July 2009

Rddr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cyberbob(3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suicidalangel

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

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

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

WM:NOP said:

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

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

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

Lolwat64

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cyberbob (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved from main page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagnat(2)

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

Cyberbob wrote:

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

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

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

Honestmistake

Honestmistake said:

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

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

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

"Before Submitting a Report"

This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
Avoid submitting reports which are petty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J3D (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ddrisfag

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

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

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

MisterGame

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

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

Cyberbob240

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

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

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

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

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

Martyr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neozumi

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

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

MoonShine

Cyberbob240 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This from the only person to vote no. --

Timmah!

Talk

03:46, 1 July 2009 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the notfunny template:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timmah!

Talk

04:44, 1 July 2009 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

June 2009

SirArgo

Cyberbob240 said:

You know there's something in the way that you word comments that says to me that you're really a pretty damn immature child. It's one of those things you can't quite put your finger on, y'know? --Cyberbob 22:01, 30 June 2009 (BST)

omg sysop bias jsut becuase he dosen't liek sirargo --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:12, 30 June 2009 (BST)

Pretty much. I dare everyone to find the real immature child here.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:17, 30 June 2009 (BST)

Oh, oh! I know this one! J3D! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:21, 30 June 2009 (BST)

At times, but not here.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:25, 30 June 2009 (BST)

I think Jed just loves to play around, while Cyberbob is usually dead serious.--Thadeous Oakley 22:26, 30 June 2009 (BST)

Jed is serious more often than you might think. I am serious about as much as you might think. (telling the truth is actually less immature than "trolling") --Cyberbob 22:30, 30 June 2009 (BST)

Trying to pass off opinion as unquestionable truth is on the level with trolling, just about. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:35, 30 June 2009 (BST)

"Trying"? No. I am. --Cyberbob 22:38, 30 June 2009 (BST)

zomg biases rite der --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:42, 30 June 2009 (BST)

u got me......................................................................... --Cyberbob 22:44, 30 June 2009 (BST)

yey i gotted him to admit it! my job is done here *goes off to eat cookies and ice cream and pet the cat* --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:45, 30 June 2009 (BST)

lmao, just saw you unironically agree with Bob's joke about sysop bias. I'm not even close to being the "immature" one here - or anywhere else --Cyberbob 22:31, 30 June 2009 (BST)

Wasn't agreeing to bias, per se. Just saying your immaturity is blindingly obvious. Want proof? Read your little "comment" on my talk page and all of your wasted efforts to piss my off on my Programming talk.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:34, 30 June 2009 (BST)

"Wasted"
lol --Cyberbob 22:38, 30 June 2009 (BST)

omg it's the troof tere's a hole conspiricy and everyting there out to get us omg --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:35, 30 June 2009 (BST)

lol just found this hilarity. damned archivation.--x o x o 04:33, 20 July 2009 (BST)

MisterGame

In reply to Bob's comments on the main page

Bob, that is the biggest load of shit and you know it. You seriously expect that once a new user signs up, they should go and read all arby cases and skim all of the A/VB logs, reading about shit they know nothing about? And if they don't, well then they are ignorant and should be punished for not knowing about all of the MANY THINGS that have occurred. And yes, I know Thadeous isn't new here, but if you pull this on him, you will do it again.--SirArgo ^Talk 16:42, 24 June 2009 (BST)

That's a fairly good summary, yes. There is of course leeway for absolute newbies and whatnot but for someone who had been around for a reasonable amount of time like Thadeous there should be no excuse. --Cyberbob 16:43, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Makes a little more sense, but still there is a lot of stuff to read and most of it is unhelpful. I think if something is "Required Reading" we should have a splash page for it for easy access.--SirArgo ^Talk 16:47, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Nalikill. That is all. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:41, 24 June 2009 (BST)

My memories of him are semi-deliberately repressed. What's his relevance again? --Cyberbob 18:48, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I'm having trouble finding it, for some reason. Basically, it was a case like this impersonation one where Nalikill fixed a link and may or may not have been banned/warned as a result. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:56, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Here we go. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:02, 24 June 2009 (BST)

This sort of impersonation never extended to things like spelling fixes and stuff. That case was a pretty bad brainfreeze on my part. --Cyberbob 19:05, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Mmm, this one makes you look a little like a 'tard not addressing the entire comment, though. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:15, 24 June 2009 (BST)

That's pretty much the root of why meaningful edits to replied-to comments are considered vandalism, yes. --Cyberbob 19:28, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I know I'm not involved in this case, whatever...
MisterGame, ignorance of the law -- or in this case of established wiki rules -- is no excuse. And, you're not a newbie. Grow up, already.
And sysops... Good job! Good to see, as bob says, that the pussification of the admin staff hasn't completely rotted the ediface. --WanYao 22:41, 24 June 2009 (BST)

and yet.. i wanted to get my two bits in.. can't let you sysops always hog all the glory, pfffffft! ;P --WanYao 22:43, 24 June 2009 (BST)

The talk page isn't totally ignored, don't worry. (only when it comes to handily ignoring opposing opinions) --Cyberbob 22:46, 24 June 2009 (BST)

baaaaaa. I wish i could go back in time and see what would have happened if ddr had rolled the ball in the other direction...--x o x o 08:03, 26 June 2009 (BST)

You're dumb and you don't have anywhere near all the facts. So business as usual I guess? --Cyberbob 04:07, 29 June 2009 (BST)

rightbackatcha.--x o x o 08:50, 29 June 2009 (BST)

I would love to hear your rationale for accusing me of not having "anywhere near all the facts". I'm confident you have one because I'm sure you weren't just out for a cheap n' nasty. --Cyberbob 09:40, 29 June 2009 (BST)

I'd love to hear what you think all the facts are and thus why i don't have anywhere near them.--x o x o 13:16, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Don't you keep IRC logs? You know everything I do if you do. --Cyberbob 16:57, 29 June 2009 (BST)

I read the whole convo, hence i was confused when you told me i didn't have anywhere near all the facts.--x o x o 17:00, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Clearly you didn't because anyone with a brain (you do have one of those right?) who read that convo wouldn't have made the comment that you did. --Cyberbob 17:02, 29 June 2009 (BST)

I don't think you understand. I'm saying if DDR had made the opposite decision which early on (check your logs) he was considering I wonder what the other sysops would have done and subsequently what the result would have been. It was an off hand comment because obviously we will never know and can only speculate. Comprende? --x o x o 17:05, 29 June 2009 (BST)

You're shit at people (big revelation!!). Boxy might be a tool sometimes (okay a lot) but he isn't a sheep. If anything he is more likely to have sheep following him than the other way round. --Cyberbob 17:10, 29 June 2009 (BST)

And you're just shit at reading. I implied i'd be interested, not that i can categorically say boxy specifically (love you don't mention ross) would have definitely voted not vand if ddr did. It was a speculative off hand comment, don't try turning it into something else.--x o x o 18:01, 29 June 2009 (BST)

You're really bad at hedging. --Cyberbob 18:07, 29 June 2009 (BST)

k.--x o x o 18:09, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Also the next time you post on the main page when you clearly shouldn't I'm taking you there myself. You've gone way beyond "should know better"; I know you do know better. --Cyberbob 16:59, 29 June 2009 (BST)

So now it isnt fine to shit on admin page? Color me shocked. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:51, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Will that be with rollers or do you prefer brushes? --Cyberbob 00:02, 30 June 2009 (BST)

Also Hangnut if you'd actually bothered to do even a cursory amount of homework before throwing your two cents in you would know that I've been moving comments to the talk page for months. --Cyberbob 00:04, 30 June 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob240

You better ip me as well, i also have a number in my name ;) --x o x o 13:55, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob240

While i agree bob should use the talk page, he is being 'asked' by the guidelines too so yeah, arbies not a/vb.--x o x o 13:17, 24 June 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." Remember this Jed? Your 'asked' but the reality is that syops enforce this rule strongly. Same should go for Arb. That, and Bob's comment is plain bad-faith.--Thadeous Oakley 13:23, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Now you're trying to twist bad faith to cover for the lack of a civility policy. It's been tried before, and as far as I know has never succeeded. --Cyberbob 13:25, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Yes but while bob moved my comment i'm not going to get warned for making said comment. --x o x o 13:28, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Oh you're more than welcome to keep edit warring him over it, you theoretically shouldn't get warned for it, i assume you just got sick of it quicker than bob did...--x o x o 13:29, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I'll think you get warning within minutes if you start the same edit war with a syops on the A/VB page and talk page.--Thadeous Oakley 13:32, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I was talking about your a/a edit war.--x o x o 13:34, 24 June 2009 (BST)

And I was talking about what would happen if you did the same thing on the A/VB pages.--Thadeous Oakley 13:36, 24 June 2009 (BST)

...okay then.--x o x o 13:49, 24 June 2009 (BST)

WOOT

He got five vouches, have an open mind --Pestolence^(talk) 19:37, 19 June 2009 (BST)

WOOT!!!!!!!!! --Imthatguy 20:39, 19 June 2009 (BST)

nigger please.--x o x o 21:02, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Whoever invented talk pages. I thank you. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 21:03, 19 June 2009 (BST)

just for the record i actually posted that on the talk page, it didn't get moved. I'm a good boy :) --x o x o 21:05, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Oh hai. Just out of curiosity, what is the criteria by which this (admittedly humorous) promotion bid is considered vandalism? --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 18:24, 20 June 2009 (BST)

u. u r the criteria --Cyberbob 18:40, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Personal opinion and selective perception. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:13, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Spam. As per the last bid that was ruled as such. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:36, 21 June 2009 (BST)

AnimeSucks

how come a user input on a overdue promotion case now its considered vandalism ? that said, there is nothing on the guidelines that say that the two weeks period only starts after the third vouch is acquired. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:27, 16 June 2009 (BST)

It specifies that the 2 week period happens in community discussion, not the section before it. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:55, 17 June 2009 (BST)

we really need to update our rules, do we ? It was written that way when the page was created (once again, by odd starter or librarian brent without community input). The sections were added later on, but we ALWAYS counted the two weeks periods for vote starting from the day the user was nominated. If there are cases that dont follow this procedure, they are the exception of the rule. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:18, 17 June 2009 (BST)

The way the rules are written (not how we've ever actually done it), the bid shouldn't be open to community discussion (ie. againsts) until the bid qualifies for being moved down by having 3 vouches (and everything else). Perhaps that would be a better way to do it, avoiding unqualified applicants being told how much they suck, unless it's made necessary by at least some support -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:28 17 June 2009 (BST)

A shining example of what you'd get to see more of if you vote for bob. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 00:11, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Not a vote. Linkthewindow Talk 07:23, 17 June 2009 (BST)

One could argue it is, in a way. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 00:26, 18 June 2009 (BST)

You've got yourselves to blame for this, if you'd just let me against him...--x o x o 08:04, 17 June 2009 (BST)

You are literally a retarded baby. --Cyberbob 08:41, 17 June 2009 (BST)

btw i have no comeback to this in case you were lyk refreshing the page waiting for it or something!! haha! --x o x o 21:03, 19 June 2009 (BST)

(i wasn't) --Cyberbob 18:41, 20 June 2009 (BST)

User:J3D

Trolling comments will not be dealt with. Signed--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:43, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Moved from main

hahaha thats so funnyoh wait it isn't. Racism as sohock humour is Not Good. --Cyberbob 20:32, 7 June 2009 (BST)

But this is the first time he has ever posted Nigger... oh, wait... He does this all the time. Wasn't that what he posted when he got demoted, too? Huh. I bet they vote Not Vandalism.--

#99 ^DCC 20:46, 7 June 2009 (BST)

This is the first time I've caught it in time for the case to be relevant, and I'm going to keep making these cases until he either stops or finds a way to use the word in a funnier way than simply "NIGGER *teehee i sed a nauty werd". --Cyberbob 20:49, 7 June 2009 (BST)

"Retard. Fuck off"; Quoting you there Bob. What's the difference between a "retard" and a "nigger"? Both are rather vulgar terms, one is rather touchy for people born with a mental or physical disability, the other one is for people with a different ethical background. Besides, I thought there was no civility policy. --Thadeous Oakley 21:50, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Indeed. --Janus ^talk 22:22, 7 June 2009 (BST)

^Another great example, this time homosexuality. This case can only end in not vandalism. Any other outcome, and we might aswell drag half the community to vandal banning.--Thadeous Oakley 22:29, 7 June 2009 (BST)

A different "ethical background", Thadeous? Wow, that's actually pretty damn racist. Hang your head in shame. --Cyberbob 05:39, 8 June 2009 (BST)

That was not meant as racism and you know that. --Thadeous Oakley 09:55, 8 June 2009 (BST)

It was definitely a telling slip. You might not have "meant" it but it's pretty obvious that deep down you wanna lynch a black man. --Cyberbob 10:28, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You are a very, very sad guy. So I don't agree with you so I must be racist? Your ignorance is pitiful.--Thadeous Oakley 12:52, 8 June 2009 (BST)

If my ignorance is pitiful your racism is disgusting. Racist. --Cyberbob 13:00, 8 June 2009 (BST)

I'm not a racist. If anything, your misinterpreted my comments possibly due me misunderstanding english here. Because I don't see what's wrong with the words ethical background. You have Caucasians, Africans, Asians etc. "Nigger" is obviously a insulting term towards those with an African ethical background. I don't see where you conclude that I'm a racist.--Thadeous Oakley 13:07, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You're suggesting that they subscribe to a completely different morality just because of their skin colour. That's pretty racist. --Cyberbob 13:12, 8 June 2009 (BST)

The word you are looking for is ethnic, not ethic. Big difference, look it up -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:15 8 June 2009 (BST)

I'll bet you're a real hoot at parties >:( --Cyberbob 13:21, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Go find someone worthy of your particular talents :p -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:30 8 June 2009 (BST)

Oh. Well I meant ethnic...oops. And what's a hoot? --Thadeous Oakley 13:24, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Nevermind. Just know that you were being trolled so we can all go home. --Cyberbob 13:29, 8 June 2009 (BST)

I don't know that so we all can go out.--Thadeous Oakley 13:33, 8 June 2009 (BST)

? --x o x o 16:06, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Come on he's a fob, give him the b of the d. --x o x o 08:17, 8 June 2009 (BST)

This wiki never ceases to amaze me, really just wow. I'm allowed to call someone a "retard" but not a "nigger"? You know, that's real discrimination right there, at the favor of skin color and at the cost of disabled people.--Thadeous Oakley 22:42, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I know. This place sucks sometimes doesn't it? But all in all, Nigra tends to be more offensive than returrrd. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:43, 7 June 2009 (BST)

I hope your not serious in that last bit. Otherwise feel free to explain that to a black guy in a wheelchair.--Thadeous Oakley 22:51, 7 June 2009 (BST)

"Hey buddy, you're not retarded are you?" SA

"No, sure not, dick. Assuming because I'm in a wheel chair that I'm retarded? I should run your white ass over!" Nigra-man in a whellchair

"Nah man, you got it all wrong. That guy over there told me to explain how calling someone a nigger in front of you would be more offensive than calling him a retard. Because, you know, apparently in his view all people who are mentally disabled are automatically too fucked up to walk, amirite Nigra?" SA

"Hells yeah! Lets smoke his ass for bitching about inequality in offensiveness, yet being a fucktard and a biased bigot on accident!" Whellchair Nigra-man.

Yeah. That's why.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:04, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Obviously the wheelchair was an example. I can't remember where I said mentally disabled can't walk. Link? You haven't explain anything. Can you explain it or not? Because you still haven't explained why "nigger" is somehow less worse then "retard". You only drew a silly story. --Thadeous Oakley 23:12, 7 June 2009 (BST)

And in case you didn't know, not be able to walk is physical disability not a mental one.--Thadeous Oakley 23:16, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Ahh forget it. I probably messed up due english not being mother language. Retardism is only mental disability not a physical. My mistake.--Thadeous Oakley 23:21, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Still doesn't explain why "nigger" is somehow less worse then "retard" though. Alright SA, a black guy with down's syndrome. What do you say?--Thadeous Oakley 23:23, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Lesse, you refer to me explaining that to a black man in a wheelchair, which is clearly inferring that said black man is not only retarded, that way both of the words are offensive to him. Which would also mean that you're using the wheel chair as an identifier for being retarded. Using a wheel chair specifically as your leading example of mental disability would imply that you believe many MD people cannot walk. I made up the story to let you know you should have picked a different example.

The reason why Nigra is more offensive is because of one big reason. RETARDS WERE NOT AND ARE NOT KEPT IN SUBMISSION FOR MANY GENERATIONS. Nigger was created as a derogatory term to label slaves. Retard was not created as a label to simply offend the MD peoples. Sure, it's used to call another member of the human race stupid, but it's still not insulting the people who actually are MD. Unlike Nigger. Which is still used like that. Good enough explanation?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:24, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Excuse me? How's using the word retard not insulting towards MD? Because that's what a retard is, mentally disabled. And when people refer negatively towards a MD they generally call him a retard. Sure, calling a non-mentally disabled person retarded, means he's stupid but its still insulting towards MD's.--Thadeous Oakley 23:35, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Because when you call a black man a nigger, chances are you think their entire race is like that. Where as if you call a man a retard, you don't think every single person is also retard. It's not offensive to call them a retard in general, as that was the actual way a lot of scientists referred to the MD. Until the general public started using the word. But Nigger was always a derogatory term. Unlike retard.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:43, 7 June 2009 (BST)

If you remove add the tiering in my comments, it looks like I'm not saying it all. GAH!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:29, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Because retard(ed) is still a clinical definition. Both having a special needs child, and being an advocate for special-needs children both in and outside the classroom as a teacher, I'm a little more sensitive to the use of the term and I have to say although I don't like it (the term Retard)being thrown around I find it a HELL of a lot less offensive than nigger. Regardless the use of Nigger is a violation of the TOU. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:45, 7 June 2009 (BST)

The main reason his use of the word nigger is vandalism is because it is spamming the admin pages with that word, of which J3D is a chronic perpetrator. If he used it anywhere else it probably wouldn't be vandalism but doing it on a page where his comment is supposed to represent input or some sort of opinion is spamming the admin pages and in using the word nigger he is doing it offensively also. There is no merit in crying vandalism when someone uses the word 'retard' in the same context as Bob did, because it was his way of expressing his opinion on the candidates on that page, albeit offensively. Same goes for Read (though more borderline). D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:32, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You guys are telling me is that "retard" and "fagot" are socially acceptable here while "nigger" is not. The logic behind it is breath-taking but I'll drop the subject since I'm in the minority again and because this isn't going anywhere. --Thadeous Oakley 10:06, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Thank god. --Cyberbob 10:27, 8 June 2009 (BST)

It violates the Terms of Usage, as Conn said. That should be enough. --WanYao 12:33, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Wow, there are two cases now... There may be no civility policy, but there may be community standards... Not to mention the TOU.

Consider my request to have J3D's ass banned -- twice -- one voice in the community expressing its standards. --WanYao 12:46, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Its offensive and racist but I don't recall ever seeing such slurs brought here before... much like i don't recall ever seeing anyone brought up on charges for the equally racist use of the word Jew as an insult or for blasphemy (which is at least as sensitive a subject) Pretty sure we have had cases against homophobic language but its all looking a little arbitrary from where I am sat. --Honestmistake 00:33, 9 June 2009 (BST)

I've complained about J3d putting racism on pages before.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:00, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Iscariot

What a retarded case. "durr he HAS to know better! obv bad faith, obv harassment!!" If this is ruled vandalism, every time Honestmistake brings a case against someone I'm going to do the same for him because "he MUST know better" even though he plainly doesn't. This is punishing stupidity which is a really really shitty straw to be grasping at even by straw standards. --Cyberbob 14:51, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I think cases like that brought up by people that should know better should result in bans. Next time you and J3D get into your little slap fights we should kick both of you for a while. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:57, 3 June 2009 (BST)

That is a really retarded reason to skip warnings, I have to say. Here's a thought; rather than just ignore warnings' existence why doesn't someone just come up with a modification to the escalation reduction policy to make them stick for a longer period of time? --Cyberbob 05:26, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Well, this is a new level of retardation. Let's make it harder for good users to reform to punish bad users that we should just fucking ban and get rid of. That's golden! I can't wait to see you use that logic as an OP. The lowering of warnings through edits shouldn't be a get out of jail free card for career trolls. That's exactly what he does. Fucks with users and builds up his post count. The only good thing about the system is that he has alienated most of the sysops so none of them are that eager to reduce his warnings because he will make a misconduct case against them (and none of them will do it without being asked directly by him) and he has too much pride to ask for them. --

#99 ^DCC 20:35, 7 June 2009 (BST)

if they're really such good users I'm sure they won't have any problems with getting their warnings taken off no matter how long the period is set to smugdog.jpeg --Cyberbob 20:39, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Sadly for you Bob I don't think I have ever brought a case against anyone.... unlike you and some of the shit you pull which would certainly be worth a case if I could be bothered to make one. --Honestmistake 19:56, 2 June 2009 (BST)

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha --Cyberbob 19:57, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I agree at this point... I was there when the the edits to Iscariots pages were happening, and the subsequent cases made... And at no point did I think these cases were illegitimate. Regardless of how I voted. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:07, 2 June 2009 (BST)

There's a vast difference between Honest and Iscariot. Don't play stupid. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:56, 2 June 2009 (BST)

ohshi better stop playing stupid dont wanna get a slash vee bee'd --Cyberbob 19:36, 2 June 2009 (BST)

yer so kewl! -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:38, 2 June 2009 (BST)

too kool for skool --Cyberbob 19:51, 2 June 2009 (BST)

aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh SA did you not read a single word of what we talked about --Cyberbob 15:34, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Are you referring to something that I may also have talked to him about? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Probably. --Cyberbob 15:48, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Then I can probably assume that I said the same thing. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Hopefully. ;p --Cyberbob 15:50, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Actually, yes, I talked to you both about the same thing. I was going to hold off on this as DDR knows, but sometimes shit happens (Like karke making a case out of the blue. ><), and, well, I decided now might be a better time to play my hand. It may have been a bit earlier than originally planned, but still no less valid. And right now the spotlight is on him. Sure, we can ignore him, settle all the wiki lawyering cases he could make as soon as their started, ruling against him and saving everyone from his el terrible. But that's not the way to go about this here. I doubt he's going to get bored and leave, because there is no way every single user on this wiki will know to just ignore Izzy. It's just not possible. He'll still be able to be a dick on suggestions, and the admin pages. And we can't just go around denying everything he asks for and brings up because some of it may be legit, and we'd be no better than him if we denied those cases. He'll do nothing but still bring up needless bad faith cases against us, and anyone who may disagree with him until the day he leaves this place. We should just end it now. It is the sysops perogative(sp?) to judge cases that have no policy to govern them, we should do something about it. Something effective. Iscariot isn't going to learn from a small warning, it will only make him angrier and more hostile. The only real solution I see here is to remove him entirely for a period of time that will teach him shit will not be dealt with anymore.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:12, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Regular users weren't the ones I was thinking of when I suggested ignoring him. Sysops are really the only people he goes after because you can't claim "bias" or "abuse of position" against a normal user. If you can get the sysops to ignore him he will eventually give up. --Cyberbob 20:18, 2 June 2009 (BST)

But he will harass normal users like hell when he feels like it. And we don't need that shit around here. Not to mention that the Ops team probably won't be able to ignore him long enough for him to leave without one or two of them losing it and going berserk. You know how some of us get.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:23, 2 June 2009 (BST)

If he starts harassing normal users take him to Arbitration. As for the sysops... fuck 'em. If they can't do such a simple little thing as not feed a troll then they don't deserve their positions. --Cyberbob 05:23, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Oh my, did we send SA the same email? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:48, 3 June 2009 (BST)

No, the fundamentals on why this "should not happen" were different. Bob's was "ignore him altogether, no matter what, stuff stuff stuff", yours was "let him stay until he breaks something. A potentially LARGE something". :P --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:54, 3 June 2009 (BST)

He frequently makes very good points... just a shame he can't make them without being abusive, arrogant and obnoxious! I think a popular vote would be a bad idea as there is every possibility that he would meat puppet it his way. My preference would be for a Sysop/Crat vote with 100% needed to pull any serious rules swerve such as an instant 3 month ban.... 1 month on the other hand might serve as a reasonable warning that he needs to stop being such a dick! --Honestmistake 19:54, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Honestmistake said:

I would like to think we have about as little in common as is possible for two UD players who Bob dislikes!

Honestmistake said:

He frequently makes very good points...

0wn3d --Cyberbob 20:09, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I say he frequently makes good points but then give enough monkeys typewriters and one might be be able to sign itself "Cyberbob" and I wouldn't want to be compared to that either. Now do us all a favour and stop trying to goad me into a fight... --Honestmistake 20:20, 2 June 2009 (BST)

You (as always) don't understand what my joke is. It's funny because on the one hand you said you have as little in common with each other as is possible to be and on the other you said he frequently makes very good points. So what does that make you? --Cyberbob 05:28, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I got your joke bob, I just didn't think it very funny that you took my quote out of context. Yes I said we have very little in common and yes i said he made good points... HoHoHo, that must mean that i don't make good points! Sorry bob but anyone with brains enough to read the full quote would have picked up on my full meaning while you just cherry picked things so you can continue to harass me. Grow the fuck up boy, the jokes wearing thin. --Honestmistake 08:13, 3 June 2009 (BST)

honestmistake talking about 'anyone with brains' and telling someone to 'grow the fuck up'

heh --Cyberbob 08:24, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I normally respect your judgment, Angel, but you can't get rid of someone just because they're rude/abrasive/arrogant/et cetera. Once you do that, where do you stop? Banning Iscariot over this will set a bad precedent, namely that the sysop team can get rid of anyone they don't like. I vouched for (most of) you guys because I trusted you not to abuse your power, and banning someone over their attitude towards people is simply an abuse of power. --Pestolence^(talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Already been done with Grim (partially, if the coup didn't happen), in a way. Except the difference here is that with Grim he was an asshole (and less of a one, at that) but also a very good contributer while Iscariot is an asshole to anything that disagrees with him and contributes nothing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when your sole purpose is to disturb shit, people might want to boot you out.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:29, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Grim's being kicked out should never have happened, IMNSHO (although I realize I'm probably in the minority here), since it started with people voting him out based on his attitude, but nevertheless, it never would have happened if he hadn't gone all psychotic and tried to seize absolute power. Iscariot, while you may not like his rudeness, has broken no rules of the community and should be dealt with as any other user - that is, not banned until he has exhausted all of these. --Pestolence^(talk) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (BST)

You don't really know the half of the Grim case. Thank you for your input.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:19, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I've tried to keep this polite, but whatever. Did you talk to other users through some kind of super sekrit mind meld during the Grim case? Because I've read through the archives and I'm pretty sure I know enough of what went on to make the statement I just did. Thank you for your input, but kindly ditch the arrogance. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:32, 2 June 2009 (BST)

The wiki isn't the only place on the internet you know. I don't have to have a "super sekrit mind meld" to be able to send Grim an email, or a PM at a forum, or any number of other ways to contact him.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:13, 2 June 2009 (BST)

But the information on the wiki is the only official information considered in the case. Whatever, congratulations, you're better informed than me - I still know enough about it to make the statement about it that I did. The arrogant "Thank you for your input", when I'm trying to help out with a VB case (isn't that what users are supposed to do, contribute?) really pissed me off. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:22, 3 June 2009 (BST)

god forbid anyone pisses you off on the internet!! --Cyberbob 05:29, 3 June 2009 (BST)

He's broken this one, actually: an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki. Cyberbob may say it's punishing stupidity, but no one can be that retarded and not be from Conserapedia (pardon my generalization). The only fault in this route (and Grim's) is that it's quite possiblely the more sloppy, messy and drama filled one. I can guarantee the same result if we tried A/PD. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:51, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Meh. I'm not going to get sucked into the drama this will cause, especially since I can't make much difference to the outcome of this case. If this goes to a vote, I'll vote against a ban, but that's all I'm going to do involving this case. --Pestolence^(talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (BST)

This won't be a community vote because the community has proven time and time again that the people who are harassed don't count because the people who aren't feel that the harassed just need to suck it up and "ignore the harassers". Which in Iscariots case is pretty damn hard.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:19, 2 June 2009 (BST)

It is not hard, did you seriously just ignore everything I said in that email? They're words on a screen, christ. It's not like he's coming around to your house and pounding on your front door or anything. --Cyberbob 20:21, 2 June 2009 (BST)

It could be the easiest thing in the world, but that doesn't mean it still has to happen .It's also easy to remove him from the wiki when he doesn't deserve to edit here anymore. Anyone should be able to come to this wiki whenever they want and not have to deal with his shit, which if we ignore him as evidenced by this case, he'll throw a fit and harass other users in different arts of the wiki. What did he want? Sysops action to keep a user form doing something he didn't want that user to do. When we said no, he just took the case somewhere else. That's what will keep happening. Ban his ass now, we don't have to deal with him anymore, we won't even have to ignore him, because he'll be gone. Let him stay and his shit keeps piling up no matter what we do.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:35, 2 June 2009 (BST)

haha yase ignore every single rule in the book and ban him... because its easier --Cyberbob 05:23, 3 June 2009 (BST)

K. :D I don't think think a popularity vote would be wise, I meant more like that harassment/arby/mediation policy floating around earlier. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:00, 2 June 2009

Well, I can at least vouch that Izzy's been really helpful to me with wiki stuff. This includes bringing things to my attention on the wiki that are relevant to my groups or characters, teaching me things, answering questions, helping with coding, etc. A lot of this is done in IRC. --Fiffy ⁴⁰⁴ ^♥ ^OBR ^♥ ^RRF 21:27, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Indeed he is helpful to newbies. But the moment you do anything, ANYTHING, that he doesn't like you are on his shit list until the end of time. This case is again an example of his subtle harassment and trolling. He is a discreet bastard, but he will get his eventually. Maybe now is finally that golden day. And his new signature is the icing on this cake of retardity. Anyone who has that much time on their hands to hate the sysop team, should probably go out and see the sun for once.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:59, 3 June 2009 (BST)

You need to crawl back into your hole. You are not intelligent enough to try taking that grizzled-veteran tone. --Cyberbob 05:23, 3 June 2009 (BST)

....From the main page ....

Why the fuck are you bringing my name into this? About the only time I even have dealings with Iscariot is on developing suggestions where his threats to dupe everything are really annoying and his attitude sucks... not even once; that I remember; have we had enough interaction to possibly describe as my "fueling his antagonism" Apart from bob attacking me on the talk page I was going to mostly step back and leave this for the sysops to sort out, its what we don't pay them for. --Honestmistake 08:24, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I was moreso describing the attitude of justifying user's pester-tactics through retaliation. I mistakenly added your name in the context of Iscariot, when I was really specifying your relationship with Cyberbob. I apoligize. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:41, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Apology accepted... and your right about my responding to Cyberbob, but I am trying to give up that habit. --Honestmistake 09:53, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Trying and failing --Cyberbob 10:13, 3 June 2009 (BST)

PERMA-BAN VOTE (Sysops only)

Setting aside whether a Perma-Ban is OTT, exactly what percentage of the Sysops are you looking for in order to enforce a Perma? --Honestmistake 14:07, 3 June 2009 (BST)

According to policy:

the policy said:

If at least three sysops, and at least a two thirds majority of all those voting, vote For, the user is permanently banned.

Linkthewindow Talk 14:12, 3 June 2009 (BST)

hmmm so you guys are willing to stick to the rules outlined for the vote itself even if you're happy to ignore the part that says the vote may only be called after a monthly ban. congrats, you're only partly special --Cyberbob 14:20, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah but that's for a normal vandal with plenty of escalations while this is what might be termed "Special Circumstances" At the very least I would think it reasonable to push that requirement to include the support of both Crats and possibly an overall majority of all active Sysops.--Honestmistake 14:25, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Ug, just use policy, lazy bums. Less icky. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:31, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Elitism

Doesn't the elitism we're promoting, by making it a sysops only vote, bother anyone?--Imthatguy 06:42, 6 June 2009 (BST)

No, because it isn't elitism. --Cyberbob 06:49, 6 June 2009 (BST)

The permaban vote is a sysops-only ability, and always has been. What bothers me is that you think it should be otherwise. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:51, 6 June 2009 (BST)

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

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

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

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

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

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

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives

July 2009

Rddr

Cyberbob(3)

Suicidalangel

Lolwat64

Cyberbob (2)

Hagnat(2)

Honestmistake

J3D (2)

Ddrisfag

MisterGame

Cyberbob240

Martyr

Neozumi

MoonShine

June 2009

SirArgo

MisterGame

Cyberbob240

Cyberbob240

WOOT

AnimeSucks

User:J3D

Iscariot

Elitism

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

Navigation menu

Search