July 2009

Rddr

Not vandalism - the precedent case was as much to do with "shitting up admin pages" as it was impersonation, while this comment was on a user talk page. Also, signing "it was totally j3d" makes it extremely clear that it wasn't in fact j3d signing -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:48 27 July 2009 (BST)

6 months later and not a thing has changed in your life boxy. I love it.--CyberRead240 10:13, 27 July 2009 (BST)

He's been "active" for 6 months and on-site for a year more than that, so I'd expect him to know better, but if he's never had an a/vb case before he might not know how srs bsns impersonation is considered to be here. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:31, 27 July 2009 (BST)

That, and the fact that other users have been on here longer and they don't know all the bits when it comes to wiki guidelines and rules. Look at this case. Thad has been around for quite some now. Could he have genuinely known that doing that was vandalism? All in all, probably not because of the large amount of policies and precedent's we have. Age here is nothing if you don't hang around the admin sections.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:35, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Do we still have that^ rule? because adding opinions to your own statements doesn't seem like a bad-faith edit, and unless it's done repeatedly or with obvious malicious intent, I don't see why in the world you'd vandal ban someone for "making it look like not all your arguments were answered"; worst case scenario: someone has to add to their reply, make a new reply, or take the "I reply to every argument everywhere" button off their userpage, which probably shouldn't be on there anyway. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:53, 27 July 2009 (BST)

I hope he at least got a warning telling him about the seriousness of impersonation... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:47, 28 July 2009 (BST)

You can always do the honors, you know. I gave many users helpful warnings way before I became a sysop. --ϑϑℜ 03:49, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob(3)

Despite the fact that he just put the quote at the top of the page, completely out of context to "allow people to draw their own conclusions"? Which conclusions did he want people to draw, and shouldn't he, a sysop, know these rules better than anyone? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 22:45, 21 July 2009 (BST)

He actually admitted placing it at the top was a mistake.(if you look at the page history)

But hey, the guy deserves a second chance...or a third or a fourth...he is a sysops after all.--Thadeous Oakley 22:53, 21 July 2009 (BST)

The point is that it doesn't need to be there at all. The discussion contains all of the relevant information. That quote is just being used to falsely sway people's beliefs into thinking that Kevan does not like the policy, which, last time I checked, was usually considered to be a bad faith edit. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:01, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Yes, your right, but that's not enough here. Come back when you have some friends over at the sysops team.--Thadeous Oakley 23:03, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Perhaps you should get it out of your head that this is vandalism. --ϑϑℜ 23:11, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Where did I say conspiracy? That's Imthatguy's line not mine. And you have the freedom of mind to think of me as a fool. As I have the freedom to completely ignore you. Since I don't have power-hungry ambitions like some people here, popularity is not my concern.--Thadeous Oakley 23:17, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Don't do that in an active discussion.--Thadeous Oakley 23:18, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Don't ignore an edit conflict to post your misinformed argument down, if it bothers you. Popularity doesn't phase me, but common sense does. --ϑϑℜ 01:30, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Its not a conspiracy... silly goose --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 09:14, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Welp, I thought you'd written a sizeable post but then I realised it's all in your sig :\ --Cyberbob 09:20, 23 July 2009 (BST)

It is bob's point that Kevan wouldn't like the fact that some people there are supporting the use of meatpuppetry. You guys disagree.
Go disagree, on the page, or in arbies... not here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:05 21 July 2009 (BST)

This is a talk page, if I want to discuss this case I'll do it here.--Thadeous Oakley 23:11, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I wasn't talking to you, fapper -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:17 21 July 2009 (BST)

But I was to you. Happy?--Thadeous Oakley 23:19, 21 July 2009 (BST)

You're making a fool of yourself. --ϑϑℜ 23:11, 21 July 2009 (BST)

So?--Thadeous Oakley 23:18, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Okay, so if I change the heading to something like: "Kevan's Quote on Meatpuppetry in a Previous Policy" and drop this case, that's fine then, right? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:20, 21 July 2009 (BST)

It's fine with me, but this isn't arbies, so my opinion holds no more weight over there than anyone else's -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:22 21 July 2009 (BST)

I'm talking to you as a sysop, I am not going to get vandal-banned for correcting the misconception, am I? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:27, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I changed it to be more accurate. Can we drop it now?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:50, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I still assert that as a sysop and a long time wiki user, he should have known better, but it is done. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:52, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I "should" have known better, but damn if this isn't the most minor thing ever. Plus it was at like 3 in the morning I think so. --Cyberbob 01:27, 22 July 2009 (BST)

It was a kneejerk reaction. I looked at the guidelines and realized that I was just looking at it as a bad faith edit, instead of considering the possibility of a mistake. Hence the lack of argument and my proposal to drop the case if it was clarified. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 01:47, 22 July 2009 (BST)

No worries, I have some experience in kneejerk A/VB cases myself :v --Cyberbob 01:52, 22 July 2009 (BST)

You keep making these "little mistakes"... tons of them... over and over again... and, it always seems to be when you're dealing with people with whom you have conflicts, it always seems to have to do with you getting your opinion across and on the front page, so to speak... Sorry, but after your umpteenth apology for you umpteenth "mistake"... you've lost what little credibility you may once have had. --WanYao 14:17, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Omigosh, I hope everybody made it out alive... --Cyberbob 14:26, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Oh bob you're so droll. Now, someday, maybe you'll pay less attention to being such a wag, and more attention to not making stupid "mistake" after stupid "mistake"... Then we won't have to listen to more of your repeated "apologies" or hollow promises that such things won't happen again, either. --WanYao 15:30, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not even going to start on how silly it is of you to make such a huge issue out of such a minor editing mistake - what I do want to point out is that it's only been a few days since my last "hollow promise" and you're already labelling it as such. I would suggest that you give it time before jumping down my throat about it. How is that such an unreasonable thing to ask? --Cyberbob 15:38, 22 July 2009 (BST)

