September 2009

LAZURMAN III

YOU CAN'T DEFEAT THE LAZURMAN! SUCK MY DICK YOU NIGGA!--LAZURMAN III 16:08, 25 September 2009 (BST)

Reason we need more and most importantly better sysops number 68445. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:10, 25 September 2009 (BST)

beep boop i am a robot from the 1950's Cyberbob Talk 18:47, 25 September 2009 (BST)

Hence the jokes that would only belong in Lost In Space?--CyberRead240 20:08, 25 September 2009 (BST)

I'd like to know, after all his warnings about shitting up admin pages, how Cyberbob would like to illustrate that his addition to the main page is both constructive and relevant. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:28, 26 September 2009 (BST)

I don't understand how he justifies moving my comments to the talk page, leaving "beep boop I am a robot" behind. Idiot.--CyberRead240 05:05, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Shush! He's a sysop, he must know what he is doing!--SirArgo ^Talk 05:10, 26 September 2009 (BST)

You do know that you voted for him to be crat, right?--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:46, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Your point is? When he deos have to be a serious sysop, he can do it better than most on staff atm.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:08, 27 September 2009 (BST)

Because that A/VB commenting policy has not been passed yet. That is why. Cyberbob Talk 08:42, 26 September 2009 (BST)

That doesn't validate your comment any more than anyone elses...--CyberRead240 09:49, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Then move his comment to the talk. You're technically allowed.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:52, 26 September 2009 (BST)

I did. He reverted it. Because he has shitfights with users he doesnt like. Hence why he shouldn't be a sysop.--CyberRead240 09:53, 26 September 2009 (BST)

As I say at the bottom of this conversation. Edit war = A/A.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:55, 26 September 2009 (BST)

It isnt a matter of A/A, it's Bob "shitting up the admin pages", there is plenty of precedent for it. However nobody has the balls to do anything these days.--CyberRead240 09:56, 26 September 2009 (BST)

An A/A ruling saying he can't comment on cases he isn't a part of, unless in the process of sysop duties, would prevent him. There's precedent for this kind of ruling, and it would certainly solve the issue.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:58, 26 September 2009 (BST)

I would prefer to let him go on a power trip over this issue, I feel it will prove my ultimate point a lot better, for future cases.--CyberRead240 10:00, 26 September 2009 (BST)

That one comment will be all I need to counter your "ultimate point" - you're more interested in ousting me because I fucked your arse so many times than SAVING TEH WIKI. Cyberbob Talk 12:59, 26 September 2009 (BST)

lol, bait taken. Also, U mad?--CyberRead240 13:10, 26 September 2009 (BST)

I am kinda mad but not at anything on the internet - had a shit day Cyberbob Talk 13:18, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Oh, and Iscariot has some nerve to attack me for "shitting up" after the number of times he rather mindlessly whined about needing "more but more importantly better" sysops in this case. How is that relevant to A/VB? Cyberbob Talk 08:44, 26 September 2009 (BST)

My comment was relevant to the ongoing vandal attack that could have been stopped sooner with an active sysop. Your 'addition' was not a ruling, nor was it in any contributory to the case. And we both know if J3D had posted the same thing you'd have escalated him by now, but hey different standards for different users, right? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 09:50, 26 September 2009 (BST)

I like how he reverted it, because I moved his edit. Sysops need to wake up. Wrong person for the job, too much personal interest in his actions.--CyberRead240 09:52, 26 September 2009 (BST)

He isn't really allowed to revert it... I'd say that his comment should be on the talk, what with it not really being important to the case, but this may be a job for A/A. After all, they say it's for edit wars. I guess this is a minor version thereof.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:55, 26 September 2009 (BST)

A/A will solve nothing.--CyberRead240 09:55, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Iscariot is allowed to comment. He created the case, so he can comment. However, his comment IS slightly pushing it.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:00, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Of course it's pushing it. It's what he does. He makes comments critical of the sysops whenever he can, and then cries about it when one of them replies. He is the self proclaimed wiki martyr -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:11 26 September 2009 (BST)

And as we see, everyone and their contributions gets looked at in good faith..... unless the sysops don't like them. Also note the defendant's response to the case has now be removed from the page in an act of moderation contrary to the guidelines of this page, but we wouldn't expect anything different from certain people would we? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:34, 26 September 2009 (BST)

You mean by the "defendant", LAZURMAN III? Well yeah, and given that it was an act of vandalism to even post when already banned, it would have been just as acceptable for me to simply wipe the comment altogether without moving it here... ie. revert the vandalism. GTFO wikilawyer -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:46 26 September 2009 (BST)

You shouldn't even respond or hardly even acknowledge vandals anyways, neither in edit summaries or edits themselves. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:28, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Yes, because his "defence" was of such integrity and strength, wasn't it? They raise a good point, Iscariot. Earlier, I asked you what you thought about me running as a sysop, and you just explained why you don't like the current sysops. --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:40, 26 September 2009 (BST)

I don't care about his contributions, I care about his rights. As the target of an open A/VB case he is entitled to make a response. So what if it's not articulate and thought out? Any time we arbitrarily decide to allow shit like this the to take place we open this wiki up to the notion of different people getting treated differently and that this is perfectly acceptable. We already have a massive problem with this striated make-up on this wiki, allowing this to perpetuate is not in the interests of the community, it provokes vandalism, bad faith editing and flagrant sysop abuse as per the treatment of Goons in times past. This is no different, just more insidious. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:46, 26 September 2009 (BST)

You're my hero, Iscariot -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:47 26 September 2009 (BST)

I do so enjoy it when you prove my point for me. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:51, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Iscariots right though. Even the most brutal of murderers is entitled to a fair trial.--CyberRead240 10:52, 26 September 2009 (BST)

He got his fair trial, his posting was ruled vandalism (ban evasion). Vandalism can be reverted by anyone, I moved it here to preserve the context of later posts that added nothing to the case. But of course whatever happens, you harpies are going to bitch and moan. So go at it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:56 26 September 2009 (BST)

He does, but, as Boxy pointed out, he was evading his ban. He'd already had his trial, and had thus already been banned. If a user is permabanned, but didn't say anything at the time of the case, that doesn't give them the right to make a vandal alt and post incoherent nonsense on the case, just as a "defence".--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:57, 26 September 2009 (BST)

You see? This is what I mean when I say read and understand the case. He wasn't perma-ed for ban evasion, it has yet to be proven that he is an alt of the below case. He was banned for vandalism to templates on the main page, the case was made and he responded to it as he is entitled to do, he didn't remove the case or vandalise this page, he responded in the conventional manner. His contribution should have been left there. You'll notice that this all kicked off when Cyberbob decided that he could add pointlessness, Boxy may try and disparage myself and Read, but of course such conduct would be ruled vandalism by another user.... --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:03, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Then we need an IP check. If they match, then he has no right to comment. Or, of course, we could just not bother with a pointless check, when the actual problem has been resolved. --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:12, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Man, we were just having such a nice quiet time there too. Hmmmmmmmmmm what could have changed OH I KNOW read and iscariot are back in town Cyberbob Talk 12:59, 26 September 2009 (BST)

if people would just stop giving them a platform by not responding (yes I know I responded, it was a mistake) they would either shut the fuck up or smarten the fuck up Cyberbob Talk 13:02, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Stop replying to yourself it's kind of pathetic...--CyberRead240 13:10, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Odd isn't it that people like DDR don't cause this disruption deliberately. You don't get to troll the page in the way that you've tried your hardest to get others banned for and come out of this smelling like roses. What you did was deliberately wrong and done only to provoke a response, and you know it, and now everyone else can see it as well. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:12, 26 September 2009 (BST)

As a sysop I'm involved with the case and there's nothing that says that involved users can't post one-liners. Boxy was within his rights to move my post as sysops are allowed to decide based on the spirit of a rule rather than the letter. I'm sorry that you crave sysophood while hating it at the same time, must suck to be so conflicted Cyberbob Talk 13:21, 26 September 2009 (BST)

ah fuck i'm doing it again - you are a fucking master at pushing people's buttons iscariot I'll give you that Cyberbob Talk 13:23, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Stop replying to yourself, it's kind of pathetic--CyberRead240 13:53, 26 September 2009 (BST)

"lol, bait taken." --wiki user "Sexylegsread", 1844 Cyberbob Talk 13:55, 26 September 2009 (BST)

you are one of those guys, who get tr00led hardcore by someone, get all offended, and then claim you were counter trolling when you find out how stupid you look.--CyberRead240 14:55, 26 September 2009 (BST)

you are one of those guys, who get tr00led hardcore by someone, get all offended, and then try and smugly "turn teh tables" when you find out how stupid you look. Cyberbob Talk 15:39, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Grasping at straws now bob.--CyberRead240 15:43, 26 September 2009 (BST)

User_talk:Cyberbob240#I.27d_dump_you_too Cyberbob Talk 16:01, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Sergeant Bobbo

Surely the correct course of action would have to have sought community consensus on A/D as to whether this was porn or not first and then begin a case based on that input. We removed the scheduled from porn due to questionable actions of sysops, this just seems like a new way of enforcing moderation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:19, 23 September 2009 (BST)

