UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 11

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Vandal Banning Archive

2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

Cutie

Messing with a group page -- boxy • talk • 02:59 30 November 2007 (BST)

Warned - Curse that minimum requirement of 3 edits for a perma! --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinker

The damning piece of evidence: --Zinker^T!Z!A!R! zinker ^M!

His sig breaks teh wiki laws of godliness. His images are much too high. And he used leet-speak on mah page! Oh, can someone strike mah old warnings? It'd make me feel all happy and stuffs if you did.--The Big Brother Diary Room is at 551 - 85 Sheep to spam: Always ! 11:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

He was asked to change it on the 19th by Boxy. Banned for 24 hours. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nali

Sock puppet created to impersonate Nalikill in an attempt to force an escalation of his warning status (From month to year ban). Sock puppet permabanned. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Izumiz, sock puppet from the same individual. Permabanned. To whoever is doing it: Please stop. It isnt even the slightest bit funny. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rbrx

An adorable vandal. --TSG reads Daily Ruminations - You should too! 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned --Karlsbad 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The man

Soft (unofficially) warned for repeatedly dicking with the A/VB page. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Azndemonboi

Bad faith spam. Link --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned - For posting chain mail type spam on the wiki -- boxy • talk • 10:41 28 November 2007 (BST)

Katthew

Vandalism of garbage. You do not vandalise pages such as that, you revert them if possible, or nominate them for speedydeletion. Katthew should know this, what with having been one of the original sysops of this wiki back in 05. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't vandalize what's already shit. Not vandalism.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We have warned people for vandalising shit before. Especially talk pages. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages have a reason to exist. This page lacked any real content, purpose or meaning. Show me evidence for your claims and I might change my ruling.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Replacing a page with crap is vandalism, regardless of what the original content was. You are well out of line. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have different opinions on the same subject. I'll leave it to third parties to resolve this. And the misconduct case.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the misconduct case is not because i disagree with you here, but because you deleted the page without going through A/SD. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Precedent for warning for vandalising vandalism. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, terrible call here. It's still bad-faith and vandalism, and I'm ruling Vandalism. Precedent, etc. --Karlsbad 08:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, replacing any page (that you don't have ownership rights to) with "DONGS IN BUTTS" is vandalism, however I'm a bit puzzled why the original author wasn't reported. It was a chain letter sort of page, clearly off topic, and encouraging others to create similar pages -- boxy • talk • 09:05 28 November 2007 (BST)

Such material is shit, and would be speedied under crit 1/2, like an awful lot of other crap, but it wasnt in and of itself vandalism. I was waiting on the result of this case before i submitted it. As it stands though, its not actually agaisnt policy to post crap on the wiki. Its just not particularly liked. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Such material is spam, a bad faith use of the wiki. Here is the exact same spam posted all over the bloody interwebz by similar imbeciles -- boxy • talk • 10:03 28 November 2007 (BST)

I dont think we have ever actually done anything about it, but sure, ill report now if you want to set a precedent over it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - Just another nail in the coffin. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that we have three saying it is vandalism, can we have someone do the whole warning and updating the vandal data thing? Id love to, but i cant as i brought the case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already been recorded -- boxy • talk • 11:28 28 November 2007 (BST)

I dont think she ever did the 250 edits after her first warning to have it struck. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, she hasn't, and she hasn't been warned on her talk page either. Sheesh, I'll fix em up -- boxy • talk • 11:46 28 November 2007 (BST)

Madkid

for this helpful little edit - Vantar 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd Warning (not enough contributions to strike his July warning) -- boxy • talk • 00:11 28 November 2007 (BST)

P4X639

Abuse of suggestions system. Put what was clearly a ridiculous suggestion up for voting, then re'd every negative vote cast --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned for violating suggestions rule 10. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Austin

Modified my comment on his bid.--The Big Brother Diary Room is at 551 - 85 Sheep to spam: Always ! 18:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reasonably convinced he is Ahrimmagicks. Most telling is the diff here where he swaps out "Ahrimmagicks" for "Austin". I move to permaban as a sock puppet. Id like confirmation from another sysop before i go ahead though. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I always thought zinker and austin were the same person. Anyway, too sick to make a good decision call. Next sysop, please ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Banned as a sock puppet.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

J3D

This -- boxy • talk • 13:49 25 November 2007 (BST)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that his first warning has not been struck, despite being in June, because he has failed to accrue 250 edits since then as required per A/G (17 short). The count restarts. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Crash Malloy

Just a cute little vandal. --TSG reads Daily Ruminations - You should too! 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy • talk • 13:49 25 November 2007 (BST) 13:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Glitchkrieg

For repeated edits to the neo-DARIS wiki, in spite of revert asking him to cease. While I sympathise with his position, this is not the way to contest ownership of the DARIS "brand". --WanYao 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If by reverts you mean singular, and asking insulting, I agree with you! – Nubis 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo... proofed to singular form... But it is plural, now, after I reverted his last edit. Still vandalism, as he is not a member of the group. --WanYao 15:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Warned. History shows it being done twice, once after the group leader reverted the edit. He has been around since 05 (off and on) and should know better. And please use the vndl template. When making reports. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Iggles

Editing the DHPD page and, although not worthy of a warning in and of itself, altering a primarily DHPD picture. --TSG reads Daily Ruminations - You should too! 13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Patients

[1] (One of many here)

Constant vandalsim of Dunell Hills news page, despite repeated reverts and warnings.--Seventythree^Talk 03:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, it appears theres a whole lot of crap in there, a bunch of vandalism (including the DHPD page and User:Sair). Given there are no contributive edits. I am going to perma in accordance with A/G. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

JSaysNo

Group page editing! – Nubis 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Treviabot92

impersonation --WanYao 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinker

This is bad faith. It's bad faith because it tricks people into clicking log out, which is just plain annoying. It's current version suggests that one should click it if one has no wish to join the group, which I personally would interpret as a button for leaving their page.

Yes, I found this because of the case below. No I am not being an asshole about it, I genuinely feel it is wrong, and unlike the case below this is not a userpage. If I am completely wrong about this then I will apologize. - Whitehouse 19:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the use outside of userpages is in bad faith. I'm willing to set a precedent here; do any other Sysops disagree? --Karlsbad 20:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

his user page, his group. By Da Rules he can do whatever he wants with them. Actually i would love to see all these you got new messages thingy away from the wiki... it was fun in the beginning, but it's not anymore. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the userpage part of that Hagnat, but is there precedent for allowing "malicious" links on group pages? I think there is a difference between the ownership of user and group pages. It may be hard to define, but group pages are at least partially community property, give that NPOV sections are allowed. Group pages are in game information sources, and in a lot of cases are linked from the offical stats page. As such shouldn't contain links like that, IMO -- boxy • talk • 23:28 18 November 2007 (BST)

Zinker should've been brought to vandalism because of his signature. He uses an image with 43px in height, which goes against the limit on policy on signatures (which is 15px in height). --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So bring do it? – Nubis 21:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was ignoring it, as long as he kept it to his user/group talk pages. If I saw it anywhere else it would have been straight here -- boxy • talk • 23:28 18 November 2007 (BST)

So you're looking for posts other than there? *Ahem* I believe those areas aren't his user/group pages, or any other page that he may own.--The Big Brother Diary Room is at 551 - 85 Sheep to spam: Always ! 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, definitely warned for the sig (at lest he took out the zombie dogpile I guess), and unless anyone else has objections, I'm ruling a logout link on a group page is also bad faith vandalism and to be removed -- boxy • talk • 04:10 19 November 2007 (BST)

Nalikill

This seems like pretty blatant bad faith too me.--Karek^maps?! 16:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the link being there in the first place was bad faith. I'll put it back if you want me to; I'd just thought that using that link was in general considered to be malicious. But trust me, I had thought that it was appropriate to remove those links... I'm sorry for doing so, now that I've learned I was wrong. I won't do it again. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where that justifies replacing it the way you did.--Karek^maps?! 16:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I let my emotions get the better of me because I dislike that link with intensity. I'm sorry for not having impulse control as strong as I should. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people have that message on their user pages. It's a lame practical joke, but as long as they keep it on their own user pages, it does no harm. If you have concerns you should contact someone, or put them up for vandalism themselves, not repeatedly edit their pages (I notice you've done the same to his User page as well as the talk page), and definitely not in that abusive way. Unfortunately your past means a month long ban -- boxy • talk • 16:28 18 November 2007 (BST)

Please, no, boxy, not a month... Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Suicidalangel

The suicidal guy initiated a series of obviously bad faith edits which I have reverted 4 times yet he continued. I left a note on his talk page although I'm sure he's fully aware he's making unconstructive edits.
The Nalikill guy ordered me to stop and inserted several warnings in the article itself, apparently to be used as excuse by Suicidal to claim vandalism on my part.--Finis Valorum 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to stop the edit war and get you two to resolve it on the talk pages. I was trying to get people to calm down and be reasonable rather than continuing to revert things pointlessly. I seem to recall an arbitration case about this, or a VB case, one of the two. I forget, what was the outcome of that in regards to putting Finis's suicide spots on location pages? And on his talk page, I was talking in his terms, trying to calm him down. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 21:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith? I thought that they were true, as I have seen you lying on the ground outside of it before. Hmmm. Looks like someone is mad that their "online rep" is being attacked.--The Big Brother Diary Room is at 551 - 85 Sheep to spam: Always ! 21:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the proper place to settle this would be Arbitration. And I has a penis d00dz. :P.--The Big Brother Diary Room is at 551 - 85 Sheep to spam: Always ! 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, can someone link me the arbies case Nali is talking about? That way I can be a bit better informed? I had no idea there was one saying I couldn't put that somewhere.--The Big Brother Diary Room is at 551 - 85 Sheep to spam: Always ! 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not an arbie case, it's just a vandalism report: Here.--Finis Valorum 21:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically that case would have no direct effect on this case, as he said to keep it to your talk pages. It has nothing to do with me. But seeing as how you're just gonna cry and whine about humour you obviously don't understand, I'll stop it, as the Psyops will agree with you just so you shut the fuck up.--The Big Brother Diary Room is at 551 - 85 Sheep to spam: Always ! 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it to Arbitration. – Nubis 23:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does considering you added the exact same content too the page. I'd add a case for Nali too but it seems, while stupid, it was good faith what he did.--Karek^maps?! 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. But Arbies isn't needed, as I said I'd cease-desist. So, would you mind saying if it was or was not vandalism?--The Big Brother Diary Room is at 551 - 85 Sheep to spam: Always ! 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism - but please don't put that category on locations pages. If you can't work this out on your talk pages (not here!), take it to arbies -- boxy • talk • 00:41 18 November 2007 (BST)

Fair enough, but I would like to restate that it was a joke, and he has been informed that it was, and there are no hard feelings between us. Wow, it feels weird being able to actually posts stuff on this page, considering Grim usually moves my comments almost immediately. :P --The Big Brother Diary Room is at 551 - 85 Sheep to spam: Always ! 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Akule

Opened up voting on his sysop review policy more than two weeks (policy was posted on the 29th of October, voting began on the 16th of November) after posting it, after the use-by date had come and gone. He even had it resurrected from the archives to do so. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism. He didnt do it himself, he only asked for it to be done, and asking isnt a crime. Since he didnt commit the act, he cannot be guilty of it --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well, then. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ARSTU32

Alt account of Leader, attempting to bypass the only three suggestions per 24 hours rule here. – Nubis 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Leader warned, Alt banned. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and its one suggestion per 24 hours, they changed it while we were away. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockem

Continually striking my votes, even after I explained my reasoning to him on his talk page and asked him to stop doing it. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Start justifying. Omega 02:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not liking a suggestion has always been a justification by itself. "Its Grim" is enough to note the distaste. Obviously a bad faith attempt to play "gotcha" about the use of the Note function. Banned 48 hours --Karlsbad 08:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, Funt, was your reference to "Grim" meant to be a comment on the suggestion, or upon Grim s's recent actions on the suggestions page? -- boxy • talk • 08:44 15 November 2007 (BST)

I'd describe it as a sort of cultural osmosis. Not sure what relevance it has to this case, though. It was used as a genuine Spam vote, based on the relative merits of the two suggestions in question. Sockem should (at the least) have discussed it with me, rather than immediately starting an edit war. Obviously, I'd have been happy for him just to stop deleting my votes. It's a pity he felt the need to get himself banned, and I hope he doesn't hold a grudge about it. I certainly don't. --Funt Solo ^QT

08:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I take that as a "yes"? I'd be mighty surprised if it wasn't a reference to Grim. Your vote was totally unjustified, and not only that, but also a vote intended to make comment on another members contributions of late in regards of striking votes. You were inviting the striking. As far as I'm concerned, Sockem is well with his rights to strike your unjustified vote, unless you can come up with the rule stating that it's only sysops that can do that. It would have been all fair and square if this had been sorted out in arbies (as Karek was attempting to do). If would have clarified the issue (which needs doing), but to take this to VB and get Sockem banned, when you in at least some way instigated the situation, is disappointing to say the least -- boxy • talk • 09:39 15 November 2007 (BST)

Are you using your Sysop voice boxy, or should I shove this to the talk page where all non-related user contribution would go? --Karlsbad 10:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am, I'm am unsure of this ruling. I believe the vote comment was not primarily aimed at the suggestion it was placed on, and as such was indeed a truly unjustified vote (moreso that simply saying Spam) and eligible for striking by Sockem -- boxy • talk • 10:32 15 November 2007 (BST)

TYFYC. However because of [[this I disagree and support my ruling. --Karlsbad 11:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Karlsbads ruling on this case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at Funt's contributions in regards to Suggestions. His usual spam vote is to call something spam, or to justify it in some way, then the next day we get this contribution to the grim misconduct case being extremely critical of his handling of a strike out, and since then, his only contributions to suggestions pages has been to vote Grim. He was making a statement by deliberately using Grim's name as his "justification". If it was Nalikill, Grim would be all over him in a second -- boxy • talk • 11:47 15 November 2007 (BST)

I state again, for the record, it was used as a genuine Spam vote, based on the relative merits of the two suggestions in question. I hope you can see from my record of voting that I am genuine with my votes on suggestions. And, also for the record, I was unaware of the Arby case - you can see from my order of posts that mention of it on Sockem's talk page came after I'd posted there. As for reporting him on this page, he invited that - he actually requested it in his posts on the Suggestions page. And, I tried to sort it out with him on his talk page but he ignored me and started an edit war. Also, I have used single-word Spam votes in the past, and nobody has ever complained before. Whatever you think of my use of the word "Grim" in the current climate is rather beside the point. If you think I've broken a rule, or acted in bad faith, then take whatever action you think necessary. (Being a bit cheeky isn't against the rules yet, is it?) --Funt Solo ^QT

12:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved further discussion to talk page, I submit to the ruling by Karlsbad -- boxy • talk • 13:03 15 November 2007 (BST)

As i went to great lengths to point out on your talk page, you are drawing absurd conclusions from a "(Its)", it is a shame it flew right over your head. All your argument boils down to is a feeling that Funt's stated meaning is either a lie, or not the whole truth. In any case, the stated meaning is clearly a justification, albeit a short one, and thus regardless of your opinion on the matter, it was justified and should not have been struck. Your final line in your comment is merely a form of low grade attempted character assassination that is only worth considering valid if your feeling turns out to be true. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I now believe that Sockem is eligible to have a warning struck, given that his last ban was 2 months and 1 day before this one (talk about squeaking in), has made more than 250 edits in that time, and he hasn't been in serious trouble since. He should be unbanned, a warning should be struck, and reissued for this case, if still deemed necessary -- boxy • talk • 13:56 15 November 2007 (BST)

Unbanned, and a second warning installed on the A/VD page -- boxy • talk • 14:14 15 November 2007 (BST)

Pardon me, but ive always understood the warning removal as lowering the persons warning status one notch, eg, from 48 hour ban to 24, then 24 to second warning and so on. I could be wrong, but the wording of the warning removal in the guidelines supports both positions. He should, in my view, be banned for 24 hours instead of 48, a simple downgrade one level of the warning tree. Cutting chunks off the bottom just doesnt look or feel right. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grim here. I'd also say that the guidelines should be amended to make a removal of the most recent vandal punishment the clear course of action as opposed to removal of a warning (or whatever). – Nubis 15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, as the reporter, I don't get a say in this, but I would support the unbanning with warning (as it stands now), especially if Karlsbad's in agreement. Boxy's coming at this from a pure good faith angle. As long as Sockem realises he has no right to delete my contributions (in this case), and stands by the ruling, I'm a happy bunny. --Funt Solo ^QT

15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Im going to reblock him for 24 hours now in accordance with the original ruling. Also, im of the opinion that this is a more sensible option because by knockingw arnings off the top people can descale their warn/ban pyramid by contributing sensibly, and wont get caight finding themselves suddenly gone for a month just because of a bad week and a couple of warnings. Anyway, with this, if we decide to downgrade after discussion, we can do that easily, but if we have the ban after a discussion, this gets some of it out of the way. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in here, I wouldn't if I hadn't to, but warnings and warnings only were meant to be striken out. Anything else would be to alter the way I wrote that rule and the community voted on it. The most significant change with your interpretation and the intended one is that by removing bans and warns an frequent vandal could suddenly end up with a clear record after being banned for a year, and with only warns striken a frequent vandal such as that can get second opportunities, but his old ban record will still be standing if he decides to go rogue again. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats a considerably poorer concept. Not only does it prevent people from being able to reform completely with time, but it also hamstrings sysops with regards to a person who renounces his good ways and returns to evil swiftly by forcing a mere warning rather than a ban on the sucker. I like this more lenient approach. If people back off and things cool down, they get everything back and hopefully, become a valuable contributing member of the community. With the way you are suggesting matt, people like Nalikill would never be able to reform properly over time. Their next proper ban would be a month long ban, regardless of how much they clean up their act. Not everyone is an emotionless and sensible person, and they could, conceivably, find themselves at the door of a perma without much hope at all, and just one minor slipup in controlling their temper would push them over that precepice, which is quite unfair. I sure hope most of this made sense. Im half asleep. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this to the talk page, further discussion can happen there. This is cluttered enough as is. – Nubis 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Understandable misunderstanding of the intended meaning of the particular relevant subsection of the policy in question. This argument is not to be used as a precident in future cases. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Obmi

For this [2]. Looks to be vandalism of a user page. It's the only edit he's made, so I'ts probably just a petty vandal. Hope I got all this right, by the way.--Seventythree^Talk 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You got it right, and perma-banned. --Z. slay3r • Talk 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Glad I could help.--Seventythree^Talk 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nalikill

Abusing administration pages yet again, this time by immediately making a case against myself on the Misconduct page without attempting to resolve the matter on the suggestions talk page after i used Note to strike a vote of his. He merely posted his comment there, then went directly to misconduct, posting his case two minutes before i was even able to respond to his attempted defense of his vote.

Relevant links:

Him defending vote 04:44, 14 November 2007
Case creation 04:48, 14 November 2007
My response to his defense 04:50, 14 November 2007

While he did subsequently withdraw the case after a prolonged argument (And in my opinion, only withdrew it because he knew i would be posting this, and wanted to try and avoid another vacation), the fact remains that he still shat up the administration pages with a frivolous, baseless, and overall exceptionally hasty posting of his case, demonstrably without attempting to work out the matter beforehand as the guidelines regarding the Note comment clearly dictate in the instructions, as the timestamps on the above relevant revisions clearly show. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he withdrew the case and apologised though, im not asking for him to take another vacation. He can have another soft warning. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If it comes down as vandalism, I'd accept a warning gladly. I had originally posted the case in anger. I hadn't ever seen the 'note' used before and was unfamiliar with the rules surrounding it. I've shaped up; haven't 'shat up' the pages in a long time, and I'm doing my best. I can promise you that this will be the last time a problem comes up with me and admin pages. Thank you for being so lenient. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realise you have burnt all my remaining mercy. None shall be shown in future, and other sysops are by no means required to go by my reccomendation. Id like them too, but they dont have to if they feel it prudent. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, not vandalism this time, but damn it, you're pushing the issue Nali. I was glad that Grim offered leniency in this case, because I wasn't looking forward to making the decision to ban you yet again... and it would have been a damn close call. And don't go thinking you can start stuffing around with the suggestion voting system in the same way you were stuffing the admin voting system. Your "to avoid speedydeletion" votes were ridiculous... don't go voting "to avoid spam" -- boxy • talk • 09:03 14 November 2007 (BST)

Not vandalism. Nalikill certainly can be a counterproductive editor but I find the fact that Grim reported him for shitting up the admin pages for posting a misconduct case against him extremely distasteful. This sort suit and countersuit is normally bad enough but the fact that it involves a misconduct case and the targetted sysop gives off all the wrong signals. We should never even consider such a case. We shouldn't make people afraid for using the misconduct page even if it is nalikill. It's actually meant for the small and unimportant stuff. The fact that it's a drama infested hell hole is because it's designed in the time that the wiki only less sysops then the amount of bureaucrats we now have. We should redesign misconduct, not haul people off to vandal banning for using it.-- Vista +1 10:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cases should be judged on their merits, not based on who reports them. I find it sad that you have forgotten this. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view this case has negative merit. I find it an overdone and heavy handed claim based on bad judgement on the reporter. Seeing that you applied a sysop rule in a dubious way and misconduct is also there to examine and resolve possible confusion about rules like these the case was the case was minor and ill advised but hardly out of bounds. The fact that he retracted it after a conversatio

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 11

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Contents