How long have you been on the wiki, bob? You've been a sysop before. You claim you know the rules, etc. etc. Why do you keep doing these things when you really ought to know better? Stop making excuses. Seriously. --WanYao 15:42, 22 July 2009 (BST)

The fact that you're counting this case as one of "these things" when other people who have been around for years - including some who have been here even longer than I - regularly make indentation errors that often completely screw with the flow of a conversation far worse than simply moving a post (which hadn't been replied to) to the top of a page is truly amazing. As far as I'm concerned I haven't made any more of "these mistakes" (being ones that actually count for something) since the whole drama thing ended the other day. I plan on continuing not making any more for the forseeable future, but to think that just because I've been around means that I now have some kind of obligation to be a completely flawless editor in every single conceivable way is bordering on bullying in its own right. I will be looking to Arbitration if you persist in this petty harassment. --Cyberbob 15:48, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Hey look, an unpopular user making a not bad-faith mistake. Difference is I actually get a warning for it. Double standards no matter how hard you people sarcastically scream CONSPIRACY THEORY FAIL. --Thadeous Oakley 15:57, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I am honestly sorry, but for some things bad faith is not a prerequisite for vandalism. That is one of them. You'll note that I have taken steps to try and ensure that nobody unknowingly does it again in the way you did with the creation of this section. That's the absolute best I can do after the fact. --Cyberbob 16:04, 22 July 2009 (BST)

No matter how much you try to dissemble, bob, the fact is that taking one single quote which you hoped would illustrate your point in a debate... Taking that one single quote and sticking up at the very top of the page, alone, to highlight it... you can't write that off as an "editing mistake". It was pretty obviously a deliberate action, done to make sure your POV dominated the page, and thus the debate. But let's assume for a minute that there was no wilful, malicious intent here -- we'll stretch the limits of our credulity, to point of bursting, just for argument's sake... Well, even in that case, you're clearly incompetent and untrustworthy. Enough is fucking enough. --WanYao 16:10, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I didn't actually add anything to that quote, if you'll take a look at the post in question. I wasn't trying to push anything on people except to try and prevent what I think is something that everyone should read and make up their own mind on from being lost in all the other comments that most voters don't bother to read. Once again you are blowing everything I say or do completely out of proportion in order to try and score some cheap drama points. --Cyberbob 16:15, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Once more you turn it into a personal attack, scoffing off legitimate criticism as trying to "score drama points". I see, finally, how hopeless it is to expect you to take responsibility for your actions and to act even a little like an adult. Feh. --WanYao 02:59, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Wan, this really is an arbies issue, not vandalism. We've got to get back to using arbies for disputes about page formatting... it's just not suited to A/VB, where good faith must be assumed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:02 23 July 2009 (BST)

Suicidalangel

Isn't there something about not using a proxy to access the wiki? I thought that was the part that was vandalism...p.s i'm someone confused as to the current stance of what is allowed to be said on this page, in the opinion of someone reasonable should this be here or talk? --x o x o 02:16, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Proxy use itself is not vandalism, however open proxies should be banned when discovered -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:22 20 July 2009 (BST)

_{Edit conflicted} See WM:NOP (we formally adopted the MediaWiki policy.)

WM:NOP said:

While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked.

So no, editing with a proxy is not, in itself, vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 02:23, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Ah k, thanks.--x o x o 03:28, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Lolwat64

I'm here to gripe about the fact that DDR, Cyberbob, and Link were so utterly clueless on this case. What annoys me is that you guys just sighted "check user" without looking at the circumstances. DDR in particular took this robotic stance that common sense and judgment didn't apply because you could never prove sock puppetry. It's resolved now, Lolwat64 was a sockpuppet. So how could you miss on that fact with such a clear example? And do you intend to exercise a little reasoning the next time it occurs?--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 18:15, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I was "clueless" for the exact same reason meatpuppetry is not a valid reason for striking votes (something I forgot when I struck that vote obviously ;p): while it may seem intuitively obvious that it has occurred it's almost impossible to prove. Barring a confession or something from the person who did it, our only tool for proving that an account is a sockpuppet is Check User - which was a nonentity in this case because of the IP data having expired. That leaves us with nothing. --Cyberbob 18:20, 18 July 2009 (BST)

We can't really do much to combat it, and "using common sense" in this case would just cause a shit ton of problems down the road next time something happens, and it actually is a legit user. It's best to be safe and use check user, a tool we can prove, then just go banning people on a whim because of suspected sock puppetry.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:26, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Thank almighty science bans/warns aren't handed out for only suspected socks. And yeah, I can confirm it was him who did it - talked about it over IRC. Internet voting in general is pretty silly, seeing as how it's more "how many friends do I have that can back me up?" It's not exactly something we can fix, unfortunately. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:37, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Unlike RL voting which totes isn't like that at all :\ --x o x o 01:41, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Oh, it can be... it's just on the internet, you can't count faces, hence it's easier to do and harder to detect. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:48, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Mmm yeah, but it's better than any other system. *insert overused churchill quote here* --x o x o 01:49, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Man, I was literally just thinking of that quote.... GET OUT OF MY HEAD!! -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:08, 19 July 2009 (BST)

We can't do anything about even a suspected sockpuppet without actually confirming that the sock and someone's account shares the main IP address. Until then, we're banning/warning people based purely on hunches, and going down that road would be pretty dangerous. The user hasn't committed any vandalism, and there's no way to prove it's a sock. I'm sure you'll agree that banning people based on a hunch is hardly a good thing (and could lead to a witch hunt.) Linkthewindow Talk 13:00, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Giles, look here why no one has defended you and just trust us when we tell you for the 7th time, there is nothing there that breaks any rules. Stop calling us clueless, because you are the one that doesn't fucking get it. We took robotic stances because we don't take actions on things that we have no proof for. One wonders why we don't just do anything around here based on a hunch. Some of us have a hunch that Iscariot is an alt of a permabanned user, so let's just permaban him, shall we? Same for Imthatguy. Let's just do stuff cause there is no proof, but we just know it's the truth. Furthermore, SA admitted to doing it and he didn't vote with his main, so he didn't cheat the system, case closed. The fact that he admitted to it is just an act of luck on your part, that for once, a user in your position was able to prove he was right. It's done. God. --ϑϑℜ 13:48, 19 July 2009 (BST)

And no, we don't intend on excersizing such 'reasoning'. Because you still don't grasp our role in dealing with your case, it isn't to just go out, name and shame a suspected alt, and then ban them even though our only tools of evidence say otherwise. We cited Checkuser because without checkusers confirmation, we have no right to ban, or even label a user as a sockpuppet. Because we have no proof. Hey look, some people have been suspecting Iscariot of being an alt of a permabanned user, let's just go and ban him, because surely it's true. Imthatguy is a suspected alt of a regular user, one that probably isn't permabanned, well fuck it, It must be the case, and it isn't even illegal on this wiki, but let's name and shame them, and take corrective measures anyway! Do you see what I'm getting at here? What were you expecting us to do? Just label him of an alt with whichever user that voted no? How would we say which one he is an alt of? Guess it? Rock-paper-scissors? Without any sort of evidence, cases like these are a no-brainer. Please, just let it be. --ϑϑℜ 14:05, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Once again, votes made while using a proxy are invalid... -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:33, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I stand corrected, but my point still stands regarding us having the absolute responsibility not to act in such a way until we have sufficient proof. --ϑϑℜ 18:47, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Indeed. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:50, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I don't know all the facts of the case, myself... But the guys are dead on here: you don't perma a user on suspicion of being a sockpuppet. You need proof. That being said, there might be other ways to demonstrate that an account is a sockpuppet, other than an IP check. However, none of that kind of evidence was presented. Or, the evidence presented, sadly, wasn't sufficient... Sorry, Giles, but you are wrong here. Unless you can provide other evidence of sockpuppetry...

Now I wish to address this accusation that Iscariot is a sockpuppet... Frankly I couldn't care less, but... uh... Either put up or shut up. Please out with it: whom is Iscariot an alt of, and why do you say that? Because, on the same count as above, innuendo and accusation and gossip-mongering are just bullshit. --WanYao 19:07, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I should read shit properly before spouting off... However... The sysops are still correct. Unfortunately. --WanYao 19:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Unfortunately we're correct? Surely that doesn't mean you actually want us to be incorrect? --Cyberbob 00:34, 20 July 2009 (BST)

I thought it was pretty obvious that the Iscariot call was sarcrasm. Do you really think we are salivating over banning him over such a flimsy theory? He isn't even around here anymore, god knows why you took that as seriously as you did. --ϑϑℜ 03:32, 20 July 2009 (BST)

I think y'all are missing the point of my criticism. I agree SA did nothing against the rules. I'm not arguing that. And I never said that Lolwat64 should be permabanned. I said it was vandalism because it was a sockpuppet double-voting. And if that isn't considered vandalism it should be.
My point is that Lolwat64 was a sockpuppet and you were wrong. With the evidence I presented it should have been clear and you should have ruled vandalism and taken action based on the information you had at the time. With SA's admission it would make perfect sense to change your ruling.
As DDR and Wan have mentioned you really can't prove a sockpuppet without an admission. True, but this case was proven with an admission. Therefore, this is proven example of a sockpuppet that all of you failed to act on. That's why I'm calling you out. Not to punish SA (who did nothing wrong), and not to be a bitch, but because you whiffed completely and this has important implications for future votes.
A less scrupulous user could easily do the exact same thing again, only without the irony and respect for the rules that SA exhibited. If this happens, will you be impotent or is there a way to stop someone from voting multiple times on the same issue with different proxy accounts? --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 19:11, 20 July 2009 (BST)

We're "impotent" to stop your meatpuppeting as well. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:20, 20 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not really sure what you wanted here: You admit that SA did nothing wrong, so there's no case here. What do you expect us to do? He followed the rules, so we ruled Not Vandalism; what are you calling us out on?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:51, 20 July 2009 (BST)

"because you whiffed completely and this has important implications for future votes"--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 01:31, 21 July 2009 (BST)

You can't whiff when there's nothing to swing (at). Future votes are unaffected - proof positive sockpuppeting will still get destroyed. If anything the problem has existed since the beginning and always has implications because we can't just go and ban people for being socks without proof. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:47, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Stop repeating your contradictory arguments, we've already said. There was not enough evidence to rule vandalism/prove sockpuppetry. You CANNOT rule vandalism without sufficient evidence. We should not have ruled vandalism with the 'evidence' you gave us.. You are going nowhere on this, as when you started this discussion. Don't make me beg to have you give up on this. --ϑϑℜ 04:00, 21 July 2009 (BST)

My arguments are not internally contradictory and neither are yours. We are both sincere and we both keep repeating the same things.

I say, "It should have been vandalism, and you won't do anything about sockpuppetry"

You say, "It wasn't vandalism, and I don't want to go permabanning everyone on suspicion of sockpuppetry"

Neither of us are going anywhere (even though I'm clearly right and you're wrong =P). But let's put that aside: If you can say "I will never do anything about sockpuppet voting because it can't be proven without IP confirmation or an admission" then I will say, "I was wrong and I'm a stubborn little bitch." Actually, I'll give you a freebie. I'm stubborn.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 05:55, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob (2)

Double standards. You say "if that's porn (and it was/is) then so is X" so he responds "to deletion voting it goes." Then, when you lodge keeps and someone points out more images, he goes to A/D instead of A/SD because there's obviously disagreement on the subject of porn (and there has been for a while) and that makes him a vandal? Bringing it to the community instead of deleting it outright (because he totally could) and skipping A/SD when it's really obvious it's going to garner keep votes and get bumped to A/D anyway makes him a vandal? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:41, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Bad faith and a conflict of interest from the other images he deleted. Simple as that.--SirArgo ^Talk 05:48, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Images specifically made to aggravate him and used only on his talk page that were decidedly pornographic being deleted is him having a conflict of interest? Also, please explain the bad faith, I'm a bit wet-brained at the moment. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:53, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Of course the image I posted to cyberbob's Talk page was meant to mock him. And, yup, they were in bad taste. That was the point. I also expected them to be put up for speedy deletion -- as orphaned pages after cyberbob deleted my "birthday greetings". They were not, however, pornographic: no genitalia, no intercourse, nothing was there that you couldn't find in any off-the-rack body-building magazine available at your local supermarket... just a well-buffed dude and a birthday cake... If you think those were pornographic, man, you don't leave the Mormon encampment much, do you??? --WanYao 06:03, 17 July 2009 (BST)

It doesn't matter if I think it's pornographic, it's if it can be interpreted as pornography. Porn, as Sonny defined a while back with the other fiasco, is meant to cause arousal - and those images easily fit those criteria. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:05, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Oh jesus. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 06:07, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Edit conflictYou have to be playing Devil's Advocate here. They were put on his page to aggravate him, and I'm not saying that was right but him going on this tirade is a conflict of interest because he is most likely still pissed off over those images. (You see, I perceive all of this as bad faith so I report him to VB like a good little user. I am awaiting the sysops to make an informed decision based on what I perceived) He could want revenge on people so he is going to an unnecessary extreme, or just be in the mood to shake things up and piss people off. He also deleted those images that were intended to make him mad and because he is a sysop he had every right to delete them when they were put on Speedy Deletions. This is a rare case where he probably shouldn't have been the one to delete them since they were aimed at him and were in no way true pornography. Hell, homo erotica would have been a stretch to put on both of them. That's where everything here stems from for me, he deleted the images aimed at him. If I were in his position, and the images were like they were with no nudity, I would have probably waited for another sysop to act on them so I wouldn't even possibly be caught up with accusation of bias here. Bob didn't do that, and knowing his past, I assumed bad faith on his part. Wan did the same and so we are now here.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:08, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I am playing devil's advocate. I really don't hold an opinion about the whole thing, besides "porn doesn't have a place on the wiki." I don't see why all this drama has to come into play and why everyone can't just play nice... --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:10, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I'm only responding because Bob didn't play nice first. I hate to cause drama, but I can't stand his troll actions any longer. He used to be amusing, but more and more he keeps pushing the envelope.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:11, 17 July 2009 (BST)

It pains me to do this but.... Sir Argo is right --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | JOIN NOD!!! 06:15, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Exactly... enough is enough... Furthermore, when I put the "birthday greeting" on cyberbob's Talk page I was laughing my ass off. And the last thing I expected from cyberbob the hardened troll was anger: I expected either indifference or laughter, too. See, I don't think he is acting in anger, that's a silly assumption -- but rather he is playing the arse hole troll roll to the hilt. That, however, doesn't in any way negate the bad faith, rather it amplifies it. --WanYao 06:21, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Maybe he was acting in bad faith when he deleted your picture, but I just don't see how him then taking other cases to the community after complaint qualifies as bad faith. I wouldn't call it good faith, or any kind of faith, just him responding to complaint in a way that I, for one, would expect of anyone duty-bound as sysop. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:28, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Very funny! --WanYao 07:07, 17 July 2009 (BST)

moved from main page

Not Vandalism And there SHOULD be a rule. Until there is one it falls within the venue of the4 sysops to Judge. If Bob doesn't have enough support to rule vandalism then they'll get 'turned easy as that...Unnecessary comments need to GO. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:27, 16 July 2009 (BST)

And until there is a rule, this is spamming and therefore vandalism. Be objective and stop encouraging him. -- C h e e s e 22:29, 16 July 2009 (BST)

No...Until there is a rule, there is a Guideline..and it is up to the sysops to interpret and implement those guideline as part of our responsibilities. I am being objective, In the absence of written law prima facia dictorum. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:33, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It's a guideline. A guideline which has been enforced with vandal bans! But the practice and precedent of that guideline is that bans are handed down only for repeated and blatant violations. Cyberbob is attempting to hand out bans for petty bullshit... and spamming this page with said petty bullshit. And Conn, you have never been known for your objectivity or sound critical thinking skills.... so in spite of tossing out some legal terms which you don't really understand or use appropriately... you have no case. --WanYao 23:01, 16 July 2009 (BST)

And... I'd like to refer readers to this statement by conndraka. Nice sentiment.... Yet here you are supporting the most unprofessional sysop whom I've seen in my time on this wiki. Sweet... And you voted for Sarah Palin, too, didn't you? --WanYao 23:23, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"prima facia dictorum" that (roughly) translated means that if its written down (or said) often enough it should be taken at face value and not investigated... That is a fantastic argument! --Honestmistake 23:30, 16 July 2009 (BST)

