2009, January Discussion

Create new discussion sections at the bottom of this page.

Sexylegsread

The user of the signature will be warned once and asked to change it. The user has one week to comply.

He was notified only two days ago. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but If a signature or template is changed in such a way as to seriously impair the operation of the wiki, the damage may immediately be reverted, or deleted if necessary, and the user who performed the alteration will be perma-banned with no questions asked. Obviously it's not like he's really impairing the wiki, but still.. --Janus ^talk 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It was seriously impairing the operation of people's ability to read anything and thus the wiki. His reverting back to the insane signature was a form of trolling, and he knows it. --

Rooster Dragon

20:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the policy means with "seriously impairing the operation of the wiki" and if you claim that, you're just as bad as he is. There have been longer and less clear signatures that didn't even get a mention. Really, it's not breaking any pages (as far as I know) and he hasn't exactly been spamming it around the wiki. The sig is included on less than 150 pages. There's no hurry to get him banned, he'll stay banned 7 days regardless of whether it's done right now or 5 days from now. The majority of people whose signatures are against the policy come around before the week is full. Banning him now is just premature. If you're worried about the signature, go convince him that his sig is bad instead of just trying to get him banned. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My first sentence was evidently a poor attempt at a quip, disregard it. His reversion was still just trolling though. --

Rooster Dragon

21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's assuming bad faith. Hagnat didn't exactly have business editing his sig in the first place. The only time someone else should touch your sig is when it's seriously impairing the operation of the wiki. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Hagnat didn't have business changing it, but SLR reverting it and claiming he'd fixed it to match policy (by doing little more than removing a couple of the insane links) IS acting in bad faith. I cannot see how it could be construed otherwise. --

Rooster Dragon

22:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He didn't say the change made it match policy, he said it didn't break it in the first place. Like I said, you're assuming bad faith. I'm assuming that he's just stupid :D. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 23:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're allowed to assume he's stupid, I'm allowed to assume he's stupid enough to act in bad faith where a normal person would not. :P Meh to all this tough, I think a cup of tea is in order, maybe some popcorn in order to better enjoy the upcoming Misconduct case on this issue. --

Rooster Dragon

00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was breaking my page but, It wouldn't be the first time, wasn't intentional, and was because of how I coded it. --Karek^maps?! 00:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

*Rakuen clears his throat* Shit was so cash --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it against the rules? Your old sig broke the formating on my monitor just as much as his did...so is your only complaint that his sig isn't the first link or bold or whatever?--x o x o 03:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is where he says it breaks the rules.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to shit up the Admin pages to quote the policy? Sigh.... Here it is, in full: "The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature." There you go. What is not clear about that? However, he has a week to fix it. --WanYao 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not when he reverts it after someone else fixes it for him. The week is there to give people, who are likely to be offline for days, time to fix the problem themselves. When a sig like this is on so many pages, it's entirely reasonable for someone else to fix it up (as I did only days before). If the page is then deliberately reverted to something that the user knows is against the policy, it is immediately vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:51 1 February 2009 (BST)

But, I don't think it does break policy. It isn't lost in a barrage of links, theres only six links, and its repeated a few times. 1/6th of my sig, as stated. I won't change it back to that, considering you are all fags who cant handle anyone who finds a policy loophole and exploits it, but yeah, it doesn't break the policy, thus isn't vandalism.--CyberRead240 08:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He admits to wilfully exploiting a perceived loophole. That's bad faith right there. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing: trolling. And he just admited it. Grow some fucking balls and ban him. --WanYao 16:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:ScouterTX and User:Ryzak Black

take it to arbies.--x o x o 00:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's responsible for this drivel? Because imnsho this non-event doesn't belong in the main namespace: it's group propaganda and thus belongs on a group subpage. --WanYao 08:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC) --WanYao 08:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wan. You can't make crap up against people and not expect them to edit. You don't have any control over the page (not a group page, not a user page.) Ironically, I was going to take that page to A/D but I saw this first. Linkthewindow Talk 08:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Point of Clarification for those involved: what link said. As it stands, this is a community page about an alleged conflict between some groups I've never heard of... Or, it's group propaganda. If it's the former, anyone can edit it -- but if there's a dispute, it goes to Arbies. IMO as it stands it's the latter, and belongs as a subpage. --WanYao 11:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

~~Not vandalism~~ - Reality edits. Basically, Captain whateverhisnameis like to troll the shit out of us (reasons unknown), including making fake rape screenshots up and using badly written fanfiction against us. Should be nuked. --ScouterTX 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

yawn, don't make a fake ruling or the people can get angies.--x o x o 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My point stands.--ScouterTX 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The page in question has just had ScouterTX's and Ryzak Black's edits reverted/removed by Captain Rickety. FWIW. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it should stay, but it should stay as fiction that it is currently labeled. I think that any group involved should have the chance to say what they think, otherwise it becomes propaganda and slander. I think that the page should stay and this request shouldn't be followed through with. - --The Cop 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be moved to FURIG's (?) group subspace, or at least protected if it's going to become the subject of an edit war. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Wouldn't he just be following precedent by entering those requests, since the RRF's subgroups were moved to their subspace and thus the DEM's should be too? Or is this different since Axes High, etc. are technically separate groups? --Pestolence^(talk) 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a little of that plus he did it in obvious bad faith. He was just being spiteful, though he will tell you otherwise.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... Though I'm a little worried that its starting to look like admin are going to VB him for everything they can find, new or old. Liberty 03:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah, its the admin team thats out to get Iscariot--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't exactly something small. --Karek^maps?! 04:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess its cause this was before I arrived. It's hard for me to understand the context. Liberty 09:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The DEM has always claimed the member groups are separate and unique groups that entered upon some agreements, like the Dulston Alliance or the Big Bash. The RRF strike teams have never been separate groups, they're representative of activity times, not actual separate membership. Strike teams are not sub-groups, they're not independent, and they never formed out side of the group in question. MOB has strike teams, same thing, they don't even have description pages because they're all MOB, the members are all MOB members they just participate in attacks of X strike team, or in other words are on at X time. --Karek^maps?! 04:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, he deserves it all. He does break rules and he does antagonize people for fun and he does pick favorites when it comes to people and their opinions. He is using all of these failed VB cases against him to make himself look like a great guy being oppressed by the "overlords" and so he has the whole bandwagon routine where he acts like he represents the true opinion of the wiki. In doing such, the people who do agree with him only strengthen his point, and everyone who opposes him is deemed to be basically lackeys of the sysops. He's even accused me of being an alt of a sysop before just because I opposed him! He used to entertain me back when he was Grim's occasional toady but now I see that unlike Grim, he never has periods where he isn't an ass and actually cares about the wiki as a whole.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but that has nothing to do with the fact that he was using disrupting the wiki to try and make a point, in doing the exact same thing I warned Labine about and that Nalikill got a ban over in the past.(put A/D up for deletion). --Karek^maps?! 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Though I was making more of a general statement than a reply to your point. I'll fix the indention.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bold text

User:Jedaz

Uh... There is a new case -- made by me -- against Raiden. If he choses not to participate, then I will seek someone to represent him in absentia and proceed with the case. While I appreciate your intervention, below, Nubis, I have little faith at the moment in the sysop team following through with a vandalism ruling for further violations of NPOV. I was told by you to take it to Arbitration -- and I obediently did exactly that. And.... this comment is relevant, because if it weren't for Jedaz removing Iscariot's case, I might not have had to file the vandalism report below, and subsequently open a new arby case for more of the same shit by Raiden. Dig? --WanYao 09:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wan, I understand what you are saying, but your Arby case has no bearing on what edit Jedaz made. That would be like someone making a VB case against X and then someone making another different VB case and trying to use the first one as a justification. If Jedaz removes yours then that would be vandalism because the last time I checked Sgt. Raiden hadn't responded to it at all.

I think in the long run your arby case has more merit because you have shown him the guidelines and what is expected. Not to mention, I doubt that the result that Iscariot wanted (banning him from posting about Mall Tour) would solve your problem (him violating NPOV).

As far as the sysop team not voting Vandalism if I miss the next time he is on here for a similar edit message me. There is no reason whatsoever that his next edits should be violating NPOV and he has been given every break and should be warned with no discussion. Actually, I would almost go so far as suggesting a ban of some term because of the leniency he has been shown.

I don't know if I agree with the idea of an arby case being tried in absentia, but it would really be in his best interest to contact you on either A/A or your talk page and work something out. If he doesn't then that shows a lack of good faith since he isn't trying to compromise or follow guidelines. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow how the one would have prevented the other Wan, the only way is if he got banned for making Mall Tour comments, which he hasn't, and which isn't going to happen unless they're in bad faith anyway. The Arbitration case would have no effect on the edits you reported him for except for the off chance that he might possibly have been involved with the drama there and to distracted to edit anywhere else, which is unlikely. --Karek^maps?! 09:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nubis, you said: "That would be like someone making a VB case against X and then someone making another different VB case and trying to use the first one as a justification." Actually.... Ok, I get your point, but... Two seperate cases can be connected, and the first case be used to establish a pattern of behavior. You see that here all the time. Also, if you fail to ban someone and they re-vandalise, then you point to the fist case, often with an "I-told-you-so" ;P Etc. etc. However, big point taken: the arby was about Mall Tour shit, only. --WanYao 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Jedaz =/= Sgt. Raiden, Wan. Think you aren't reading the User name part.--

#99 ^DCC 00:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Wiki Martyr

Wait, can you really unpermaban it after two other sysops voted in favor of vandalism?--SirArgo ^Talk 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He can't, but there is only one other ruling I see, so yes, he can. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Both Cheese and Boxy voted Vandalism.--SirArgo ^Talk 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now, thanks. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--SirArgo ^Talk 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I did it anyway and if they push the issue I will be forced to file a misconduct case for them permabanning an account illegitimately. Aside from the fact that my contesting the ruling means it's still an active case there's that there is no way under the rules for them to preemptively ban an account unless it exists for impersonation. This one doesn't.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 01:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahem... --Pestolence^(talk) 01:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, that name is offensive. Wiki Martyr is not. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To expand somewhat on that, accounts created that have names that are the same as, or even similar to, the name or chosen handle of a wiki user have always been perma'ed before, vandalism or not. Examples: HAHA DISREGARD THAT etc., 8oxy, Kevin, and many others that I CBA'ed to look up right now. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not his handle, never was. It's just something he's been adding to arbitration cases. His handle is St. Iscariot.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's how he's been referring to himself for at least a few days before this case -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:04 16 January 2009 (BST)

He calls himself that way in his user page, yet his sig says otherwise. I agree with karek that this is a faerie queen case, but i agree that this account serves no purpose but harassment, and that is vandalism in the new wiki book --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't seriously think him breaking the rules of the wiki(there's a policy against that thing) and providing himself with a title on his user page count as impersonation can you? He does not use the name wiki martyr, no one here thought it was Iscariot, there was no intent or attempt to impersonate and claiming otherwise is twisting the reality of the case in an attempt to justify a ban of the account. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 03:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But everyone knew exactly who was being imped, because he had named himself that in the same case that this sock puppet posted to. The account was created with only one purpose, to hassle Iscariot about his choice of arbies titles on an the admin page, just like the HAHA sock that was banned because its only purpose was imping bob -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:33 16 January 2009 (BST)

Everyone knew who was implied by Faerie Queen too boxy. It wasn't a case of impersonation, the intent wasn't to impersonate and you just admitted as much. HAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS existed only to impersonate, the names were the same down to one small dumb typo. This is a case of harassment not impersonation and you know it, you just said it there even. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And creating an account solely for the purpose of harassment is bad faith vandalism... alternate accounts are not banned, but when they are created solely for bad faith purposes, such as harassment, they are banned. Quite frankly, Faerie Queen should have been binned too. It was a sock puppet used for vandalism, and was warned for it too -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:02 16 January 2009 (BST)

No one is calling it impersonation. It's obviously not, duh. It's a trolling account with a name based on that of another user and with the clear intention to harass them. As others have said, that sort of thing is and always has been vandalism. --WanYao 04:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The account was not used for vandalism unless making it to make a wisecrack about Iscariot adding his fake title to the arbitration case is now harassment. It's not an account that exists solely for vandalism, it's an account you want to prevent from having any chance of performing vandalism it hasn't performed. The actions of Faerie Queen the account since the case just make that illegitimacy point that much more. It was a dumb thing to do it was not vandalism unless creating sock puppet accounts is now vandalism and should have been handled with a warning to Conn that using it in the manner of the Faerie Queen edits would be considered vandalism. That's not what you've done, and when you did do it that's not why you banned the account because that can't justify banning the account. You banned the account because you feel there is no possible legitimate purpose, you're wrong and that's assuming bad faith and when you did it you broke the wiki's rules limiting when an account can be banned. Wiki Martyr has not performed three vandalism edits, it didn't even perform one, you banned it because it's a reference to Iscariot referring to himself as a wiki martyr and that's about as loose of a reason for any of this as can be provided.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 04:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How does it follow that someone ripping of Bobs tagline but making no vandalism edit is immediatly banned as a vandal and the same for the 8oxy account while this obvious attack on another users chosen nickname is not? Surely it can't be anything to do with who is guilty in each case can it?--Honestmistake 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering it's Conndraka and I am the one defending the account; No, it doesn't. Those are cases of impersonation, please read the rest of the comments before commenting as that difference has been pointed out quite a few times now. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 02:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For fuck sake, it's NOT impersonation in the normal sense. But wiki precedent is clear: trolling accounts which imitate another user's handle are considered vandalism. Usually you're pretty good with this stuff, knowing and following precent, karek... Why the difference this time around? --WanYao 08:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, it doesn't matter what edits the account made... And it's a confirmed suck puppet... Where is the ambiguity?? There is none: except the smoke screen being created to protect conndraka... --WanYao 08:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wan, I'm the only one following precedent. The precedent is User:Faerie Queen. Even then there's the issue that it's not impersonation in any sense and the accounts existence is not in and of itself vandalism(which is what allows us to instantly ban such accounts). I'm being consistent in the extreme both with my actions in the past and the precedent provided to us for cases of this nature. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 13:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If the faerie queen case is your only precedent, it's a pretty weak one, given that Gage and Bob both categorically refused to reveal who the sock puppeteer was at the time (2 years ago), and as has been shown by at least one more recent case, that attitude has changed, as has the fact that users teaming up on others with sock accounts is seen as bad faith, even if they don't commit other forms of vandalism. It's a bad precedent to set, to allow people to create sock accounts to poke people, that they are having disagreements with, anonymously -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:14 17 January 2009 (BST)

I'm sorry but you astound me Boxy. That case is ridiculous as support to your argument, where is User:Wiki Martyr being used to delude the community into believing more people support an opinion than really do? It's not because that would be asinine and legitimate grounds to ban the account. It's bad precedent to set that you can ban any alt you want simply because you don't like the look of it. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 15:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If an alt account is solely created to stir another user, like this one was, then yes absolutely -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:11 17 January 2009 (BST)

And yet you can't because we don't. --Karek^maps?! 16:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's about policy and precedent, why can't I recall there ever being much doubt before as to whether a confirmed sock puppet account -- created solely for the purpose of getting another user's goat by imitating his alias, or a prominent part thereof -- should be banned or not? It's been done before, why isn't it being done now? And, I love how Conndraka tries to assert that he wasn't trolling, above -- when the very creation/existence of the account itself was trolling. Mild trolling, with just a hint of impersonation? Yeah, but trolling nonetheless... You're kidding no one Conndraka, and as others have said, the mature thing to do would be to delete the account yourself. But I don't expect anything of the sort from you. Too bad. --WanYao 11:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Least trolling trolling I've ever known. Now if he had kept it up then maybe but, as is, the reaction to the account is srsbusnz. Not to mention we don't ban alt accounts for being alt accounts this isn't sockpuppetry, that's an important difference and part of why we can't ban it, having a second account that isn't trying to rig votes is allowed. --Karek^maps?! 15:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a simple question really (i would check but my work pc is being buggy when i try opening history) Did the "8oxy" account or the "Isuckcocks" account commit any vandalism before they were banned? Obviously all 3 are different, but enough similarities exist that they do fit into the same category. Clearly the "8oxy" account was made just to make a point and was pretty unlikely to have any real contribution and the same can be said about the Cyberbob piss take but were they banned before or after vandalism?--Honestmistake 09:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

They both made a point of not committing vandalism, and 8oxy feigned an intention of becoming useful members of the community -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:42 20 January 2009 (BST)

3 is bigger than 2, Vandalism. Case closed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And the key difference between Faerie Queen and Wiki Martyr is that Matthew Fahrenheit never called himself that way. Therefore, even if the account was created only for harassment of said user, it couldnt be called impersonation in any shape or form. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

But... Matthew Faerienheit? Liberty 12:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont know (nor judge) every user initimate life. If he called himself that way outside the wiki, it was my problem. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 13:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither can this Hagnat, and you know it. --Karek^maps?! 15:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:MisterGame

On the same page you link to here, it was decided that it was NOT a deletion workaround. It was deleted by request of the page owners before the community deletion was decided.--SirArgo ^Talk 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and as you can see in the deletion report, it has already been commented on by other sysops. Its in the group subpage now aswell.--Thadeous Oakley 10:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also WanYao should take note that it is not personal as Haliman111 is a FICTIONAL character and it is not a report against the individual behind the character even though it is about traits this person may have.--

President Jackson

11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I submitted this report before the speedy deletion. As for Jackson's comment, I don't know what the hell you're talking about... I think you people all need help. --WanYao 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he is trying to say that the Haliman in the chat log is made up and is either not actually a real conversation with him or that the fact that "Haliman111" is his screen name (and thus fake) is not like saying John Smith of Pawtucket, Kansas. (so not an invasion of a real person's privacy) Or I could be wrong. Also, I have no problems with Karek's decision here.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Spokane

No! Please tell me you're kidding. His posts on his talk page are completely fine. He doesn't want the newbie template, lots of people don't. If he is a vandal account, which he may be he should be given newbie benefit of the doubt. Shoot him a warning and see if he cleans his act up. This is the sort of overreactive bullshit that scares potential contributors off the wiki. Give him a chance.--x o x o 12:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Admittedley, his last talk page contribution wasn't bad faith or vandalism, but his main vandal edit doesn't say much for his long term usage of the wiki does it? Liberty 13:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Newbies do that shit often. I admit it's not a good reference, but it's not like if we don't stop him now he can't be stopped. Woah that's a lot of negs, you catch my drift though.--x o x o 13:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with you. should wait for another offense before a perma, his talk page edit did indicate he intended to stay here. Liberty 13:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it also specifically stated that he intended to continue being a "jerk" to people he feels deserve it. If you feel that that part of policy is wrong, then A/PD can fix it by removing that part of A/G -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:53 18 January 2009 (BST)

What about permabanning him if he actually continue being a jerk after his first warning? --Janus ^talk 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the policy? --Cyberbob 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Me? So, if someone is actively vandalising a page, and stops after being warned, we will not go any further on the issue. --Janus ^talk 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

From When a User May be Warned or Banned - "The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki." -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:03 19 January 2009 (BST)

Yes, that says you can perma him, i obviously wouldn't have a/med you if you did. I just think in this case it is poor form, give the guy a chance. And it seems pretty much everyone agrees.--x o x o 11:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ban. Not necessarily permaban. And of course you can do it; that just doesn't seem fair to me in this case. :) --Janus ^talk 11:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hagnat

So, i take it you guys are like sith jedis... there is always two of you guys, a master and an apprentice. With grim's gone, iscariot was promoted to master and ur his apprentice ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate star wars. You should know why.--x o x o 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm gonna have to agree with J3D on this one. You really need to quit poking the damn bear!--SirArgo ^Talk 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

U mispelled 'beer'... curous fact: a user is trying to get promoted and he says he doesnt drink and wikis for a long time, yet, i... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i herd u liek mudkipz. iz it tru?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

you gettig vb'd Liberty 07:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

your indentation suggests your responding to cheese but the last word in your post suggests iscariot! :O --x o x o 01:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Methinks he needs to go and sober up. =/ -- C h e e s e 01:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nahh... its just the coffe --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 01:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Drunk wikiing, its teh bezt. Amirite lads? --x o x o 01:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye, ruling on vandalism cases is particularly good. =p -- C h e e s e 01:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

LoL@canadalism... u cant blame people for being canadian. Its like me going around slapping argentinans around for being... you know, from argentina. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 01:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So mudkipz is a bannable offense now? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

always has been.--x o x o 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Krauser case

Moved from main page

What?! When Haliman was a Fraud was on the wiki, did I vandalize it? NO. I came to A/D where a case was already opened, and voted. I am simply letting the public know about Umbrella CHEATING. --Haliman - Talk 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree entirely, go do that somewhere else. The wiki is not a place for this.--Thadeous Oakley 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that arby case is in the process of getting started, you are still trying to bait the Umbrella side into making a mistake so you can drag them here. Most of the edits I've seen from you the past day or so have been so blatantly non-constructive it's not even funny. You can either co-operate and get this mess cleared up or you can do what you're doing right now and just continue to be a troll. Up to you. -- C h e e s e 21:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Get this mess cleaned up? Umbrella has harassed me and my doings for the past 8 months. What makes you think a wiki arby case will solve that? Have you even seen our forum today? No. They sent spammers who continued to change their IP every time we banned one, to the point where I took away every guests' ability to post. We are doing nothing wrong. --Haliman - Talk 21:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And making pages that are by their very nature going to cause even more fuss is just idiotic. The best course of action is get you guys on a common middle ground (the wiki) and you can sort things out without having to worry about getting banned from the others forums or whatever. The more of a mess that is made, the harder it's going to be to sort it so you might as well get on with it. -- C h e e s e 21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, of course.--Thadeous Oakley 21:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, Thad, what are we doing wrong? Check the history of all your pages. Nothing wrong there. Check your forums. Any spam by the UBCS? None. --Haliman - Talk 21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do have spam by (apparent) UBCS. Happy? --Thadeous Oakley 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said it? I can assure you I will confront them about it. --Haliman - Talk 21:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm wrong or ignoring something, but doesn't this meet the criteria for vandalism in that it involves edits to a group subpage that said user is not a member of? --Pestolence^(talk) 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I provoked them <_< even when they threatened to do the same thing. --Haliman - Talk 22:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a general rule of thumb that I've used in the past; When your actions make their vandalism appear to be a reasonable next step either you both broke the rules of it's not vandalism and it's time for a third party to step in and tell you you're both crossing a line(soft warning type administration voice stuff). It seems like Cheese is saying it's reached that point, because we can't let you both vandalize but we also aren't going to reward you for driving people to vandalism. Basically, proceed cautiously and don't use the wiki to further the dispute.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 05:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This group has been asked to leave this page alone numerous times... telling them that they're actions will go unpunished if another group was "mean to them" will not improve the situation. They both need to keep to their own group sub pages, or learn to use talk pages! -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:05 12 January 2009 (BST)

My point was both groups will be escalated equally.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 16:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And what are you going to escalate UBCS for? For being annoying arses, on their own pages? Bah! A bit of personal responsibility is needed here. Let people say what they like about you on their own pages... if you have a problem with what they're saying, talk to them reasonably... or start arbitration proceedings against them... but do not vandalise their page! When it comes to vandalism being reported here, "they were being mean" can not be a reason to excuse vandalism of a group page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 17:06 12 January 2009 (BST)

Understandable but there is precedent for treating both sides equally when they're driving each other to bad faith edits. Sadly there's also precedent for ignoring one side while they cause the other to be permabanned.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Haliman... learn to provide diff comparisons, like this, which shows the actual changes made by the person in question. S'okay? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:05 12 January 2009 (BST)

User:Iscariot

It's a cycled case, so not taking up space in the prevailing cases, but we all know how this is going to be ruled.

"even though I know"? Karek has access to no in-date information. Although a former member of the RRF War Council, Karek is no longer privileged to the basic information I as a serving member of the Gore Corps has. It would be like allowing Jorm to dictate the RRF's current suburb activities, past involvement has no bearing on current information made available to a serving and loyal member of the group in question of the case. I am willing to make available to War Council and Sysops logs from IRC that show Karek's disdain for the RRF and the limit of his "privileged information" through private channels. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free, they know why I left. But please, explain how that changes what they all know about how the GC came about and still functions, do they have their own group tag now? Have they been thrown out of the RRF?--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to answer those questions, I have to answer the ones that were applicable to the DEM's arguments on the move page. The Corps existed before admission to the horde, they operate independently, they were not asked before the move from there old space occurred (in fact I registered a dispute that was summarily overruled) without consultation in question and they recruit seperately from the main body. Now, have I described Axe's High or the Gore Corps? It's odd that all you attempts to escalate me focus on the Gore Corps and not the Breakfast Club which was the other half of the case. Is that because you know you're wrong or is it because your information on the horde is so out of date that you have no clue as to their current status?

What we have here is a sysop making a blanket decision based on year old information with no consultation with the group in question. Odd how he would do this with the DEM rather than the horde he has claimed to hold "privileged information" about.... --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I'm not adding more on the GMT-BC thing is because I was asked not to by the same person that provided me with the information that made me not go back and move it.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 05:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're still avoiding the question. Are you a member of the War Council and able to speak for the RRF? Are you a member of the Gore Corps? My input in the Humanity's Saviour's case wasn't subject to A/VB because I knew more than you due to my current group affiliations. This is no different, except your pride can't allow you to state the obvious. Answer the questions. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's it. Had nothing to do with the fact that Labine was a third party and your input there was superfluous and useless.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 05:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell me, was the person that requested the move from the original position a third party or a member of the RRF? Same applies. You again avoid the questions. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 05:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gore Corps is and always was a branch of the RRF. It was one of the fricking causes of the RRF-MOB split! Same thing goes for the GMT Breakfast Club and the Dept of Homeland Security (which i was a proud member of). Denying this is saying you dont know jack shit about the rrf history --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

History? Is this an historical group that we are talking about or a current one? Are you a member? Am I? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do I have the ability to move this shit to the talk page, or will I get in trouble for it? --Cyberbob 05:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, feel free.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 05:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to come here and comment since I was the Papa during the creation of the Gore Corps. Before I begin let me say what the Gore Corps is and what it isn't. The Gore Corp is a disgrace to the RRF and by making himself leader of it Moloch himself is responsible for the downfalls of the RRF. But the Gore Corps is not separate from the RRF for that very reason. During Big Bash (the only one because the second was weak) a lot of us were combat revived. I said if you are revived do what you want; be a survivor, pker, or kill yourself. Goolina asked if she could lead a group when revived, I said sure. Then the group went from those accidentally revived to those that seek revives. This is not what the RRF stands for, and if you ask me it still doesn't because whatever it is that Moloch is leading is not the RRF. Its a fanclub for himself since the man is creating a cult of personality on par with Turkmenbashi (the real one). The Gore Corps was like every other strike team during my control, it answered to a Group leader. This is all alien to you because Moloch did away with everything the RRF had except for the Gore Corps and GMT BC. You had Papa, War Master, Consigliere, Elders, Group Leaders (Uncles), Capos for the Groups, and then strike team leaders that answered to the Uncles. Somewhere Moloch fucked with this because he has nothing better to do then fuck up good things. Now every zombie is in a strike team because the RRF isn't a horde but a group split into 5 or so platoons. However, none of this really matters since the argument is on RRF vs. DEM. During my time as Papa I asked Petro if I could separate the RRF horde from the DoHS so that people could have 2 zombies. He said no because that is alt abuse, going for the same goal with 2 characters. The DEM has this though, 2 characters in the same branch. The RRF does not allow you to have 2 characters in the RRF. By saying the Gore Corp is separate then you are saying that you can have 2 characters in the RRF, thus alt abuse. By doing this the RRF admits to alt abuse. Moloch runs the RRF and Gore Corps with the same character, RRF bans 2 characters in the same group, and historically the Gore Corps always was a strike team within Group 0, the combined horde. My expert opinion: Gore Corps is in the RRF. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 05:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

When did you stop being Papa of the RRF? Did the Corps stop at the same time? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I stopped being Papa in September 2006. Gore Corps was created in July 2006. I remained on the War Council until Early 2008. I was very active in the RRF until around November 2007. The Gore Corps has always been part of the RRF. Despite what Moloch says the RRF has been around before he became Papa. I know a lot of this information is new. A lot of information on the RRF before he took over was erased off the wikipage, the main RRF website, and from the forum. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 05:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, by October 2006 at the latest you were no longer the final de facto authority for the horde? You admit that you views are in conflict with the current holder of the position of Papa in the RRF? You admit that it is the right of Papa to decide whatever he wishes for the horde without reproach either internally or externally? You also admit that you have no basis for a lot of this information other than you own word and those of your supporters?

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen of the community, is someone that is now banned from all RRF media, be it wiki, IRC or forum based attempting to tell you without substantiating proof other than the word of his supporters what the position and structure of a group is that he hasn't been head of for two years and that he has open hostility towards the current group and its leader as approved by the group itself.

I trust this illustrates the accuracy and trustworthiness of this information. It is the right of any group in this game to define themselves as they wish, Sonny no longer holds that position or any of power in the RRF, Karek never held this position, no longer holds a position of power and attempts to stifle all discussion of his decisions regarding this group through such cases as this. The question you of the wiki community must ask yourselves is, is questioning and asking for clarification of a decision represented by deception on a closed move case an act of bad faith editing and therefore vandalism? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying to argue with the Papa who created the Gore Corps on what the strike team was and was not then you're stupider than I imagined. And for the record I was banned from the RRF and everything for the same reason why the MOB and Sanitarium left the RRF, they didn't like how shit was going. I will say for the record, Moloch is an idiot and is ruining the RRF. My opinions got me banned for "slagging off" as he puts it. This has been settled. All you're doing now is bringing down the RRF even more. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You weren't asking for clarification and the case itself was borderline vandalism because you know better. You're trying to abuse the system to make some trumped up point against the system working in any manner for the DEM, a group you hate. The fact that your justifications have been proven false by knowledgeable parties that you then attack their trustworthiness because you can't attack their arguments and you know it makes that point for me. Thank you for showing just how right I am in filing this case.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 06:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't imply my intentions, the overriding principle of this page, as you well know, is to assume good faith. Assuming I was doing otherwise against my own knowledge is bad faith at worse and incorrect as fact. Knowledgable parties? Two people no longer in power in a group and with a demonstrative grudge against it? The case is not about the DEM except for a point of statute. They were allowed to move their pages out from group control, I asked why. I then pointed out that groups within my horde can and do fit the same criteria and should be allowed the same rights. You disagreed and I questioned your right to speak for a group you no longer hold a position in and have an obvious contempt for. It was for this, and nothing else, that I was brought here. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's funny because you're being super serious. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

<hagnat> does iscariot hold any "position of power" in the rrf?
<Murray_Jay> iscariot?  i don't believe so
<hagnat> ok
<Murray_Jay> he has a gore corpser, but i think that's it
<hagnat> second question
<hagnat> are you capable of defining the status of the strike teams ?
<Murray_Jay> status?
<Murray_Jay> like how many people they're getting?
<hagnat> as in: is gore corps a strike team of the rrf, or a independent group ?
<hagnat> same question goes for the other strike teams
<Murray_Jay> it's a part of the rrf
<Murray_Jay> not independent
<hagnat> iscariot saying that gc is independent
<hagnat> and that the gc formed outside the rrf and they joined in
<Murray_Jay> those are both just wrong
<Murray_Jay> i mean, they were formed during the original big bash, but they were a part of the RRF'ers taking part in the bash

Iscariot dismissed the opinion of both karek and sonny, since they didnt hold any "position of power" in the current rrf. To my surprise, neither does he. In the above log, you'll notice how murray jay confirms that the gc is part of the rrf and always was part of it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 06:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And I thought inner group-drama was preserved for survivors only.--Thadeous Oakley 15:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

meh... its not like iscariot speaks for any of the groups he says he speaks for. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella Groups

You are all faggots. Resident Evil sucks. Basing your group off of Umbrella, a poorly created idea for a corporation that fits every single cliche, is retarded. I hope you all die in a fire. I hope your family develops cancer. I hope everyone you love contracts AIDS. I hate you all. Love, --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 01:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I love you Sonny. Are you going to contract AIDS now?--Thadeous Oakley 14:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would if I wasn't immune to it. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Omg hax0rs. --Haliman - Talk 03:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Janus Abernathy Case

See Wan? This is why we talk things out first! ;) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't automatically assume that it is a Umbrella member, WanYao. I apologize for Skouth and Rohanzap but this Hallman/Umbrellaemployee is not one of ours. Its quite easy to impersonate a group and there is not really much what the impersonated group can do in such a case.--Thadeous Oakley 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"How many vandal reports in the last week from their members" Lets see... 2 from Umbrella employee, 2 from Rohan, 1-2 from Skouth "I lose track now," 2 from Hallman, and 1 from Thad. That's 9 cases. <_< Just delete there page already. They zerg, vandalize, and all around piss everyone off. --Haliman - Talk 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of you shut up and get over yourselves. We are not having a flame war starting on the VB page. Take it elsewhere. -- C h e e s e 17:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to make something clear to everyone here, Cheese.--Thadeous Oakley 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hallman Case

I'd like to point out that this is not one of our members. Either this hallman/umbrellaemployeeguy is trying to make us look bad on purpose (which would not surprise me at all...) or he doesn't follow direct orders in which case he will be banned from our forums should we ever find out who he is.--Thadeous Oakley 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Nice "authoritative figure" act. You would never ban someone for this. You'd probably give them a medal. --Haliman - Talk 17:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If i might say something... I was acting independently of Umbrella at the time. Please do not let my actions reflect on Umbrella as a whole. If anyone deserves the blame for vandalising let it be me and me alone. At the time i was kind of... inebriated lets say. As for MR. Haliman's remark that i was accounted of two charges of vandalism in the last week i would like to point out to him that the afformentioned incident took place on December 11th. That is more than one week ago from this current date so i would (if it is not seen as being persnickity) suggest to Haliman that he invest in a calendar. Word on the street is you can get one really cheap now.Also i would like to point out that it was seen as a collective charge. I would also like to point out that the "umbrellaemployee" is not in anyway affiliated with Umbrella to the full extent of my knowledge. I can second MisterGame's statement that he is not a member of the Umbrella Corporation group. If i might put forth a slice of personal thought i believe that the person in question "umbrellaemployee" is in fact someone that may feel that Haliman111 has wronged them in some way and seen the animosity shared between our two groups. They have decided to increase the sense of bitter rivalry and hatred by posing as one of our supposed members and by making salacious comments about Mr Haliman here. The overall point i am trying to make is that Mr Haliman should perhaps stop pointing the finger at Umbrella (regardless of past occurences for which i am deeply ashamed of) and think who else it might be. Perhaps a former member of the UBCS who became disatisfied with the group or even a rogue party just trying stir up trouble in order to watch and secretly mock us at we tear at each others throats. So i bid you please stop this madness. Yours sincerely Rohanzap —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rohanzap (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Would you all stop, elsewhere, if you must. _■^■ 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell am I supposed to stop? The UBCS never did anything! Check the history on Umbrella's page! --Haliman - Talk 03:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sexylegsread Case

~~Id' say not candanalism in itselsf but ppoor form noetheless. I am quire drnk ans L';m dix shit speilling in eth morningfd -- C h e e s e 04:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)~~ Striking my own drunken ramblings--C h e e s e 18:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? Please say that was a joke Cheese...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that, please tell me the way you fucked everything up like you're drunk was a joke.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheese, he outright admitted to getting a "friend" to do it. He was as involved in it as is possible without actually pushing the button. This "poor form" shit is a cop-out, nothing more. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

excuse me? I never said I "got someone" to do it for me. It was never even my idea I just told the girl to go ahead, it will be funny. Last I checked regular users don't have an obligation to prevent account creation. Our group of friends all play UD. Only 3 of us wiki it. This person is one of those I'd people.not me. It is not an offence to not stop someone else from doing something. Whether I encourage it or not is irrelevant, it would have happened with or without by input. --CyberRead240 09:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, it isn't irrelevant whether you encourage it or not. Hell, even if you didn't encourage it your knowledge of it is in itself vandalism as you didn't do anything to forewarn the sysops. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, with or without me, it would have happened. But if you really want to pull all of this out your arse and make a song and dance guys, I'm happy to watch you hoo-hah about it, dw about that. Give me the escalation if you can link the appropriate rules, and I will cop it. Wiki is boring now anyway, its the same old same olds who can't take a joke. I miss grim.--CyberRead240 10:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you really hate it here so much, feel free to ask for a permaban. I'm sure they'll be only too happy to oblige. Or are you simply talking shit again? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I don't want to ask for a perma ban, that is why I haven't. Does that suffice? I don't know about you, but I find it easy to go outside and enjoy life, my wiki use is sporadic as a result. But if I ever truly get back into UD, I would like to be able to edit pages that may be of relevance. For now, I am happy doing what I do, but my interest is declining, thats for sure.--CyberRead240 10:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, you're absolutely right that you don't know about me, so passive-aggressive shit like that isn't going to be very effective. Secondly, you use this wiki plenty so your attempt to paint yourself as just a casual internet user is pretty obviously a lie. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Headings

Just a minor suggestion: since the {{vndl}} template includes a link to the user profile (and has done for quite a while now), we should really switch to plain headings with no links, which would make it easy to link to a particular case. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Like {{v}}? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:46 3 January 2009 (BST)

Putting header code in templates isn't the best idea. There's a reason the newbie template is protected.--Karek^maps?! 03:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's used, subst'ing it in should fix that problem, yeah? We'd probably have to also protect this template as well, in case of mishaps -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:07 3 January 2009 (BST)

Subst'ing templates is needless and should be avoided when not absolutely necessary. Just don't make it a header, give it an id. Or, just continue on in the already established manner sans link. It'll end up like the original system but with a fancy template.--Karek^maps?! 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Er... what? Substing templates is much better than having people copy paste long blocks of code, especially if there's anything which needs to be duplicated (such as the username), and it's much better than template calls for archival purposes. I like the {{V}} template, looks like a good way to streamline making reports. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing from the current system would just make it harder on the person filing the case. You're using inconvenience as an argument to inconvenience. However, my point was that you can make a bold title and anchor it, the only problem is that you won't have a normal table of contents AFAIK. That avoids the edit and header problems but keeps the code compact and straight forward by not including needless substitution. But, again, you'd have the problems that come from not having real headers, which is to say you won't have editable sections for each case. Which again brings us back to the point of what real benefit to the user is there from this change?--Karek^maps?! 02:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The verdict box to the right of the cases is a good touch. Good job guys. --Zs L 06:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Makes those longer cases a lot easier to follow. Linkthewindow Talk 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, until Hagnat and Conndraka use convenient mathematics when it suits them. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.--– Nubis ^NWO 09:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what do we think about doing away with the link in the headers? I think it's a good idea, seeing as the link is in the vndl template -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:25 5 January 2009 (BST)

Yeah. Go for it. Two links for the same things are just silly. -- C h e e s e 11:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Ether way, I don't really care. It is a bit redundant, as outlined above, but I don't really have a problem with it. If it's annoying some people, then why not? Linkthewindow Talk 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Martyr

oh come on! it's a bit of 'armless fun. Someone was bound to do it. If it was Conn, then kudos for being able to have some fun :) --x o x o 09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

lolpuppetry? Liberty 09:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

exactly. should be encouraged really. --x o x o 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is sockpuppetry common on the UDWiki? Or is this something that will be remembered? Liberty 09:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, but this was obviously a joke, given the recent HAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS case. Not to mention the fact that the user didn't even bother using a proxy.--x o x o 11:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Liberty... don't listen to J3D. --Cyberbob 12:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it's commonly banned. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:52 15 January 2009 (BST)

Haha, I remember when someone used #4 on that list to post a fake promotion bid in my name with all sorts of crazy shit in it. Gold Blade actually thought it was me, and tried calling bullshit when I said I didn't post it ;p --Cyberbob 13:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea you were so popular, Cyberbob. But I have one too: User:A HeIpfuI LittIe Gnome. I even banned it myself! -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As i mentioned, the haha disregard that i suck cocks is almost an exact parallel for what happened here. I would suggest motives were entirely different but while i whole heartedly agree with you, overturning a ruling here wouldn't look too good for the ol' box. --x o x o 13:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Conn didn't say anything about Boxy in his comment. Nice job on pulling it out of thin air. --Cyberbob 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxy was the only person who had ruled. And Conn wanted the ruling overturned. seems pretty straight forward to me.--x o x o 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You're an idiot then. --Cyberbob 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This account isn't impersonating Iscariot. Stop comparing it to impersonation accounts.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the HAHA I SUCK COCKS account was perma'ed due to vandalism, and that case is completely analogous to this one. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Cyberbob240's sig read HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS. That was what he was signing as. That account existed solely for impersonation. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sgt Raiden case

I would like to direct Iscariot attention to the blue box in the top of this page. Talk with users before reporting them. Most of the times a situation can be solved with a simple and polite request in the talk page. When newbies are involved, failing to follow this advice can even cause them to leave the game --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 18:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It can lead to them leaving indeed. But let's not pretend that's what this is all about. If you actually cared about keeping players in the game you'd officially warn him and every other newbie that's brought to this page, otherwise we might try and settle things elsewhere. Should your attempted sabotage of the arbitration process succeed, what's more likely to make him leave the game? A warning on the wiki or repeated killing at the hands of the game's largest event's PKer wing? You tell me, no wait, I know.

Telling people to talk to users first is asking for more drama. Rather than put in the effort to go to their talk page, tell them to stop and then have to go through the back and forth explaining everything, people are just going to put their usernames in the profile database (newbies are notoriously stupid enough to have their username for their only character) and go out and gun them down. Rinse, repeat. One newbie gone. This way means you don't have to explain anything in the future either.

So stop making out that bringing them here makes them leave the game, this is the only thing that saves most of them from being griefed back to WoW. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Conndraka Case

Karek disputes it because 'it hasn't done anything'. Odd how he didn't dispute this case. Impartiality? Not here on A/VB. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what's impersonation again?--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

disregard that is a far better comparison. It was a user's tag line and that impersonated. Answer the same somewhat rhetorical question with that link subbed in instead plz.--x o x o 22:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what's proxy using banned users again? To save time the answer is banned on sight, the cases were obviously related. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 02:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you just said, but the DISREGARD THAT case wasn't using a proxy as far as i'm aware. Also, i shorted your sig on my page coz it was breakin it.--x o x o 04:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you meant this case here. The DISREGARD THAT was a case of blatant impersonation. There are very few more straight forward cases than that one. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 06:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to vandl ban ur face coz its so ugley.--CyberRead240 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Impersonation rule is all about the continued integrity of communications in this wiki. user:DISREGARD THAT was an account set up to try and fool people into thinking it was a particular user. Making every comment signed by cyberbob suspect as not said by him until checked. Damaging his ability to use this wiki.

Wiki Martyr was set up as an obviously distinct user. at no point would people be fooled into thinking both users were the same. Clearly not impersonation and in no way damaging Iscariot's ability to use this wiki.-- Vista T 17:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

2009, February Discussion

User:Iscariot

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

.

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

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

The northern bit, the City of Steel. --

.

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

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

User:Serenas

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

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

User:Spartan King Leonidas

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

User:Iscariot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:J3D

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

Edge of Extinction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WOOT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<3 --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

I was just work 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)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives

Sexylegsread

User:ScouterTX and User:Ryzak Black

Colonel Krauser case

Umbrella Groups

Headings

Wiki Martyr

Sgt Raiden case

The Conndraka Case

Edge of Extinction

WOOT

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

Navigation menu

Search