General Discussion

Vanished Comments

If anyone can get the right comments back please do. I don't have time to search them up but the histories are now merged. They're hidden in the revisions right now because of the re-merging of the A/VB pages. You'll only need to find the most recent revision of the A/VB talk comments. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:17, 16 May 2011 (BST)

May 2011

User:Ryu

Case Link

Of course it is, he's one of revs friends so there's no way he could do wrong on purpose. and after all the talk about us covering arses. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 01:51, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Heaven forbid I assume good faith based on the evidence visible to me at the time.

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:42, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Cause this is a good faith attempt to improve the wiki!

-- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 03:55, 22 May 2011 (BST)

(not to mention the dif shows obvious remnants of the dif before where he completely and utterly fucked up the page) -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 04:06, 22 May 2011 (BST)

That was why I said “Nüb error”, he's been fucking up shit like that everywhere he's been editing – check his contribs. It's been fairly amusing in a laughing-at-you kinda way – sorta like watching a kid mash buttons at an arcade. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:11, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Noob Error is supposed to be someone new enough not to understand the rules, designed to protect them when they are obviously trying to not do bad but don't know the particulars of the wiki. This is not one of those instances. He's been fucking around a fair while now and while I see the humour in it (yes it's a very original way of feigning retardedness ha ha) ruling that it's a noob error under good faith is just a joke. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 04:15, 22 May 2011 (BST)

The above was moved from the main page

User:Revenant

I have an issue with the suddeness and unwillingness to believe that this is anything other than vandalism because the person who made it was a goon. Suddenly, it's "bad faith" and "Sharing a signature = impersonation," even though it's got a lot of clever wiki-code that gives each goon a different color and only shows the link to the goon posting at the time. Yes, you could put forth a convincing argument that sharing a signature causes a lot of unnessicary confusion and that the policy should be altered to ban it. I'd even agree with that, but I don't see this as anything other than an attempt to de-legitimize a canidate in the current Beaurocrat election.--Fjorn 00:25, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Hey Fjorn, not exactly true, it shows the links to ALL the users, not just the one who signed. I'm now moving this comment to the talk page. --Rosslessness 00:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)

If it looked the same but all linked to the user who made it, I'd be fine with it. Hell I'd be impressed (as I was when I saw the sig and first thought that was the case). And I didn't know Rev was a goon. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 03:36, 2 May 2011 (BST)

That might actually be possible, I must have missed that part of the discussion. Hmm…
Yeah, I signed up for unrelated reasons the day before The Dead's resurgence. Hell of a coincidence, right?

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:42, 2 May 2011 (BST)

If it did do that, I'd really have no issue with it. --Rosslessness 09:57, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Errr am I supposed to feel bad right now? Couldn't care less whether you were a goon or not or whether I didn't impeccably notice your activity :/ -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 10:21, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Once those wonderful people have changed to the new version, I'll happily agree. --Rosslessness 11:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Ok. I am responding under this particular comment because there is something I need to say here: Rosslessness. You're an idiot. The actions of other people have no bearing on the merits of Revenant's guilt or innocence. For shame. You Dickhead.
Next I would like to take the opportunity to point out that this applies universally. This entire case is attempting to screw Revenant over for... doing nothing wrong. Where have we seen that before? Oh yes, I remember. When I was last highly active around here. Classic witch hunt here. jolly good show everyone. I love how there was an immediate assumption of bad faith for creating the page in the first place, reasoning that not only could it not be used for anything other than vandalism, but there was no way it could possibly be a work in progress that would result without it possibly being vandalism. Great job MisterGame! All you need now to be like the corrupt asshats of old is what Dorothy's scarecrow was searching for. Mind you, they still needed an instruction manual for the thing.
Yes. As before what we have here is a jolly good case of tribalism gone mad. You, the wretched inhabitants of this wiki, have once again instinctively banded together to defend yourself from the great nebulous GOON outsiders. Remember, they are a shadowy organisation of brigands who burn crops, loot stores, stampede people, and rape cattle. Oh wait. They aren't. They are just regular folks who spend much of their time elsewhere, and have a time honoured tradition of shaking down the status quo for spare change. They are large, they speak their mind, and compared to you lot they are bloody well organised (Also, smarter, kinder, etc. To be honest, you folk have very few redeeming qualities at all.). Naturally, they are a threat and must be fought with all of your pitiful might.
Which brings me back to this case. This is another transparently trumped up case in a futile attempt to try and oppose someone outside your collective. Specifically, the purpose is to remove a goon candidate from running in the crat elections, especially since it seems like he is winning and there is not a damned thing else you can do to stop it. This is political. And the really sad thing is that you are all so fucking pathetic and incompetent that you cannot even hide it properly. Everyone involved in this case that has at some point ruled against Revenant here has violated the vandalism policy and not only assumed bad faith, but condemned Revenant for the actions of others.
Great to know that my coup changed absolutely nothing about how the dirty work of adminstrator corruption was carried out. One would have thought that maybe, just maybe it would have gotten a few synapses firing within your skulls. But sadly I made the assumption at the time that you all had enough brain cells left to form one.
I stand corrected. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:52, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks Grim. --Rosslessness 12:59, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Grim, hold still. I want to jam my ovipositor down your throat so you can have my babies. Kiss kiss! --カシュー, ザゾンビクィーン (ビープビープ)

@ 13:04, 2 May 2011 (BST)

omg grim said somethign -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 14:36, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Sploosh. Fucking sploosh. --

||||||||||||||| 22:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)

NEXT TIME FIX IT YOUR FUCKING SELF INSTEAD OF MAKING STUPID A/VB CASES ABOUT SIGS THAT WERE CONSENTED TO IN THE RECENT PAST. THAT IS ALL.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:05, 2 May 2011 (BST)

sigh -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 16:49, 2 May 2011 (BST)

You may also read it as "Please avoid submitting reports which are petty". --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:53, 2 May 2011 (BST)

sigh -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 16:56, 2 May 2011 (BST)

--

||||||||||||||| 22:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)

FUCKING /SIGNED.
Thank you, Karek, for once again providing a voice of reason and commonsense, not to mention wiki kung fu, which are all too rare these days. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:08, 2 May 2011 (BST)

what the fuck

in the butt butt

you people have gone completely nutso over a bunch of goon signatures? --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:20, 3 May 2011 (BST)

What else would you expect from a bunch of sperging retard

randomly enforcing things that may or may not actually be WIKI LAW? --

|||||||||||||||| 10:38, 3 May 2011 (BST)

P sure it was thad and the goons that went nutso. We just made our stance, and jumped on for the riddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 12:07, 3 May 2011 (BST)

User:Boxy

The ol' "one set of rules for the clique, and another set of rules for the rest". Now it looks like we're adding a third set for anything that involves Goons. At this point you're just flagrantly rubbing your hypocrisy in everybody's face just to prove you can get away with it, aren't you? Business as usual.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:34 3 May 2011(UTC)

Bots Discussion

Return of old, already banned, bots

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

Hmm

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

Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? -- 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)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning

Contents

Archives

Talk Archives