No I voted for Obama, but my personal politics have nothing to do with the wiki. You even agree on the Misconduct case that Bobs actions are "within the letter of the law". Prima Facia Dictorum, translates to "That which is obvious, rules." Back when the Box was made it should have read as Bob changed it, and not as Boxy suggested expecting people to actually understand the sentiment. Regardless Wan, I don't know what I did to piss in your weaties, but professional does NOT always mean being objective. You find me one fortune 500 company that's not actually run by the board as opposed to the shareholders and I'll tip my hat to you...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:35, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Precedent and accepted practice in this matter is crystal clear. You're the one who's out to lunch here. And these attempts by you to pretend to be a scholar -- or to refute the "I'm a Republican" template on your profile -- just belie the fact that you're gibbering nothing but hollow verbal trash at this point. --WanYao 04:57, 17 July 2009 (BST)

As I have said before..Precedent has the potential to change with every case, I refer you to Brown v B.O.E. overturning the accepted precedent in American Law. Happens Nearly every day at the circuit court level...Now pretending to be a scholar...OUCH...damn that hurts. Hmmm, my 10th graders were better at coming up with legitimate arguments, Wan. And as far as being a republican, that has no merit to anything on this wiki as far as this case goes, except for the possibility that you see a need for more egalitarianism as is common among liberals and I see a need for more authoritarianism (which is where I base my decisions on). And as far as Presentational votes go... I Voted for Bush Senior, Perot, Clinton, Bush jr (Although McCain would have been better) Bush jr (albeit reluctantly but Kerry was a tool) and Obama. Specifically to whit, I beleive Government should stay out of most affairs, but what they are involved in the Government should have absolute authority. None of this legitimately has a damn thing to do with Bobs case...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 14:23, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Please, shut the fuck up. I'm moving this to the talk page. --ϑϑℜ 14:32, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I live in a country where we use common law, as inhereted from the UK. Which means that the tradition of established precedent rules. And if a judge goes against established precedent his ruling can be -- and routinely is, in such rare cases -- overturned. As for the rest of it... you were being mocked, conn, pure and simple... but your response demonstrates what a self-important prig you are... which was why I was trolling you in the first place, lol --WanYao 22:49, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Hagnat(2)

The more I dig through the A/VB page, the more I see what complete bullshit is being passed off as "janitoring"...

Cyberbob wrote:

"It has been clearly pointed out to you (fucking love that phrasing btw, really gets across that sense of "you are a CHILD" I shall have to remember it) that I support the system as Hagnat created it but no this is not "litigation for litigation's sake". I am trying to prevent the precedent from being created where anyone can go bulldozing through pages without asking anyone whether it's a good idea first - yes these things can be reverted easily (usually) but it's far easier for people to make at least a show of going through the proper channels in the first place.'""

Oh my fucking god... whatever happened to the whole idea that a wiki is collaborative effort... that people can and will make edits to pages... and that the wiki is not one person's -- or one small clique's -- private sandbox. As has been explained in terms anyone could understand, hagnat was making an edit in clearly good faith which involved fixing something that was broken. That didn't need a big discussion: it needed doing. A follow up note on the Talk page would have been smart, but there was no need for him to ask you for your permission -- or anyone else's permission -- to make such perfectly good faith edit.

This isn't your personal fiefdom, cyberbob. Stop acting like it is. --WanYao 21:51, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Honestmistake

Honestmistake said:

Yup I knew exactly what I was doing... that comment should have been on the talk page. Doesn't change the facts that both cases against J3D were nonsense and should have been thrown out as borderline harassment! It also doesn't change the fact that the newly worded "sysop request" box above was never voted on and never intended to be used the way Bob is using it right now. Warn me, Ban me... I really do not care. This place is fast becoming a bad joke ruled over by people who probably don't even play the damn game anymore and have forgotten that being a sysop is not supposed to be a promotion to give them authoritas, its supposed to be a voluntary position to keep things running smoothly.

Hear, hear! --WanYao 15:55, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I would like to remind everyone of something. Please refer to the boldfaced text below:

"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.

That applies this case, as well as the one against J3D, below. And a several other ones, too... --WanYao 15:59, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Honestmistake is a blatant problem when it comes to running around spouting his opinion as if it has great weight on places where it isn't needed.. Regardless of whether it does hold weight or not, it does not belong on the main page of A/VB, something he has been stretching for a while now. --ϑϑℜ 16:03, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Yes it would be convenient if we all kept quite and never complained wouldn't it? Clearly no one else was going to have to say what I felt needed saying, your disagreement with my view is neither here nor there. As I see it, these recent cases have been against the good of the community... the new dictat that no one post is clearly not being enforced for anyones good, it is merely being used to inflate ego's. Your or bobs or indeed anyone elses disagreement with something I say (or Wan or J3D or any other fucker who contributes) does not automatically mean that our opinion is wrong and unneeded, enforcing the "request" the way you have been is not good for the wiki and strays so far from its original stated intent that it probably can't find its way back. --Honestmistake 16:11, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I already said a day ago. You got a problem with what Bob did? Take him to A/M (or all of us for that matter, we agreed to the change), then put a request to have the Box changed back through A/PT, and then Bob may just have to go through Policy Discussion to achieve this feat again. Yet you didn't at all, I could only assume you didn't give it a second thought. --ϑϑℜ 16:14, 16 July 2009 (BST)

As I argued in my vandal report on cyberbob, these rulings follow neither the letter nor the spirit of wiki policy. You people have gone power mad. --WanYao 16:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)

ITS A CONSPIRACY! No seriously, I agree with WanYao (surprise surprise). Unfortunately, we can't really do anything about it aslong as misconduct cases are ruled upon by the exact problem persons we have. --Thadeous Oakley 16:38, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It's true. we rule this place. Why do you think we made #urbandeadwiki? So we could have a unified channel where we decide the fate of this little universe. If we want someone as sysop, it is so. If we want a user off the wiki, be it so. Watch out, we are coming. --ϑϑℜ 16:43, 16 July 2009 (BST)

You can make fun of it all you want, but what you just described is allot closer to the reality then you think. --Thadeous Oakley 17:30, 16 July 2009 (BST)

When in that paragraph did I say I was joking? --ϑϑℜ 03:27, 17 July 2009 (BST)

"The power have corrupted their minds, poisoned their souls, making them lone creatures. They wander around the wiki, creating drama, using their powers to fight, a race of tyrants, away from any feeling of compassion or empathy. No one can fight them, no one can argue against them, because the power of the banhammer is with them. Fear them, because if you don't, one day you will find out that you are no longer a user. "Who created them?", you may ask. Well, the answer is simple. YOU. You created them, because you know that even if you fear them, you fear the other users too. So sysops were created, in order to protect users from themselves." *closes imaginary book*--Orange Talk 17:43, 16 July 2009 (BST)

This owns. --Cyberbob 17:52, 16 July 2009 (BST)

DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!!!!!!!--Imthatguy 17:53, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Which book was that? Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto or was it just the latest Harry Potter? Seriously though, unless you live in a police state, the people should never have a reason to fear the authorities.--Thadeous Oakley 18:17, 16 July 2009 (BST)

*throws Harry Potter and The revenge of the Sysop away* See, sysops are some kind of police for me. Police protects you, but if you do something wrong, they hit you with a stick. They are both feared and appreciated.--Orange Talk 20:49, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Lulz, you are very misguided my friend, you should always be suspicious of those in power--Imthatguy 21:03, 16 July 2009 (BST)

please note that this is in fact untrue.... the box has been beefed up to say "should" it still does not say "must". --Honestmistake 16:26, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Big shoutout to my homeboy Boxy.... I TOLD YOU SO --Cyberbob 16:30, 16 July 2009 (BST)

And I thought I made it clear that "shitting up admin pages" type warnings should only be used as a last resort. Using it against everyone who adds a comment here, or everyone who you don't want to deal with simply because they disagree, or get on your nerves, is an abuse of the system. Now go get some fucking sleep, you two, step away from the wiki, and get a little perspective on the pettiness of what you're trying to do -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:00 16 July 2009 (BST)

"please note that this is in fact untrue.... the box has been beefed up to say "should" it still does not say "must"." Please explain --Imthatguy 22:15, 16 July 2009 (BST)

there are 3 little boxes near the top of A/VB with guidelines for submitting reports. The middle one, until a recently, read something like users are requested to use the talk page if they were not directly involved or being constructive in a case That's not exactly word for word but its pretty much what it has always meant until a few days ago. However, following a very short "discussion" Bob changed it to should and threw in the word "qualitative". That whole box has still never been voted on and it is clearly out of order to interpret even the new version the way Bob and DDR have been. --Honestmistake 22:51, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Is this cyberbob basically making up policy-on-the-fly? in a manner that hagnat, in his worst moments, couldn't have dreamt of? The consensus was always... well, it's always been exactly as myself and numerous other people have already explained... It needs to be put back the way it was. --WanYao 03:10, 17 July 2009 (BST)

It has been --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:24, 17 July 2009 (BST)

J3D (2)

You do know that it was J3D that reverted most of the vandal edits don't you? If that is not direct involvement in a case I am not sure what is.... esp as he was requesting a Sysop check something directly related to the case. --Honestmistake 20:22, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I do, but that's no reason for him to say "hey can I get an IP check?" It's the duty of every user to revert vandalism, but adding a comment like his doesn't add to the discussion and sysops should (and were) already doing just that. Also, you do realize you're not using the talk page as well, right? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:09, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Yes I do but given my comment is relevant it was perfectly ok where it was so take the stick out of your ass and stop playing silly buggers. While checking IP's may be common in A/VB cases I don't think it is essential and thus J3D was more than entitled to ask for one to be done if he had suspicions in this case.--Honestmistake 00:41, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Of course it wasn't okay where it was. You have literally nothing to do with the case, so don't even try and convince us you deserve to add that to the main page, the content of what you said was so 'talk page worthy' it hurts me to think it ever made it to the main page without you getting VB'd. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:42, 16 July 2009 (BST)

That can always be rectified, though I do hate to always be the one bringing these cases. --Cyberbob 02:17, 16 July 2009 (BST)

This is the worse ruling I can remember. It's a total abuse of the system which, until this week, has always been regarded as a polite request that took a hell of a lot more than the substance of these 2 cases to result in a warning. And yes, I do expect my A/VB case for this but frankly i couldn't give less of a shit. Bring it on Bob, I know you've been itching to for ages. --Honestmistake 15:38, 16 July 2009 (BST)

The sysop team has apparently going power mad, and gone from the one extreme of being way too lax, to the other of being absurdly fucking petty and priggish. (awaits cyberbob's retarded troll-quip, now) --WanYao 15:52, 16 July 2009 (BST)

You don't get it do you? Who gives a fuck who reverted the vandalism, it has nothing to do with the case at hand. Reverting vandalism is supposed to be the task of a responsible user, not a ticket into adding 'input' into a case which wasn't needed. So, a user reverts a vandal spree, I guess that gives them the right to have their say, give their opinion more weight into the case than if they were a bystander on the Talk pages (which do get read, despite popular opinion). A user who sees vandalism has the responsibility to revert it and report it to the necessary authority, not add opinions or requests along with that. --ϑϑℜ 16:01, 16 July 2009 (BST)

No, you don't get it. You're blathering about stuff I didn't even address or bring up. My argument is simple: you're being petty and abusing both the letter and spirit of wiki policy. Repeatedly. And those of us who get it, aren't gonna fucking shut up and stop saying so. --WanYao 16:28, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Please learn to wiki. I never replied to you. --ϑϑℜ 16:33, 16 July 2009 (BST)

stop wiki-lawyrering. --WanYao 16:35, 16 July 2009 (BST)

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL --Cyberbob 16:37, 16 July 2009 (BST)

That doesn't make any sense :/ my entire post was a reply to Honest. The formatting, the context and the content, all point to that, how am I lawyering? --ϑϑℜ 16:51, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Up until recently, the practice was to indent under the post you were replying to. It makes for a mess, but it's a lot more clear. And you're wiki-lawyering -- or something -- by making snide little comments like "learn how to wiki"... You're all also wiki-lawyering by dragging J3D through A/VB for making one small and very unobtrusive comment in a case which he did have some, even if peripheral, involvement in. He wasn't being disruptive, he wasn't acting in bad faith, he was trying to fucking help! If you weren't being petty, you would have let it go... stuck it on the talk page, and moved on. --WanYao 17:38, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Okay, several issues with what you have just said. 1. It's 2009, again, learn the norms. 2. I am not wikilaywering in any sense, snide remarks are immature and petty, but it sure isn't wiki-lawyering :/ If you think I'm wikilaywering to get the better of you, you are wrong. 3.I didn't drag j3d through shit, I wasn't here when he posted it so don't give me any such bullshit about me avoiding the act of putting it onto the talk page just to escalate him. 4. Before reading this paragraph of crap, I voted NV on both his cases. --ϑϑℜ 07:41, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Ddrisfag

If you haven't already can we get an ipcheck on this? --x o x o 14:56, 15 July 2009 (BST)

About to do it. Thanks Jed for reverting a lot of this. Linkthewindow Talk 14:56, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Alt of no one. Linkthewindow Talk 14:58, 15 July 2009 (BST)

MisterGame

Typical... closing ranks to protect their own once again --Imthatguy 20:13, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Having had a week go past, I just want to comment on how much I appreciate the entire UDWiki community for not even bothering to justify this user's comment with a reply. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:56, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob240

How's that a meatpuppet? It's a unique user with more then 250 edits. Unstrike his vote, or provide some actual evidence.--Thadeous Oakley 16:07, 7 July 2009 (BST)

User Talk:DanceDanceRevolution.--x o x o 16:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Thoughts people? --x o x o 15:28, 7 July 2009 (BST)

If that isn't a fishing expedition I don't know what is. --Cyberbob 15:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

J3D, we could file this under misconduct, and get this moron demoted --Imthatguy 20:11, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Martyr

Maybe someone could givehim/her one chance? --Imthatguy 02:15, 6 July 2009 (BST)

I know absolutly nothing about this paticular person, or about her case. I will admit though that I've made my share of stupid mistakes, and wish I could take most of them back. Plus she sounds like she might be a juvenile (spelling?) around the age of 12/13,... meaning her comprehension is not comparable to that of most rational adults. That having been said, and the fact that she's been trying for so long to get here account back, Perhaps we should limit it to a definite period of time,... Say 4 years, minus time served? This would be a year left there is to be any truth to what she's said previously... -Poodle of doom 02:41, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Once again 'they' ignore what the community has to say --Imthatguy 17:58, 6 July 2009 (BST)

You should see misconduct.--Thadeous Oakley 18:01, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Cute. You and one other user are the community. Give me a break. --ϑϑℜ 22:37, 27 July 2009 (BST)

And they also conveniently ignore it when a sysop happens to agree with them because that hurts their conspiracy theory. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:25, 27 July 2009 (BST)

As I said on the page, making 80+ alt accounts isn't the way to ask for your account back. Also, it's called a permanent ban for a reason. Linkthewindow Talk 18:03, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Indeed. 83 accounts later and she still hasn't learned that she's not wanted. --User:Axe27/Sig 23:46, 13 July 2009 (BST)

If we let her back, we're just letting people know that bitching and screwing up the site will get you what you want, which will encourage more of this behavior in the future; as long as she keeps breaking the rules we have to keep banning her. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:42, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Yes, bitching, screwing up the site, and being banned for 4 years. That will really encourage that behavior. Why, by 2013 we'll be letting in all sorts of vandals (but only if they start now!) --– Nubis ^NWO 23:27, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds almost like you're trying to sell something. Nubis for the next Billy Mays!! --Dark Blue Helmet 00:24, 28 July 2009 (BST)

No one can replace Billy Mays, not even Nubis or Newbiz.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:27, 28 July 2009 (BST)

I'd be down for seeing a new Billy Mays. Anyone really to replace the Sham Wow guy who's trying to take over. --Dark Blue Helmet 00:37, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Neozumi

In response to another alts claims of Izumi's good faith edits

You really can't play innocent here. You came back a few times with complete trash accounts with stupid names that did do things that would fit within the confines of vandalism.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:41, 6 July 2009 (BST)

MoonShine

Cyberbob240 said:

Posting a humourous suggestion in the regular suggestions area. I'm tempted to take DDR to Misconduct for voting Keep on it but we'll see. --Cyberbob 03:14, 1 July 2009 (BST)

I'm at a loss of words right now. --Haliman - Talk 03:16, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Try going back to school then if you can't find anything in your vocabulary? --Cyberbob 03:25, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Bah. I expected a comment like that :P. Someone doesn't like ~~everything with a pulse~~ Fiffy, huh? --Haliman - Talk 03:27, 1 July 2009 (BST)

yeah clearly bringing a humourous suggestion which was posted in the main suggestions space to A/VB when posting humourous suggestions in the main suggestions space is vandalism has to be the result of some kind of bias right??? --Cyberbob 03:30, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Yep. --Haliman - Talk 03:31, 1 July 2009 (BST)

heh heh heh deliberately pretending like you don't know my comment was sarcastic is a p awesome comeback!! --Cyberbob 03:33, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Yep. --Haliman - Talk 03:34, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Fuck, thats why i hate wiki crats. Always mumbling about "Ohh, how am i going to power abuse today?" Fuck you, cocksucker. --Skouth 03:36, 1 July 2009 (BST)

I'm sorry it's not my fault I was abused as a child :( stop it daddy it hurts --Cyberbob 03:37, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Just common sense. Seriously, if the SysOp team does not rule this vandalism, then we no longer have SysOps worthy of their title. It's pretty simple, post humorous crap where in belongs. In the ~~crap bin~~ Humorous Suggestions Page. That's what it's there for.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:44 1 July 2009

This from the only person to vote no. --

Timmah!

Talk

03:46, 1 July 2009 (BST)

I would have voted Humorous in the SPAM section, but I'm boycotting the SPAM vote. Sorry.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:05 1 July 2009

Well said. Rules is rules. Don't call us power abusers because we take on the responsibility of enforcing the rules. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:49, 1 July 2009 (BST)

I didn't notice a whole lot of rule enforcement going on when you voted Keep. --Cyberbob 03:50, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Look harder? DDR can be very subtle.--x o x o 01:43, 3 July 2009 (BST)

u gay? (yes) --Cyberbob 03:00, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Ug, anyone arguing against this case needs to realize that while this one may be awesome, if we start allowing random stupid stuff into the suggestion system, it'll easily dilute the quality further then it already is. Remember, suggestions are for Kevan. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:01, 1 July 2009 (BST)

From the notfunny template:

"If you are unsure of a how a suggestion will be viewed by the community, it is recommended that it be placed on the Developing Suggestions page first, to gauge community support, and to improve it before being taken to voting."

As you'll see here i put it to discussion where it met near unanimous approval and i subsequently added it to voting. Oh and it was serious Fiffy needs laser eyes. <3 MoonShine 04:15, 1 July 2009 (BST)

I heard tell that DDR told you it was vandalism on IRC prior to you submitting it but that you (obviously) ignored him. --Cyberbob 04:21, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Not seeing it amongst his contributions though. Prior to this case being brought up, I see nothing warning of the perils of posting the suggestion. --Johnny Bass 04:28, 1 July 2009 (BST)

You dumb? Do you not know what IRC is? --Cyberbob 04:29, 1 July 2009 (BST)

We don't have your fancy IRC's way out here in the countryside. --Johnny Bass 04:30, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Logs or it didn't happen.--x o x o 01:41, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Ask DDR, not me (also lrn2edit) --Cyberbob 01:42, 3 July 2009 (BST)

You're sourcing it and drawing your own conclusions from it, thus if you want anyone to bother taking note of it you should provide the logs. Also move my comment to the incorrect spot again and i'll avb you.--x o x o 01:45, 3 July 2009 (BST)

case is over faygot, also I moved your comment to the correct spot because where you had it had my reply to Johnny Bass looking like a reply to you. go back to school --Cyberbob 01:48, 3 July 2009 (BST)

nice try retard. check the history then get back to me. --x o x o 01:51, 3 July 2009 (BST)

what am I looking for pray tell --Cyberbob 01:52, 3 July 2009 (BST)

you moving my comment to the wrong spot. --x o x o 18:53, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Tell you what. I'll keep moving people's comments to the right spot and you can take me to A/VB if you want. That way we both win. --Cyberbob 02:59, 4 July 2009 (BST)

A win for me would be you accepting you're wrong and moved my comment to an incorrect spot. That, or you flat out denying it while obviously being aware that you fucked up.--x o x o 05:39, 4 July 2009 (BST)

hope u like losing --Cyberbob 05:40, 4 July 2009 (BST)

good try but no.--x o x o 07:04, 4 July 2009 (BST)

im happy i have u to pass judgement on my posts.... im a very insecure person u know --Cyberbob 07:11, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Wiki noob Ephraim here, just found this. I thought a vandal was a person who makes a bad faith edit, and honestly, how is a joke in bad faith? But I wouldn't know, I'm new to these wiki politics. --Ephraim 04:33, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Yep. --Skouth 04:34, 1 July 2009 (BST)

It's a joke in the wrong spot, which is essentially spam. You're free to make funny suggestions but they need to be in the right area. --Cyberbob 04:38, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Yep. --Skouth 04:38, 1 July 2009 (BST)

On the contrary, everyone agreed (Unanimously) on DS that it should be implemented. --Haliman - Talk 04:39, 1 July 2009 (BST)

(they were pretty obviously joking too) --Cyberbob 04:40, 1 July 2009 (BST)

According to his last comment, it doesn't seem like it. --Haliman - Talk 04:41, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Yep, to both of you. --Skouth 04:42, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Suppose we were dead serious about giving Fiffy laser eyes? Then what would you have to say? --

Timmah!

Talk

04:44, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Yep. --Skouth 04:48, 1 July 2009 (BST)

The exact same outcome, except with the added bonus of you being seen as disillusioned. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:51, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Because if people could get off by just saying 'me and my pals are serious', then every user could slither around the rules regarding humorous suggestions, couldn't they? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:52, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Nope.--Thadeous Oakley 20:04, 3 July 2009 (BST)

durr hurr --Cyberbob 03:01, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Bots Discussion

Return of old, already banned, bots

Over the past couple of days, bots who were previous banned have been spamming again. Has the recent update of the wiki somehow unbanned them? -- boxy 10:35, 27 December 2014 (BST)

Hmm

It's been a few years, but we're getting a wave of bots again. Thoughts? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

More spammers stuck inside? I gather fraud attempts are way up at the moment. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 08:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, like acne. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you think the captcha needs to be updated? If so I can try to get in touch with Kev. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering we all have better things to do than continuously ban spambots, probably worth asking! stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 20:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess whoever has his ear, go for it. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

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

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

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

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

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

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning

Contents

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives