UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 11
Archives
Talk Archives
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General Discussion Archives
General Discussion
JISOR/Halfdan and Mekhan/Tarpenz
Assuming these 4 are all ruled vandalism, are their votes in the election all struck? Would remove 2 additional votes from Stelar, leaving them at 23. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- We'd strike only the second (time-wise) of the votes for each candidate; e.g. JISOR's first two votes would remain, but any by Halfdan Pisket would be struck. Same with Mekhan/Tarpenz — Mekhan's votes remain, but Tarpenz's have been struck. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 12:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- I corrected the title for clarity. I have not been connected to the other two accounts. -- 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- JISOR’s final vote was made after both of Pisket’s. If a user has two votes, I believe it would make sense for all votes struck after the first two votes by a single user. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 14:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Sister Mary
moved from main page
Blanked User talk:Sniper4625 - normally I would give benefit of the doubt, but they seem quite hostile, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. Regards~ Sniper4625 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I won't need any benefit of doubt, thanks for considering my feelings though. After reading I wanted to have my talk page protected both Sniper and Dragontard came to write on my page - if you don't want any hostile behavior I suggest you fuck off and leave me alone :) I don't even know who the fuck you guys are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:37 June 3 2018.
- Oh right. Ban the fuck outta my account if you feel like it Mr. System-Operator-Boss. I have no problem editing some page to get my message across to people who have a hard time getting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC).
- -- LABIA on the INTERNET Dunell Hills Corpseman #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Now now, there's no need to be rude and start flinging insults. --Dragonshardz (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Might I inquire why you decided the best choice of action to a harmless greeting was a rule-breaking act of vandalism? Quite rude. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Given talk pages are a pretty important element of regulating user behavior without needing to ban anyone the instant they step out of line, I'm really not sure Sister Mary has any interest in learning or following any of the community norms of the wiki. Swissaboo (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per their talk page now they apparently have gotten many such pages deleted, which somewhat confuses me. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Adding onto this, in their protection request they clearly have no interest in bothering with the proper formatting for responding to other users and on their talk page they have placed the nominated for deleting template without any actual nomination for deletion having occurred. I don't know how much of this is actually against wiki RULES (except perhaps that last one?) but they're very clearly running roughshod over the expected standards of behavior. Swissaboo (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure you meant WIKI LAW when you said RULES. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This was exactly the point of having my talk page protected - the horde/jack/whateverzergs can't seem to leave me alone :) Sister Mary (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Jack got run out of town on a rail. Try again. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The reason is pretty simple, and I thought you got the message, but okay, I will clarify for you why = I don't like you :) I will eat my warning with pleasure, don't worry about it! But.. this isn't your first time harrassing people, correct? I like that you feel like you have the upperhand over a guy that made 200+ edits within the last 24 hours, and only vandalized a single page of a user that didn't really go about making "a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki" by trying to trigger me by invading my talk page. Im looking forward as to how this will play out. I will just make another account and keep on editing from there so I didn't lose anything catching myself a warning, other than shifting focus to you ugly bunch of motherfuckers :D Sister Mary (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (See, I use my template just like you want to!)
- Isn't sockpuppeting to avoid wikipunishments in itself a punishable offense? You just keep digging. Sniper4625 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)
- Are you back, Jack? Because you're making the same "alts!" argument he did, and he was similarly disproven. I'm not sure how I put words in your mouth when you said "I will just make another account and keep on editing from there," but well, I did appreciate your attempt to sic Aichon on my compatriot. Too bad it failed. Sniper4625 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)
- You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- AHHHHHHHH :D I was actually just waiting for someone to pull out the "you're a Yocum" card! Sure dude - let's say im a Jack. I must be a great Jack. I mean, I edited 2 suburbs completely and have been editing the EMRP for 6 months on another account - but sure! YOU GOT ME! :D Im getting the idea that your dick is all so im gonna leave you to play with that! I will be back with another account, to edit another 200+ locations. Meanwhile you guys will have to enjoy yourself being annoying towards someone else! :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2018.
Vandalism and a Warning. Don't blank other's pages. I'll serve the warning officially over at the Sister Mary page, but I assume you'll see it here as well. And yes, warnings carry over between accounts. —Aichon— 02:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- So...how does the wiki handle a user rage-reverting their own edits? --Dragonshardz (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Rage reverting? I edited 3 locations due to them being wrong :D Aichon you said something about the parties in question should talk, the rest should shut up. If this doesnt qualify as harrassment I don't know what will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC).
Sounds to me like someone is finally bored of this game and is getting one last laugh out of the community by being as much as a cunt as possible on his way out. Either that or it's his time of month and he's out of pads.---- FoD PK Praise Rando!06:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah" A ZOMBIE ANT 00:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
User: Revenant
Now think about it, I have a very distant memory of a user who used to remove all signatures of everyone else on their talk page as a kind of norm, but I can't remember who it was, or if it actually happened. Might have been Iscariot, maybe even Finis. Does this sound right to anybody? A ZOMBIE ANT 22:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was somebody, but fuck if I remember who it was. I think the logic was that if there was no signature, they could do whatever they wanted to the content and it didn’t count as impersonation? ЯЭV€NΛИ† ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
User:The Goth Store Owner
*snif* *snif* I smell drama. Is there drama ? OH MA GOSH IS DRAMA!!! --hagnat 21:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The sooner they learn that 90% of this dispute should be on A/Arbitration the sooner I can sleep at night. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a minimum time cases need to stay on the main VB page? Can't this shit just be moved to archives and locked? --KCLZA 21:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- A/VB is now archived on an annual basis, so it'll be cycled in January 2016. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
So quiet
* shuffles around looking for drama to feed on, finds none *
What happened to this place ? --hagnat 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me to drop the DramaLevel. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hagnat spamming an administrative talk page was the excuse I needed to fulfill our VB case quota required by Kevan. To the wikicourt with him at once! -- Spiderzed▋ 21:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you can update the DramaLevel to the lesser level of drama. This place is so quiet. --hagnat 16:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
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? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 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... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 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)
Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLGTG 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)
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? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 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... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 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)
Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLGTG 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)
November 2009
User:J3D
So is this added to the upcoming harassment banning case or does J3D get the Iscariot 2 years of "Get out of Jail Free for being a Prick" treatment?-- #99 DCC 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Cyberbob240
Rosslessness said: |
Not Vandalism. As the boxman states. |
why did you have to wait for him to rule for you to rule? Baaaaaah. Get some real sysops around here plz--CyberRead240 10:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Like to show me any other time I've waited for boxy to rule on this page? I must admit its strange for people to agree on UDwiki. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like you Ross to show me a drama case where you where first to rule. No offense, but it's always Boxy, DDR, Bob or SA who make the first rulings, with you always following the majority ruling after that. --Thadeous Oakley 12:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Like this one? UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_11#User:Kkkkkkkkkooo. I fear that by the global nature of the wiki I'll always be following others. (Looks suspiciously at the Australian sops and frequent vandals) --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nice try, but I said drama case, not a piss easy case like that. Also timezones, really? --Thadeous Oakley 14:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, right. Thats what I do, shun drama. Thats why I volunteered to represent you in arbitration against Iscariot. Avoiding drama. Also, Timezones? Yes.
- Nice try, but I said drama case, not a piss easy case like that. Also timezones, really? --Thadeous Oakley 14:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Like this one? UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_11#User:Kkkkkkkkkooo. I fear that by the global nature of the wiki I'll always be following others. (Looks suspiciously at the Australian sops and frequent vandals) --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like you Ross to show me a drama case where you where first to rule. No offense, but it's always Boxy, DDR, Bob or SA who make the first rulings, with you always following the majority ruling after that. --Thadeous Oakley 12:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Any of these good enough for your standards? UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_12#User:Jerrel_Yokotory or UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_06#User:WOOT or My crazy standpoint here? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
And also, a lot of ops are aussies, and a lot of cases, requests, and all that shit are put forward during the aussie time zone.-- SA 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you are a sop, and you are so certain that it is a VBing, and you are online (which he was), why dont you just vote Vandalism. He is a sheep. Baaaah.--CyberRead240 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Iscariot
I thought the official like was that no one but kevan "ranked" higher than anybody else? Or have the ops finally dropped that blatant bullshit? xoxo 09:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I always thought that a sysops can tell someone not to strike something if the sysops was in the right. But I also couldn't think of how to word what I was saying properly without bringing up a fake rank idea on hagnat's part. :/ -- SA 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)ADDENFUCKINGDuM Also, what he said v
- abloobloobloobloboblbobobolblvbsbgflbglbooblboblbonowyou'rejustmakingdramaup Cyberbob Talk 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Winman1
I don't quite remember what we do when we find multi-account abusers, but Check User confirms Shut up noob as an alt, and he's using it to vote on his own things along with his main. So, I have to leave, I need groceries, but here you guys go.-- SA 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- We ban the alt, Shut up noob in this case, and warn the main. All multi-votes are then struck. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Does it matter if that's useful? It seems like something that should be on the talk page since, no matter how interesting is, it's not from a Sysop or an involved user. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Contributive posts are not removed from cases as they add directly. Chatter and thread drift is removed. This is not one of these. As an uninvolved party in the Winman case Thad is in breach of his arbitration ruling. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- 'right then. But sorry, I haven't breached my arb ruling, since I didn't actually posted a thing, unless your seriously counting the direction towards the talk page.--Thadeous Oakley 20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- "MisterGame is not to contribute to admin pages that don't ask for community input unless he is an involved party (the talk pages are still open to comment though). Admin pages such as A/D ask for community input (votes), while A/VB is discussed by sysops and involved parties only (reporting an A/VB case counts as being involved)." It could be seen as you being contributive (And also antagonistic by removing a genuinely helpful comment when a sysop asked for direction) by removing posts.-- SA 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- You should really look up the words "contributing" and "removing", I can assure you that you'll find that they don't much in common.--Thadeous Oakley 21:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- You should not be a dick when I'm simply trying to tell you that some people could see it as that. And also, the words really depend on context. You can be contributing to hostilities by removing posts, after all.-- SA 21:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Removing would be implying he was simply getting rid of the comment. He actually moved it to talk, he was attempting to cause drama under the pretext of contributing towards the maintenance of the page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well I seriously thank you for that SA, it's just that I respectfully disagree. Contributing to hostilities is of completely different meaning. The question here is: By removing Iscariot's comment, what do I contribute?
- Anyway, we still need to settle our wedding SA. I think Boxy is a great choice for making it official, having him lead the ceremony, just like our Arb Case. I was thinking about asking Cyberbob to be my best man. You can take DDR's as yours. J3D can be the Maid of Honor, with Nick and Read as bridesmaids. Iscariot and Yonnua can be flower boys. Sounds good hun? --Thadeous Oakley 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was on your side right up until that spammish comment at the end, Thad.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh wait, no I wasn't. My mistake.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was on your side right up until that spammish comment at the end, Thad.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- You should not be a dick when I'm simply trying to tell you that some people could see it as that. And also, the words really depend on context. You can be contributing to hostilities by removing posts, after all.-- SA 21:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- You should really look up the words "contributing" and "removing", I can assure you that you'll find that they don't much in common.--Thadeous Oakley 21:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- "MisterGame is not to contribute to admin pages that don't ask for community input unless he is an involved party (the talk pages are still open to comment though). Admin pages such as A/D ask for community input (votes), while A/VB is discussed by sysops and involved parties only (reporting an A/VB case counts as being involved)." It could be seen as you being contributive (And also antagonistic by removing a genuinely helpful comment when a sysop asked for direction) by removing posts.-- SA 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- 'right then. But sorry, I haven't breached my arb ruling, since I didn't actually posted a thing, unless your seriously counting the direction towards the talk page.--Thadeous Oakley 20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Contributive posts are not removed from cases as they add directly. Chatter and thread drift is removed. This is not one of these. As an uninvolved party in the Winman case Thad is in breach of his arbitration ruling. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Does it matter if that's useful? It seems like something that should be on the talk page since, no matter how interesting is, it's not from a Sysop or an involved user. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Dawgjz
Vandalism because he should be doing it properly, not just randomly wiping shit. And I really doubt that some eployer is going to care that a guy plays games on a computer in his spare time.-- SA 11:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think you might be wrong there. These days, employers do actually check allot of possible aspirants through all means, including Google. The words "urban dead" might be enough to imply terrorist activity for some 50 year old desk worker, you don't know that. I do agree it's pretty stupid to use your full name so loosely on the interwebs. But I'm sure he has learned his lesson, and it's not that his name has such a big historical impact on this wiki. --Thadeous Oakley 12:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that the word "cheater" may be of more interest than urban or dead... But perhaps the name itself could be blanked out, if it's ruled to be revealing "personal information". But definitely not taking out whole sentences to change the meaning of discussions -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:20 3 November 2009 (BST)
- Wow. Vandalism or not you guys are fucked up! And by "you guys" I am referring to SA and Iscariot. Understand, I have never once, in my time on this wiki, resorted to slinging vulgarities at another user. Sure, I've had disagreements, but I do actually believe in and try to practice civility. Normally. And so I have never resorted to base, personal attacks. Not once. Until now.
- Actually, I think that the word "cheater" may be of more interest than urban or dead... But perhaps the name itself could be blanked out, if it's ruled to be revealing "personal information". But definitely not taking out whole sentences to change the meaning of discussions -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:20 3 November 2009 (BST)
- And I doubt either of you will give a damn what someone else thinks about you since you've both proven yourselves to be so utterly fucking devoid of class and human sympathy. But I'm going to say it anyway, because you ought to hear it, and I want you to understand that I am not just flaming you but that I am actually very upset and disgusted by your behavior. Now then -
- You two plotting, heartless, maniacal, smarmy little nigglers are a disgrace to anonymous internet dickheads around the world. I fucking pray neither of you shit monkeys ever end up in a position of any real authority or have the outcome of another human being's life placed in your sweaty little hands because you fuckers don't deserve an ounce trust. Not one ounce.
- This poor dude is trying to get his name off a stupid zombie wiki for a game he stopped playing 2 years ago because it is interfering with his ability to make a living in the real world. He lied about why he was removing his name (probably because he didn't want to draw more attention to it) and he broke wiki policy with his edits. Granted. But then he clearly explained his reasoning on his talk page and asked for a little understanding and a little help.
- Now at that point, any reasonable person, anyone with a modicum of respect for themselves and for others would understand and say, "Oh ok, let's get your name off the wiki and get you on with your life." Not these two fuckers. Instead of helping, Iscariot goes out of his way to be a complete fucking douche. When Iscariot is normally being a pain in the neck, he at least does so under some poorly argued false pretense. But now the pretenses are gone, and his true colors have shone.
- He tried to permaban Dawgjz so he'd have no chance to come back on here and remove his name from the wiki. Then he snidely mentions making a user group with the guy's name on it so it will be permanently linked to the wiki. How smug. How fucking smug. And why would he go through such measures? utilizing backdoor bullshit and loopholes and bureaucracy? Basically, just to be an asshole. Because he can fuck over another human being from behind the veil of his computer screen and revel in the knowledge that he ruined someone else's day. How fucked - up - are - you?
- And then SA chimes in on the talk page, full of mockery and spite, which would be one thing. But then he goes the extra mile and shakes Dawgjz down for cash! WTF? The fact that SA is a 'sop here, voted to restrict Dawgjz editing privilege, and then took his money to make the problem go away is paramount to fucking extortion.
- Go ahead and defend yourself. Tell me why I'm wrong and you were really just trying to help. Bitch about my wall of text. Iscariot, get to work on a bulleted list of arguments. SA tell me why I don't know shit about the wiki and call me something really nasty. Go ahead. But you both crossed a line and you should be ashamed of yourselves. And that stands.
- Seriously people. This had nothing to do with the wiki or some zombie game. It had nothing to do with following the rules or any other BS excuse you're likely to come up with. The truth is, you both saw a gleaming to opportunity fuck somebody over and you delighted in it. What does that make you?
- Sickening.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 14:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- And the most brilliant part of all, is because Google can take up to 5 months to re-cache websites, the information coming up on Google isn't likely to change the results for his name at all. So this whole argument, at leased in the foreseeable future, is absolutely futile. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Giles, Giles, Giles. The man brought it upon himself. He cheated. His employers deserve to know he cheated. If they decide that it doesn't matter that it was just a computer game then there's no harm done, if they think it is important then we've helped a company remove an undesirable candidate for employment. After all if he can cheat at something for fun, then perhaps he might go cheat for fun and profit at work. I wonder if he's a banker? This whole argument is moot really, given a Texas burger site shows up on page one of google, you can imagine what a quick google bomb will do if there's a nice off-wiki page to link to that contains a history of what happened. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because somebody is a zerg at UD, he doesn't deserve a job? His employers deserve to know? Why don't you do us all a favor and fuck off. --Thadeous Oakley 18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- It proves he cheats. If his potential employers decide that it's important and that they don't want someone who cheats working for them, then it's relevant. You're just unhappy because you're just as much of a cheat as he was. See, the Zerg Liste. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Like I care about that? Or you thought my name really was Thadeous Oakley? Like I said before this isn't about dawgjz, this is about you abusing someone else reality problems for you own wiki drama. Oh well, this over since Boxy is blanking his name anyway.--Thadeous Oakley 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- It proves he cheats. If his potential employers decide that it's important and that they don't want someone who cheats working for them, then it's relevant. You're just unhappy because you're just as much of a cheat as he was. See, the Zerg Liste. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because somebody is a zerg at UD, he doesn't deserve a job? His employers deserve to know? Why don't you do us all a favor and fuck off. --Thadeous Oakley 18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Giles, Giles, Giles. The man brought it upon himself. He cheated. His employers deserve to know he cheated. If they decide that it doesn't matter that it was just a computer game then there's no harm done, if they think it is important then we've helped a company remove an undesirable candidate for employment. After all if he can cheat at something for fun, then perhaps he might go cheat for fun and profit at work. I wonder if he's a banker? This whole argument is moot really, given a Texas burger site shows up on page one of google, you can imagine what a quick google bomb will do if there's a nice off-wiki page to link to that contains a history of what happened. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it is all pretty sad, though I doubt anyone (or SA) was serious with the whole money extortion thing. And I also doubt Iscaridiot cares much about Dawgjz himself, he is just misusing another person's problems for his own little wiki crusade. Only shows Izzy puts others real-life problems below his virtual troll needs. --Thadeous Oakley 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- An incompetent arbitrator, who like the person in question cheats at a browser game, has no business passing judgement on players that don't cheat. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good thing then that I don't need your permission to judge you. --Thadeous Oakley 18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Iscariot but you don't get to "prove" anything. It is not your place to try and keep this guy's personal information public just because you feel he "deserves" it. Cyberbob Talk 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- An incompetent arbitrator, who like the person in question cheats at a browser game, has no business passing judgement on players that don't cheat. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- And the most brilliant part of all, is because Google can take up to 5 months to re-cache websites, the information coming up on Google isn't likely to change the results for his name at all. So this whole argument, at leased in the foreseeable future, is absolutely futile. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sickening.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 14:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism - I'm sorry, but you can't just wipe your history from this site because you were silly enough to use your real name for a character here. However, if Iscariot (or anyone, really) creates a page to further sully the name through their own actions, then yeah, that would be vandalism on their part as well -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:37 3 November 2009 (BST) "
- This perhaps needs to be looked at. You realise you've given me a character that can now get away with anything? DHPD can't issue warrants, the DA can't put me on their blacklist, so as they don't offer public evidence (they use the wiki) the RG will consider every kill of this character a PK? That's before all those little groups start trying to put this character on their enemy list.
- Also, where are we drawing the line between personal information and publicly available information. There's a least one member of this wiki that has a page at a often used entertainment site and has linked career details on public forums, repeating public information cannot be considered against this policy, any more than saying that DDR is an Aussie could be. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Is cari a sysop? If he is, then why the fuck does he still have privelages? If he isn't then why has he posted on the front page of A/VB for the past two cases with no reprocussions or removal? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- *In before Iscariot's needless insults* Because he brought the case up, he reported him. Reporters are counted as involved, involved users (as well as sysops, he isn't one BTW) are allowed to post on the main page.--Thadeous Oakley 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because CB is the one who goes nuts over that shit. :D -- SA 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, as someone who took care of hiring people at my old job, I would never use being connected with a game, or the texas burger up his ass comment as a reason to not hire him.-- SA 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflicted twice grr.
This case troubles me. Someone who played a few years ago has come back and asked for his name to be removed from the zerger cheaters list. After this statement, Iscariot posted a comment by someone of the same name as the user from a different website, and he (Dawgjz) removed the name from that comment. That's the vandalism being discussed. Granted, the comment itself was unneeded, though it could easily have been found anyway.
To me, this proposed vandalism came about because of what Iscariot said in reply to Dawjgz's comment. The only thing I really don't understand is why, instead of just saying that it couldn't be done, the user in question was met with sardonic replies and unneeded comments, namely the rather vulgar message under his name on texasburgerking.com, or something similar. Also why do his future employers deserve to know that he cheated at a game?Comment by Rorybob at 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC).
- "Combined with repeated edits to a group page he is not a member of, request perma" it wasn't just the impersonation edit, but those too. Read my reply on Giles page please for an explanation as to why I was being a dick.
- Also, an employer deserves to know about a persons past if they go to hire them. Like I said though, anybody that would hold a game connection, like UD, against you probably isn't worth working for.-- SA 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, sorry, you still don't get to make that kind of call. Cyberbob Talk 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not to drag that scary big world in again, but in the current economical situation I don't think many people consider being too "good" for their employers. --Thadeous Oakley 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right bob. We'll just follow your OH SO AWESOME AND COMPLETELY DEVOID OF PAST FUCK UPS way of doing things and your OH SO UNBIASED opinions.
- Bob, if if I want to tell this guy's potential employer that the guy he's considering on hiring is actually kind of a dick to people or something, I have every liberty to do it. There is nothing stopping me from doing, no laws, nothing.
- And Thad, I actually know what you're talking about. Since I sold my share of the tech store and quit, I've been playing the job field, temping and shit. What I'm saying is that if an employer turns you down because of it, the guy would have been a shitty boss anyway.-- SA 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- So sorry, but if that involves disseminating his personal information on the internet against his will then no - you don't. As far as your really rather inept attempt to insult... lol. Cyberbob Talk 22:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pleez to be quoting UK law rather than your own moral opinion plzkthxbai. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to quote law. Cyberbob Talk 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- So then why are you trying to force us to follow your opinion? And saying it all in a rather factual manner?-- SA 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because. Cyberbob Talk 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right then.-- SA 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I can't "force" you to do anything, that doesn't mean I won't bring you here or email Kevan (which I have already done with Iscariot). Cyberbob Talk 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- And you completely have that right to, I'd never deny that. What I'm talking about right now is how you've been pushing your opinion as factual information up until a bit ago, not your right to take us here.-- SA 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I can't "force" you to do anything, that doesn't mean I won't bring you here or email Kevan (which I have already done with Iscariot). Cyberbob Talk 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right then.-- SA 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because. Cyberbob Talk 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- So then why are you trying to force us to follow your opinion? And saying it all in a rather factual manner?-- SA 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to quote law. Cyberbob Talk 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Now see, the problem is you keep saying we can't do this, I can't do this. The thing is, I wasn't trying to keep his personal info on the wiki. I was having a problem with the way he was trying to remove it. Admit it, the only reason why you care in the first place is because Iscariot made the case. ;) -- SA 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pleez to be quoting UK law rather than your own moral opinion plzkthxbai. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- So sorry, but if that involves disseminating his personal information on the internet against his will then no - you don't. As far as your really rather inept attempt to insult... lol. Cyberbob Talk 22:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just give him a soft warning. He did it in a completely stupid way, and he shouldn't have done it that way at all. Hence, it's vandalism. As shown by his comment on A/PT, he wasn't aware. So, give him a soft warning. If he wants his real life name removed from a wiki, he can feel free. He just shouldn't have left it disjointed and screwed up, impersonation, etc. Boxy's fixed that, the only real issue now is if him removing the names was vandalism, which, let's face it, it was. But, he didn't know, and apologised afterwards. Soft warning, and enough with the personal attacks at each other. :D --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've had a chance to calm down after my last edit. When I wrote that I was extremely upset, but that's no excuse. I believe strongly in treating others with respect, especially in anonymous situations where there is no consequence for being a bastard. And so, in resorting to vulgarities and personal attacks, I've violated my own principles and I'm embarrassed to read my own words. Iscariot, SA, I went after you both in a very personal way, and I'm sorry.
- Please understand that I meant every word, but I shouldn't have said it in that way. I do think you both treated that guy very poorly and got caught up in the freedom and anonymity of the internet, but then I did the same thing to you. There is a big difference when it comes to screwing with someone's ability to make a living, but still. In the future, I hope you'll both think twice about the way you deal with other people online, and I promise I won't be such a dickhead when I get angry.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 12:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Iscariot, it's not your place to be judege, jury and executioner of this man's employment chances -- over an allegation of zerging. You take delight in having a man's ability to support his family ruined because he was an alleged zerger 2 years ago? You take UD way too fucking seriously, you asshole.
On the other hand... It's not the wiki's responsibility to clean up every stupid thing every user and player may have typed. The wiki is not responsible for this person's stupid choices at another point in his life. This person chose to post his real name to several public forums -- not just the UD wiki... Is he contacting the this texas hamburger blog to ask his name be removed because he freely and with full cognizance wrote "I'd stick that ham-Dog up my rectum! :)"? Is he asking to be removed from this site where he's kind of a rude, trollish jerk? But if you think removing this gentleman's freely shared and posted information is the right call, then be prepared to honour every similar request in the future, warranted or otherwise. Your janitorial job just got a lot busier....... --WanYao 08:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)