Go away. Cyberbob Talk 16:21, 23 September 2009 (BST)

If Iscariot's story was ten sentences longer this comment would have won the internet.--

Thadeous Oakley

22:36, 23 September 2009 (BST)

No, in fact the porn scheduled was removed so this could be the new method: take it here, and unless a consensus by the sysops is reached, it is moved for A/D where it then sits in the limelight for 2 weeks. It allows for quick removal of obviously grotesque material while still allowing a proper stage for the sysops to decide whether it should be taken to A/D for 2 weeks. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:30, 23 September 2009 (BST)

My eyes..., just removed it. I'm pretty sure obvious porn gets deleted anyway. No need for A/D, this aint borderline but way over that.--

Thadeous Oakley

19:27, 23 September 2009 (BST)

Fraid not, it all still has to come through A/VB. If it were up to me, we would have just deleted the image based on consensus and not warned this guy, but since it has to be deleted as vandalism we have little choice if we want it whiped on sight. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:47, 24 September 2009 (BST)

User:LAZURMAN!

I assume that his 3 edits were the creation of a new page and the two vandalisms of Template:Lastupdate? Otherwise, there's only 2 edits under that username.

As a sidenote, perhaps when a user creates a vandalism page as one of their "3 Edits", that the page title be part of the vandal report which states that 3 edits were in fact made. After all, when a page is deleted, so too is any log of edits to the page in User Contributions.

It's a loophole that makes it hard to judge misconduct. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 11:51, 19 September 2009 (BST)

I didn't ban him with the 3 edit rule, I banned him because he's an obvious 3page alt. Paying attention is tech. Cyberbob Talk 11:53, 19 September 2009 (BST)

He was an alt of a permabanned user. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:54, 19 September 2009 (BST)

Ah. I didn't know of 3page, and as such when you said 3page, I thought of "3 Edits", what with it probably being the most common phrase used on A/VB with 3 in the name. My bad. Still, the inclusion thing stands true, if not in this case, but in further instances. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 11:57, 19 September 2009 (BST)

He calls himself 3page for that reason, unfortunately :( --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:05, 19 September 2009 (BST)

User:Thurgood

Just out of curiosity, what did this user do to warrant the ban? His edits were annoying but I didn't notice any vandalism.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 15:46, 19 September 2009 (BST)

See above conversation. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:15, 19 September 2009 (BST)

User:Yonnua Koponen and User:BobBoberton

Did anyone ask them on their talk page to stop? I admit that it was a bonehead move to edit a user sub-page, but that part of the page does look like it's for ongoing discussion. Their edits don't seem blatantly bad faith, or even to be disruptive; perhaps a soft warning would stop these actions from continuing, provide closure, and send a clear message? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:46, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Not to forget the talk pages are protected... a bit weird for a wiki, where open discourse is supposed to be king. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW}

00:50, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Look, see? It was an honest mistake, not a bad faith edit; I think everyone can get off with a soft warning here and go back to the usual buisness of ignoring things that don't exist because they don't. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 13:39, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Lelouch stop pushing *cough* everywhere. You don't want to end up like ALiM. On a more important note, I have to agree that I don't feel it was a bad faith edit, more like a newbie error, but not with newbies.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:54, 16 September 2009 (BST)

It was just one of those simple accidents that happen every once and awhile, and excuse me for slipping a few wheezes or snorts in every now and then. There's no way this is going to become anything like an ALiM level attention-beg; I'm just slipping nothing into idle conversation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lelouch (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Lol, alright then. So long as you don't sneeze too much on admin pages.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:51, 16 September 2009 (BST)

If you think what Lelouch does is Alim worthy, you don't know 2 Cool. They used to be a hundred times worse :( --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:52, 16 September 2009 (BST)

I meant popularising on Admin pages. It's how ALiM Started, and they've been A/VB'ed for it if I recall. Best not to take chances, what with Iscariot back.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:56, 16 September 2009 (BST)

I don't know who Isc is, but I don't think this will be a problem; the only reason I brought up nothing was because of how oddly uninvolved everyone was. I'll make a note: No talking about nothing on A/ pages. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:02, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Fair enough.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:04, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - A good-faith mistake with a good-faith purpose- to help with something that was, at heart, very much like a policy discussion, enough to mistaken it as such. If they persisted then I would have ruled vandalism, but I think you really should have just removed the comments and warned them not to do it again on their talk pages before going to A/VB. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:03, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Behold the precedent you've just ignored. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:24, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Some retard coming onto a group page and claiming to be the leader of a strike and directly claiming responsibility for its success (and hence representing the group misleadingly) does not equal users trying give community input onto a page which has the talk page protected and should be in A/PD anyway. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:29, 16 September 2009 (BST)

It's not a group page, it's a user page. Have you read the policy, that I linked that states clearly that I can do whatever I want in my user space as those pages are my sole property? Your opinion of where I should put my projects is your own concern, the fact remains that my user page has been edited against my wishes, precedent shows this to be clear vandalism. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 17:32, 16 September 2009 (BST)]

It was indeed a group page, because at the time of that vandalism, it was being used as a template inclusion on Category:Mall Tour 2009. Way to try to fuck over our precedents and namespace specific rules on the wiki by putting a group page into the user namespace, using it as a template for a category page and calling that the actual group page. You fail at wikilawyering here, because sysops have the ability to ignore hard and fast rules in situations when common sense dictates that to do so would be against the spirit of the rules. For all intents and purposes, your precedent was in fact a group page of a currently active group, and was treated as such. I am about to go about moving all those MT09 pages to more appropriate locations -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:25 19 September 2009 (BST)

Nubis thought he was dealing with a group page, check the warning he gave the user. You linked no policy, because no policy says that editing a user subpage is clear-cut vandalism, it only states that the user has total control over what appears on their user subpages. You have the control, so delete it already, don't run to A/VB to punish people for trying to help out. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:46, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Way to mis-read Nubis' comment. The Mall Tour is understood to be an ongoing event (like Big Bash) and therefore not strictly a "group page". It is/was a well orchestrated plan that wasn't aided by edits done by anyone not in the approved group. If you can't recognize that there is a CLEAR difference between something like the Mall Tour and say another crappy Resident Evil Umbrella wanna-be group then you need to start actually PLAYING UD more. Not to mention that Jareth's edit was retarded and not keeping in the flow of the page. Nubis was right with that decision. --

#99 ^DCC 17:55, 18 September 2009 (BST)

I didn't say he wasn't :/ the punishment was right but it doesn't apply as precedent here is all. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:37, 19 September 2009 (BST)

DCC

Can he be tried, seperatly, for every administrative action he's taken as Nubis? Each one of those was impersonation at the least, and they should stack up nicely to equal that perma we're all thinking this case warrants. It's not like he played with Nubis' account for a day and then appologized; he's been doing it for months and influencing major wiki aspects from elections to A/VB. Does anyone here seriously claim that each one of those large-scale wiki-spanning impersonations doesn't warrant its own case, or at least its own escalation? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:04, 11 September 2009 (BST)

One would argue that it would be for each and every edit done under Nubis, as each one would be considered impersonation. Best case scenario, we believe Nubis in that s/he has been away for years and just came back, thus demoting Nubis, and banning DCC for stealing an account and impersonating another user. Worst case, Nubis gave the account away, will get striped of sysop powers, and can very likely join DCC in getting banned (perpetuating account impersonation and having countless violations from DCC's edits). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 19:22, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Even still, if you take them at their word, its a sock puppet that was used in voting, which in the past has been insta-banned, correct?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:32, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Correct, but sit back and watch the 'sops almost fall over each other in failure to get the REAL punishments happening. Only DDR has or will show initiative.--CyberRead240 01:05, 12 September 2009 (BST)

If the impersonation is confirmed, then there are enough infractions for 500 permabans. It's absolutely ridiculous that one would not apply the same standards to DCC that are applied to every other serial vandal. If a "nobody" user made 100s upon 100s of impersonation edits as per DCC they'd be permabanned in a second, with no need for seperate cases for every edit to deal with such an obvious "career vandal". Why is this case any different? Or is it the balls of certain sysops that've shrivelled? Good on you, DDR, for doing it the right way, for actually have a working set. --WanYao 15:44, 12 September 2009 (BST)

"yummm dick tastes sooooo goood!!!! " - the above Cyberbob Talk 16:14, 12 September 2009 (BST)

hmmm do we make a comeback to bob, thereby also criticising jed for the exact same joke... read this is particularly relevant to you Cyberbob Talk 16:14, 12 September 2009 (BST)

One sysop says it is vandalism and another says it is not. Isn't that a tie and not "not vandalism"? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 21:14, 25 September 2009 (BST)

In the result of a tie, it is always "Not". Now, this case is closed, both your comment and mien should be on the discussion. I'll move them now.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:22, 25 September 2009 (BST)

So we're just letting him off the hook because a wave of drama and sockpuppets is passing over our submarine wiki? Maybe I'm old fashioned or blind, but I thought that impersonating a major sysop for half a year would be grounds for some serious punishment, which I haven't seen anywhere... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:21, 26 September 2009 (BST)

