September 2010

Bots Discussion

Return of old, already banned, bots

Over the past couple of days, bots who were previous banned have been spamming again. Has the recent update of the wiki somehow unbanned them? -- boxy 10:35, 27 December 2014 (BST)

Hmm

It's been a few years, but we're getting a wave of bots again. Thoughts? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

More spammers stuck inside? I gather fraud attempts are way up at the moment. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 08:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, like acne. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you think the captcha needs to be updated? If so I can try to get in touch with Kev. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering we all have better things to do than continuously ban spambots, probably worth asking! stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 20:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess whoever has his ear, go for it. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

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

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

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

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

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

This page is fucked

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

New form of Vandalism?

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

I would definitely consider that a significant form of vandalism. But it also begs the question of why such code even exists (at least for the wiki). Is there any way to disable the Random code so that is has no effect? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, check the talk page. Though the random page seems to have been deleted...--

Thadeous Oakley

20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous. Wasn't sure if it had been dealt with since this header was still here with no comment. Glad to see it was resolved quickly. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

user page creation for vandals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandal Data

My vandal data is not accurate and is missing at least one report. Do your job sysops, and fix it. --Thadeous Oakley 15:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the magic word? Cyberbob Talk 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuck?

...Remember Bob, sysops are tools of the community, not the other way around. Sysops have their chores, and this isn't something I should ask for in the first place D: --

Thadeous Oakley

16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Actually yes it is something you have to ask for - VD is too big for us to be monitoring all entries all the time) Cyberbob Talk 00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus with an entitled and unhelpful attitude like that this might take a while. VB cases have to be sorted through and matched to the current entries under your name, strike dates have to be checked... how's January suit you? Cyberbob Talk 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ReSpeCt Ma AuThority! pretty pleaz --

Thadeous Oakley

10:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Goddamn it. Why did I think it was this? The worst bit is I swear when I was striking you a week ago I was wondering about this but never followed it up. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've double-checked everything and added the 24hour ban, along with the timestamp of the ban from the logs, plus an explanation. Thanks for being an honest boy with us, Thadmeister. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Stop being a moron and tell us where and when we should be looking for this missing report. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

CB's being a bit of a jerk by stringing MG along, but MG was also presumptive, rude, and didn't give a lot of information. Why don't you guys just cut each other some slack? Of course, you could also just ignore me if you so choose, but you know that it would be easier if you guys were more civil to one another... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We've just had the exact same issue with another more formidable annoyance in Iscariot when it comes to A/VD (and not specifying where or what the issue is)- and our subsequent 'fix' led to even more turmoil and unrest than it would have been to leave it. We are past the "My A/VD isn't right- fix it NOW" attitude and if Thad wants anything done he can come and talk to us in a co-operative matter or we won't think dick of his request. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd be better if MG would just ask you guys to do something and it happened without a big fuss; must we always have wiki drama? Asking someone for something has nothing to do with being subservient, it's common courtesy. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 05:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you wouldn't call up a tech support help line and tell them, "my computer is broken; do your job and make it work" without offering any additional details about the problem. That’s just not how things work. Providing details about the problem is the courtesy that needs to be offered here if a productive result is to be expected. Until that happens, the rest is just chatter. —Aich on— 06:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At the moment you've created more drama than Bob and Thad ever did. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh, drama is as llama does, and I consider myself more of an aardvark, really. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow sysops failing with A/VD again - i'm putting in an unprotection request, if you guys can't handle it and readily admit it maybe its time to hand control over to the hoards.x o x o 16:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Works for me!-- SA 16:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Do it faggot- and here Iscariot thinks I don't go through with things I promise to do. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sup kids

Alright, long story short, a recently-ish perma'd vandal came to me via MSN and asked for another chance. I talked with box about it through email, he told me that he doesn't see much of a problem with giving out another chance, but to bring it here for more POVs. Here is the relevant bits of info on this:

Verdict	Vandal
Action taken	Permaban

lolb&. 3 edit rule.-- SA 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits in question:

And the reason why they want back:

S/he said that they'd like to start a user page, and overall just contribute to the wiki. I forgot to ask why she vandalized in the first place, but my guess is that it was just another user messing around with the wiki and "having fun" without knowing our rules.

I really have no problem with it, Hitei was very nice and polite in asking me, wasn't demanding, just wanted to know the procedures of coming back. And s/he hasn't tried to send dirty pictures of themselves upon initiation of the conversation (god damn porn spammers. If I wanted porn, I'd find my own. I HAVE PREFERENCES YOU KNOW!). So what say you fellow 'ops and regular wiki users?-- SA 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Prepare the flood gates. --Haliman - Talk 00:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust you and box's decision after making such an opinion after conversing with the user about it. Just make sure we keep an eye out for them. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No flood gates will be opened. No other banned user has come to me and asked me politely about why they were banned, and what they could do to rectify it. And if any other banned user comes I'll judge the case on it's merits and talk it over with the rest of the team, just like now.-- SA 00:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I trust you. Prepare for the wrath of Izzy. --Haliman - Talk 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuck Iscariot. His only weapon is his ability to write a shitload of words; he can be ignored as readily as any other user. Cyberbob Talk 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the technical term is "bitching"; see synonyms at "whining". Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable with it if she came back with an escalation or two to keep her on her toes. Cyberbob Talk 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting her off with 2 warnings. Letting him work them off from there. Sound good?-- SA 00:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think she should have to work off his warnings just like any other user. He shouldn't get a pass just because her apology was polite. --Haliman - Talk 00:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk page edit could be seen easily as not vandalism, I just used it as ban material. Thats where I get the two warnings instead of starting at the 24h ban mark.-- SA 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I wouldn't even count the second as vandalism, I would have just reverted the edit and told off the user. But 2 is good imo. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that anyone gives a crap, but I support the return+two warnings. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, see, I care. This isn't something that happens very often, and I wanted to hear what anyone who cared enough to respond had to say. Thank you for coming and saying something.-- SA 01:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the first person who should be given a 2nd/15th chance is izumi, i admit to not knowing a lot about it but when s/he came here asking for another chance it was shot down. Why such a different attitude to this user? x o x o 09:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Izumi had a long history of vandalism before any ban, and just got worse and worse and the first reaction wasn't to apologise, but to threaten further vandalism unless she was let back in on her terms. This one did a few silly things, once -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:25 16 November 2009 (BST)

But if doing a few silly things once is a reason to allow someone back in, why not get rid of the 3 edits rule? It seems to be anyone permaed under that rule has only ever done "a few silly things, once" - i say make it policy that people who do a few silly things once get maybe a month ban rather than perma and give it a grandfather clause or something. This style of letting people back in randomly doesn't rest well with me... x o x o 09:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Go write policy then -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:32 16 November 2009 (BST)

Coz i don't think people who were perma-ed should be let back in. However if they are, i certainly don't think a haphazard request for random opinions on a barely used talk page is the way to go about getting it done. x o x o 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

People with A/VB watchlisted will see this... hardly a "barely used talk page", as evidenced by the quick responses here already. It was one of the first pages you found, eh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:48 16 November 2009 (BST)

Why not just get rid of you? I think that would solve far more problems than the 3 edit rule. Cyberbob Talk 09:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can just imagine you patting yourself on the back for coming up with that one, good work! I wish you weren't quite so predictable though, seeing you in my watchlist is just 0 fun anymore... x o x o 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

everym ove i make... knownin advance...??????// Cyberbob Talk 09:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, shock of shocks, as predicted I'm against this. Yet no-one seems to have worked out why yet. For starters I like my language, it's a beautiful thing. Perma is a shortening of permanent, which means that the ban is not subject to change. Perma certainly does not mean permanent until someone is nice over MSN. Then there's the point that perma bans came in through policy, approved by this community, going blatantly against the will of the community is wrong. Finally, have you worked out what this is? It's favouritism. That's right this is only here because this person was nice to SA, if they'd gone on MSN and said "Oi, fucko, go get my perma undone you prick!" we wouldn't be seeing this before us, this user is only here because SA favours them due to their conduct. Perma bands should not become avoidable just because sysops like you.

There are only two acceptable ways forward from here, uphold the perma or seek the approval of the community through a new policy. There are several options in how to structure a new policy, I will assist if you require the help. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Iscariot? You know how you make fun of me for my lack of signature, shitty grammar, and all around being a dumb colonial? Well guess what? YOU SPELLED BANS WRONG LOLOLOLOL

But seriously, it wasn't about them being nice to me, it was their conduct while we talked about the ban. If I was playing favorites, I'd go and try to unban zoomi instead of someone who was at first just a one-off vandal to me.-- SA 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling me you would have let the conversation continue if their first words had been "Oi fucko"? It's a chance being given to one user that other users might not get. The ban system doesn't serve to punish, it serves to protect this wiki and the community, it's proven that this user vandalised, now you want me to take the word of this vandal that they won't do it again? "Ah, ok Dr, Lecter, if you say you won't kill and eat anyone else we'll let you go....". If we are going to be overturning permas we need a way that all banned users can do so fairly and without bias, Izumi is the obvious example here. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not to punish, it's not to protect. It's to reform people who have committed acts of vandalism. The power to ban is for protection. The ban system is to reform those who have fucked up.
Hannibal Lecter is a different story, and fictional at that. We do not have someone killing anyone here, your comparison has no power.
Izumi had her chance. I called for a vote on it, this being her last chance to get in. It failed. She had her permaban reversal chance. I wish it had gone through, but it didn't. The community at the time didn't really care to let her come back either.
I would have let the conversation go on if they started off with "Oi fucko!" because some people start their conversations like that, whether they're assholes or not. I myself start off with an "Oi prick!" frequently.
We already have a way for perma's to be undone. If enough of the community show's that they would like the ban over turned, it will be done. The problem is getting the community to actually chime in on these things.
If it comes down to it, Hitei can be re-banned if we find that she lied in less than two seconds.

In short, you have no real reason to go against this other than not trusting the user. It doesn't have to do with policy, that's covered. It doesn't have to do with bias, that's also covered. There is no favoritism, that's covered. And finally, if the community decides they will let her back, it's not going against the community. So that's covered.-- SA 17:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for new policies

Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it. —UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines

SA is asking for community input. I, as part of the community, am OK with removing the perma as long as all warnings the user received be kept (with the perma being listed as a 24h ban). Its a lot better to have this user editing the wiki with his former account than having him create another. And if he had plans to continue vandalizing the wiki, he could have just created another account. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

not if I blocked account creation and ip blocked :trollface: -- SA 16:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

like IP ban ever prevented users from switching IP and creating new accounts --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. :c -- SA 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandal banning system is not supposed to be a means of punishment, rather it is meant to be a means of guidance and instruction on what the community find acceptable. The over-all aim (I always thought) was to reform folk before they get to a Permaban.... in this case SA even admits (sorta) that he was heavy handed on the third edit as vandalism thing to stop what seemed like the start of a career vandal. If this user is genuine in their desire to come back and be productive then I would think its reasonable to allow them too. As Hagnat has already said, they could always have started a new account anyway and probably not have been caught! I would say start them off with 3 warnings to work off though as just 2 is a bit easy for anyone who is actually active. --Honestmistake 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I like two because if they mess something up again while learning or something and another 'op decides to be heavy handed again, then bam 48 hour ban. I don't like the thought of that.-- SA 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Precedent. Unban him. If he messes about we can easily sort it out and reinstate the ban. Our dear friend Karek put it best during the failed misconduct case that this idiot brought because he got his nose out of joint:

Karek said:

I don't know why more would need to be said but, this could easily be classed as overruling another sysop and misconduct would only come in with the lack of showing their decision on A/VB. The point remains though, the wiki doesn't exist to ban users and nothing is gained from losing members of the community because they weren't given the benefit of the doubt. No harm, no foul, drop it.

I miss Karek. =( He was always good with those wordy thingys. -- C h e e s e 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, on that note case closed.-- SA 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Unban HiteiKan vote

There is little more to be discussed here. If the user were to vandalize the wiki he could have done so with another account. The guidelines already allow a ban to be reverted should the community desire it, so i am starting a simple vote here. Lets not drag this unnecessarily, so a simple 3 days vote, with a minimum of 10 votes, more than half of them in favor unbans the account. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

lulz, who put you in charge >.> --

Thadeous Oakley

17:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

since when is someone in charge here ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to take this in the spirit I think Haggie meant it... ie a call for a simple show of community opinion. Sure it has no weight and can be ignored by the sysops if they so wish but if you don't voice an opinion you have no right to take issue with it being ignored. --Honestmistake 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

unban - with 2 warnings being listed in his a/vd entry --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Unban - with 3 warnings to reflect the seriousness of the previous "offence" Basically i say treat it like there was at least 1 constructive edit in the chain! --Honestmistake 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the unban/warning has already happened Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no vote to be had here. Normal users get precisely zero fucking votes regarding bans, and like promotions this isn't a vote Hagnat, or no goon would ever get an escalation no matter what they did. This is Hagnat again trying to exercise authority where he has none, much like when he tried to 'warn' me against reverting his vandalism. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This vote is invalid hag's. Sowwy. If you want to make a neat and organized section for community input that lasts more than 3 days, be my guest.-- SA 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Rosslessness

Verdict	vandalism
Action taken	lulz

For this edit here; the last person to actually abstain on one of Winman's god-awful trenchcoat rants was a confirmed alt. Also, they both have the letter "n" in their name. COINCIDENCE?

Where do I got to create a humorous A/VB case? Also, I'm pretty sure I spelled his name wrong. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You could just add it here I guess. And the spelling is correct. Remember, always double S. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 09:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just like Mississippi! —Aich on— 12:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, 48 hour ban!-- SA 23:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - Demote the cunt. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

wrong page n00b-- SA 01:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to write my opinions on Talk:A/VB any more? ohes noes; alert imthatguy and the other idiot! Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

there are far too many idiots on this wiki for "the other idiot" to single out any one of them in particular :\ Cyberbob Talk 02:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So true. --

Thadeous Oakley

10:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The only other idiot that's into the whole dumb "wiki revolution" facade. I wish I could type that word correctly... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WanYao? Cyberbob Talk 03:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please; if all the crats' disappeared, who would he have to complain about? I mean the dude who runs around with the bolded down with the crats in his signature like a freaking wiki-trenchcoater or something. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I said wrong page because on A/VB and it's talk, we use Vandalism, or Not Vandalism. Dummy. >:/ -- SA 11:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So now I'm only allowed to use certain words on certain pages? Am I not allowed to mention vandalism on A/M either? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you also can't use the abbreviations anymore either. Or the letter I -- SA 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

O thonk that's redoculous. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your sig still has all the i's in it.-- SA 13:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And you abbreviated that is to that's.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He didn't use an i though so it's okay.-- SA 13:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

I've been studying this page here...
And how in the world are all these sysops like DDR and the others being accused of vandalising stuff?
Most of it is just comments.
WTF?-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 05:10, 13 July 2010 (BST)

It's all just fucking comments, man. Fucking comments.. Cyberbob Talk 05:21, 13 July 2010 (BST)

you just gotta get the feel of them man. like what even are comments. what even are they. Cyberbob Talk 05:23, 13 July 2010 (BST)

Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

05:27, 13 July 2010 (BST)

cool macro do you have any others i wish to partake in this cutting edge humour Cyberbob Talk 05:29, 13 July 2010 (BST)

I am all out for now. It's currently sunrise and I am going to beds.

05:31, 13 July 2010 (BST)

And here I though I'd never agree with you. Jerk/Annoyance/Troll ≠ Vandal. --VVV^RPMBG 05:25, 13 July 2010 (BST)

If you can cite a specific case, we can discuss it. Otherwise, if you want a broad answer, it's a matter of one person feeling that someone else committed vandalism. That's all there is to it. And just because someone is accused of something does not mean that they actually did it. As often as not, we rule Not Vandalism on these cases, I think. —Aich on— 06:58, 13 July 2010 (BST)

I think he just meant the case against me. --

04:16, 14 July 2010 (BST)

I know you might like using the "royal we" to describe yourself, but even you aren't "all these sysops" all by your lonesome. ;) —Aich on— 04:42, 14 July 2010 (BST)

Ha, but he specified me, that's why I assumed he meant my case as the one that spurred his comments. --

10:19, 14 July 2010 (BST)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning

Contents

Archives

Talk Archives

General Discussion Archives

September 2010

Bots Discussion

Return of old, already banned, bots

Hmm

General Discussion

This page a redirect, or not ?

This page is fucked

New form of Vandalism?

user page creation for vandals

Vandal Data

Sup kids

Unban HiteiKan vote

User:Rosslessness

Question

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox