goons doing it? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 03:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)
You create something that only re-establishes goons as hiveminds, declare yourself a freedom fighter for the goons and then complain that you're all being mistreated as goons.c.f
No, I couldn't care less if you all are goons or not. The previous signatures all had handles and were easy to tell who made the post. Even the signature directly above this conversation is easy to navigate and all the instances of the other users is more of an obvious parody than any other, a little bit like izzys sig which confuses me every time but I've never made any effort to have it changed. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 04:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)
So, something more similar to the version I created, say, with the signer's name at the front? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 04:11, 2 May 2011 (BST)
I'm not quite sure which one you mean, but ideally it will have a handle that clearly links to the poster of the comment, preferably looking significantly different than the rest of the coloured part of the sig. I'm not going to make any promises about eligibility until I see one though (you'd have to point to one sig you meant because on the page you specified it looks the same but elongated). -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 04:19, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Sexualharrison's current sig doesn't contain a “handle portion”, per se and nobody's ever had a problem with that.
How about highlighted and bold, would that do? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 04:37, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Because it's rather obvious who's signing it? Because he doesn't have the links to 20 other users in his signature? Cause he has an image that is the focus of the signature that redirects straight to his user page? -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Also, I had hoped you guys would realise that I deliberately did this in the open on UDWiki in order to involve the community. I could have easily built this, tested it, and distributed the code via the forums and you would all have been none the wiser. Instead, once again, because I have made a good faith effort at transparency and openness, I am being harassed via A/VB, mostly by the same old crew.
Seriously disappointed in you guys right now. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 04:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)

lolwhat the only part of udwiki I can't dogpile with meatpuppets to get my way, shock horror! -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)
"meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," giving its supposed Wikipedia meaning as "a person who disagrees with you"

Wikipedia

You stay classy, DDR. Tongue :Pᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 06:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)
not sure what you're implying since (as I say every time you cite it) that's exactly what you do but ok -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 07:30, 2 May 2011 (BST)
AFAIK, that's the first time I've cited that: links pl0x? While you're at it, link me to the last time I called anyone a meatpuppet? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 08:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)
It may not have been you but a lackey of some sort definitely did when we had this exact same discussion a month ago. And link me to the last time I said you called anyone a meatpuppet? Getting a bit irrelevant here -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 09:57, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Do you ever take a step back from the computer monitor and realize that you're seriously accusing someone of having lackeys? If someone else insults you, maybe it's because you're a colossal passive aggressive piece of human detritus and not because of a conspiracy; I certainly didn't need Revenant's help to come to that conclusion about you. --!!! MySweetAssSignature.gif 10:25, 2 May 2011 (BST)
You don't exactly display the characteristics of a long term meatpuppet so I wasn't really talking about you anyway. Not that I find your opinion worrying to my self esteem either ways. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 10:53, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Seriously though that's fine. But you really shouldn't have started off with a template that openly made it practically impossible to tell who the signer is without looking at difs, making each signing tantamount to impersonation (or at least breaking the sig policy). I'm fine with this sig idea as long as in practice, we have no trouble obtaining the poster's username and link to their page off a first glance. And really, I don't know if any of us care that you're disappointed in us. Be disappointed that we're doing our jobs is how I read it. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 05:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)
I'm disappointed none of you know how to assume good faith and use a fucking talk page first like it says at the top of the fucking page, is what I am. Not surprised or shocked, but disappointed. Again.ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 06:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)
I contacted you on your talk page well before this case was brought against you and you deferred me to template talk. I did as you asked (though I felt you were passing the buck at that point) but you instead brought the discussion here. ~Vsig.png Amurica. Fuck. Yeah 07:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You were contacted, and all they got was the predictable responces about sandy vaginas, so please. Are you going to fix it up, or just keep posting here about how hard done by you are? -- boxy 07:04, 2 May 2011 (BST)
That response was not from me. Please learn to check contributions: I hear it's pretty easy. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 08:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Wow... just wow. And you still don't see the problem, despite the fact that you would need to point to a buried diff comparison to prove that you didn't make the comment.
Regardless, yes, I figured you didn't make that comment, but fucked if I was going trawling through your talk page history to find out who did. But then, I didn't accuse you of saying it, eh. What was predictable, was that whoever brought up the issue was going to be abused by the "hivemind". And you made no attempt to fix the problem, and still you don't seem to be doing anything about it, despite a number of sysops saying they will reconsider if you did make a fix. But still you have time to keep the drama rolling along.
Fix it next, or my offer expires -- boxy 10:52, 2 May 2011 (BST)
OK, so you've made a start while I was checking and posting. Thank you -- boxy 11:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)
You haven't overtaken Aichon yet in being the physical manifestation of the wiki's conscience, so the boo's and woes about being disappointed is unlikely to make an impact. And in regard to your earlier comments to Yonnua and DDR, stop taking this so personal. No one is out to get you, or goons specifically. It happens to be clear as day that these signatures are illegal as mentioned earlier. Perhaps you should glance over the slight possibility that you are in fact wrong here, instead of blaming others. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:03, 2 May 2011 (BST)
So you think only Aichon has a conscience, and will only listen if he personally tells you he has misgivings? You'd ignore somebody because of who they are, irrespective of if they have a point? Nice admission of bias.
I was responding to Yon's “naa naa I'm not listening” post, TYVM.
If I'm wrong, I ask one simple thing: don't just say it. Prove it.
I am a reasonable man. I would rather be corrected than continue being wrong. But as a man of reason, I require proof. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 08:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Don't try to lay words in my mouth I didn't say. I'm not at all biased against you. As for proof, opening your eyes for once. Pretty much every sysops here has in great detail explained why these sigs are illegal. If that isn't enough, you're the last one to accuse Yonnua of "naa I'm not listening" posts, since that's exactly all you have been doing in this case. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:12, 2 May 2011 (BST)
PROTIP: Saying something is “clear” or obvious” does not make it so: you still have to explain your point, even – especially – if it is obvious to you. In fact, as you'll learn in debate club, someone using those words is generally a clear and obvious sign that he does not, in fact, have a valid point. Achtung! Goonden!||||||||||||||| 11:13, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Vandalism I tried talking it out with you Rev but you don't seem to be getting the point. It should be obvious that different users can't use the same signature to sign edits to the wiki. Whatever steps that you've supposedly taken to ensure that people using it aren't breaking a policy have come up short and you seem more engorged on arguing that you've been wronged than you've explained how you are going to fix it. Please take steps to correct the template it will have to be deleted. ~Vsig.png Amurica. Fuck. Yeah 07:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Soft Warning. It's finally fixed. Don't do it again. -- Spiderzed 11:33, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Serves me right for being helpful, eh? Wink ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:20, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Serves you right for setting up an illegal sig template, and amending it only once it was clear you'd get escalated for it if it were to stay that way. -- Spiderzed 12:23, 2 May 2011 (BST)
It wasn't clearly illegal, and hasn't been shown to be other than “because we say so”. Yay for bowing to peer pressure? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:29, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Every op involved so far but you deemed it vandalism as impersonation/lack of a handle, and I'd have done so too if it hadn't been amended. Clearly, the others must be the ones driving on the wrong traffic lane. -- Spiderzed 12:47, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Fixed

There we go. A pretty picture, instructions on how to link to each user's page specifically, and no more horrible template sigs and ugly {{Nosubst}} which is just a horrible hack to get around signature restrictions and IMO should be deleted and banned like it is on all sensible wikis. Achtung! Goonden!||||||||||||||| 11:03, 2 May 2011 (BST)

I love it when a plan comes together. --Rosslessness 11:07, 2 May 2011 (BST)
That's good, as long as it's taken up by everyone using the template. I would have accepted a fair bit more subtlety in the handle portion (just as long as it stood out from the rest). I will change my ruling to not vandalism on the strength of this, and would encourage others to do likewise -- boxy 11:29, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Once those wonderful people have changed to the new version, I'll happily agree. --Rosslessness 11:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Copyrighted grim chit chat moved to talk page.
{{Nosubst}} is a hack to get around software restrictions which implement a polcy we don't have on this policy; templated sigs are allowed on this wiki: If you want to get rid off {{Nosubst}} then convince Kevan to change the $wgCleanSignatures to false.
I would actually say that the {{Goonsig}} template shouldn't be substituted as it adds a large amount of messy code to the page.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 11:37, 2 May 2011 (BST)
I tried getting it to work with {{Nosubst}}, hit a snag when I discovered it doesn't pass parameters, fiddled with it briefly, and gave it up as a bad job. If you think can make it work, please, feel free. (Template namespace is community-owned: anyone can edit so long as those edits are a good faith attempt to improve the page.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:13, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Also, don't you think the fact that $wgCleanSignatures is true heavily implies that we shouldn't be trying to work around what is a deliberately set limitation? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:18, 2 May 2011 (BST)
It would say that it implies that Wikipedia didn't want people to use templates in signatures: Mediawiki is basically set up under the assumption that everyone works like Wikipedia. The fact that they made turning it off as an option implies that doing so doesn't horribly break anything.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:04, 2 May 2011 (BST)
I'll have a look at it: I might be able to get it work (though I suspect it will involve an even uglier hack).--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:04, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Revenant's now taken steps to stop the problem - it's now on the goons themselves to change their signatures to the new version, the onus is no longer on Rev. Once again, I won't be responding to comments on my ruling.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 11:54, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Did I just hear “open season”? Tongue :P ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:04, 2 May 2011 (BST)

not vandalism as yoonua (except I'll happily respond to stuff). -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 12:50, 2 May 2011 (BST)

So if I said “DDR smells funny”? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:57, 2 May 2011 (BST)
"Haha" or "Woo" ?--Rosslessness 13:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)