UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Data

Where is PQN?

Shouldn't the various PNQ's be on here too? --Mia K ^(sotss) 15:23, 11 April 2006 (BST)

PQNs. And yeah, that does suprise me, I thought he'd have gotten a dishonourable mention at the very least. He's our most frequent vandal, isn't he? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:24, 29 April 2006 (BST)

It's probably because of his use of alts.--The General ^{W! Mod} 12:42, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Record

Whoo Hoo! Criminal Record! --Duce Nauks 00:48, 4 April 2006 (BST)

Protection

Should this page be protected until moderators add data? It would seem data added from users would always seem suspicious and you'd have to get conformation that that was what happened. --ALIENwolve 22:56, 17 February 2006 (GMT)

That doesn't seem like it's necessarily a bad thing. I'd expect everyone to share in the confirmation process. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod | W!} 23:01, 17 February 2006 (GMT)

Oprah... and other stuff

I've done a major reworking of the page, converting stuff, neatening, etc, trying to bring some level of conformity there, as well as adding some dates for those cases that are still on M/VB.

A couple of things:

1. Should Note: also hosts a crappy TV show. be added under Oprah's heading?
2. Please note that I've removed the "this user is also Denzel Washington" type crap that Karlsbad added for Banana Bear4, who I'm certain is not Denzel Washington. I see no reason to place that there, just because of Legend X's delusion.

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 17:40, 11 July 2006 (BST)

Curious about this.

I see two warnings for Thom, then a ban. What was the ban for? I only see the two vandal banning cases for him. For that matter, why warn someone for something they did without knowing the rule a second time. I can understand once, but if both edits were before the original warning, how are they supposed to correct the behavior? Doesn't that unfairly punish the new guys? Just an opinion. Jjames 19:25, 20 August 2006 (BST)

Um, what bad? I only see two warnings. And checking the logs, he hasn't been banned. I can't say about the warnings, better ask CyberBobHammero --Brizth ^{M T} 21:24, 20 August 2006 (BST)

Kevan is banned?

How come is claims that kevan was banned? And, yes, I know it says it's impersonation, but it seems to link to the real account.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It has something to do with the type of hml used to put unusual charachters in the name, but is still recognised by some parts of the wikisoft as regular charachters. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 14:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm? That can't be the case, if the software doesn't differentiate between the two the links, it wouldn't have been possible to create an account with that name in the first place. More likely someone got lazy and typed it in, instead of doing CnP. Either that or they do not have UTF-8 enabled and mutilated it when they did. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 14:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Most likely the first case, browsers tend to just cut the unrecognised letter out, rather than replace it with a normal one.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I still find that amusing, banned on his own wiki, ahh the shame.--xoxo 07:42, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Warnings Struck

Hows does that happen? and if its because of x number of edits then how does one find out how many edits one has made since last getting convicted?--Jed 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Magic --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

i don't think i've ever read something so bureaucratically complex. I think i get it thought. And the second part of my original query?--Jed 07:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Check

Can someone check how many more edits I have left until mah vandalism is gone? I think I passed 250 but I'm not sure how to check if I have...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:34, 12 June 2008 (BST)

Go to your userpage, click user contributions on the left dsidebar, and expand to show the last 250 edits. The rest is a no brainer. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:39, 12 June 2008 (BST)

The Hell?

In checking against current claims it seems that J3D's A/VD doesn't actually match the A/VB Archives. At least one inconsistency is that he was escalated at least twice in this page and it has me wondering if there is more and how this happened.--Karek^maps?! 06:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be in the striking maybe? I have had warnings struck where nobody has documented it. I think it may have been Cheese who did that with me, or Grim. Can't remember.--CyberRead240 06:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think sysops sometimes rule on cases but don't go ahead and escalate for fear of people disagreeing and them getting in shit for acting prematurely. Nothing happens, and eventually the cases are forgotten. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They were acted on.--Karek^maps?! 06:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, some idiot must have struck them but instead of putting a line through them they deleted them. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Still means someone is going to have to go over this page vs. the archives.--Karek^maps?! 06:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Off you trot then. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not tonight I don't.--Karek^maps?! 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're not likely to find out exactly what happened. The earliest version left doesn't contain the warnings in question. I guess we add them back in, struck, as it was probably someone deleting altogether, rather than simply striking -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:42 29 December 2008 (BST)

This seems to be the one that was never recorded, and I figure that Cheese probably didn't even warn him on the talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:16 1 January 2009 (BST)

Is he able to have it struck? If not... --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I was waiting for someone else to rule and back me up and then just forgot about it. =/ -- Cheese 10:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

hay guise I thought this was being "dealt with"? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 01:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, I've just been busy. I finally have some free time for the next few days and will sort all of this then.--Karek^maps?! 02:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We have archives

So we should totally be making the most of them. Specifically any new additions to this list should probably include the archive link to the case. There are two ways we can end up doing this, we can make a queue for each months escalations and sort it with valid links at the end of the month(better if one user has multiple cases type situations) or we can just link as we go, although that will require some monitoring to make sure the links work, but only in intervals where new cases against one user come up in one month. This would make our jobs easier and it would make this page more useful to the casual observer that doesn't know everything about A/VB. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 07:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

couldn't agree more. But its a boring and tiresome task, i wonder who will do it --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Us boring and tiresome sysops now that there are others doing the other works finally.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 10:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just link to the month in question, and in the event the user has multiple cases anyone looking will be able to figure it out pretty quickly.--xoxo 01:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning vs Descalations

When warning/banning a user, we traditionally check to see if they qualify for descalation, don't we? this worries me. Did Nubis actually revert a legitimate descalation, and then use it to skip Iscariot's original ban to a week, even though he qualified for descalation after the "48hr" ban also? Is there any reason why no one picked up on this? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:48, 26 September 2009 (BST)

He didn't revert any escalation. There were two, unstruck, 24hr bans recorded. One of them should have been a 48hr ban -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:40 26 September 2009 (BST)

It was originally recorded as a 48 hour ban but Link changed it to 24 hour ban. I think I was absent for it so I don't know why. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:10, 26 September 2009 (BST)

I've looked into it further, and it's bloody complicated. Basically, the second of those 24hr bans should have been a second warning due to this ruling that a deescalation should have applied. I've fixed it up now, hopefully. Unfortunately Iscariot has served a week ban for what should have been a 24hr, so he's got that one up his sleeve now -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:05 27 September 2009 (BST)

Your edits distort my vandal history, please undo your edits unless you are going to complete the work in a correct and full manner. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:03, 27 September 2009 (BST)

God, explain what you want to happen. As I see it, the second 24hr warning should have become your second warning, after a deescalation, and that's what I did, struck one warning, and replaced the 24/48hr ban with another warning -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:30 27 September 2009 (BST)

Iscariot, not God, God is an alt of Amazing. Please don't accuse me of being an alt of twice perma-banned vandal. I would like a full and complete correction of this debacle, not some half-arsed attempt to placate a wronged user, especially when combined with sarcasm. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:39, 27 September 2009 (BST)

"Good god" you're an idiot! Do you get the context yet? And until you actually explain what you think is wrong, I'm going ignore any further complaints here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:43 27 September 2009 (BST)

You are aware that the incorrect and baseless alteration of a user's vandal data record has been ruled misconduct in the past? I have already asked you to revert your changes if you will not record the correct data, you have ignored this and are now claiming you will ignore this matter further unless I jump through your hoops. Am I understanding this correctly? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:48, 27 September 2009 (BST)

You're yet to explain how it's incorrect, and if you're past history is anything to go by, you won't even try to until you take it to A/M. Meh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:52 27 September 2009 (BST)

Why is it so hard to get you to undo this change? It is incorrect. It will confuse the issue. It is incomplete. It is inconsistent. I haven't requested a de-escalation. Given that you haven't gone through the page and de-escalated every user that is due a reduction, it is fair to note that this is not a standard admin task. Therefore it must be targeted against me, against my will. I've asked you now to undo your fallacious changes on two pages, how many more do I have make this very simple request on in order to have a very simple request actioned by the admin team in order to increase the accuracy of administration archives? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:36, 27 September 2009 (BST)

it is fair to note that this is not a standard admin task. This would have been done as a standard admin task, but you A/M'd Nubis when you were de-escalated and after that no one wanted to touch it. YOU are the reason it isn't a standard task. And yet, you still think the Admins are to blame. AKA Former Nubis -- #99 ^DCC 02:31, 11 October 2009 (BST)

Page Length

The Current vandal Data page is rather long; at ~78 kilobytes, it may take people a while to read the page, let alone load or edit it. Would it be possible to break the A/VD listings into several encyclopedic entries, in a similar style to the Necrotech Information Center?--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 20:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Break it up by letter. There's no point going by groups of letters and facing the same problem later down the line. 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer encyclopaedic entries, but I wouldn't do anything about it anyway to be honest. It's just used to keep track of usernames, and unless people actually do have issues loading it I wouldn't change it. It'd kill Template:verdict's VD link on all the old VB archives too. --

 

 

 

 

23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it, though, it this page was kept as the index with a list of links to A/VD/A, A/VD/B, etc? 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, are you thinking, we make A/VD/A and A/VD/B and then include them on the main VD page? If you did that then yeah it'd work. --

 

 

 

 

23:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is amazingly pointless. 78k is nothing. There are images with filesizes bigger than that. Editing can be done easily with edit section. The page is also hardly meant as reading material. It's just a reference. --  RoosterDragon  00:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you roostie for doing what was needed. HE speaks the truth, 78k is nothing for over 3 years worth of VB logs.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, plus it will make automatic linking via Template:Vndl problematic -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:19 6 January 2010 (BST)

Ahh yes, I meant vndl, not verdict. Ignore me! --

 

 

 

 

00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We could look at purging some of the entries from accounts with minimal warnings, and no contributions since the last history purge, or a year, or something? And those that have been permbanned. Perhaps to an archive page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:30 6 January 2010 (BST)

A permaban archive seems like a good idea. Also, DDR, that's what I meant. Subpages of this page, linked to from this page. 00:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A slight error

This is incorrect, the User is User:Jimdo not User:Jimbo --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

HA! I swear I'm dyslexic. Fixed. --

 

 

 

 

22:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)