There's no evidence that it was for anywhere near as long as he says it is. DCC could have only had the account for a week or so before the case.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:41, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Even if that's so, it seems like that's more than warning territory; plus, if DC didn't have the account for a while, who illegally deescalated his ban level? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:23, 26 September 2009 (BST)

Alledgedly, Nubis. I mean, everyone KNOWS he did it, but there's no proof he did it, so the sysops can't do anything.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:49, 27 September 2009 (BST)

Didn't he say he'd had control since some sysop trust vote event or something? I'm pretty sure that counts as a confession if he did. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:32, 27 September 2009 (BST)

Yes, but he could be lying.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:48, 27 September 2009 (BST)

If a murder suspect confesses, do you throw out his evidence because he could be lying? If he says that he did something illegal, then we have no reason not to believe him. It's not like we'd be punishing him unjustly, he knew what would happen when he either confessed or lied. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:50, 27 September 2009 (BST)

Not if the confession would implicate someone who might otherwise receive a much smaller punishment. If what DCC is saying is true, which it is, there's a substantial chance that Nubis would end up either perma'd, or with DCCs Vandal data. I know it's stupid, but it's how it has to work.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:54, 27 September 2009 (BST)

Zombie Boy

Are we sure he's a vandal alt? He has a user page, and left a relatively nice and newbie-characteristic comment on my talk page. That being said, he does seem to fit the roll a bit too perfectly, and could easily be employing camouflage based anti-peremptory-ban countermeasures. Still, are we sure? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:47, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Far too many suspicious coincidences which put it beyond reasonable doubt. --

Rooster Dragon

03:11, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Nallan

I knew this sysop thing meant the world to you but I really didn't think you would so readily test the integrity of your relationships while pursuing it.--CyberRead240 14:42, 7 September 2009 (BST)

It's that persona thing we talked about. My persona goes on anal streaks. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:48, 7 September 2009 (BST)

regardless of persona, it doesnt mean you can change what you stand for on different mediums.--CyberRead240 14:50, 7 September 2009 (BST)

I was conflicted, but I was going to add: And besides, I've been a sysop for much longer than just the time you've returned, you know, and I've tested relationships in that time steadily, because I try to treat every case with an unbiased perspective. Ask poor J3D. The point is, Nallan entered the fray with a dumb case, and before you complain about me being mean, I voted vandalism on the similar Cyberbob one and also the J3D one so I'm trying to stick with my guns here by being consistent anyway. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:54, 7 September 2009 (BST)

It's not the rulings, it's the way you go about them. You speak to nick daily. a few times a week in person, yet somehow it's ok to claim he can't think for himself? or act for himself? I don't know, one would think you were deliberately distancing yourself from your friends, and for what? I like it when someone can be deemed independant and capable of making their own decisions and being objective without having to scorn relationships and pasts in order to be accepted by a group of cyberfags.--CyberRead240 14:58, 7 September 2009 (BST)

I'm thinking that this might be a conversation better held in private? Cyberbob Talk 15:00, 7 September 2009 (BST)

its not too big a deal to me, i was just shocked to see him say shit like that to nick, of all people, if you knew nick irl its a pretty weird thing to say. Jed is exactly the same though. lol.--CyberRead240 15:02, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Lol alright then, wow. I never said Nick couldn't think for himself. I just suspected that J3D pressed him to put the case forward, which, really, wouldn't seem to surprising if you found out it was true, right? If you want to press on with it, I can give examples of similar things happening in relation to J3D. Within the week even, but I'd rather not. And I have no desire to impress anyone. I'm going for the grim thing. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:11, 7 September 2009 (BST)

You don't get it, and by the sounds of that reply, you will never get it.--CyberRead240 15:16, 7 September 2009 (BST)

I don't think you get what I'm trying to say. This is a fucking wiki for a fucking text based game. You think I'm would expect Nick to give me a cold shoulder over it when we are at the pub? Have you talked to Nick about this? Does he feel the same way that you do? Because as far as I'm concerned he's a big fan of the lulz and not his Internet resume, similar for me. If he did anything like what I mentioned above I would seriously question what he expects of me as a friend, not the other way around. Also, I think you are doing too much work judging me and my attitude towards IRL friends based on one power trip as opposed to my entire time here as a sysop or even a user. All I implied was that J3D told him to put the case forward so he wouldn't have to. Simple. Same as he did with me A/Ming Nubis and same as he did with Nick uploading Colaporn. I'm too busy to argue about this over a wiki. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:26, 7 September 2009 (BST)

I don't believe seeing you insult nick and thinking "shit charlie insulted nick for no reason" is doing too much work judging your attitudes, but anyway....And since we are making it precedent to lie about our actions involving Nick and the wiki, I'll follow your lead and say I haven't spoken to him bout it, no.--CyberRead240 15:32, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Lying, eh? All I did was bring a VB case against him for making a petty case. Sheesh. And you didn't answer my all-important question as to whether he cared. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:34, 7 September 2009 (BST)

It isn't about this one issue, and it never has been. It is about the distancing, we can't figure out why you insist on distancing yourself so badly, is all. Saying he "cares" about what you said to him is silly, nobody REALLY cares what is said to them on a wiki, but you can be taken aback by it and a little put off by the situation.--CyberRead240 15:39, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Well if that is a case then it's his and my issue to talk about, not ours. You broke the fourth wall between us and our "characters" an hour ago and it was then that I was turned off this conversation. I won't be replying. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:41, 7 September 2009 (BST)

I think it's fair to say he's distancing himself because he wants to be impartial as someone managing the wiki.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:42, 7 September 2009 (BST)

It is my problem because I do have an issue with it myself, and you are once again taking it too seriously. And to Yonnua, I know you are trying real hard for Sysop but you just dont get the situation, you haven't been around for long enough to get any of this. Also don't try the "I wont be replying", I invented that. In short, you are taking it too seriously, I'm not mad, nor am I generally opposed to it, I just feel a bit upset that you are so willing to distance yourself from our past on the wiki, but I do get the characters thing. I guess I just couldn't imagine crossing a mate on the wiki, but I understand your position means you will have to. Whatever it's late.--CyberRead240 15:47, 7 September 2009 (BST)

"All I implied was that J3D told him to put the case forward so he wouldn't have to. Simple." irrc I saw something very much like this said by you yourself, read, in IRC just the other day. I didn't make a big deal of it, it doesn't matter. As bob said, this is probably not something to be aired on the wiki. --WanYao 16:08, 7 September 2009 (BST)

I saw you come out of the closet and tell everyone your genitals resembled miniature marshmallows stuck together to form what probably SHOULD look like a penis but it doesn't really do the trick, hence why your last girlfriend dumped you for a small african midget who had a talent that you seemed to be unable to bring yourself to say without stopping for 30 seconds to ejaculate. All of this is true until you actually come up with "something very much like this said by me myself" rather than just adding on to the end of conversations and then claiming later that you are all innocent and you don't like conflict baww.--CyberRead240 16:41, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Since MichaelRead is making such a big stink of it, here and at this very moment in IRC... Here's the log of the conversation I was referring to:

[2009-09-06 01:42:38] <WanYao> negress is not racist
[2009-09-06 01:42:55] <michaelread> its not, in america it is used to define an independant black woman
[2009-09-06 01:42:59] <WanYao> it's not exactly politically correct ... but it's not racist
[2009-09-06 01:43:17] <michaelread> bobs "hahaha"
[2009-09-06 01:43:22] <michaelread> can that be removed to talk page
[2009-09-06 01:43:25] <michaelread> for irrelevant comments?
[2009-09-06 01:44:33] <WanYao> yeah....
[2009-09-06 01:44:34] <WanYao> do it
[2009-09-06 01:44:50] <michaelread> ill get banned for it, he is jumping on any of us
[2009-09-06 01:45:04] <michaelread> it took him nearly lessthan a minute to move what jed said and put it in vb
[2009-09-06 01:45:06] <michaelread> less than a minute
[2009-09-06 01:45:09] <michaelread> and the problem here?
[2009-09-06 01:45:12] <WanYao> i'll do it.
[2009-09-06 01:45:13] <michaelread> he wont get in trouble for it.
[2009-09-06 01:45:37] <michaelread> normally i would but i am one escelation from a week ban
[2009-09-06 01:48:15] <WanYao> conn is no longer around to vote for bob
[2009-09-06 01:48:18] <WanYao> :)
[2009-09-06 01:48:33] <michaelread> so good
[2009-09-06 01:48:41] <michaelread> too busy with his super duper important life
[2009-09-06 01:48:46] <michaelread> haha
[2009-09-06 01:50:51] <michaelread> bob moved it from talk dude

etc, etc.
as i said before, i didn't and don't consider it a big deal. but it did happen. and since the whole thing apparently is a big deal to michaelread... there's the logs. --WanYao 17:07, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Moving a comment to talk page is not the same as getting someone else to post a vandal case for you. DDR was implying that Jed said "hey nick, post this for me because I dont want to be seen as petty while there is a case about that very thing". Mine was to alert those who were currently talking to something that I found wrong, but since I was embroiled in an edit and vandalism war at that very moment, I didn't want to fuel any fires I was involved in. --CyberRead240 17:43, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Actually both of them are variants of asking someone else to do a controversial edit on an Admin page which you're scared to do yourself because you think it'll get you another Vandal ban. I don't care either way, but I sure as hell am not going to let you pretend you're not someone who asks others to "do your dirty work"... because you asked me to. That doesn't prove anything in relation to the case at hand, but it clears up any implications you'd zomg never do such a thing evar11! --WanYao 00:46, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Sorry, bro, but your own "evidence" shows that I never asked anybody to do anything, you voluntarily said "I'll do it". I just said I wasnt going to because I was embroiled in Drama at the time. Examplefail.--CyberRead240 04:12, 8 September 2009 (BST)

J3D 2, Cyberbob 2, Cyberbob 3

The popcorn comment might be cliche, but damn, is it appropriate here. When is this going to stop anyway? A/VB is cluster fucked once again. Though really, this whole affair screams personal vendetta to me. A/A?--Thadeous Oakley 08:49, 6 September 2009 (BST)

If I decide to take anybody to A/A over this stuff it will be after everything else has been cleared up. Cyberbob Talk 08:52, 6 September 2009 (BST)

You? Lol. It's your vendetta mostly. If you want to stop hows about no more petty cases? --x o x o 08:54, 6 September 2009 (BST)

It's kind of scary when MisterGame is reading my mind..... --WanYao 08:56, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Not wanna go there :P --

Thadeous Oakley

09:10, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Hm yes, I do agree with you that believing the word "negress" to be racist == pursuing a vendetta. Maybe if you didn't always feel the need to make those stupid "edgy" racial double entendres these cases wouldn't keep happening. Cyberbob Talk 09:17, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Or you could stop pretending you care when a regular user says a slightly offensive (in your eyes) word on the wiki, just so that you can sting him with a VB case to further yourself in a personal vendetta. I think that one would avoid the drama a little better.--CyberRead240 09:21, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Or, maybe, as per my suggestion... You should ALL just shut the fuck up and stay away from taking each other to A/VB and Misconduct. None of you are coming across as at all mature or objective, and it's high time this shyte just ended. --WanYao 09:33, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Maybe you should take everyones suggestion, and butt out of stuff that doesn't concern you, when your comments are inflammatory and keep these wars going? Dont try to play the "omg im so innocent" card when you have filed a lot of VB and M reports throughout this too...--CyberRead240 09:38, 6 September 2009 (BST)

^^^^ Cyberbob Talk 09:39, 6 September 2009 (BST)

If there was one thing to unite slr and bob...--x o x o 09:41, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Better than Arbitration, Wan is. Cyberbob Talk 09:56, 6 September 2009 (BST)

The wiki is a public sphere; therefore, being a member of the "general public", these cases are my concern. I am totally within my rights to comment on them. Meanwhile, making statements about me is just trying to deflect the subject and the attention away from your own little private territorial pissing war. Classic tactic, nice try, but I'm calling you on it. Focus on the issue at hand. --WanYao 18:01, 6 September 2009 (BST)

So, the issue at hand (in your eyes), is for us to NOT post any cases against each other ever again....wouldn't that limit the "public sphere" of this wiki? If users were not allowed to report each other for things they deem inappropriate or incorrect? I also don't see how I am trying to deflect the attention away from the cases...if anything, my comment before YOU butted in was keeping the argument going, fighting for what side I believe in, you know, free speech, democracy, freedom, the essense of a "public sphere" etc? You fail. TrYiNG 2 SoUnD sMaRt Is A cLaSSiC tAcTiC, bUt IM cAlLiN u oN iT!--CyberRead240 18:06, 6 September 2009 (BST)

If bob or J3D commit something that is clearly inappropriate vandalism, I think that the odds are good that another user would be willing to call them on it; It's not like you two are each other's personal watchdogs, you just self appoint yourselves that so you can catch the other when they slip up. I'm not saying that bob or J3D is right in these series of cases, but I'd think that bob should be able to trust his fellow sysops, and J3D his fellow members, to report blatant misconduct and vandalism when they see it (of their own accords). Anything less is probably in the grey area and grounds for A/A, which also gets things done. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:39, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Hi, I am a longtime user, I didn't read your text wall because of reason #4 - "And you are?" Good Day.--CyberRead240 14:38, 7 September 2009 (BST)

I think the point was, Wan, that you are hardly innocent and totally uninvolved in this mess. You have made a fair few number of pretty obviously emotionally-based misconduct and vandal cases against people (mostly me) over the last couple of months. Remember how hard you were trying to bring my sysophood into a case about moving a section to the top of a page? Remember how ridiculously overblown that whole deal became because of your melodrama? I'm literally lol'ing at your attempts to repaint yourself as some kind of wrathful angel flying high above, because all that is needed to prove that you work just as hard as anyone to enmesh yourself in this business is to make a cursory glance at all the terrible cases you've been making a habit of bringing. Cyberbob Talk 00:05, 7 September 2009 (BST)

I'm not repainting myself in any way, shape of form. But neither am playing your game of derailing this discussion by trying to turn it into a character assassination session. Or by responding to you pulling out an old example of my alleged "melodrama" -- which melodrama, by the way, was a response to a completely out of line and bad faith edit by you... Are you trying to stir up drama and make a flamefest, here, bob? It sure looks like it. Either that, or NOTHING you can say to or about me can possibly be objective, or free from the personal, the ad homimen attacks. Meh... --WanYao 01:36, 7 September 2009 (BST)

You're both doing it. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW}

01:56, 7 September 2009 (BST)

And now you are! And so the cycle continues...--Nallan (Talk) 04:22, 7 September 2009 (BST)

kittens --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW}

05:50, 7 September 2009 (BST)

My eyes!--

Thadeous Oakley

13:54, 7 September 2009 (BST)

User:J3D

13 hours isn't a quick skim, if you were serious about the case you would have had more than a quick skim too. Don't try to "play it cool" to make it look more convincing, you knob.--CyberRead240 02:16, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Yes I mean it's just so inconceivable that I might have had other things to do in that time, such as homework and going to sleep. Cyberbob Talk 02:28, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Next time you make a shitty comment like that on the main page you'll receive a case of your own, by the way. Cyberbob Talk 02:29, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Don't be so petty OMG IM GONNE MAKE BIG VANDAL CASE COZ UR BEIN A FUCKIN BABBIE--CyberRead240 05:57, 6 September 2009 (BST)

By "shitty" I mean "not contributing anything of worth or relevance to the case". Trolling fits that pretty much to a tee. Cyberbob Talk 06:27, 6 September 2009 (BST)

babbie--CyberRead240 06:30, 6 September 2009 (BST)

User:Nallan

DanceDanceRevolution said:

Fair call. Problem is I don't have it, I would assume only Nallan has a copy.

Try moviefap.com, i hear nubis has a membership.--x o x o 04:17, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Is that supposed to be an insult? Somehow saying that I have visited a page that someone else SAVED an image from and re-posted is worse? Wow. You are losing your touch...--– Nubis ^NWO 19:28, 6 September 2009 (BST)

And you just took the bait.--CyberRead240 16:42, 7 September 2009 (BST)

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)

New form of Vandalism?

Just click on the link in my siggy :).--Thadeous Oakley A Challenge you ought to try 21:12, 13 August 2009 (BST)

user page creation for vandals

can we please stop this behavior ? its kind of silly (not to mention stupid) to create a page (sometimes two) for a vandal user just to slap a template or two in them. Can we please stop this ? Im not sure if nonexistant pages can be protected, but even if its not possible, what possible gain does this wiki have by creating and protecting such pages ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:44, 9 September 2009 (BST)

I dunno. I never really got the protections thing anyway. I mean, what are they going to do. Create a new account and spam their old page? And even if protecting them is important, there's no need to create a page just for it. I agree with hagnat.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:46, 9 September 2009 (BST)

That has been done (vandal coming back and vandalising old user pages) many times before in the past. It also stops others commenting on the talk pages of vandals. Again, that used to happen quite a lot. -- C h e e s e 21:57, 9 September 2009 (BST)

DISK SPACE = CHEEP Cyberbob Talk 00:13, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Basically, no. At worst it's harmless and the BannedUser template is a good one. Cyberbob Talk 00:21, 10 September 2009 (BST)

It's pointless and I agree with hagnat... I don't think we should be making a page for them. Still use the BannUser template on permabanned vandals with a page, but there is no reason why we should be going out of our way to spam the wiki with pages that aren't needed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:39, 10 September 2009 (BST)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning

Contents

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives

September 2009

LAZURMAN III

Sergeant Bobbo

User:LAZURMAN!

User:Thurgood

User:Yonnua Koponen and User:BobBoberton

DCC

Zombie Boy

Nallan

J3D 2, Cyberbob 2, Cyberbob 3

User:J3D

User:Nallan

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

New form of Vandalism?

user page creation for vandals

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox