August 2009

User:Rambo voller

Do you reckon he's related to the case below? Troll user turns up, trolls a zombie group (suggesting that he's a survivor heavy player), gets banned by sysops. Comes back, makes several socks to push through a suggestion to spam zombies again. We also know that he has experience with proxies, and it wouldn't be hard to come across one with a varyiable IP. So, are we going with common crook, or return offender?--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:51, 20 August 2009 (BST)

I reckon he's just someone who came up with this bad idea and wanted to try and get it passed. Also, what The General put him up for as vandalism, it's bad that someone else had to edit in the timestamp of another user. It just makes it even funnier that they didn't even get the times typed in the way the wiki shows them. --DBH T 22:26, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I agree. They've displayed several newbie errors, so it looks like they're porbably just some newb. E.g. the timestamps, editting Boxy's main page, etc.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:01, 20 August 2009 (BST)

If only they realised the futility of the suggestions system anyway, hmm? They probably think that the second it gets reviewed it magically gets implemented into the game. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:40, 21 August 2009 (BST)

Props on getting Rambo voller for this obvious sockpuppetry. However, let's get real here. He's not the only "user" that was blatantly zerging the vote. this guy this guy this guy this guy and this guy are all the same guy. They were all created on the same day within the same 2 hour time span and their only edit(s) was a vote on a crappy suggestion that wasn't even posted on the main page. Now what are the odds on that? Check out This picture showing the time-line. They should all get a warning, and if they ever vote together again on the same issue, their votes should be stricken and "they" should be escalated.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 19:08, 22 August 2009 (BST)

I can't believe we are going to have this argument all over again... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:42, 23 August 2009 (BST)

All of those alts should just be banned you know. Sockpuppetry counts as vandalism, and whether we can find the user behind the puppets or not they're still vandal proxy alts. That makes them instantly permabannable. Cyberbob Talk 02:34, 23 August 2009 (BST)

It does, but at the moment the sockpuppet conclusion is guesswork. Their IPs are from independent locations. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:45, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Although I would support the banning of these accounts, I think there is sufficient evidence to support sockpuppetry. I'm just a little over Giles' bh war on sockpuppet abuse. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:47, 23 August 2009 (BST)

I don't know what "bh" is but I'm irritated that your initial reaction was to oppose my "war on sockpuppet abuse." We agree it's a problem, and you agree that the evidence is compelling enough to act on. Though in an earlier argument you indicated that you could not ban "or even "label" a user as a sockpuppet" without an IP match. I'm glad you've come to realize that common sense is a superior standard upon which to base your decisions, and I welcome you into the glowing light of critical thought.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 06:37, 24 August 2009 (BST)

We know these accounts are sockpuppets by virtue of the fact that their IPs are proxies. That other one's was not; the two situations cannot be compared. Cyberbob Talk 06:44, 24 August 2009 (BST)

Ah, proxies. Then you're right, and DDR showed no inconsistency. I stand corrected and withdraw my welcome into the glowing light. I still wish you could ban/warn these accounts because the sockupuppeting was totally freaking obvious, rather than having to get them on violation of a different rule.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 06:53, 24 August 2009 (BST)

Hurmm. Actually, in that other case, the sockuppet did vote with a proxy IP. The situations are similar and they can be compared. But the point stands that you guys are consistent in your reasoning, (or lack of reasoning) however annoying I find that to be.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 07:01, 24 August 2009 (BST)

The world of difference is more than the lolwat case had no voting abuse and there was no proof to even assume that they were the same user as anyone. In this case, the user was not only abusing a voting system but there was substantial evidence in the users behaviour (ie. the consistent forgery of signatures and timestamps) to conclude that they were the same user. They were working towards a common goal (ie. multi-voting), the act of which is vandalism. Lolwat's goal and action wasn't vandalism, as it was to teach you, Giles, the backfire of meatpuppetry (regardless of whether or not you were meatpuppeting). --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:50, 24 August 2009 (BST)

I agree that the two cases are different and that you are acting differently based on the specifics of the case. There are some similarities and so my comparison has validity. But your point is well taken.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 20:10, 24 August 2009 (BST)

As is yours. I'm not denying claims of inconsistency but I still maintain my faith in my views on both cases. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:49, 24 August 2009 (BST)

User:AnonSantlerville

DanceDanceRevolution said:

Reading Link's description, I thought it would be something a bit more debatable. I sure was taken off guard.

