UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 11

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Zinker

Shouldn't his sig be subst'd for posteriority? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Austin

has an user check been run to see if it is infact Ahrimmagicks?--'BPTmz 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser can only see back a week, and is defeated by proxies. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah. okay then, i got nothing. carry on.--'BPTmz 21:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Patients

Free Patients!!! All we are say-ing. Is give Patients a chance. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 03:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Akule

This is outrageous; he specifically put it there to follow the process. A sysop could've, and still could, tell him to get bent and put it in withdrawn policies. He did his best to follow procedure in what is at best a grey area and in no way deserves to be vandal banned. Here, I'm going off the principal "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  03:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the case is over with a verdict in his favour. No point crying about the case now. Please try not to to create and fan drama. Its done with. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it is now, but when I posted it, it hadn't been. Thanks for that verdict, by the way.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  03:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe when you started posting. I beat you to the finish line by a minute though ;) --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not slow!  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  03:58, 16 November 3007 (UTC)

Sockem

He answered it here. It, of course, has nothing to do with myself. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask you, Grim -- boxytalk • 08:50 15 November 2007 (BST)
Fair enough. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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 Scotland flag.JPG 12:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll just have to suck on the bad taste in my mouth, wont I. I just love where this precedent is going to take suggestions voting... NOT -- boxytalk • 12:45 15 November 2007 (BST)
Oh, come on. Is it any worse than this example, where people have used "Nah", "Nothing to see here" and "WTF?" as their justifications? It doesn't take long to find stuff like "Ya hell no", "Yiff" (that's Nubis), "Spam", "GRRR I hate spam", "Oh, go away, Ron - you zany twit." (that was me), "Wamp, wamp, wamp, NO!", "Bwuh?", "Somewheeeere... oooover the raaaiinbooow...", "lolwut", "Heh heh funneh", "la la la" (which is all that person ever seems to vote) and so on. At least I chose an adjective. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes... none of those other votes were defended to the point where someone got a ban for objecting to them -- boxytalk • 13:05 15 November 2007 (BST)
That is a good point. As I said on your talk page, I wouldn't mind if he was unbanned, and instead warned (or gently chided), but really that's a matter for the Sysops dealing with this case, and not me. Do remember that, instead of discussing the matter when invited by several users, he asked to be taken to A/VB. I think that's a key point. Here's his quote: "Take me to VB if u think im wrong". I don't think he got the ban for deleting my vote - he got the ban for doing it repeatedly and refusing to discuss the matter. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the Arbitration case didn't exist until quite a few hours after the VB case. I just don't and didn't feel it was vandalism as much as his interpretation of the rules vs what most people accept them too be.--Karekmaps?! 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I just point out that altering his ban is a pretty moot point as he is unlikely to find out until his original runs out! There is also a good chance he could misconduct someone for being overzealous in the first place! --Honestmistake 15:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A fool could see that the Psyops only acted in good faith here. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Misconduct doesn't need bad faith, it just needs an excuse ;) Seriously though I am sure that the example misconduct case regards not following procedure... If someone had checked his warn/ban history earlier then Boxy wouldn't have had to step in 6 hours or so later, while i am not suggesting that this was bad faith it does prove that someone overlooked something they should not have. Taking action on these grounds would be a little petty but that doesn't mean it won't happen!--Honestmistake 09:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "until his original runs out"? He's not banned now, is he? -- boxytalk • 09:06 16 November 2007 (BST)
I mean that when he got the ban he would have been informed and so unless he tried to circumvent the ban or someone told him directly then he would have no way to discover that the ban period had changed!--Honestmistake 09:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You can still access the wiki when you're banned - you just can't edit. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Now if I had ever been a bad boy I might have known that and not made myself look foolish :)--Honestmistake 09:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Only reason I know is because I banned myself once to test out the function. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
So thats why you got banned... I always did wonder how such an examplary wiki user as yourself could get banned. You sir should be promoted to "KEVAN'S BOSS" for such selfless sacrifice ;) --Honestmistake 09:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No, no... I was testing it out of my own curiosity and I didn't want to get into trouble. I haven't been banned out of any wrongdoing. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, if it was just done out of selfishness and you didn't do anything wrong then you are demoted from "KEVAN'S BOSS" to "NALI'S VOICE OF REASON!" probably a more fun job anyway ;) --Honestmistake 10:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nalikill

Nali definately flew of the handle and lashed out without thought... he admitted that and apologized, Grim accepted the apology and recognized that it was a genuine misunderstanding. I have never seen any vote struck in the way Grim struck Nali's and given their "relationship" its hardly surprising that Nali got angry and acted in haste... Given that this has been sorted out perhaps an apology from Grim for reacting just as hastily in bringing this here might not be out of place and we can all forget about it? --Honestmistake 12:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Boxy said:
How about he talks to someone... anyone, about it before making an arse of himself, eh? He's no newbie... he knows who he can and can't contact to get a fair hearing on such issues

He did speak to me... though not until after he'd posted the misconduct case. Managed to avert his bannage, though. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved from main:


Relevant discussion:
Vista, it would be nice if you could tone down on the rhetoric and hyperbole. At no point in this case did i try to get Nalikill banned (Contrary to what you have been saying repeatedly in your comments), in fact i recommended a very, very mild, essentially nothing punishment. Soft warnings, aka unofficial warnings, dont get logged or cause escalations. The only weight they carry at all is emotional. As for the rest of the case, i am deliberately refraining from commenting on it exactly to avoid giving the impression i want him banned for it, but i strongly suggest you reread the report here, as well as the misconduct page before you make yourself out to be an arse, and instead of using your wild exggerations, try and look at the facts. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


So you thought it was vandalism but not serious enough to warrant punishment??? Pull the other one Grim, you knew damn well it would explode in your face (worse than it has) if you pushed for more... just your ego wouldn't let it go! What he did could be considered as Trolling but personally i don't see it. Remember the voting rules demand a reason but if "cos I got wud" counts then so does "I don't want it spaminated!!!" You were just looking for a reason to jump on him and took it, the fact that he lost the plot must have made you a happy little troll!--Honestmistake 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule to say we can't post on this page and moving it makes it a bit lost and out of context. Leave it here or move it WITH the relevant discussion!!!--Honestmistake 17:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Moved again, though i have trouble seeing how this isnt covered by the first two comments. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, im back. Had a lot of things to do. First of all, i did think it was worth a warning given nalikills history, however we do have a history of offering lenient sentences in the reporting the case where we feel there are mitigating circumstances, in this case, though nalikill did break the letter and intent of his soft warnings to stop shitting up the admin pages, the fact that he withdrew the case, as well as his apaprent sincerity in his regret for bringing up the case so quickly without checking or attempting to resolve the issue, was grounds for a small sentence. It was either a month ban, or this, and i chose to recommend leniency in it. The intention was never to get him banned, but to log the complaint against him with regards to admin page shitting. Trivial cases are annoying, and build up vast misconduct archives full of crap which stir up a whole pot of drama. Its not too much to ask that people check and go through the proper procedures before they miscontributate, rightly or wrongly, big case or small. The case nalikill brought was exceptionally hasty and groundless, ignoring those basic steps, hence the shitting up the page. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vista was right: from an outside point of view it does appear that, as Vista said to Grimch: "You took him to vandal banning for making a case against you".

And Honestmistake was right: it is wrong to have to put this comment on the Talk Page away from the Main Page where the actual entry is as it loses context and may be missed (or ignored) by those viewing the discussion on that (Main) page. Yet The Grimch has made it appear that putting this comment there would be considered the act of a Vandal.

Together, these two acts combine to give the powerful impression of an abuse of power.

If the Grimch does not intend to create that impression then a marked change of behaviour is called for. --Richardhg 18:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyones (non-sysops or directly involveds) comments are removed to the talk page. Its what happens on cases these days, and its been happening for months. Everyone who comes here regularly knows that these days. The second notice on the page indicates that discussion should be held on the talk page, and thus anyone who takes the time to read the page and wonder if there is any discussion by other people regarding the topic should come to the talk page. The notice is right there, the only way it could be more obvious is if someone made the letters super huge. Given the comment Honestmistake made, it was not unreasonable to assume they refered to the posting of the case itself, rather than a subsequent reply. With either of those postings, the comment made sense. There was no ned to drag everything across, and i only did so because i was growing weary of the conflict and wanted to head to bed.
As for your comment as a whole, people see what they want to see. If you want to see an evil tyrannical despot abusing his power, you can probably find it in most sysops and administrators, especially if you toss in a little of that good old fashioned rhetoric and hyperbole. The most basic examination of the facts, however, will render your position barren and hollow, not least of these facts is the fact that i have, when pressed on the issue, repeatedly stated that i nearly never think of power, and definately not with regards to this wiki, unless its been brought up first by someone else. It doesnt interest me. What i do is my job to the best of my abilities and report as my convictions demand. The current checks and balances in the system mean i cant do much more than that, even if i wanted to, all i can do is argue for that position which i hild, a right i begrudge no one.
I think it is plainly obvious that i do not think in the same way as many of you do. For starters, i dont give much of a shit about who posts something until after i have judged contributions on their merits, and even then, the person doesnt affect the opinion so much as how i exress it (An ideal everyone should strive for). I dont play for popularity or sanitise my opinions so as to not offend (Its pretty clear i dont care about popularity). What i do is what i feel is my responsibility. If that means bringing a case against someone for something against myself, i will do it. If its someone else, ill do it. The whos do not matter to me, hell, in real life i cant even remember peoples names without numerous introductions over several weeks, though i can rember every detail of a conversation i had with them months ago.
The claims of abusiveness are, at best, a gross misunderstanding of what i have put myself forward as. All the things i have posted above have been released either here or in other related communities at one time or another. Anyone who takes the time to get to know me understands most of these things and knows that im not the kind of person you are making me out to be. I will not change how i express myself, instead i would like you people to stop jumping to silly and demonstrably false conclusions.
I will admit that i have, at times, pretended the tyrannical despot in jest, and at those times it has been clear that i have been doing so in jest. Project Evil is just one example. Dont get me wrong, i fully recognise and admit im a bastard, im just not a power mad tyrant determined to drive anyone off, ive had opportunity for both time and time again and turned them down every time, because i dont roll that way. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh, trouble with both Grim and Nali is that they're actualy quite similar. It's not a bad thing, as such but it does mean that they tend to spark off each other.--SeventythreeTalk 22:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Man, why do all the good discussions happen while I'm gone? Geez.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like a pretty bad one, as Vista got fed up enough to leave the wiki. --Akule School's in session. 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Holy crap! Looks like my sarcasm has yet again flew over another wiki-goers head. And he did? Man, that sucks. I liked Vista. This place is going to pieces all of a sudden...-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't want to confuse all of the new folk. Look at his last post in the discussion. Vista said he would be back in the next year, but his post on the demotions page doesn't fill me with too much hope...--Akule School's in session. 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait, we have new folk? After that Zachsmind guy, I figured we were driving every new jack away! He even demoted himself? Man, he really seems to have lost faith in us....Quick, Spam the clothes page again!-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. It sucks. He was one of the good ones. --Akule School's in session. 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't blame him realy. The atmosphere around at the moment is pretty crappy sometimes. And yeah, Vista was good.--SeventythreeTalk 08:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat

Hell no you commited straight misconduct you aint leavin that easy. Sockem 03:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a self imposed ban so he wouldn't get tempted to edit the wiki while he had work to do. Calm the fuck down. He could have done the exact same thing without the ban.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I lol'd. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Surely this whole thing falls under the category of "shitting up the admin pages"? I am assuming that he issued himself 2 unofficial warnings first before reluctantly resorting to a ban. Sadly a return to such form could hardly be ignored (haven't checked but he could well be guilty of circumventing his own ban!) and he has been forced to impose a further ban. Can't see anything wrong with any of this, after all Admin pages are there for humour and just beg to be "shit up" and we do have precedent for exactly that don't we! --Honestmistake 09:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No, this is shitting up the admin pages. :D -- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 09:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Warnings and bans need to be logged here. He merely informed us that he was banning himself, then went through with it the first time, and the second time he merely requested one. While i dont approve of such behaviour in general, it is not shitting up the page. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic. This seems to be nothing more (or less) than a humorous way to inform people of why he is going to be absent from the wiki for a while. Its harmless fun but how is it any less an abuse of the admin pages than Gnome's voting on deleting deletions? Hagnat feels that that is abuse enough to warrant gnome being barred from becoming a sysop, I am just curious as to how voting on frivolity is worse than imposing/requesting self bans for vandalism! I don't think either is particularly sinful but he does and you Grim seem to agree!--Honestmistake 10:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It is kinda ironic though, given his reaction to others putting up less than serious cases :) The main difference though, to the deletions up for deletions fiasco, is that if the other sysops had objected to his messing around, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't start a revert war to keep it up -- boxytalk • 10:08 12 November 2007 (BST)
But why didn't other sysops object? I mean surely they follow the same rules? In all seriousness though I honestly don't see much difference, except that others got real bans and Haggie is using involvement (not guilt) as a reason to vote against Gnome's bid for sysop! --Honestmistake 10:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestmistake, don't forget that Gnome didn't put the deletions page up for deletion (I did) or start a revert war to keep it there (Nali did) All gnome did was to vote on it! And yes, it is Ironic, and vaugely annoying that he, as a sysop is using it as grounds to argue againgst Gnome's promotion. I don't mind that he's pt up something vaugely jokey, but he is being quite hypocritical--SeventythreeTalk 10:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly! --Honestmistake 10:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not being hypocritical. The very act of putting V/D up for Deletion was frivolous, whereas this is merely making what would otherwise be an ordinary message a lighthearted one. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference between frivilous and light hearted?--Honestmistake 10:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Just having himself banned is a frivolous itself. It does nothing... he unbans himself whenever he wants to -- boxytalk • 10:23 12 November 2007 (BST)
BTW, sorry hagnat... hope you can resist coming back to put your side across, before you finish your RL stuff! -- boxytalk • 10:25 12 November 2007 (BST)
Yeah, but having to go through the hassle of finding yourself in the logs to unban yourself would be an effective deterrence... well, maybe not for me, but obviously it works for Hagnat. Honest, being "frivolous" implies uselessness and general stupidity. Being "lighthearted" implies simply being fun, or somesuch. There's a big difference in connotation between the two. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the key difference is that Hagnat is a sysop. Now there's two points of veiw to take on this. Firstly, you could argue that as he's a sysop he has been voted in by the community and therefore by proving himself as a trusted user he has a sort of allowance for some degree of frivolity where other (as yet unproven) users do not, or you could take the veiw that he is relying on his position of sysop to act frivilously where he realy shouldn't and is in fact undermining his own position in future.--SeventythreeTalk 10:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Or you could take the view that a certain level of frivolity by all users is allowed/tolerated on admin pages, and it only becomes a problem when someone objects, and it is still continued despite the user knowing that they are being annoying to others -- boxytalk • 10:36 12 November 2007 (BST)
Just to make this clear... I don't think he is really "shitting up" the page or commiting Vandalism. It just amuses me that what he finds unacceptable in others he is himself doing here! His "ban" is a joke and it is on the admin pages, in essence it is exactly the same as anyone else making a joke and as a good faith edit that causes no harm whatsoever should be taken as just that. I think the first time he did it passed without comment, I made comment this time based solely on his reaction to Gnomes promotion bid and hope when he gets back he accepts that humour is subjective and just because he didn't find the deletions debacle funny should not be grounds to judge someone else so harshly.--Honestmistake 10:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You already said that, and I already explained what the difference is between what Hagnat did and what Gnome did. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You can't say any more Honest, just let it be :) -- boxytalk • 10:45 12 November 2007 (BST)
It was quite funny to watch hagnat ban himself, And I certainly don't hold it agaignst him, It's jsut a bit of frivolity after all, no-one lost an eye, it's all good. Mind you, I thought that about my deletions request! (otherwise known as "why 73 will never be trusted with any power here ever!) :)--SeventythreeTalk 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I would comment further but Boxy has in no uncertain terms told me not to... Unlike some reprobates I know an unofficial warning when I see one ;) --Honestmistake 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mod Scott

Hagnat said: "Since when we witch hunt vandal alts in the wiki ? The guy was actually trying to be productive for once, and all you could do was rush into vandal banning to ban it ? Damn. Look, there is no way a perma banned user can return to the wiki. But if that user creates another account that behaves and acts diferently from its previous one, then why not give some time for him ? If the user trully starts vandalizing the wiki, or start yelling i am the alt of a perma banned user, then we ban them... you dont have to worry about dont feeding trolls if you dont create them. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)"

I hate doing it as much as you do; but it's the rules. If there was a policy change, I would support it, but, as is, I did my best to help enforce the rules as they are.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You and your rules... you need to reed in between the lines of a policy rule. There is no need to push everything that is written in a policy against all users all the time. If you are unable to bend the rules for the greater good of the community, then you clearly deserve us enforcing these same rules by the letter of the law against you. And just to remind you, next time you make a mistake it will be a whole month. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I accept the consequences of my actions; but if you will take the time to look at my edit history, I have seriously reformed. You need to look at the world as it is now, not as it was when you left. We can both be mature with each other.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I left for only 9 days and now you want me to believe you are the new Madre Theresa ? Yeah right. Seeing how you rushed against Scotty McMod there to get him baned for being an alt account, i really doubt that. Ruining the fun of others is NOT a good thing to be done, even against perma banned users. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought you were supposed to be the sysop. Apparently not, as sysops are supposed to uphold policy. And I didn't ruin his fun; he ruined his own, as is the definition of a permabanned user. And I ain't mother teresa, but I ain't the spamming moron I was when you left.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
big big big is not a spamming page ? wow, that's a relief.. sysops are trusted users, who wont use their powers for personal gain. I would gain nothing for banning or not Mod Scott, but i am pretty sure he would be pleased to have a chance... if others wouldnt mind their own business and let a guy who was trying to start over have his chance. Unlike other users *cof cof izumi cof* this guy commited no vandalism with his second account, therefore he could run free on the wiki as a new user. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, bigbigbig was to test if the effects of big tags were indeed cumulative, as I said. I agreed with you, and added crits 7 and 8 to A/SD.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to know how things work go to metawiki or mediawiki, they'll tell you all you need to know. --Karekmaps?! 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. User:Nalikill/Developers. 1.1 megabytes of spam, created on the 8th of this month and speedydeleted yesterday without your input. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

i just want to say sysops should not have double standards. Hagnat said: "Look, there is no way a perma banned user can return to the wiki. But if that user creates another account that behaves and acts diferently from its previous one, then why not give some time for him?" now i do hate to bring this up...but remember izumi? to be fair, alot of her alts were made to update her group, not vandalise. yet you didnt complain much then.--'BPTmz 03:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

she edited her group, which made it easier for us to discover it was her. Adding the fact that she created several vandal accounts to commit vandalism per se, there is no double standards here. Bubs McScott (or whatever is the name of this use being discussed) commited only vandalism with his first account, which then lead for his own permanent banning. I was the one who issued this rule, so i guess i am well aware of this guy past and present in the wiki. While i too think it sucks to have double standards, there is no way for us to rule this wiki and keep an healthy community if we dont have them to ease things for noobs, veterans and old schools. We must preserve the fun of this game, or else there is no point having this community --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat, one they are gone, they are gone. There is no coming back. Alts are banned as soon as they are discovered. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

as soon as discovered. That doesnt mean we cant close our eyes for the harmless ones who are actually contribuing to the wiki, right ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, as soon as we spot them, they are out the door. Also, we have become pretty darn good at spotting alts. All hail Checkuser! --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And technically, his second account was Sigman, which was used to commit vandalism. Scott would be his 4th (Ahrim, Sig, Lost angel, Scott) account. And if he would refrain from impersonating people and trying to get me in trouble (which I hope that first try is his last), I honestly wouldn't care if he used the wiki or not.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Im too lazy to file a misconduct case. Someone do it for me. Sockem 03:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you do it yourself, I doubt anyone is going to.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Suicidal's response should tell you a lot about how successful such a case would be. Instead of flogging a dead horse, why don't we all take a deep breath and move on? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if i'm wrong, but thats exactly what we did with all the izumi alts, witch hunted them or waited for her to show her face. Izumi has been permed several times hagnat, your out of date, a perm ban is not absolute when proxies come to hand. They used the alt to go around the ban, which itself, seems to be a banable offence here.--Darkmagic 01:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're a freaking genius, ain't ya darkmagic. Hagnat (who's away for a couple of weeks) knows all about proxies and alts... he's expressing his concern about this type of behavior from you guys, jumping on newbies that look like your latest permbanned witch. It's counterproductive... get a grip people... if they're vandalising, report them ASAP... if not, just watch until you've got a decent level of proof before reporting. It's not a contest -- boxytalk • 02:47 11 November 2007 (BST)

Moved from main: --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

finally someone spoke up. Seriously, lighten up guys. The man 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that if a ban is to be made on a proxy it must be obvious that the proxy belongs to said banned user. In the case of Izumi it was obvious, but in the case of max scott it wasn't, but you did your best to see if he was or not, that is not fair and furthermore it is elitisism. A change in the rules needs to be made, I propose the rule be that if a wiki user is proven to be an alt of a banned user then one vandal is enough to get the alt perma-banned. what do you think? The man 14:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
sounds reasonable as people can change. I do think a cool down phase is essential though as otherwise its just carte blache to vandalise till banned then create a new alt and behave! Another proviso could be that the new alt report themselves as such to a mod/crat ASAP... that way they are being watched and can't do as much harm, the fact that they do this is effectively saying "i have changed and would like a second chance!" --Honestmistake 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

ZachsMind

Doubt you will get a response to that warning as i suspect he will not be back... Judging by his "contribution" to talk suggestions he just doesn't like the game anymore cos the bad zombies ate him before he could find a trenchcoat ;) --Honestmistake 14:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He already posted a message on Grim's talk page. :P
I suspect he'll hang around for a little while longer... he's the sort of person who likes to rub in his "superiority" by telling people that he's leaving because the game is so terrible. Repeatedly. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 15:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I left him a massive comment on his talk page explainings ome of the stuff about the game to him. Hopefully he will calm down and be a productive member. He just seems frustrated, understandably so since he just started playing and got run over by the big bash and he fled in the same direction or near enough that the horde was going and it appeared as though the whole game was hostile to him. Hopefully my post will explain things to him, and that he just got unlucky. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
He's suffering from the it's impossibly hard for me disease that players get in games that don't hand you the first week on a silver platter and spoon feed you uselessly generic achievements. What a peach.--Karekmaps?! 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
How the hell did it come to pass that i became the voice of reason and moderation? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a very good question, I blame Talk:Suggestion.--Karekmaps?! 15:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Can one of the mods check the log here? i think someone is impersonating the Grimch... badly!
saw your comment on his talk page and became suspicious, this just proves it. Either you are not well or you are not Grim!!!!--Honestmistake 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone must have slipped Grim some a load of Prozac in his coffee that morning. ;) --Z. slay3r Talk  17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow.... That was... Realy nice of you Grim. Reason and moderation, I'm a little scared. Is it a residual haloween thing?;)--SeventythreeTalk 17:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you prefer my standard reign of terror? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes.--  AHLGTG 02:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Not realy. Wait..... you don't have a giant laser cannon mounted on a space-station yet do you? So yeah, go nuts with the terror.--SeventythreeTalk 10:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Miseriamorti

Going by their few contributions, I'd chalk this up to a newbie mistake. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools
advertisements