That looked like so much fun can we have more man wrestling on ud please?--Shakey ^BBK 12:45, 16 August 2009 (BST)

User:Jed (2)

This policy might be relevant. - User:Whitehouse 21:33, 10 August 2009 (BST)

Boxy said:

Well, I was going to say not vandalism, until I noticed that he had already replaced the moderator template with the ex-moderator template back in January. To put it back again now, is impersonation. More drama for drama's sake, so vandalism

It would only create drama if you were petty enough to care what a user puts on their user page. If being a super duper exclusive sysops means so much to you then by all means have a hissy fit but really, he lied on his user page. Mine said I was muslim for about 4 months. Doesn't have to be drama, unless you care THAT much about what Jed does with his own page--CyberRead240 04:40, 11 August 2009 (BST)

J3D said:

Make a policy that says i can't lie on my talk page and then call me. I've been putting lying templates on my pages for years and until then i didn't know it was against the rules.

second paragraph of this policy. By using the sysop template you are impersonation to be one --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:56, 12 August 2009 (BST)

That policy obviously points to using your user page to pretend to be somebody else. Jed is still saying he is Jed, he is not pretending to be someone else, he is just saying "I'm a sysop too". It's not impersonating a person, therefore isn't regarded as impersonation, and tbh, I think you very well know that. --CyberRead240 04:10, 12 August 2009 (BST)

What a load of shit this is, the old "take relevant comments to the talk page because they debunk the whole argument and we dont want them seen" trick. Same old, same old. ZZzzzzzzz--CyberRead240 05:51, 12 August 2009 (BST)

No, it's because we've been doing this for a long time, per the box at the top at A/VB. If there's any discussion on the page that doesn't involve a sysop, the case's creator, or the person accused of vandalism in the case, it's moved to the talk page. Linkthewindow Talk 09:54, 12 August 2009 (BST)

You're sig doesnt work on my screen (mac user) and also, I mean as in, the talk page too often goes unnoticed and it should at least be linked when someone moves it. rather than just "see talk page"--CyberRead240 10:03, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Thanks, and there's a link in the vndl template, although I agree that there should be a link in the "see talk page" text (even if it is slightly redundant.) Linkthewindow Talk 10:04, 12 August 2009 (BST)

We've already argued about this more than enough in the month before you returned. Anyone who is anyone reads through everything they can before they make a decision. If they don't then they are morons and are unlikely to hold any sort of authority anyway. Trust the system. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:09, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Those people in the know obviously didn't read up on this because most of them have voted vandalism, when it so bloody obviously isn't. It doesn't break a single rule, it's not life altering, who gives 2 shits what he says on his user page....if enough people are viewing it (which i doubt) then it would matter.--CyberRead240 11:12, 12 August 2009 (BST)

But Charlie, the "morons" you just described fit half the sysops on the wiki! Trust the system? I'd sooner trust a fox to mind my chickens three!--Nallan (Talk) 12:32, 12 August 2009 (BST)

I have seen much worse examples then this. Really, who cares about this silly template? Where is the policy that says that certain templates are exclusive to certain groups of people? Say that I put a template on my page that says "this user is a member of the MPD", while I'm not a member of the MPD, would that be vandalism? Templates are not group pages last time I checked. Everyone can use em. It would be impersonation if he added himself to that sysops activity list for example.--

Thadeous Oakley

13:00, 12 August 2009 (BST)

That's an interesting question about using a group's template. Were it not for the rule about bolded rulings and such I would definitely be going with Not Vandalism in this case and advising arbitration, but pretending to be a sysop already has a well-established precedent for being vandalism that doing so with groups just doesn't (apart from editing their pages). For me at least it's not about the template so much as it is about the deliberate attempt to cause confusion. Cyberbob Talk 13:21, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Oh please. Trying to cause confusion? Of who? Some random newbie who somehow stumbles accross my userpage? I'll be sure to direct them straight to you next time that happens. No bob, I prefer the term making a statement. And the fact this is looking likely to be vandalism makes it rather nicely for me i think.--x o x o 13:34, 12 August 2009 (BST)

You were making a statement? I thought you were doing it "coz [you] thought it was funny"? Cyberbob Talk 13:38, 12 August 2009 (BST)

statements can't be funny? oh right, only deceiving people is funny to you, sorry i forgot.--x o x o 13:46, 12 August 2009 (BST)

That's so badly not what I said I really don't see any point in feeding you any more. Cyberbob Talk 13:49, 12 August 2009 (BST)

om nom? --x o x o 14:11, 12 August 2009 (BST)

For what it's worth, from the perspective of a non-sysop, this does feel like vandalism. It only serves to add confusion to the wiki.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 15:49, 12 August 2009 (BST)

For what its worth I don't think this is vandalism... Its his User Page and means squat in the context of impersonation. For starters where is Nubis' A/VB case for claiming to be a mom of 4 (and Sir Argo too boot!) Even bolding a "ruling" on admin pages is not automatically regarded as vandalism; so how any nonsense (lost on a page of nonsense) counts is kinda stretching things a little. --Honestmistake 17:31, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Wait till I sick my children on you, most of them have chewed on enough glass to have some permanently embedded in their teeth and gums.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:34, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Seems like this should warrant a warning. And when cyberbob left it on his page for 2 years someone should have told him to take it down and warned him too. That's the last of my 2 cents.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 19:42, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Yeah yeah I'm not suppose to edit the mainpage, I know but my correction doesn't really work when I place it here. Anyone can feel free to remove that edit once Hagnat corrects himself. Otherwise people get the wrong view of the rulings. Case is pretty much over anyway, only needs a ruling (Which I think Ross should have done since he pretty decided the case by ruling Vandalism)--Thadeous Oakley 19:54, 12 August 2009 (BST)

This is a case for Arby's, not a ban-hammer... Impersonation is impersonating a user. Not a group.
This is just another example of the current sysop clique's latest brand of self-important arrogance.
Did you all realise that in making this ruling you were acting as ZOMG! moderators. Not "janitors".
I thought you were oh so explicit about being just "janitors". Not moderators.......
I'd actually accept a VANDALISM ruling as legit if -- and only if -- you were consistent in playing this moderator role and, for example, handed out bans to others who consistently troll the wiki. But you don't. Do you? Nope.
//waits on the predictably self-serving (and by now boring) ad hominem quips from cyberbob and DDR//
--WanYao 05:20, 13 August 2009 (BST)

//Um, I think the pot's calling the kettle black now.// True that this is possible more fit for arbies though.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:14, 13 August 2009 (BST)

Why would I bother complaining? I voted not vandalism, I agreed that it was a case for arbies. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you knew that before you forced my name into your comment. Although, knowing you... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:34, 13 August 2009 (BST)

User:The Colonel

Warned. Cyberbob Talk 11:20, 7 August 2009 (BST)

On the contrary, he is helping in making the event much better than the other years. He has permission to edit that page. --Haliman - Talk 20:41, 7 August 2009 (BST)

I demand 2 things, 1 this to be stricken I'm helping run the fifth of November this year, I showed Mega and he approved everything. 2: Thadeous Oakley to find the nearest thing of bleach, and swallow it. That is all. I don't hold anything against Bob he's just doing his job before knowing all the facts. --

Timmah!

Talk

22:08, 7 August 2009 (BST)

You do realize that people have been banned for threatening other users on here right? Some guy said he was going to kill someone (specified not IN GAME) and got the axe. Nice knowing you.--

#99 ^DCC 22:33, 7 August 2009 (BST)

Ok, maybe not a ban for the threats (he was up to that on the ladder) but good old Grimmy decided that this was enough to count as a threat. You may wish to consider your words carefully. Or don't because that would be lolz.--

#99 ^DCC 22:46, 7 August 2009 (BST)

Good times...--Nallan (Talk) 08:27, 11 August 2009 (BST)

Its not a threat, Thad and me are old Comrades, right Thad ;) --

Timmah!

Talk

23:12, 7 August 2009 (BST)

Maybe when you have grown wiser. Drawing a dick over it, seriously? --

Thadeous Oakley

23:23, 7 August 2009 (BST)

By the way, could people please get back into the habit of bolding their rulings? I nearly missed Boxy's. Linkthewindow Talk 03:17, 8 August 2009 (BST)

It's hardly becoming a worrying trend. --ϑϑℜ 08:46, 8 August 2009 (BST)

I know, but it's offending the part of me that's OCD about that kind of stuff. Linkthewindow Talk 09:47, 8 August 2009 (BST)

It doesnt matter if its a worrying trend or otherwise, bolding your rulings is just protocol, written or unwritten, trivial or not. Its not that difficult.--CyberRead240 09:13, 9 August 2009 (BST)

It's only so people can read rulings easier. Those people= sysops because no one else has the responsibility of counting votes. If one sysop in 13 complains about it happening once, it isn't worrying and it isn't a trend. --ϑϑℜ 09:53, 9 August 2009 (BST)

Must you be such a facetious shit? Cyberbob Talk 09:57, 9 August 2009 (BST)

No more than you. --ϑϑℜ 10:38, 9 August 2009 (BST)

Nah you're worse. And rulings should be in bold, despite what you may think DDR non-sysops can be interested in a/vb and a/m cases and like to easily see which way it's going to go. If a nonsysop can't bold the words 'Vandalism' or 'Not vandalism' then it stands that the sysop should have to.--x o x o 10:47, 9 August 2009 (BST)

But why do you all give such a shit? If you all were so concerned you could have bolded it yourself, we unbold non-sysop rulings all the time, so why have none of you done the same? --ϑϑℜ 10:56, 9 August 2009 (BST)

We don't "give such a shit". You're the one that made this an issue by trying to admonish Link for asking for bolded rulings and going on about NOT A TREND LALALA when literally nobody had said that it was. Cyberbob Talk 12:39, 9 August 2009 (BST)

Link was implying that we had gotten out of this 'habit', idiot. Again, if everyone (ie Link, Read and J3D) think it is such important "protocol" and they think easy counting is just that important, then they can just bold the rulings themselves. You don't give a shit? Stop fighting the unnecessary battle, no one ever asks you to. --ϑϑℜ 12:58, 9 August 2009 (BST)

I'm almost positive that "habit" phrase from Link was just a throwaway line seeing as we really don't get too many unbolded rulings. You're the one ranting about OMG IT DOESNT EVAN MATTER WHY ARE YOU BEING SO FUCKING PICKY ITS NOT LIKE ITS A TREND WHO GIVES A SHIT IF YOU CARE SO MUCH BOLD IT YOURSELF over a single comment from Link that really didn't seem all that forceful. As with all of the other shitty little arguments you've been picking lately (the deletions thing with Nubis being a prime example) it's dumb. Stop being dumb. Cyberbob Talk 13:18, 9 August 2009 (BST)

Make love, not drama.--

Thadeous Oakley

13:20, 9 August 2009 (BST)

How about you just shut the fuck and accept it when someone else doesn't agree with you (ie. the 'nubis deletions thing'). Some users hold certain priorities over others in relation to deletions, deal with it. As for this example, well, I was just waiting for you to throw out the "Impersonate the other user with big, bold tags and all-caps" because as always it demonstrates that you have nothing more to add and you'd rather argue for the sake of arguing than just drop it. Just give it the fuck up, Bob, you've just escalated it to the point where no one cares anymore. --ϑϑℜ 13:30, 9 August 2009 (BST)

woah, that was one sweet turning of the tables given that you're the one who overreacted in the first place. bravo Cyberbob Talk 13:35, 9 August 2009 (BST)

--ϑϑℜ 13:51, 9 August 2009 (BST)

Trouble in paradise?? ;)--CyberRead240 08:29, 11 August 2009 (BST)

Meh, it was a simple case, and I figured bob would reverse his decision, once he got back -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:06 9 August 2009 (BST)

gosh boxy look what you started.--x o x o 13:56, 9 August 2009 (BST)

It's a gift I have.
Jealous? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:37 9 August 2009 (BST)

User:Justinbronze

Hey Thad, shut the hell up. If you're willing to report someone, you might as be willing to ask them about it first (hint it's way easier). That way, you don't look like a dick. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:19, 2 August 2009 (BST)

*sigh* He's got a lot to learn, too. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW}

23:35, 2 August 2009 (BST)

Meh, we all do it, Bob. Doesn't excuse it, however. People take the actual act of filing a vandal case too seriously. Sysops are here to make sure that only genuine vandalism gets ruled as such :). Linkthewindow Talk 07:46, 3 August 2009 (BST)

Yes indeed, Capt. Obvious. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW}

07:54, 3 August 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)

This page is fucked

It's not showing the main a/vb stuffs, just the bot section.--x o x o 01:16, 27 July 2009 (BST)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning

Contents

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives

August 2009

User:Rambo voller

User:AnonSantlerville

User:Jed (2)

User:The Colonel

User:Justinbronze

Bots Discussion

Return of old, already banned, bots

Hmm

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

This page is fucked

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox