UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 04

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

April, 2008

User:Jamie_Cantwell3

And talk to the user before reporting him for such petty cases... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:16, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Capital Idea! When will it be implemented?--DoohickeyBones 22:01, 22 April 2008 (BST)

This should be already the status quo of reporting a user as vandal... just read the blue notice box above... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:14, 22 April 2008 (BST)

You should also read the red notice box... >:| --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:15, 22 April 2008 (BST)

while you are at it, read the green notic box as well --Scotw 22:50, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Those notice boxes are not policy. Until they are they might be getting put forward for deletion, on all the pages they try and impose an image of policy when in fact they were never voted on or agreed by the community. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:13, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Those boxes are not policies, you are correct. But they are a request from the administration staff, to make our life easier to deal with vandalism and to avoid creating drama when a user is reported. Going against these requests, knowing that they were made, is a sign of bad faith towards the maintenance of this page. If some reports werent made, a shitload of drama could have been avoided and a healthier community would appear in it's place. And there are some stuff, which are common sense, that dont need to go through the community for voting, as it's a waste of time --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:18, 23 April 2008 (BST)

I strongly object to that implication. Hell its not even an implication its an outright statement that not doing as a sysop asks is Bad Faith, hence vandalism and hence worthy of a ban! I objected to this when Grim supported it and I object to it now. The notice is a good guideline but it is not policy and any punishment doled out for not following it is misconduct. Sysops are not Mods.... stop claiming superior authority. --Honestmistake 12:18, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Thus allowing you to make up any old rule you want without having to pass a policy vote. Handy. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:23, 23 April 2008 (BST)

I'm moving this to here, because while this looks important it is beginning to crowd the page. I have to agree, enforcing some of the guidelines on this page with actual warnings and such bothers me, but I don't think this has happened here, all that has happened is me and Hagnat asking people to follow the guidelines before jumping the gun and taking this to vandal banning.--Seventythree^Talk 12:28, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Why? The page has a particular use. And that use doesn't include prolonged discussions by users not germane to the case. That why the talkpage is there. Continued misuse by extended non-relevant discussions on the page after being warned to take it to the talkpage is vandalism, and it doesn't matter wether that is the Vandal Banning page, front page or Mall Information Center page. Seeing that the vandal banning page is extremely drama prone it's helpful to have those notices there. But people aren't warned because those notices are there, They are warned because it's common policy. The vandal banning page is just the page were that problem is most pronounced. The good faith rule still applies.-- Vista  +1  12:54, 23 April 2008 (BST)

OK then, why was my part of this removed as well? According to that wonderful little non policy box as the original user who made the report I am allowed to continue further discussion on the main page with any sysop on the case and the user accused of vandalism. Are we making up rules and then remaking them as it suits us now?

And the point of me talking to a user before making a point. A hale and hearty "Fuck off!". It is not the job or responsibility of any user to advise someone that they could be seen as a vandal. That responsibility falls to, you've guessed it, the very sysops that tell us to go talk to them. This page is used to report things that could be seen to be vandalism, that's why sysops rule on it, and it's not an automatic system that bans users when their ID is entered. Don't like the responsibilities that come with the job? Don't do it and resign. I understand that it can be a shitty job sorting through A/VB at times, but it is the job you volunteered for, so do the fucking job.

Also, "talking to a user" could be taken as backseat modding, which could land a user here subject to the whim of whichever majority of the sysop team didn't like them that week. In a choice between disobeying a Napoleonic template that isn't policy and that, I'm fucking off the template each and every time. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:19, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Useless and/or long discussions not related to a vandal case are also moved to the talk page, be them created by involved users or not. There is no policy related to this, and it doesnt need one to do so.

Stop being a dick, some cases of vandalism are wrong simply becaue the reporting users misunderstood the intentions of the reported user and/or the reported user didn't knew it was against the rules to do so. Reporting new users can make them feel less wiling to contribute, while talking to them and explaining how things work does the opposite. It's not an exclusive job for the sysops to do this, as they are not omniscient and have a life too. The cost/benefice of talking with the user before reporting him is way higher than simply reporting him.

And backseat modding is you running around this page saying what is vandalism and what isnt and how a user should be punished for his doing. And you also need to put your message to the user into context: if you approach a user with a polite message asking him why he made some changes, explaining why and how is edit can be seen as vandalism and advising him not to commit it again will never be seen as backseat modding; but if you approach a user with a demanding tone, saying that his actions WERE vandalism and that he is gonna be warned/banned, than you are asking for your own vandal report. As i said, how the edit fit into context, the sysops rule (or should rule) based on it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:06, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Yay! People who like causing problems for the sake of it get fed by ModsSysops who don't realize they're just trying to press buttons. Those notices are guidelines they aren't policy, they're advice of what to do before making a report and as such they are not prone to voting. Not everything is, get used to it, all those represent are anticipation of actions on the communities part, i.e. Solve problems outside of A/VB whenever possible, don't shit up the page so it's easy for everyone to use, and don't bitch on the main page because you don't like a ruling(I.e. Use the talk page for talk). That's all. It's common sense, the people who are arguing over it know that, they aren't stupid, every time a user wants to play the petulant child you guys_{(Hagnat et all)} don't have to play party to the bitch fest, especially in a case as extremely obvious as this.--Karek^maps?! 22:48, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Why aren't those boxes just put up for policy voting? As fun-spongey as they can be, they are sensible enough (particularly the all talk on talk page one)--xoxo 09:37, 26 April 2008 (BST)

I've already put one of them up. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:52, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Because they aren't policies and aren't enforced with punishments, Honestmistake and Cyberbob know this but just like to poke at the administration whenever they can. --Karek^maps?! 13:49, 26 April 2008 (BST)

I know they aren't policy, or i'm pretty sure i'd be permaed by now. What i mean is why aren't they policy? None of the sysops who seem to fully support the boxes can give a straight answer on why they won't just put them up for policy voting.--xoxo 00:21, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Because we don't want to be required to punish users for adding input. Or, rather, because we don't want them being enforceable rules. They're standards of behavior, they are open to community opinion and revision as appropriate and, as of current, they are only meant to exist as writing of an unwritten rule that already exists everywhere else on the wiki, "Keep it relevant".--Karek^maps?! 03:54, 27 April 2008 (BST)

>Because not everything must be written in stone... there are things that can be ruled with common sense. Know that phrase "Less is more" ? The less rules we have in the wiki, the more freedom we will have to work with it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:31, 27 April 2008 (BST)

"Honestmistake and Cyberbob know this but just like to poke at the administration whenever they can".... No Honestmistake just doesn't like it when people take liberties and use spurious badges of power to act high handed and to try to stifle dissent. I have never liked those boxes and have made that clear since they first appeared. I accept that they do have the best interest of the wiki as their purpose and even that they (mostly) work. However I thoroughly object to any suggestion that ignoring a guideline because you feel your comment is relevant could be punished as vandalism. Vandalism and Bad faith are community agreed principles... sysops having the power to warn or ban people for disagreeing with them is not. A rule (or guideline) should be followed with consistency, this one is not and never has been--Honestmistake 13:40, 27 April 2008 (BST)

No, to me it looks like you just don't like the memory of Grim who had a hand in it's creation. It has never been used in the manner you suggest so I can only assume you're being willfully ignorant. I know Cyberbob is.--Karek^maps?! 03:43, 28 April 2008 (BST)

The "memory of Grim" WTF? Yes Grim was one of those responsible for putting this on the page and I did have more than one "discussion" with him about it (It was one of those discussions that led me to agree with him that something like this was needed for the smooth running of the page) My problem with Grim was that he used said rule more than once to alter the flavour of what was being argued by moving comments inappropriately so they lost context, I doubt he is the only one who has done such but meh. This particular debate however was sparked by the comment "Going against these requests, knowing that they were made, is a sign of bad faith towards the maintenance of this page." It is about a nonsense claim that sysops can warn and ban people just for making comments that they may feel are valid, nothing to do with Grim and it was you who mentioned him not me. This is about whether the guideline is being used as it was supposedly intended or being used as a badge of authority to outshout the community. Personally i do not think it usually is... what I do think is that the potential is there, that it has been used both as a threat and in the past as part of vandalism escalations which resulted in warnings and bans. (if I remember rightly Nalikill was one such case) --Honestmistake 09:40, 28 April 2008 (BST)

I have never accused anyone of using the box to silence criticism. Just thought I'd make that clear. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:26, 28 April 2008 (BST)

No no, you're just accusing us of using it to punish users we don't like with a blatant double standard, and even claiming that this somehow makes the possible.--Karek^maps?! 08:40, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Thanks for once again completely missing my argument. While I personally disagree with being able to warn people for posting on the main page, the biggest issue for me here is with the fact that it has not been passed through voting. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:01, 28 April 2008 (BST)

See the policy discussion page then get back to me on having missed your argument.--Karek^maps?! 09:42, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Righto. You've missed my argument? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:50, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Actually, there was no Grim behind that box... it was me the one who wrote it, Actually, it was me who wrote them all! The only part that grim took on this was to de-comment the box when i wrongly thought our users were already well aware not to butt in vandal reports unless they were involved, and enforce that policy against several users who were really annoying, Nalikill being the extreme on this issue. If any sysop were abusing his powers by issuing a warning based on this guideline, a myriad of wiki-lawerying users and/or sysops would jump the gun and create misconduct cases against these sysop, yet no misconduct were ever created for warning people for shitting on admin pages. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:51, 28 April 2008 (BST)

It did however cause a lot of drama and argument about whether it was right or fair and there was absolutely no waty Nali was ever going to win a case against Grim even if it was misconduct.--Honestmistake 17:43, 28 April 2008 (BST)

No, it really didn't. The only "drama" came from Nali complaining because he didn't like the SysOps who punished him. As was often the case after Nali got punished or called out for something. The guy even went so far as to make a Complaints subpage and to threaten to arbi Hagnat for posting anything at all on his talk page.--Karek^maps?! 18:53, 28 April 2008 (BST)

No the drama came from a significant number of people feeling like he had been persecuted and goaded into making some serious and real vandalism. The complaints about his treatment continued into his ban and it wasn't just me making them! Nali got into trouble because his own enthusiasm got the better of him and clashed with the content of that little box. That got him the warnings which wound him up and they in turn meant that when he snapped and started doing petty little Bad Faith edits he was already well along the escalation line and got himself banned. The whole thing stemmed from those boxes and while what he eventually got up to did deserve warnings (and probably even a ban) I really doubt he would have gotten that far if it were not for the initial clash and the heavy handed treatment he recieved!--Honestmistake 09:54, 29 April 2008 (BST)

The only problem I had with the treatment that Nali copped, was that the reporting sysop was the one giving the warning (soft or hard) in some cases. I think that the "shitting up admin pages" soft warnings is a good idea, but it shouldn't be done by the sysop that is getting pissed off at the person. It needs to be a third party to be/appear impartial. That is the only change I'd make, requiring the confirmation of another sysop before soft warning anyone... getting a soft warning from someone you are already pissed at is often counter-productive, it just adds to the drama -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:04 29 April 2008 (BST)

I Honestly don't know where you get that assumption from Honestmistake. The only users that were even trying to protect or help Nalikill in those days were part of the Assylum bunch, that would be AHLG, SuicidalAngel, and Seventythree, those were the only ones trying to keep him from being punished about anything and they weren't complaining to admins about it, they were trying to get Nalikill to curtail his behavior. They aren't the only ones but they're the only ones he liked, the one thing in common with all those people, though, was that they knew Nalikill was the one at fault. There was no disagreement at large on this matter unless you are somehow mixing up what Nali was punished for when. Not even you agreed what he did was in good faith on multiple instances and his "warnings" came after he caused a huge portion of the Izumi drama by doing exactly what he was punished for.--Karek^maps?! 14:50, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Also, my favorite quote from the Nali drama in light of current actions

Cyberbob240 said:

Well-thought out or not, if you aren't involved in the case your comments belong on the talk page.

Sometimes it's good to have history that makes a point.--Karek^maps?! 14:50, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Jesus H. Fucking Christ Karek, if I've said it once I've said it a MILLION MOTHERFUCKING TIMES: I Do Not have a problem with comments being moved to the talk page. My problem is with the ability to warn using a "guideline" (or whatever you want to call it) that has not undergone the voting process. Let me repeat that for you: I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COMMENTS BEING MOVED TO THE TALK PAGE. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:31, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Cyberbob, you don't have a problem with any of it, you have a problem with Hagnat telling you to stop crap like what you've been doing for the last month or so. None of this has a point otherwise. It's not an issue of users being warned for not posting on the talk page it's an issue of you causing drama because you almost got soft warned for harassing users on administration pages. That is why that quote is amusing to no end, it's not the quotes content itself it's what led to it.--Karek^maps?! 16:16, 29 April 2008 (BST)

I don't have a problem with Hagnat telling me not to. I have a problem with him threatening people with a warning for it - but only because of the lack of voting. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:06, 29 April 2008 (BST)

User:Hagnat

Sexy Fun Time Vandalism Because he gave me Dracula.--ScoobyDooDoobie 06:33, 19 April 2008 (BST)

oh wow another mod...you guys seem to be multiplying at a ridiculous rate!--xoxo 10:33, 19 April 2008 (BST)

fiinnneeee i won't. but seriously it was a fine post. By me, not him.--xoxo 13:17, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Nah, your post was constructive J3D. I moved it too cos on it's own it doesn't make a lot of sense.--Seventythree^Talk 00:14, 21 April 2008 (BST)

ahh makes sense, thanks for the clar(ification)--xoxo 07:35, 21 April 2008 (BST)

User:DoohickeyBones, User:Killbottom, and User:Kid_sinister

part 1

You will note we include a very distinct warning on our OWN talk page that it is best not to assume that the person signing is actually the person signing.

"WARNING

Posts on this page may be taken out of context from other sources, may be modified to fit your screen, and may be edited for content, language, and time. Also broadcast in Spanish and filmed before a live studio audience.

Just go ahead and assume that any post on this page is not from the person it is attributed to because no one in their right mind would post on this page. - Kurt Cobain. " Of course, 'the_man' is all butthurt because we all laugh at him, so he will whine and complain about anything he can. <sarcasm>Lord knows, it is difficult to look at the history, so I can easily see how someone might think we were actually trying to impersonate Zeug.</sarcasm>

Oh dear, I have been warned on the wiki. However can my life turn out now?--DoohickeyBones 15:44, 18 April 2008 (BST)

As much as I promised myself not to reply here I must for the simple reason that I FORGOT TO SIGN MY POST! I'm the one who made this vandal report. ME. I ain't a coward. The man 16:29, 18 April 2008 (BST)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and that's why you're hiding behind the sysop's pant leg now when you couldn't take of your own problems! Kid sinister 20:46, 18 April 2008 (BST)

A wiki is a very free environment, almost every user is free to edit anything they wish. So we've made rules to make sure that readers can be relatively sure that what they are reading is actually written by the person who has signed the post. Even on user and group pages, to sign a post with someone else's name is to circumvent the basic trust that everyone needs to have for a workable community. Vandalism in the extreme, despite the talk page "warning". Don't do it again -- boxy ^{talk • i} 17:20 18 April 2008 (BST)

Do you mean "circumventing trust" like posting "I'm done with this place, goodbye." on his own userpage, then returning less than 4 hours later and making 39 distinct contributions before bothering to revert his own user page almost 2 months later? --Kid sinister 20:46, 18 April 2008 (BST)

Um, no. And irrelevant stuff goes on the talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:38 19 April 2008 (BST)

that is lol.--xoxo 09:09, 20 April 2008 (BST)

The main purpose of forbidding impersonation is to prevent people from being misrepresented. In the specific and very unusual case where the victim doesn't mind being misrepresented, then trying to protect them when they don't want to be protected, while well-intentioned, seems counter-productive. There are minor annoyances associated with signing as other people even if you have permission. As raised above, if the archives are wiped again, it won't be possible to see who made those comments, and for someone who skims into the middle of a conversation it can be misleading. Still, I don't think any of those issues are particularly terrible, and it's hard to see them being worthy of a warning. - Toejam 22:52, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Actually the main purpose isn't one of misrepresentation but of coherence to the reader. The fact that they announced what they were doing, along with the fact that their whole page is pretty much unreadable anyway make this a very very small issue. That it was to stop an argument between two third party users on their page makes it actually not so much bad faith as "leave us out of this" commentary. In that case it becomes a matter of representation I guess, and Zeug doesn't care. All punishing them for this does is put an escalation on their records for no reason, that I agree with, not to mention that they didn't even know it would be http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning&action=edit&section=6breaking the rules, i.e. newbie mistake style mistake ignorance != bad faith.--Karek^maps?! 00:57, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Except that Kid sinister already had a warning under the impersonation rule. I'm sympathetic for giving new users the benefit of the doubt, but they do have a personal responsibility as well. The users has a reasonably low percentage of constructive edits and the rule is pretty basic to keep the wiki semi functioning. Combined with the fact that I don't see how this would improve the wiki I simply disagree with you. I do see where you are coming from they had several ways that they could have responded that would have been completely uncontroversial. Next time simply deleting the comments they don't like off their talk page would serve them better.-- Vista  +1  09:41, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Ok, you have a somewhat baseful reason for Kid Sinister, past involvement with this rule(although it's still kinda flimsy and I'm taking you on your word). What about the other two? Surely without a history of this an unoffical warning and "talking too" would have been the "more correct" approach instead of putting something, that will very likely, be permanent onto their escalations record making it that much easier for a similar case like this brought against them because they are disliked resulting in a ban of x length. --Karek^maps?! 09:48, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I've got no beef with the dead at all. Breaking exactly the same rule before doesn't seem a flimsy case. You could check instead instead of using "I'm taking you on your word" to subtly sow doubt. Had they had a more productive editing record I could've assumed good faith. And really warnings are easily struck. Just make 250 edits and stick around 2 month. I've seen Kid Sinister around way back. He isn't a fool. These 3 users are certainly smart enough to be able to do avoid further real reports.-- Vista  +1  10:55, 22 April 2008 (BST)

That wasn't my intention, my intention was to make clear that I haven't checked the precedent. I have now. I still don't believe it shows that he would have known better because of the extremely questionable nature of this case and the extremely clear cut nature of that one. As for the other, Warnings are Vandal escalations, they should be treated with the same severity as a ban of any level, not only because they are tantamount to a future banning but because they aren't easily struck, especially in the case of less active or newer users who do not, and may never, reach 250 edits. We have some active users that don't go 250 edits without some small and minuscule thing that leads to them getting reported here and escalated, Nalikill was a great example of this. Just a warning is, in my opinion, a way to make it sound like less than it is, if it's really "just a warning" than surely an unofficial warning would serve the same intended purpose without tacking on a vandal escalation.--Karek^maps?! 20:28, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I left the first time because of rampant administration faggottry. I'd like to think that things have changed, but since you're pulling the "if they were more active I'd assume good faith" card, have you ever read Animal Farm?
"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS." --Kid sinister 20:08, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Is that the story where the pigs ended up not doing anything constructive and getting all the spoils while the other animals were more active and got punished? Sorry Kid sinister, the problem here seems to be that in order for your analogy to work you should be part of the productive farm animals. If I'm part of the pigs... well lets say that than it doesn't bode well for you iether...-- Vista  +1  16:17, 23 April 2008 (BST)

This is a ludicrously petty "vandalism" warning which just clogs up this page with filler. The "impersonation" was obviously a joke and not intended maliciously unless like "The man" you suffer from an extremely deficient sense of humour. As the wiki member impersonated I have absolutely no troubles with it and can't see how it goes anywhere close to undermining "trust" in this wiki process. As a bad faith edit I'd say you should call out The man for wasting your time and mine. I do not in any sense whatsoever support his unsigned trolling idiocy in my name. --Zeug 05:01, 19 April 2008 (BST)

I think that given Zeug's approval of the edits the warnings should be retracted. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:11, 19 April 2008 (BST)

This is not how the wiki works and you know it. Please, comment on the talk page as any other uninvolved user should. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:35, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Sure thing. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:38, 19 April 2008 (BST)

In that case, I am an involved user and I also call for a retraction. That "fuck the rules" page at Wikipedia that you had in your signature a few weeks ago would definitely cover this. --Kid sinister 06:05, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Months would be more precise... and no, Ignore All Rules wouldn't allow users to sign as others. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 06:09, 19 April 2008 (BST)

I'm not asking if Ignore All Rules would allow users to sign as others. I'm pointing out that Ignore All Rules makes a retraction valid. --Kid sinister 06:30, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Then i'd have to agree with you. Sadly, this wiki doesnt have an Ignore All Rules policy. *sigh* ---People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:50, 19 April 2008 (BST)

True, but it does have a "good faith" clause. Both the impersonator AND the impersonated are telling you that this report is unnecessary and a complete waste of the administration's time. The very act of posting this vandal report was a bad faith edit, which is why we're demanding its retraction. --Kid sinister 21:59, 19 April 2008 (BST)

My hands are tied to the bureaucracy (gosh, i hate bureaucracy). There is nothing i can do that wouldn't be reverted by the least serious misconduct ruling on a case which would be instantly be created against me for removing your pal's warnings. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:07, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Actually since I'm inclined to agree that it's not vandalism I would say they're only as tied as you choose them to be. There is no misunderstanding about who is writing the comments, or at least that they are not Zeug, and if Zeug doesn't mind other people doing that, and there's no confusion about who is signing, then it really is a nonissue and a waste of everyone's time that it is here at all. --Karek^maps?! 00:49, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Can Vista and Boxy just clarify in what possible sense the edits under review are either 1. bad faith vandalism or 2. "blatant" or otherwise impersonation. Anyone with even just half a brain reading the discussion will understand that those signing at the end as "Zeug" aren't actually "Zeug" because they SAY SO! - "Right. Everyone, from now on, sign all your posts as Zeug, so Twitley quits shitting up our pristine page of Erudite Prose". This isn't even impersonation in any real sense of trying to actually pass off comments as coming from me. In fact they act in good faith by telling "The man" what they're doing thus allowing the little troll to go into the history and post a completely bogus unsigned vandalism charge. Add to the fact that he's trolling their own Talk Page which specifically warns him about exactly this sort of thing, and that he himself obviously isn't disadvantaged by the "impersonations", and that I obviously don't consider it impersonation, then all you two are doing is positively reinforcing his pathetic abuse of the Vandalism Reports for the sake of what? Trivial point scoring against The Dead?

I propose The man be warned against trivial vandalism reports and both Vista and boxy be sent to a Wiki Mod 101 Refresher course. --Zeug 06:34, 19 April 2008 (BST)

It's not trivial point scoring (at least not on our part). Signing posts that you make is an integral part of our system of communication here, allowing people to sign their posts under random other people's names (regardless of your complicity in the joke) makes it much harder (sometimes almost impossible in archives) for readers to know who said what in a conversation. Regardless of any warning on the page, impersonating is still not allowed, even on their own talk pages, and even with the "permission" of the one being impersonated -- boxy ^{talk • i} 18:03 19 April 2008 (BST)

We realize that impersonation isn't allowed, you don't need to restate the obvious. Both Zeug and I informing you that the very act of The man posting this report was a bad faith edit, even if you will not see it as such. That is why we're calling for a retraction. Hagnat agrees that a retraction would improve this wiki. --Kid sinister 21:59, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Can we inject a little common sense in here? Boxy, I see what you are saying especially when it comes to the archives, but COME ON. It's a talk page that is nothing more than a troll haven. What possible great contribution to the archives could it offer? What kind of moron couldn't follow the "let's sign as Zeug" flow of the conversation? I thought the point of going over these reports on a case by case basis was so that you could see the context and make an intelligent decision? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCC (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 April 2008.

It is a troll haven because you guys are encouraging behaviour like this. Take the "warning" off the page, and encourage your members not to play "push the rules as far as we can" games, and I might be willing to write it off as newbish mistakes. Unlike the other guys up there, I'm not willing to allow this to become commonplace behaviour, especially on "troll haven" pages, I don't visit your talk page much, but when I do (due to vandal reports), it usually involves reading through, and understanding who said what, and at what time. Allowing your members to sign as whoever the hell they fell like will force me to go through dozens of diff comparisons in the page history -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:35 20 April 2008 (BST)

Did you just admit your bias against us? --Kid sinister 04:25, 20 April 2008 (BST)

part 2

Actually according to the Signature Policythis is vandalism. The signatures did violate the policy, not just in impersonation of Zeug but also failing to to link back to the user's page. You can not call bad faith on someone for filing a V/B report when a rule is in fact being broken. I see no reason to overturn the ruling. - Vantar 03:54, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Zeug and I have already pointed out that this was a bad faith edit. In fact, several of the sysops agree on this matter and have voted to overturn it. Please do not dismiss us all because you refuse to see that this report was entirely unnecessary. --Kid sinister 04:25, 20 April 2008 (BST)

There has been no such vote and as of writing the warning is still standing (see for yourself). By my count 1 sysop has said that this was not vandalism, 1 has said that they would like it not to be considered vandalism but they have no choice but to, and 3 have said vandelism. There are no questions about the fact the edits go against the Signature Policy so the only remaining detail is to figure out an appropriate consequence, the policy recommends a soft warning but Vista went with a hard one. The guidelines allow for him to make that call and I can see reasonable grounds for him to do so. Just because a person has a vendetta against a person (or group) is not reason enough to dismiss all vandal accusations. When a valid complaint is made it would be unfair for it not to be heard. In this instance the edits in question went against established policy so action is appropriate. Had this been a case where you where correcting the spelling of another's comment or a similar action and an impersonation accusation was lodged then I would agree that the case should be dismissed and the filer was acting in bad faith, but that is not what happened here. - Vantar 08:30, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Actually since we're getting all anal retentive here according to the Signature Policy this is NOT vandalism:

• If a signature doesn't meet the above requirements (ie at least link back to the user's own page) then these steps will be taken.
• The user of the signature will be warned once and asked to change it. The user has one week to comply.
• If the user does not change the signature then a vandalism case will be brought forth where the user may receive a warning or banning in accordance to the vandalism page.

There was no discussion and warning prior to the bad faith Vandalism Report, and no no one week grace after a warning before this case was ruled here. I would still argue this is clearly NOT impersonation as they clearly told the Man what they were doing and the users concerned have my permission to use the term "zeug" in their signatures. The only real issue here pertains to the only real requirement of a signature which is to include the link back to their own user page ... which is the only thing you should be warning them about and they STILL have a week to comply before it should go and fill up the vandalism reports page with all this trivial filler! Furthermore what you are doing with your non policy vandalism warning based on a mindnumbingly petty interpretation of "impersonation" is still rewarding a trivial Vandalism Report lodged in bad faith by The man and escalating your own petty conflict with The Dead goading them to further "Badges of Wiki Dishonour" against Wiki Mods who are obviously willing to use their privileged positions to score points. --Obviously NOT boxy OR Vantar 08:53, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Vantar, The man failed the last two criteria from "Before Submitting a Report" posted above:

• As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
• Avoid submitting reports which are petty.

There was no attempt by him to call on any of us to correct our mistakes before he submitted this report, so he in fact used this page as the first resort. He did it because it was a reply against his own comments where we explained our intentions to him first, therefore it is extremely petty. The man failed 50% of the criteria for posting a report. That is why this report is a bad faith edit. --Kid sinister 15:43, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Vantar, it's not a matter so much about if it was against the policy but rather if they knew it was against the policy.--Karek^maps?! 19:33, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Failing to link back to your user page is not the only issue here. UDWiki:Vandalism is very clear about this.

UDWiki:Vandalism

We expect that, if you're commenting, you're commenting as yourself. If you're serious about improving the wiki, we feel that you should be more than willing to attach your comments to yourself, so if you're attaching them to someone else, we really have to assume that you're trying to do bad things to them. This doesn't improve the wiki, so we consider it clear vandalism.

The failure to link back to your user page is in addition to the impersonation, I brought up the Signature Policy as additional poof that the original ruling should not be over turned. As for Karak's argument DoohickeyBones and Killbottom where given links to UDWiki:Vandalism and Kid_sinister already has been through here on the same charge all before this case so it would be fair to assume they are familiar with the rules in question - Vantar 23:15, 20 April 2008 (BST)

If that is true, then you broke the official policy you showed us by not following the Punishment section of the it:

UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy

If a signature doesn't meet the above requirements then these steps will be taken. The user of the signature will be warned once and asked to change it. The user has one week to comply. If the user does not change the signature then a vandalism case will be brought forth where the user may receive a warning or banning in accordance to the vandalism page. The user has three days to comply extending out till when they next sign, if they continue to sign with said signature then they will be referred for another vandalism case. If a user repeats such actions then the initial warning can be skipped and the vandalism case can be brought forth immediately.

We demand that the administration follow policy! None of us were contacted first and asked to change the signatures. We were immediately warned instead. This was our first offense in violation of the Signature Policy, including myself. My previOus warning was for only for impersonation and had nothing to do with the Signature Policy.

I should also add that we cleared our own talk page recently, which removed the offending impersonations, which should bring us three into compliance with the Signature Policy. --Kid sinister 03:07, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Does the SA forum allow mods to edit its member's posts into things that you did not want to say (other than removing offending material)? It's not so much the signature policy, but the fact that someone else wrote things that Zeug didn't say.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:15, 21 April 2008 (BST)

If you are seriously going to use SA precedent here, then YES. Mods can edit posts to say whatever the hell they want. They also reopen threads that people close when they (OP) need more punishment and humiliation. (People need to be called out on stupid shit and tormented before their peers.) Actually, there was one user that as a punishment ANYONE could alter his posts to say what ever they wanted. If they linked kiddie porn or other violations they were punished, but the post could say whatever. Talk about edit wars !--DCC 03:54, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Not trying precedent, just wondering. Your forum amuses me. That edit conflict does not, however. :P--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:07, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Oh WOW, how could I forget about Liface: The Free Poster that Anyone Can Edit? I also forgot about how other users are allowed to pay $10 to have your avatar replaced. There are the obvious restrictions (no NWS images, no malicious HTML code), but other than that, anything goes. They're usually related to threads or replies the victim posts where they prove themselves to be worthless examples of humanity. One of my favorites was an animated GIF of ingrown toenails. --Kid sinister 04:14, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Democracies don't work on the internet. You need an iron fist to keep stupity down. Hell Hagnat had to post some whiney poo on my talk page instead of outright banning me. What kind of crap is that? Pathetic really...--BuckwheatSings 03:59, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Why not join ? You'll probably find more fun stuff to do there than the majority of the mess here. The level of intelligent and outright stupidity is strangely merged at last in this oasis of dork. Come to SA and join the goodness of laughing at the internet. One step at a time!--BuckwheatSings 04:14, 21 April 2008 (BST)

If I didn't have to pay... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:36, 21 April 2008 (BST)

It has everything to do with the policy. In fact, Vantar himself claimed two policies that we violated. Also, I'm pointing out that you all didn't follow the Punishment section of one policy. Why aren't you following policy?

I wasn't aware that the SA forums had relevance here... Incidentally, no, they don't, but they sometimes change thread titles to something less flattering, but only for the most shining arguments for post-natal abortion though. --Kid sinister 03:29, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Your edits went against UDWiki:Vandalism and UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy, the first being the most important of the two. Your are right that the Punishment section of one policy was not followed, that is because the other policy was given precedence. If multiple rules are being broken it has been standard practice to act with accordance to UDWiki:Vandalism before other policies. As stated above UDWiki:Vandalism is perfectly clear on how this case is to be handled. Also the sysop guidelines allow for sysops to make judgment calls that may run counter to policy wording. So you may look at this two ways either you broke UDWiki:Vandalism and UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy and were given a warning for as suggested by UDWiki:Vandalism or you broke UDWiki:Vandalism and the signature policy and the ruling sysop made the call to give you a hard warning as he is allowed to do under the guidelines. Knowing Vista it was almost certainly the first one but in either case there is no reason for the ruling to be overturned, which is what you are asking for. Your actions were vandalism, because of your vandalism you were warned, no rules were broken in warning you and you were treated in the same fashion that any other user would be treated. Your warning is not about to be over turned, if it bothers you that much then go make 250 constructive edits and wait a month. - Vantar 04:36, 21 April 2008 (BST)

I should have figured you all would use a crazy catch-all... Still, thanks for your in-depth reply. Tell AHLG that he's a lazy turd for not going to the necessary elaboration.
I got a few questions though. Where is it posted that UDWiki:Vandalism is the policy with the higher precedence, or that the policies even have a hierarchy? Also, in the Signature Policy, just who is required to warn other users of their violation before the Vandal Banning escalation? --Kid sinister 05:47, 21 April 2008 (BST)

UDWiki:Vandalism is one of our oldest polices, and is where we've defined in general terms what vandalism is. It contains general principles on how vandalism cases are to be judged. Other vandalism policies can be seen as being specific instances of the 'vandalism is an edit not made in good faith' rule, although I don't know if this is written down anywhere. With regards to who should warn a person about their signature, a sysop could do definitely it, or a normal user could probably do it too, the policy is a bit ambiguous. --Toejam 19:04, 21 April 2008 (BST)

This talk of the Vandalism policy history is fascinating, but where is it written that it has precedence? I would hate to think that I was punished for something that isn't written down anywhere... --Kid sinister 01:46, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Sysops do follow a certain conduct where they are directed to see what is considered vandalism where they are referenced to the UDWiki:Vandalism page, and they have an explanation of when a user may be warned or banned. Right under the general conduct section they explain that "System operators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored." and "Additionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism." That help explain things? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:23, 22 April 2008 (BST)

No, not at all, Vantar posted pretty much everything you just did a few posts above yours.
Again to everyone, where is it posted that certain policies have precedence over others? --Kid sinister 03:03, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Niether has precedence. They work in tandem, The signature policy is more broad and has lesser consequenses while the impersonation policy is more specific and has a bit more bite. They're both in effect at the same time.-- Vista  +1  10:27, 22 April 2008 (BST)

According to Vantar, you are wrong: "Your edits went against UDWiki:Vandalism and UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy, the first being the most important of the two." (emphasis mine). The way I see it, you all chose to not follow the policy that specifically covers the offense in question, including having specific steps for punishment for such an offense. Instead you chose to follow a broader policy that the administration claims is "more important", despite absolutely no one being able to reproduce documentation that would inform wiki users of this policy hierarchy. I'll say it a third time, where is it posted that certain policies have precedence over others? --Kid sinister 16:18, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I really didn't get my point across there. The wiki rules were never written by lawyers and depend heavily on the interpretation of spirit of the rules. The vandalism Policy is obviously more important because the Signature Policy references back to it. But you do have a point as the signature fleshes out the policy regarding signatures. So yes more important doesn't necessarily mean it takes precedence. They both mention the inpersonation and at second reading the way they are phrased do seem to conflict. The relevant part of signature policy mentions it as part of a list of several infractions that in time will lead to a warning while the vandalism policy mentions it alone as a direct cause for a warning.

So lets also see how they agree. They both mention it by name and they both mention it as something that isn't allowed. So they agree on that, they seem to disagree on how to deal with it. But seeing that one swept it in with a whole bunch of other infractions of varing disruptiveness and the other mentioned it specifically. It's added as another layer on top the signature policy, making the impersonation more severe. Thats how I came to my conclusion. Still the rules allow for a lot of leeway in this both to less severe and more severe judgment calls by sysops. As it was a warning, not a ban I don't think I went overboard. Warnings are retracted after a set time if you avoid any further troubles.-- Vista  +1  17:58, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I didn't get my point across either. You all are basically saying, "Oh hey, we're gonna break policy and punish you three over a matter they every non-admin is telling us is trivial because this other policy takes precedence, even though there's nothing written down that specifically says one policy is better than another." In other words, we were punished because the more apparently relevant policy was ignored in favor of another, broader policy, even though it's not specifically posted anywhere that any one policy overrides another. How would any new wiki user know this? Also, the policy that you admit references the Vandalism Policy only does so after stating the one week compliance period. But this was skipped over, because the moderation has the power to "ignore" policy, despite the very same page giving them this power also says:

UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When_a_User_May_be_Warned_or_Banned

System operators may only warn/ban a user when: ... 5. When acting in accordance with approved policies.

If that is true, then you all also broke the very guidelines that gives you power to break policies. As you all needlessly exercised your modly power over a petty, trivial and entirely unnecessary vandal report that the reporter broke half of the criteria for posting such a report, the very idea that you all would consider ANY punishment is completely unacceptable. --Kid sinister 19:42, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I also like how you first say that it isn't written down anywhere that that the vandalism policy takes precedence over the signature policy. And that that should mean that the signature policy you prefer takes precedence although that's nowhere written as well.

You should take up law if you haven't already. You're really good at the legal switch and bait game. We've got two policies, one that deals specifically what vandalism is and explicitly mentions that specise act as such and we've got another that mentions it in concert with others. Yet you're trying to persuade us that the policy that incorperates more diverse acts is actually the more relevant of the two. It's quite impressive. The subject is more explicitly mentioned and dealt with in the vandalism page then on the signature page. In fact the signature policy explicitly mentions that regarding signatures that Edits to your own user page cannot be considered vandalism unless you impersonate someone. signaling that impersonation does in fact count as vandalism.

As for the guidelines, You're quoting the wrong one in this case. As this is a vandalism case on the vandal banning page the relevant one is point 4, not point 5. Not that it matters as I am acting in accordance to approved policies. Just not the one you'd like I follow.

You broke both the vandalism and the signature guideline. Niether surplants the other, there simply is an overlap. So further rules lawyering by you won't work, because as you made clear yourself that there is no order of precedence. And that means the sysop taking up the case is to make a judgemend call which one applies. And even the sysops that disagree with my ruling agree that it's the right policy. They disagree on the severity and the the amount of bad/good faith involved. So instead of fighting a lonely battle that you will lose on merits you should focus on making your case on that point.

I know that I probably sounded like a dick during this all, even though I didn't mean to but I'm in no way married to my judgment as long as you can argue a compelling case to good faith. So instead of further debate that start including ever less relevant rules; why did you think that signing with another user's name would better the wiki even though you were already warned that we're quite anal about comment integrety? -- Vista  +1  17:39, 23 April 2008 (BST)

God damn it, this stupid wiki lost my long ass reply...
Here's the short version of what I had typed. I'm sticking to the rules because you and some other admins said around the bottom of Part 2 that the circumstances don't matter (even though they do) and that you all were sticking with the rules, even though both of us agree that they are in conflict. You all made a mod decision to interpret the rules to make up for this shortcoming and are vehemently defending your interpretation, despite everyone who isn't an admin is almost yelling at you that you made the wrong decision, all for a vandal report that it itself was filed in bad faith. The man made no attempt to "iron out problems" with us before making this report, so this report couldn't be anything BUT "petty". Karek already posted this below, but making rulings like this only welcomes further worthless, petty vandal reports to be made for identically ludicrous reasons that only waste your time. The reason we made those joking replies was an attempt by us to chase a troll off our group's talk page again without mod assistance. If we had known that we should have made a petty vandal report instead, we would have done so. Any "bad faith" that our edits were made in are easily dwarfed by the worse faith this very report was made in. --Kid sinister 03:46, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Wiki's aren't a really a suitable platform for the forum like activities this one developed. My problem with this is that those joking replies actually don't decrease drama but do the reverse here. But I'm willing to make a deal. Next time don't react to those trolls but simply delete their stupidity off your talk page and I'll not only retract this warning but I'll back you up in dealing with them. Deal?-- Vista  +1  09:09, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Just an FYI - Kid Sinister (actually none of the people involved in this case) is not a "leader" of The Dead and while still a member has no authority in the group. And by extension, wouldn't have the authority to delete things off the talk page. If you check the history I'm the one that keeps archiving and cleaning the page. I will take responsibility for our pages (but each member is on their own!) KS also has no authority to make deals or statements for our group. --דקק 01:50, 27 April 2008 (BST)

"Next time" you'll retract the warnings ... why not just get it over with and retract now if your case is so weak? And in what possible sense do your wiki mod privileges extend to telling other users how to react to trolls ... beyond of course advising them about the need to link to their user pages in their sigs if they pretend to be someone else without actually pretending to be ... someone else? All your arguments do here is obfuscate and divert from the problem, which is your still completely unexplained ruling of non bad faith "vandalism". As I pointed out to Kid Sinister, when the mods on this wiki are incapable of arguing their case they generally fall back on invective and then ignore you. You Vista are an excellent example of bad faith moderation. Hey Goons, wanna take this to arbitration yet? He'll just keep pretending to be on your side and put you off until you get bored and go away, that's how they work when they can't "win". --Zeug 14:14, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Zeug? shoo, get lost.-- Vista  +1  14:55, 24 April 2008 (BST)

"shoo get lost" ... ? Is that the extent of your argument now? Reduced to monosyllabic ad hominem and now point blank refusal? You are now devolving into farce, which is of course yet another way to divert attention from your blatant lack of argumentation. "It's vandalism" ... how? --Zeug 15:37, 24 April 2008 (BST)

No zeug, I'm still talking to Kid sinister and Karek. They seem to be actually looking for to solve this, while you seem only interested in angry shooting and picking fights so you can rant some more. Your good right of course, but not one I'm particuarly interested in to participate in.

As the few arguments you do make are either already covered by both Karek or Kid sinister I'm focussing on them as they are both more germane to the case and acting less like idiots. Still if it makes you feel special you can continue to thinks it's the very persuasive way you use all caps to make an especially original argument that makes me to intimidated to engage you. Either way, good luck.-- Vista  +1  15:57, 24 April 2008 (BST)

I'm starting a new indent, scrolling down past so much whitespace was ridiculous.
Please don't dismiss Zeug, I consider his viewpoint equal to my own on this matter. If it isn't readily apparent to everyone, Zeug is stating his unfortunately well-founded perception of the administration on this wiki.
You make a very tempting offer, but it would be impossible for me to accept it. We have the largest group in the game, 1,290 according to the current stats page. There is no way that I could speak for all of us and make any such agreement that would bind all of my group, especially considering only 3 of us were involved in this case. Also, I'm sure that you know what the fallout would be from my group for such a bargain in a case that was worthless in the first place. And if I won't speak for them like now when they're calm, there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that I'd speak for them when they're not so calm. --Kid sinister 17:39, 24 April 2008 (BST)

It's true - You aren't the boss of me! And not an authority in The Dead.--דקק 01:50, 27 April 2008 (BST)

"Killbottom where given links to UDWiki:Vandalism" I was? I was never warned and asked to change it before anything happened. If I was, I would have just fixed it. I didn't realize it was apparently such a huge issue. - Killbottom 18:44, 20 April 2008 (EST)

Yes you where - Vantar 04:36, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Vantar sez "Your edits went against UDWiki:Vandalism" which takes precedence ... ha, you wiki lawyers are hilarious. IN WHAT POSSIBLE SENSE ARE THE EDITS VANDALISM was my previous question to both Vista and boxy ... one's MIA the other is apparently safeguarding the sanctity of the entire wiki process by sticking his fingers in his ears and reciting wiki policy by rote. THERE IS NO BAD FAITH - NONE! The self-evident intention was not to misrepresent me in any sense whatsoever but to play a joke on The man, who couldn't have possibly been misled either unless he's seriously intellectually challenged, which is of course possible. If you actually READ THE POLICY impersonation is ASSUMED to be in bad faith against the one being impersonated and thus Vandalism. You cannot possibly assume bad faith in this case! All you can do is fall back on the Sig Policy and insist they add their User Page Links, and even then the "transgression" is so mindnumbingly INCONSEQUENTIAL all it needs is a discussion and request. The whole point of this stupid thread here is to highlight the incredible lengths you tautological Wiki mods have to go to in order to defend your amazingly petty and rather vapid non-interpretations of wiki policy just so you can ... what? Always be right? It's precisely this sort of anal retentive moderation that goes aginst the spirit of community collaboration that's supposed to be at the heart of the wiki process and which alienates newbies and in game opponents alike while reinforcing the perception that privileged wiki users here are accustomed to abusing those privileges. If you want escalation I propose we TAKE THIS TO ARBITRATION if Zeug 1, Zeug 2, and Zeug 3 can be bothered.--Definitely not a wiki mod, possibly another zeug 05:49, 21 April 2008 (BST)

You ask in what possible sense the edits are vandalism. fair question lets look at UDWiki:Vandalism, the definitive guide to vandalism on the wiki. Lets look at the section called "Some examples of Vandalism" because maybe one of the sample cases will be exactly what happened here, oh look "Impersonating another user" that's more or less the crux of this case. Oh wow a sentence that reads "If you're serious about improving the wiki, we feel that you should be more than willing to attach your comments to yourself, so if you're attaching them to someone else, we really have to assume that you're trying to do bad things to them. This doesn't improve the wiki, so we consider it clear vandalism.". I read that as saying if you sign someone else name it is vandalism pretty much no matter what. If you are saying that my interpretation of this sentence is wrong I ask you to prove it by pointing out the good faith in your edits. But do not dare to presume that I have assumed bad faith. I have taken an objective look at the situation and have failed to see anything that would bolster an assumption good faith edit so I have arrived at a conclusion of bad faith only after careful considerations. - Vantar 07:52, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Vantie, you're a shithouse crat who allows Boxy to constantly run roughshod over you. I don't think there's anybody reading what you're saying here who isn't picking up on the blindingly obvious fact that this is a desperate attempt to claw some respect back by taking a hardline stance. Unfortunately for you, you're both outnumbered and wrong. The notices on the fucking page quite clearly state not to take anything said for granted, the impersonated party is one of those shouting loudest against the warnings... yeah. Not a pretty picture. Why don't you crawl back into obscurity? You were doing so well. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:06, 21 April 2008 (BST)

I don't need to "dare" to assume your assumption of bad faith cos you state that is actually your assumption! "you should be more than willing to attach your comments to yourself, so if you're attaching them to someone else, we really have to assume that you're trying to do bad things to them" ... I am the THEM in question! If you read the context of their remarks attributed to a user Zeug ... me ... you could not in any reasonable sense assume they were trying to grief ME ... or anyone else! You can't even argue they were trying to pass themselves off as me (ie impersonating me) cos they blatantly state they're NOT ZEUG but since I argued The man into silence they should all post as me to get the troll to shut up ... It was self evidently a JOKE at The Man's expense and NOT in any sense a serious ie bad faith attempt to actually impersonate me. Yet you use the wording to justify your "carefully considered" yet unargued "conclusion" that it can only be bad faith! You are not only being obtuse but illogical. This is clearly not a case of bad faith vandalism, apart from The man posting a trivial Report and your trivial support for it. The most you could say is that they failed the signature test and should from now on at least link to their user pages whenever they sign as whatever their handle happens to be. --Actually probably Zeug? 09:07, 21 April 2008 (BST)

So you are saying that there is no way to interpret an unfriendly jab at another user that breaks two polices as a bad faith edit. Let me break this down in a simpler manor. The comments made by DoohickeyBones,Killbottom and Kid_sinister were signed as Zeug. UDWiki:Vandalism says that to sign as a user other then yourself is vandalism. Neither DoohickeyBones,Killbottom or Kid_sinister is Zueg so their actions are vandalism. This is not a hard concept to understand. - Vantar 10:08, 21 April 2008 (BST)

I never thought I'd be saying this to a 'crat, but... learn how to indent. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:09, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Okay Vantar, let's break this down for you. 1. You're conflating "unfriendly jabs" at trolls with bad faith edits which as far as I understand has absolutely no precedent on this wiki. 2. The vandal policy DOES NOT say "that to sign as a user other then [sic] yourself is vandalism". It states that the mods can only "assume you're trying to do bad things" to whomever is being impersonated. My argument is that here NO REASONABLE CASE can be made for this assumption of "doing bad things" by impersonating the user Zeug ... which is me. Neither myself nor The man or any other reasonable person could possibly argue they were deceived by the impersonations. Quite the contrary the impersonations were blatant impersonations cos THAT WAS THE JOKE! If they'd actually tried to deceive others and use my ID in bad faith then THERE'D BE NO JOKE! Do you understand yet? --Zeug 10:28, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Vantar, this is one of those things where the words of the policy aren't what should be enforced but rather it's purpose. The policy is not, in spirit, being violated, they make it exceedingly clear that they are not Zeug, Zeug doesn't mind them attributing words to him in that case, the people following the conversation aren't confused by it and Zeug doesn't mind if he is "misrepresented" there. All punishing them for this right now does it give them an escalation in a no harm no foul situation on a case reported by a user who obviously does not like the users involved, ALL this is is encouraging using the wiki administration as a tool to get A/VB escalations on users that you don't like for extremely weak reasons. It's no less rules lawyering then what was being done during the Copyright disputes, it's no better than the way arbitration is constantly used to attempt to strong arm users, and it's a large portion of what we are here to prevent. The reason for the sig rule isn't being violated, they didn't know it was against the rules, no one told them it was against the rules, it's not a common sense situation in this case because they made it clear they weren't Zeug, and so the commentary that it should be assumed that it is probably vandalism doesn't apply in this case, just like it doesn't apply in a case where a user updates a danger report wrong because they don't know better and no one has bothered to tell them differently, this is one of those things that should have been settled outside of A/VB on the talk pages, as that little blue box above the Reports section suggests.--Karek^maps?! 17:58, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Oh and FYI, UDWiki:Vandalism is meant to be a guideline not a rule, it's to teach you the basics of what is and is not vandalism for the sake of reporting and judging, what it says, however, is in no way completely restricting or limiting, just because it says something is usually determined to be vandalism does not mean that that same thing is always vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 18:00, 21 April 2008 (BST)

part 3

This whole case merely proves that the Law is an ass. Karek is right and this whole case should never have taken up even a fraction of this space. What would have been wrong with a "soft warning" that using the wrong sig (even with no chance for mistaken ID) causes to many problems on any page and regardless of anything else a sig should always link to the poster... Oh thats right, both those things have been pointed out and accepted as being valid points. What we have left is a stubborn seeking after punishment of unpopular users on a very flimsy case. It was a joke and a missunderstanding, this has been pointed out so why not move on without punishment? Either that or remove the section of A/VB that says its not its porpose to punish. --Honestmistake 09:38, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Well I've got no problem at all with any user of the dead. It's just a warning. They seem smart enough to adapt and avoid future ones. They'll just have to be a bit more careful in the future and they'll be fine. It's not a huge drama.-- Vista  +1  10:14, 22 April 2008 (BST)

They should just accept it because it's just a warning? You're a real cunt, you know that? Less fascism please. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:41, 22 April 2008 (BST)

No they should accept it because they broke a rule for no productive reason. Warnings are there so people can learn from breaking the rules unproductively. And you're right, I really should stop invading poland all the time.-- Vista  +1  10:46, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Plenty of shit goes on that "isn't productive". This is no different - why the hell are you pursuing this so doggedly when a) the fucking page said not to take anything for granted and b) Zeug (the "offended party") is arguing against you if not just to make a point? This is not a situation for which the rule was created - it isn't even breaking its spirit (no flaming was involved; it was all a joke). Also, regarding your reference to Poland - one does not have to be a Nazi to be a fascist. Ask Dubya. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:53, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Also - given that as things stand Vista and Vantar are outnumbered, why haven't the warnings been retracted? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:43, 22 April 2008 (BST)

As far as I read, It's Boxy, Vantar, A Helpful Little Gnome and me that support the vandalism ruling and just Karek and Hagnat that support the no vandalism ruling. That Karek and Hagnat stated their position more clearly on the frontpage doesn't change that. And you are right, Fascism isn't limited to just nazism. I promise you that I won't invade Iraq or Ethiopia either. Honest.-- Vista  +1  11:09, 22 April 2008 (BST)

As far as we read, you are saying that the opinions of the wiki users don't matter. --Kid sinister 16:18, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Meh, for purposes of overturning vandalism judgments the majority opinion of sysops is binding. Other then that I don't have a higher opinion of my opinion then yours.-- Vista  +1  17:13, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I can understand Vista's position on this, I can't understand Boxy or Vantar's specifically because it's due, or seems to be, largely to rules lawyering . As for AHLG, Vista, I don't know where you get that from but he doesn't seem to have expressed on opinion on this matter, just asked some and answered some questions.--Karek^maps?! 20:33, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Vista sez - "No they should accept it because they broke a rule for no productive reason" ... WHICH RULE WAS BROKEN? Is it the no bad faith non-vandalism semi-impersonation rule or the semi-impersonation wrong user link in woteva sig rule? Or is it the the inventarule-as-you-go all-purpose Vista rule? You haven't actually explained your ruling anywhere in this gigantic thread so how are these wiki evildoers to know any better? As I've already pointed out they don't really seem to care anyways apart from the fact that ludicrously petty mods like yourself make unexplained and seemingly inexplicable vandal warnings on a whim thus supporting a trolls trivial bad faith vandal report and your own initial probably too quick to judge support of it. I understand your ego may not allow you to back down on it but that just makes your stubbornness even more pathetically illuminating. Are you actually capable of explaining why you jumped in without discussion in the first place when a quick read of the discussion under question would have obviously shown the ambiguities that are self evident to everyone here but you, boxy and maybe Vantar although they haven't got back to me on my last attempt to explain the case. Or was it just "The Dead" thing that swayed you and wiki rules be damned? --Zeug 19:37, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Zeug, people ignore you because you're not actually participating in a discussion as much as ranting widly without bothering to read the replies. So just a short recap.

1. The rule in question is the vandalism policy. It's been wildly reported and quoted here in the discussion.
2. I've explained myself extensively in part 1 and 2 of this discussion.
3. The impersonation clause isn't about the user being impersonated, It's about the users preteding to be some else. Even though they used your name, it's got fuck all to do with you.
4. Karek and Kid sinister are actually hard at work changing my mind on this. Strangely enough, I'm perfectly o.k. with reversing myself, because my ego is so large it can survive me being wrong every once and awhile. I'll still think I'm awesome and women will still sleep with me. So if I lose an argument on the internet everything will still be as fine as ever.

Just a piece of parting advice, nobody likes to talk to the loony standing on the street corner. You'll note that Kid sinister and Karek are actually involved in several constructive discusions. You on the other hand just scream incoherently at people and expect us to pretend it's wisdom. So please do Kid Sinister and Karek a favor and don't contribute to the discussion here. The drunk idiot act isn't working for you and not helping them.-- Vista  +1  08:53, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Well at least you finally deign to answer my question re your ego, you can't help but attack the person rather than actually engage with the argument. Nowhere have I found you actually engaging with the argument, rather you just keep re-stating that "it's vandsalism cos ... it's vandalism cos ... vista says so". As to your contention that this Vandalism Report brought in my name having nothing to do with me I'd ask where the fuck in the Policy Guidelines it states that. I'd contend that's a completely ludicrous interpretation and nowhere supported in the text. You have no inhibitions simply making this stuff up though and I will continue to state my case and I challenge anyone on this wiki to argue against my right to involve myself. You are ridiculous as a mod Vista, and your inability here to engage with and actually make a case for anything you simply state is precisely the problem. IN WHAT SENSE DOES THIS CASE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH VANDALISM? IN WHAT SENSE DOES IMPERSONATION NOT INVOLVE THE ONE IMPERSONATED? Your inability to actually engage me in argument is not an argument. --Zeug 13:58, 24 April 2008 (BST)

User:Rudiger Jones and others

I assume you mean this and this edit? Also, although I'm not a mod I thought I'd just add the edits in question which were reverted, how is it your user page if you are saying that this is your user page, when it's quite obviously two differen wiki user names? But as to an appology did this edit by Rudiger on the talk page for Tarumigan not classify as one? Acoustic Pie 17:30, 10 April 2008 (BST)

I don't mean to be rude, but I just did some checking on both of your userpages and couldn't find any evidence in the history of anything being changed within the last day by Rudiger Jones, infact the last thing he changed on your page was well over a week ago. Acoustic Pie 17:39, 10 April 2008 (BST)

In this particular case, I wasn't pointing the finger directly at Rudiger Jones. SOMEONE restored the "sandy" commentary in my userpage after its' removal by Olberman. The exact time frame of this is uncertain, as I have not checked my userpage for several days. I am inclined to SUSPECT certain members within The Dead, as they were the ones who posted that stuff on my page in the first place. Tarumigan Gistarai

But if you hadn't seen it personally, then how would you know that it had happened? If so then could provide a link to that evidence? Acoustic Pie 18:12, 10 April 2008 (BST)

If only there was a way the wiki could track who made what changes. Nah, that'd be too easy. And seriously, if you don't want opinions maybe you shouldn't have an opinion section? --́我們像瘋了似的영주維基維基，俄亥俄，因為這麼多的神，上帝，請原諒我的́罪，因此，這裡的簽名要求 19:48, 10 April 2008 (BST)

This is obviously an issue for Arbitration. Tarumigan had not told Rudiger that he did not approve of his comments when they were restored - rendering his "omg sicko11111" bleating worthless. For it to be even considered possible that another user (ie. Oberman) should have the power to pass judgement on Rudiger's comments in the way he has... it's completely disgusting. Not to mention yet another outbreak of Hagnat's infamous "fuck the rules" syndrome. It's a long-held tenet of the wiki that being a jerk is not vandalism in and of itself. EDIT: His comments on the above case are in sharp contrast to the sentiments he has expressed in this one. I think I speak for most users in asking for a little consistency, at the very least. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:51, 11 April 2008 (BST)

I am so irritated I didn't come upon this when it still mattered. Rudiger Jones 08:02, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Laughing Man

Oh come on Hagnat, how in the world is that edit bad faith? If anything he was reverting vanderlism by whoever redirected a Location Page which should be NPOV to a group. I'm asking for another Sysops opinon here.--Thekooks 21:12, 10 April 2008 (BST)

This page is not a group page! It's being voted for deletion, and might give place to a group page, but for now it's just a location page like many others. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:23, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Sigh, I keep getting things wrong. I vowed to stay off here the other day and I think I better stick to that :P--Thekooks 21:57, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Le sigh, Not Vandalism just foolishness.--Karek^maps?! 07:57, 11 April 2008 (BST)

I do like how Hagnat tried to pull a fast one with that warning. Shows real class. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:19, 11 April 2008 (BST)

There was nothing need to be said about this case. LM broke a redirect page. Vandalism. End of story. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:53, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Obviously not, as can be seen below. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:57, 11 April 2008 (BST)

And how much foolishness should we endure ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:54, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Good idea. Let's start with your recent conduct. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:52, 11 April 2008 (BST)

This page is up for deletion. A controversial deletion vote, to boot. A deletion that I put up, so yes, I am involved in this case, so don't say it. Now... the why the fuck is ANYONE even TOUCHING this page? Regular user OR sysop??? I have no weight, and I apparently don't know TEH MYSTERIES of the Wikah... but in my uneducated opinion, all edits after the deletion request should be considered vandalism. Including Vantar's edit -- the fucking page is up for deletion, stop fucking with it. --WanYao 08:40, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Ah.. actually that isn't the case per se. The deletion request outcome will be binding offcourse, regardless of the state the page. But many a page has been saved by edits made after the deletion request that made the page more usefull then it was when the request was made.

In this case that probably won't matter. But we do actually encourage it in some cases.-- Vista  +1  08:49, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Fair enough... but it seems kind of odd to be rewriting the motion as it's being voted on in the General Assembly... --WanYao 09:01, 11 April 2008 (BST)

And... if a page is voted for deletion, because the majority has willed it so... but didn't bother to change their vote... but in the meantime, someone has improved it... then the improved version is deleted... it all seems very counter-productive to me... --WanYao 09:03, 11 April 2008 (BST)

I like using ellipses too... let's see how many I can fit into this comment... that's 2... oops, make that 3... oshi 4... wow, I'm on a roll... Cyberbob 09:07, 11 April 2008 (BST)

It's far from perfect. But it's never caused any real problems. Most of the problems that are theoritical possible never materialize in practice. A more rigid systeem that would illiminate those problems would actually cause more problems due to the inflexibility then the current one.-- Vista  +1  09:24, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Gee, cyberbob, what an intelligent contribution to the discussion. you git. meanwhile... vista, i suppose you're right. it's just that with all the drama surrounding this particular bunch of cases... meh... --WanYao 09:32, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Shaggy

Hey guys, let's ban people because they made comments we don't like and hurt our feelings! Ein Volk! Ein Wiki! Ein Führer! --́我們像瘋了似的영주維基維基，俄亥俄，因為這麼多的神，上帝，請原諒我的́罪，因此，這裡的簽名要求 19:56, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Is this a joke? The first comment wouldn't raise an eyebrow at Disneyworld and last 2 examples you provide are on our own talk page. You seem to have a habit of losing your temper yourself cowboy - "Don't worry about my image, I'm not. So you're "in character"? I knew it! All my internet friends told me that Scoobydoodoobie was nothing but the dumbest fuck, incabable of forming a single coherent thought other than, "derrr, yer stoopid" but I kept telling them its just you being in character. --Showcase 21:16, 8 April 2008 (BST)". And on the DHPD's edit history "DHPD has the right to delete trolling faggots." Honestly, you're clearly not shy about displaying your own nasty streak on the wiki so stones glass houses blah blah blah. Poor little baby --Deadtanian 20:07, 10 April 2008 (BST)

It started out with a much nicer, "We have the right to delete unwanted Drama" and also a similarly polite "If you are a member of the Dead please stay of of our pages". However, that did not bother you in the slightest, so we had to resort to language that you are all very familiar with. -- Cisisero 20:12, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Note the very first line on my Newbie Wiki User Page - Never delete someone else's edits, comments, responses, etc. off of community pages. To do so is considered vandalism. - You lot just cut away swathes of conversation if the discussion at hand doesn't go your way. It's a talk page, you might expect people to talk. If you have to spit the dummy out, at least archive the conversation. --Deadtanian 20:19, 10 April 2008 (BST)

You dont see me cutting anything off of the Dunell Hills page do you? Thats because that is a Community Page, however the DHPD's Group page is exactly that, a group page. Meaning that is the responsibility of the members of the DHPD to maintain it. For reason im not sure of, we dont really want the Dead's propaganda and far fetched truths on there, just as I am sure you dont want DHPD propaganda on The Dead's group page. I understand that you are new and you may not know the difference, did that help you? -- Cisisero 20:32, 10 April 2008 (BST)

So the original complaint about Scooby being rude on OUR talk page is utterly worthless then eh? What a waste of time. --Deadtanian 20:47, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Yay go me! Hopefully I will join the ranks of the great in the Grand UrbanDead Wiki in the sky. Also remember that Hagnat said he was a jerk but I don't believe his lies. I caught him petting a puppy I swear. Also if I get banned, does that mean Cis, Marty, and Showtime get banned too? I'd say they have been far more snarky than my little quips. If so I say it would be for a worthy cause.--ScoobyDooDoobie 21:00, 10 April 2008 (BST)

lol Showcase can't come up with anything besides the fact that disagreeing with him means WIKI TERRORIST and BAD FAITH. Even on this wiki even to goons who get the short end of a lot of things that could go either way you have to try harder than that you fucking sorry piece of shit. Better luck next time. --Riseabove 21:05, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Freedom of speech ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:23, 10 April 2008 (BST)

RE: You posed a question so I am responding... Im not against free speech. Its not about those three examples, those are just examples for this page that I picked out. The point was that this user has nothing constructive to add to the wiki. His sole purpose is to troll and flame. This itself, could be considered vandalism.--Showcase^Talk 20:27, 10 April 2008 (BST)

If we were to run around banning users because they have been trolling on the wiki, then several users would have to be banned from the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:31, 10 April 2008 (BST)

I understand, however, some line must be drawn somewhere, no? At some point asshatery in the form of trolling and flaming becomes detremental to the wiki community. There must be a way to support that line? --Showcase^Talk 20:35, 10 April 2008 (BST)

There is. Ask Scinfaxi --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:43, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Please check the complainant's recent posting history. We're in some kind of Möbius strip here and I can't quite get my head around the levels of contradiction involved. --Deadtanian 20:53, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Mobius strips are fun :D --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:03, 10 April 2008 (BST)

I'll race you. First one to the end gets Dunell Hills. --Deadtanian 21:07, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Cya in the other side. Ow, wait... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:11, 10 April 2008 (BST)

My history is not in question here. there is no contradiction. Scooby's purpose is to create resentment and anger on the wiki. Unlinke you, Deadtanian, Scooby is incable of responding in a sensible manner with any kind of point other than suggesting someone's level of stupidity. My recent comments were in response to the chaos that has been allowed to run rampant by a select few on the wiki with regard to a group page. A few have been recently cleaned out, I'm just asking for moderation to take a few more steps that will allow the wiki to continue as the community it was. --Showcase^Talk 21:46, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Sorry it works both ways there buddy. Bringing up an Arbitration case in event requires a good faith background of the proposer. By trying to drag me through the mud you've gotten wet yourself. This opens up a counter claim of which there is more harassment and bad faith from you and your goons than my little quips of harsh truth.--ScoobyDooDoobie 21:56, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Unfortunately there is no "be excellent to eachother" policy on this wiki, so really, as long as a person isn't violating another policy, that person can be as much as a troll pretty much as they want to be. Now... if they told you go to die in a fire, dot dot dot--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:53, 10 April 2008 (BST)

THIS is how this community used to be... full'o drama and people harassing others for no good reason. I think you meant to say how it looked before the goons arrived, right ? Well, though luck, they are here to stay and are now part of this community. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:58, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Well, you guys are the experts. It was worth a shot. If a community of drama and harrassment is what you want, I'll survive (contrary to what Scooby might think). Anime, I didn't think suggesting the wiki might be better without him meant we needed a policy for being excellent to everyone. hagnat, you can put words in my mouth if you want but this argument would be the same whether it was a DHPD member or an RRF member or a new member. Thanks for hearing my arguments. --Showcase^Talk 22:26, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Hagnat, your last comment regarding Laughing Man's case above seems quite fitting in this case as well. How much foolishness, indeed. --Showcase^Talk 14:11, 11 April 2008 (BST)

User:DCC & User:Katthew

Seriously, "The Dead" get over yourselves. If you want to pretend you own the whole of malton then fine, but don't put your crap all over the wiki. --Nitro378 ^{T JNL} 10:56, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I guess if we were a pro-survivor group like DHPD then we could. No, wait, Goons - can't do anything anyone else can.

Why does the DHPD get special treatment? Do you feel sorry for them since most of them are functionally retarded like Marty? Do you believe the bullshit Cissero is spewing forth about how they are still in DH and the DMZ whatever the fuck that is? Or is Conndoucha just blowing all the mods in order to keep his authority?-- #99 ^DCC 13:40, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Those categories were put on pages before I even started on the wiki, much less became a sysop. Conn (unlike you) thinks (or at least thought) that putting those categories on page was helpful (I disagree). So, as you can see, I couldn't report Conn for those edits, and even if I could, they would still be good faith edits, even if subject to removal. Unlike your efforts tonight, which had no other purpose than to stir up just this type of drama.

Enjoy yourselves, free insults for all -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:58 9 April 2008 (BST)

Oh, so you're lazy and you don't like being made to work. Right, well, that makes perfect sense. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 14:01, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Thought it would be helpful? Yeah, to promote his own group all over the fucking place.You can not seriously think that the whole fucking DMZ bullshit was anything other than an attempt to promote that lame ass group! I also like how there is no penalty for failing to comply (not removing the categories) but lord help anyone that tries to do it. -- #99 ^DCC 14:07, 9 April 2008 (BST)

hey wiki pubbie, are you REALLY that concerned about some links on a wiki for a game you guys don't even like? C'mon girl, get over it. Play along or get the fuck out. Its that simple. Also, I'd like to add that if any argument can be made regarding sysops not having balls to do their job, its that a bunch of trolls like you are still allowed to participate in an fashion. They have shown great reserve in not handing out ban after ban for such pubbie insolence. --Showcase^Talk 14:09, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Haha, it's like giving a retard a new toy. He may be choking on it, but Goddamn if the mongoloid tyke doesn't love every second of it. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 14:17, 9 April 2008 (BST)

You almost don't want to tell him what it means just to see what other interesting and new combinations he will come up with! I think you have met your quota on asskissing- why don't you just put your name up on the sysop votin' page and tell the wiki how you are tough on goons!. -- #99 ^DCC 14:20, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Thats your problem (one of them). Its NOT SA Goons, its the fact that you spew wiki douchbaggery everywhere you go. It can begin to get better by getting rid of the entire hitler family for starters. you're here to spam, cry, whine and create chaos just like my 4yr old kid...and its just not needed. --Showcase^Talk 14:24, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Does that offend you? awwwww poor baby! If all of you helpful little wags actually knew the whole story you would shut your festering gob holes and stay the fuck out. But you don't. You think you know just enough to come in here and act all self fucking righteous and wiggle your finger saying YOU KNOW WHAT YOUTR PRONELGHEWIOFHEWOGF UH GHREUI:O GNJK:VREUO - SHUT THE FUCK UP - Until you actually know what has happened on both sides.. No wait . just shut the fuck up and go make cool bad ass little gun sigs some where else team hardcore!.-- #99 ^DCC 14:32, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Does what offend me? the hitler part? fuck no. Your bullshit on the wiki? fuck no. Am I tired of it and hope something is done about it? shit yeah. I don't give a shit about your glorious past. No one does. Anyone that might have cared is long gone. The last two weeks have been nothing but the dead/dhpd bullshit. no one cares except you that some stupid category links were made. No one cares if the DHPD wants to call part of the map the DMZ or not. People call the Southwest of Malton the SW, should there be an outcry? Regarding my Sig? right, because your "oh Im such a persecuted fucktard, please have pity on me" sig is so much better. --Showcase^Talk 14:36, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Showcase. Your little squirts of misguided anger aren't doing anything to resolve this issue. The Dead haven't exactly been welcomed with open arms. On the wiki we've been mocked repeatedly for our tactics by well known and apparently well respected folks on the wiki. When pressed with a wiki page founded by the dying DHPD who were hoping for some extra advertising by our title, we felt that we needed to correct the situation. Also note that for a group with over 1000 members we actually are pretty quiet on this thing. The public of the wiki have been directly coming to us onto our pages to spaz out hate. Only recently have we attempted to correct the misguided propaganda of the DHPD who have been squatting the wiki with what we control in the game. The 'neutral' parties on the wiki have openly declared against us in thinking that we destroyed the game. We only changed it and I believe for the better. So hate us. Please. It's kinda funny. You can't ban our influence from the game.--ScoobyDooDoobie 17:19, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Well I experienced quite a few SA invasions in different games. And the problem comes from the fact that SA is such a huge board that the current power structure gets completely overthrown in very little time. The groups that used to be "big" and took a long time getting were they are. And now they are just secondary players and have to learn to swallow their pride. And quite a few aren't big enough to do so. So yes SA does get a lot of unfair criticism.

I personally never cared about all that. I never cared much about DARIS or all the drama surrounding it but I certainly remember how back in late 2005 The Many really transformed the game. It was one of the most fun times to play. Seeing a zombie horde that has 10 times the members of the biggest survivor group now makes my day. It's a zombie apocalypse, and for the first time in a long while it looks like one. Overall I really think SA shaped this and the other games I played for the better.

But there are some legitimate complaints. Because SA gets so much flak some of them think that every time they get criticized it's because they are SA "and everybody is out to get them" instead their personal behavior. And yes, a few of you are actually actively seeking out confrontation and drama instead of trying to diminish it.-- Vista  +1  18:13, 9 April 2008 (BST)

does your tiny penis frustrate you, little man カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 14:41, 9 April 2008 (BST)

no, does it frustrate you, whining troll? Showcase^Talk 14:44, 9 April 2008 (BST)

no because i do not have to look at it and how teeny-tiny it is, i have plenty of big penises to satisfy me カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 15:42, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Please use the talk page... and I suggest you don't waste your breath -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:03 9 April 2008 (BST)

Because this is a formality, right? I mean, it's not like there's not going to be a banning. You've already made up your mind. This is a farce to put a happy face on everything, make it seem like you're not some tight-assed schmuck who pops a tiny li'l boner every time he gets to enact a little force in his private wiki kingdom. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 13:52, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I was talking to Nitro... you can continue to knock yourself out, whoring for attention making your case -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:34 9 April 2008 (BST)

Why bother? You're a power-trippin' douche who lives only for the heady rush of power that being a wiki sysop can bring, since you're utterly incapable of having any actual power. I know I'm going to get banned, even if there's a "ruling" or not. What's the point of legitimately trying to excuse or explain my actions when it won't affect the outcome? Might as well just dick around until you and your dickhole buddies decide that I deserve to be banned for no reason whatsoever. Also go learn what "attention whoring" means, you ignorant cunt. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 14:40, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I'd like to point out that it's not exactly like they(DCC/Katthew) could remove it without causing far more drama over the issue than there already is.--Karek^maps?! 12:01, 9 April 2008 (BST)

If we'd removed it, we'd have been banned for vandalism. If we'd kept on about it on the talk page, we'd have been banned for flaming. If we'd done nothing, it would have been taken as a sign that we approved. They don't just get us coming and going, they get us if we stay still. Oy vey, but that's life as a goon on this wiki. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 13:45, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Yes, but we're SA goons, and despite the fact we've been playing this game since 2005 we're "newcomers" and "the enemy" to be bitchslapped and trodden on like the miserable little Jews we are. I mean, look at the timeline of events here: We take issue with the "DMZ" shit on the wiki, the mods bumble about incompetently and do nothing about it, we take that to mean it's fine to have a category like that, whoops we get banned for it. If some DHPD faggot re-adds in the DMZ category, I'll bet you anything that they'll be told politely what the case is, and eventually a decision will be reached that the DMZ category spam is just fine. We'll still be banned, though, because the admins are all cunts. Sieg Wiki! カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 12:42, 9 April 2008 (BST)

No No let's us the Marty Banks line - I agree boxy, that is excessive... Someone messed up there, we're only human... That seems to work for them! -- #99 ^DCC 12:47, 9 April 2008 (BST)

It works for them because they're not SA. In fact, wait there a minute while I whip something up. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 12:51, 9 April 2008 (BST)

No No. you should use the We don't mean to be immature jackasses. We lack any acceptable social behavior and can't be held responsible... It might have more merit! -- Showcase 12:56, 9 April 2008 (BST)

You haven't been playing this game very long, have you? Nevermind, you are forgiven. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 13:20, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Who the fuck is that trying to get his 15 minutes of mod ass kissing by hopping in on a goon persecution? -- #99 ^DCC 13:23, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Well, you know that's why we wear these stars.--カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 13:27, 9 April 2008 (BST)

A wiki user who has had enough of your pubbie whining. Goons arent being persecuted...dipshits with no self-moderation and a whole bucketload of extreme asshatery are. (hey, I got a cool sig too! we're like internet friends or something now, right?) --Showcase^Talk 13:26, 9 April 2008 (BST)

How precious, it looks like you're trying to shoot yourself. Either that or it's a statement on what a tiny shmekel you've got. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 13:45, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I'm also confused as to why you, a pubbie, is calling me a pubbie. Did your mother never explain these things to you? カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 13:49, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Because you're acting like one with all this drama and whining. So much so that you and your beloved SA Goons are becoming the new Wiki Pubbie, not the DHPD or anyone else. You're making a mockery of your SA forums and I can't just sit by and let this happen. --Showcase^Talk 13:55, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I don't think you understand what "pubbie" means. This is probably because you are a stupid pubbie. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 14:10, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I don't think I care what "pubbie" means. This is probably because you are a stupid wiki pubbie. How's that for coming down to your level? you following along ok? Showcase^Talk 14:19, 9 April 2008 (BST)

lmao whatever カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 14:24, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Wow you guys are the biggest douchebags ever. Surely spamming up categories like that is worth of teh bann stik!--xoxo 13:39, 9 April 2008 (BST)

What a kvetch we have here. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 13:49, 9 April 2008 (BST)

What a pair of stupid Pricks you both are, I actually had some sympathy for you at one point but even I can be wrong. The sooner you both get banned the sooner you can go finish your homework and leave the grown-ups to play! --Honestmistake 14:30, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Well to be honest, UD isn't exactly a game I'd like to share openly with grown ups in the outside world. Good on you though for feeling sad for us. If you want the 'true' side of SA you're going to just have to look at our site.--ScoobyDooDoobie 17:19, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Looks like they tagged out Marty for Showcase for the DHPD whiny bitch of the week. I guess since fucking up UDBrain didn't work out so well for you you've got to sink to trolling. And I can't say I didn't see this coming. As soon as we do something someone else doesn't like they turn on the nearest oven and get their shovels ready. --Laughing Man 14:43, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Looks like you're as dumb as the rest. Marty can comment on the wiki anywhere he'd like. I'm mostly quiet on the wiki but I do use it quite a bit as I think it adds to the game. Problem is you guys have fucked it up. Its not your wiki and you have to cry about it every chance you get You guys want to destroy. Why its tolerated, I cant figure that out. Regarding UDBrain, survivors didnt understand how this tool was being used by zombies. I did what I could to inform them. Its not my fault if they didnt listen. --Showcase^Talk 14:54, 9 APril 20008 (BST)

Yeah, you're just a big fucking martyr for the survivor cause, aren't you? If only those other stupid survivors would follow your amazing leadership abilities the entire zombie population would be wiped out in a few days. After all, you've proven your abilities by keeping us dirty zombies out Dunell Hills. Oh wai --́我們像瘋了似的영주維基維基，俄亥俄，因為這麼多的神，上帝，請原諒我的́罪，因此，這裡的簽名要求 15:02, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Y'know this all seems kind of childish. A massive fight over categories? Seriously come on, the Dead are recognised without need for a category in the first place, their wiki page is already half the hits of the DHPD front page and I have no doubt it will increase as time goes on. So to then put the category of 'the city of the dead' up seems kind of egotistical. I for one used to respect the dead because of their sheer force, however because I respect the wiki, all this fighting over a category seems to just be rather pointless. The DMZ category has been around for a while now and to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a complaint against it, until now. Still, I can understand why someone wouldn't want to have the DMZ to cover all these blocks on the wiki as their 'zone'. But to go around and delete all of the categories on the pages while adding pointless messages to the summary? If your aim was to annoy people, then you've got it, if your aim was to create drama on the wiki, then you've got it, but if your aim was to bring more knowledge to the wiki about where the dead had been then you don't have it. If anything you've brought more attention to the DHPD, which I don't think you wanted in the first place at all. If you really want something to say where the dead has been, then make a page, link it to the dead's page/talk page and let people see where you've been. If I've missed the whole point of this then please tell me, but from what I can tell all you've created is a storm in a teacup over something which could have easily been fixed by creating a page instead of a category or just putting the category on the dead's page. Acoustic Pie 15:18, 9 April 2008 (BST)

We never wanted to be on the wiki in the first place, we were perfectly happy having no wiki page whatsoever, but then the admin team decided we needed one. So here we are. If they'd respected our wishes in the first place and not been massive faggots about it, we wouldn't all be in the position we are now. But we are, and it's squarely their fault. So if you have to blame someone, blame them for dragging us here. カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 15:28, 9 April 2008 (BST)

An edit conflict and of course it's the goons who are using "bad faith" as according to mighty pope hagnat. I for one am totally surprised. Hurrr --Riseabove 21:34, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I categorically refuse to read through all the SPAM above. Bottom line: teh deadz had a problem with all the DHPD category spam... And they were right. Then I told them to get off their asses and help out instead of being whinging drama-queens. And a few began to, and good on them. I helped, too, and offered my support for the enforcement of NPOV across the board. Now, however, they are back to their drama-whoring ways... So fuck them, punish them like anyone else. Period. --WanYao 21:44, 9 April 2008 (BST)

We did help out only to have them reverted 30 minutes later. What's a whining drama queen anyway? Is that like Priscilla Queen of the Desert? Great film.--ScoobyDooDoobie 22:00, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Thanks for the effort to make the wiki less shitted-up WanYao, but basically it gets reverted instantaneously. The DHPD trolls are clearly trying to drive us to arbitration and who knows which arbitrators are their little wiki friends? If there's bad faith here it's on both sides and should be enforced in an equitable fashion. --Riseabove 22:06, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Go to Arbies and be sensible who you pick to arbitrateor you will get ass raped! I would say 73, wan yao or myself (no really!) would all be fair.... likewise i would say that Akule could probably be trusted in this matter. However may i suggest asking the 2 idiots involved in this case keep schtumm? they would not be helping if they carried on like this! --Honestmistake 01:02, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Wow...worst ruling evar. Survivors are allowed to mark their territory as they wish. A survivor group can claim "Dis bildin' be ours bitches. Get sum led crackas." But Katthew claiming the territory as the dead's and everyone flips a shit. What about the CDF claiming Fort Creedy? What about the RRF claiming Stanbury Village, Ridleybank, and Barrville? What about the Dulston Alliance claiming Dulston? They're allowed to plug that shit in but god fucking forbid the dead do it. If I could donate the fucking ten dollars I'd join the dead too because I'm sick of this faggotry. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 00:55, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Nobody is allowed to claim any suburb or location on the wiki. If you want to help fix the problem, the please do so. If your problem is people calling themselves after a location or a suburb, then you must be humoring me. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:01, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Now... unfortunately... I am looking at the Dulston page right now... And I see the DA's propaganda... not just a MENTION, like for example the groups in Dakerstown (and I am willing to let that slide because of both groups' REAL history, and the fact that it's very neutral and non-drama-provoking...) -- but flat out propaganda... That should go. Contrary to Sonny's foaming at the mouth rantings, neither the RRF nor the CDF have any mention in the NPOV sections of their suburbs... But, yeah, Sonny... Why not DO something about it?? Or, like you Goon buddies, do you just froth and whinge and make drama and leave?? Well, in any event, whatever... --WanYao 02:45, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Yes he is frothing at the mouth. What? You seem to be the one that's the most shakin' up by it although I do respect your neutrality on the subject.--ScoobyDooDoobie 03:02, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Greater Ridleybank is a page with direct RRF claim to the suburbs. The bottom of the Suburb page under notable suburbs has the RRF claiming them. Eastonwood Ferals claim Eastonwood. Dunell Hills PD, shock!, claim Dunell Hills. It can go on and on. No one cares about them because according to Karek, things are only relevent based on the attention they recieve. This doesn't affect me personally but the power abuse by sysops here is getting out of control. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 03:06, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Well then go fix. You don't have to be a sysop to do that. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:14, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Greater Ridleybank this, suburb page that, yada yada yada... yeah, the RRF do claim ownership over Ridleybank and we all know it! But there is no Category:RRF category linking ridley, its surrounding burbs or any huilding that the ridleys claim as their own. The same thing applies to Fort Creedy. That's the key difference in here Sonny. The DHPD had a category for their own, linked burbs and locations to it, and then katthew and the other goons started to create drama all over it. And when she had support to remove the Dunnels categories and people were removing them, she then created a category for the dead's. Bad faith to the root! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:26, 10 April 2008 (BST)

She added a category for the Dead since it kept being reverted back to the DMZ every time one of us tried neutralizing it. Over a course of a week. If you can find an edit that has only the Dead listed and not DHPD or the DMZ then you have a point. Otherwise you're just reaching for evidence to prove a misguided assumption. The DHPD have repeated this crime constantly. Bad faith indeed.--ScoobyDooDoobie 04:00, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Greater Ridleybank is a seperate page. Just like the DMZ is a seperate page. Just like Zombiefied Republic of !zanbah is a seperate page. All these pages are perfectly valid. Just as the Dead could create some "City of the Dead" page and it'd be fine. However, none of the suburbs in question have separate categories attached to the suburbs for their groups' political claims to them. Same with the CDF, I forgot them... However, such complexities are probably beyond the feeble intellectual grasp of certain people whose sole purpose seems to be to shit up Admin pages with their ill-informed frothings-at-the-mouth. --WanYao 03:52, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Froth is the word of the day.--ScoobyDooDoobie 04:00, 10 April 2008 (BST)

And there is no fucking sysop power abuse going on here... In fact, refreshingly, the people who are handling this are handling it very well. If there were abuse, I'd be screaming about it, cuz I'm that kinda loudmouth arse... So, go pay your $10, Sonny, and quit being such a poseur, such a half-assed brown-noser. --WanYao 03:58, 10 April 2008 (BST)

All hail the almighty :tenbux: you tell em, Wanny. Redead13 04:03, 10 April 2008 (BST)

I support the DHPD's addition to the suburb descriptions for the "DMZ" but not the categories. Like The Dead, Extinction also has a special interest in the area as we have regularly patrolled PV and Chudleyton as part of the southern border of our "Extinction Zone" since July last year. I also recognize the simple fact that DHPD have managed to remain a cohesive force in the "DMZ" whilst currently being obliterated by The Dead and think the suburb descriptions should reflect in a NPOV the ongoing tensions between DHPD and The Dead in the wider DMZ as well as Extinction's interest in Peddlesden and Chudleyton. The current descriptions are anemically pointless and offer nothing to the gamer other than useless filler.--Zeug 20:12, 10 April 2008 (BST)

User:Grarr

Yes, terrorism. Disagreeing with you on the wiki is terrorism. --Riseabove 02:55, 10 April 2008 (BST)

You heard it here folks. Them damn terrorists have invaded the Urban Dead Wiki. If only we had more noble white blue-eyed patriots like Showcase.--ScoobyDooDoobie 03:04, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to do this without actually telling me? I just found this by accident, and I've heard nothing about it before now. --Grarr 22:07, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to go through the trouble of creating a wiki account just to screw with a certain group's wiki pages? --Showcase^Talk 22:41, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Could argue that you did the same thing. Where's Marty? Tag out. You're in bad shape.--ScoobyDooDoobie 22:47, 9 April 2008 (BST)

You could but then your typical argument that I am more stupid than you wouldn't hold much water. I've never had the need to speak up before the 6 wiki whining goons decided to try and take over whats been here and working just fine for however many years. Go back to your forum and be a prick, we don't need it here. (also, Im guessing this should be moved to the talk page right about now) --Showcase^Talk 22:54, 9 April 2008 (BST)

You haven't retorted any of my arguments Mr Terrorist Defender Man. You sidestep.--ScoobyDooDoobie 17:16, 10 April 2008 (BST)

I disagree Boxy. The edits have been made to a group page that the user has no reasonable right to edit (read: not a member of the group or ally). Due to the nature of the edits (the Dead continuing the pointless DHPD/Dead flame war) I believe that this is Vandalism and should be punishable with a warning. Other users who vandalise group pages get warned, why should we make exceptions for this? -- Cheese 23:13, 9 April 2008 (BST)

We had absolutely no control over the content of our entire group page when we were named "The dead of Dunell Hills", in fact most of the time our page redirected to a page made by the DHPD. This is just an edit for factual accuracy. If we made a page The Dead/DHPD and redirected all the DHPD pages there instead would that be OK? Maybe warn any DHPD members who try to change the redirect? --Riseabove 02:55, 10 April 2008 (BST)

User:Saromu

Learn to sign. And I didn't make a template using your name or your name in its description. You did. I made my own template, and one for Airborne, because we both do not like Halo. If you are allowed to say you like it like a fat kid loves cake then I'm allowed to say I hate it like Hitler hates the Jews. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 23:20, 5 April 2008 (BST)

OK, so why am i not allowed to say i hate you??? --Nitro378 ^{T JNL} 23:21, 5 April 2008 (BST)

I'll prob get warned for back seat modding but you two should try arby.--Dragon fang 23:23, 5 April 2008 (BST)

Theres no point trying to be civilised with this Jerkoff. --Nitro378 ^{T JNL} 23:25, 5 April 2008 (BST)

Doesn't hurt to try either--Dragon fang 23:27, 5 April 2008 (BST)

Uhhhh..., I have to go to sleep. Hope I don't get banned for no fricking reason while I'm away. --Nitro378 ^{T JNL} 23:28, 5 April 2008 (BST)

And I hope I don't get cancer. But we can't always get what we want. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 23:42, 5 April 2008 (BST)

Unnnnnnnnnhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. There needs to be a gigantic header or something at the top of this page saying that trolling is not vandalism - it is a matter for Arbitration. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 00:19, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Watch out - the Hagstapo is waiting to pounce on punks like you who blatantly post on A/VB. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:41, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Didn't grim start the soft warnings for people posting on A/VB without adding to the conversation? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:41, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Aye, that he did. But most people didn't care Grim did it. IMO, a little uselessness every once in awhile is good for everyone.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:22, 7 April 2008 (BST)

You must....I don't know...Somehow find me an understudy for the part of Hannibal in the play "The Curious Savage" because I'm fucking tired of constant rehearsals, especially when one of the other actors is constantly fucking us over. >:( -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:58, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Irrelevant discussion moved to talk page

There is some precedent against your argument, Karek. Also, someone can use the firing squad template in order to state that a user should be shot and have no repercussions. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:37, 6 April 2008 (BST)

There's quite the difference between threatening your computer and threatening your like Akule, not to mention your comparing expressing frustration with a user to calling for their death.--Karek^maps?! 23:18, 6 April 2008 (BST)

What little of that "precedent" that does relate to this case though kinda backs up my point, direct personal threats cross a line.--Karek^maps?! 23:25, 6 April 2008 (BST)

The part of the precedent I am referring to is the threat of physical violence. Even if that is the case, and the line is drawn at threatening people directly, the firing squad template is apparently also allowed, despite calling for a user to be shot to death in a firing squad. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:28, 6 April 2008 (BST)

You're just being a hassle for the sake of it now Akule, the FiringSquad and even the Ropes template represent a very different mindset and purpose, they are ways to express your frustration with a person not tailor-made threats on someone's person. And since I know you're competent I have to assume you're just doing this to either show off the old A/VB case or to cover for Sonny, so my apologies if I start ignoring you after this point.--Karek^maps?! 23:43, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Do correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Sonny's template not specify anyone directly? The firing squad template and ropes template both not only talk about doing direct harm to someone, but mention that person by name. If anything, your argument should include both of those templates, because they actually specify whom the user wishes harm to, while Sonny merely said "This user thinks Halo 3 fanboys are faggots and should die in a fire." This is very different than if he said: "This user thinks that Nitro378 should die in a fire" and include a picture of a man burning to death. Care to explain why a generalized statement of frustration is worse than a specific one? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:27, 7 April 2008 (BST)

The difference is the purpose behind their creation and usage.--Karek^maps?! 00:31, 8 April 2008 (BST)

So much for assuming good intent, huh? That's a pretty bold statement that you just made. You're stating that you know exactly what the original intent was for the firing squad template and the ropes template, and saying that they were meant with acceptable intentions. This is despite the fact that the firing squad template specifically states: "Use to identify those wiki members you love to hate." under the usage section. Whereas Sonny stated his template was created to express his intense dislike for Halo 3 fanboys. From what I can see from his usage, it looks like Sonny was just displaying it on his user page with his other templates, much like anyone who uses firing squad template and ropes templates on their user pages. I'm still failing to see how Sonny's original template crosses the line while a individualized "death threat" does not. Unless you like halo 3... ;D --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:22, 8 April 2008 (BST)

I was only saying I want them to die in a fire emotionally. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 01:28, 8 April 2008 (BST)

I'm not saying I know their original intent I know their usage and as such their original intent, by this point in time, becomes irrelevant in comparison to the intent with which they are currently used. It is forced escalation to a degree which crosses a line, it's baiting another user who knows less than him into following his example and then escalating on it. --Karek^maps?! 10:29, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Honestly, that is a far better argument that previous ones. I feel that these types of edits is more a matter for Arbitration rather than for Vandalism, for several reasons. I feel we should be assuming good faith from users, rather than assuming that they are trying to bait them. Are you planning on creating vandalism reports for everyone who you think is flamebaiting? There are tons of instances of people trying to goad other users into starting something. One could even say that flaming people unnecessarily on the suggestion page is considered baiting, and thus should be curbed. Do we want to create individual vandalism reports about it or would it be easier to just create an arbitration against the offenders? Of course, the problem remains that we don't have a civility policy for users to follow. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:39, 8 April 2008 (BST)

The only reason this is more significant and thus A/VB should be involved is the level at which it is done, normally I'd say flame baiting and trolling is a matter to be settled out side of administrative pages.--Karek^maps?! 01:22, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - It's a pretty dodgy template, but as Akule said, there is precedent. Sonny didn't threaten him directly, only conjured up a widely shared opinion (you should listen to the PS3 COD4 lobby on Friday nights. :S) in the form a template. Just ignore it, and stop spamming the VB page with this crap. Take it to Arbitration. -- Cheese 21:43, 6 April 2008 (BST)

If you're basing it off of the version there right now it's different, the old version was deleted and Sonny was told he could remake it without the portion calling for the users' death.--Karek^maps?! 23:14, 6 April 2008 (BST)

I went and checked the deletion logs and the old version out and there is no where on it that he explicitly calls for Nitro's death. Just Halo3 fanboys in general. -- Cheese 23:17, 6 April 2008 (BST)

EDIT: For those without Sysop tools, or sysops who want to save a few clicks, the exact text is "This user thinks Halo 3 fanboys are faggots and should die in a fire." -- Cheese 23:19, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Timestamps and other related content, check it. This doesn't need to be a direct threat to be over the line, it's obvious who he meant, the user knew it, the first sysops to comment on this case new it, and he knew it.--Karek^maps?! 23:21, 6 April 2008 (BST)

I've been away for a few days and skimmed most of it. Basically, it's Sonny playing bait the newb and the newb is biting away. It's an arby issue more than anything, not VB. I shall continue to back up my point tomorrow at some point as I need sleeps. -- Cheese 23:27, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Don't bother, you're basically saying there's no line at which a personal conflict can go to far. There's not really much you can do to defend that, nor is there a case anywhere but maybe 4chan that you could claim personal threats against other users is justified. It's pretty obvious what bit makes this vandalism, it's also obvious that the bit that does it that triggers the escalation that led to the case below was intentional, there's a point where too much is too much and it's roughly three miles back from this one.--Karek^maps?! 23:43, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Karek, if you think the phrase "die in a fire" is a serious death threat you're the one who needs to tune your moral radar. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:47, 7 April 2008 (BST)

I know he wasn't serious but I also know it's close enough that it really doesn't matter in this case.--Karek^maps?! 10:44, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Gimme some of that crack - it's obviously potent stuff. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:50, 7 April 2008 (BST)

User:Nitro378

Now wait just a second here, he's allowed to call me gay but I'm not allowed to do the same to him???? --Nitro378 ^{T JNL} 20:28, 6 April 2008 (BST)

I didn't say anything about you calling him gay, I could care less about that, my problem is where you call for his death.--Karek^maps?! 23:23, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Which I did because he did the exact same thing to me before in his other template. --Nitro378 ^{T JNL} 06:39, 7 April 2008 (BST)

He didn't call for your death in specific terms, just Halo 3 fans in general. There is a big difference. -- Cheese 06:45, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Not really.... --Nitro378 ^{T JNL} 06:46, 7 April 2008 (BST)

So now you think you stand for every Halo fan in existence? Good to know. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:32, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Cyberbobs input: DO NOT WANT.--CyberRead240 10:33, 7 April 2008 (BST)

"So now you think you stand for every Halo fan in existence?" Thats not what I'm saying. It doesn't matter whether I'm the only one, he still wanted me to die, so why should I be punished for something that was provoked by him doing it first? --Nitro378 ^{T JNL} 10:46, 7 April 2008 (BST)

1) You haven't been punished yet. 2) You are both being treated the same. 3) Quit whining, you jumped into the drama willingly, so take your medicine -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:36 7 April 2008 (BST)

You actually think he literally wants you to die? lrn2internet.

Also - you being provoked is no defence. Lack of self-control is no excuse. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:46, 7 April 2008 (BST)

"You actually think he literally wants you to die?" Yes, I know that we doesn't literally want me to die (probably) , but I'm responding in the way that everyone else did when I said the the same thing back to him. P.S. Stop trying to boost your ego by beating on some noob. --Nitro378 ^{T JNL} 11:51, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Like Boxy said multiple times - you're both being treated equally, so you really don't have any room for complaining about unfairness. As for your bleating about my motive - that's a nice ad hominem you have there. Does it keep you warm at night? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:57, 7 April 2008 (BST)

User:MaxFloyd

If you look back we had a similar case with Codename_V spamming pages advertising his group. He was warned. Why the double standard? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 03:33, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Wasn't the procedure on these cases warning if just about a dozen different pages were spammed? --Starplatinum 03:39, 3 April 2008 (BST)

Because it was 6 pages not 36 Sonny.--Karek^maps?! 03:50, 3 April 2008 (BST)

I thought the limit for page spamming (in the case of actual edits, and not the "Fat Albert" kind) was around 20ish. I thought I read a sysops saying that one time...And good bye everyone! I shall return Sunday! Maybe! Probably not!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:25, 3 April 2008 (BST)

User:MankyButtNutz

I was just about to mention him... thanks Karek! could you also delete his 'edits' to our pages and images?

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:Badge2.jpg

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=DHPD&action=history

--Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 21:44, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Nevermind... thanks... What he did was absolutely disgusting and I'm willing to bet he is a member of SA... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 21:45, 1 April 2008 (BST)

You bet Wrong, dippy. We're jerks but we don't approve of junk like that. Try to at least back yourself with facts, mmmkay o' noble Martin Banks? Don't ever go to Vegas.--ScoobyDooDoobie 00:20, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Yes yes yes, I know, I should mention the user went out of his way to point out that he is not a member of somethingawful. And, I assume, his goal, in part, was to get the TOR proxies banned. Either way he's banned and our list is now up to date with Wikipedia's own for TOR. I'll probably be updating it more sooner or later with more known TOR proxies and other proxies.--Karek^maps?! 00:31, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Fair enough ScoobyDoobie... Shoobiedoobydoo... (d**n rhyming, too much music today...); but in truth... facts shmacks... I am not noble, nor do I care about proving it; because the anonymous nature of the internet prevents me from doing so... You have plenty motive for doing this because you don't like 'pubbie f***ots'; The fact that you are here to raise a defense so quickly is proof enough for me something fishy is afoot.

I digress; Thank you karek for your quick action, I'm glad you were on the ball. The DHPD page is not a whiteboard for fodder or sick vandalism and we send a grateful thanks to you. --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 01:27, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Nice to see you don't let little things like "facts" or "intelligence" get in the way of blaming us for all your problems. Sure we've proven time and again just how pathetically incompetent you are but that doesn't mean we're the only people who think you're worthless. --Laughing Man 01:47, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Cry me a river... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 02:49, 2 April 2008 (BST)

You from Soviet Union comrade? Why you say cry like river when you are dumb as rock and weak as baby? We own your home and rape your wives so no matter.--ScoobyDooDoobie 02:56, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Quit joking around. You know Marty's never touched a girl much less fooled one into actually liking him enough to marry him. --Laughing Man 04:01, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Resorting to petty insults are we? How sad... I believe I've made my point and wasted enough of my precious limited time on this earth on reading your sad attempts at lashing out at random strangers; Good day and Good bye Fools. --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 08:01, 2 April 2008 (BST)

This coming from a guy that made a fake newspaper article about us says alot about you wasting time. Say what you will but we all know how you feel and it's fun for us. That's what counts. Not whatever fake crap you type up that you read over to make yourself feel better about your falsehoods in life. You still haven't even retorted any of our arguments to this point. That's how life flows for you. It's a uncertain river of shame. I bid you good night river man.--ScoobyDooDoobie 08:33, 2 April 2008 (BST)

I'd like to believe this is the last we'll see of you. I really would. But something makes me think you'll be back begging for attention from somebody, anybody, that can for even an instant give some meaning to your otherwise worthless existence. --Laughing Man 14:12, 2 April 2008 (BST)

O.k. Fun is over. If you want to continue to insult each other take it to your talkpages.-- Vista  +1  15:19, 2 April 2008 (BST)

User:Finis Valorum

Finis Valorum (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Just to add to this, Nallan actually changed his comment, quoting it was for "clarity", after Finis changed the context of Nallans original comment. Nallan posted with his comment that he was changing for clarity, which is perfectly legal. Finis then changed what Nick wrote, back to the original, out of context comment. This is also impersonation.--CyberRead240 13:34, 1 April 2008 (BST)

The header and the comment are two different things. I have reverted Nallan's edits because he was changing his original comment rather than posting a new one to clarify things.--Luke Skywalker 13:37, 1 April 2008 (BST)

No, you reverted Nallans comment because he did the right thing, cited clarity and made you look like a fool. You sir, committed a crime.--CyberRead240 13:39, 1 April 2008 (BST)

This case deals specifically with your alternation of Nallan's comment, if Sexylegsread wishes to create a new case against you for a different edit he is free to do so.--xoxo 13:41, 1 April 2008 (BST)

I reverted his edits because changing one's comments after posting them adds to the confusion. Nothing stopped him from posting a new one rather than trying to modify his first one.--Luke Skywalker 13:42, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Your history with the deletion or altering of your talk page is not in your favour. Even the sysops know that you would have removed what he had said, even while trying to gain clarity. Your years of asshattery on your talk page may have just come back to bite you on the arse my friend. I might wait and see how this pans out, and I will see what I do with your second VB option.--CyberRead240 13:48, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Warned - The header did indeed constitute part of the comment (childish as it may be)... in fact it was the whole comment, given that the what you kept reverting to was a couple of question marks. Delete their crap, or take them to arbies next time -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:49 1 April 2008 (BST)

Nallan will also be seeking monetary compensation to cover the emotional damage this case has caused him, including a pending divorce with his wife, child support for his bastard son with a zombie prositute as well as renumeration for all legal expenses incurred.--xoxo 13:52, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Enough of the crap on this page. Use the talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:54 1 April 2008 (BST)

Hahaha, Finis deletes the warning in under 30 seconds. Sry, no moar posts here now I promise.--CyberRead240 14:02, 1 April 2008 (BST)

I'm sick of moving your crap over here, next time it's you who'll be up on the main page with a case all of your own, and then you can comment -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:18 1 April 2008 (BST)

Oh come on! It was totally justified on the Nallan case...this one, less so.--xoxo 14:19, 1 April 2008 (BST)

User:Nallan

Nallan (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) ZOMG.vandalism.--Luke Skywalker 12:13, 1 April 2008 (BST)

hack it you punce. I vote this be reverted back to what Nallan said, because it is a NPOV statement and purely fact. A good faith edit, for the betterment of the wiki.--CyberRead240 12:40, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Don't shit up admin pages -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:52 1 April 2008 (BST)

Yeh if you check edits, I realised that and deleted most of what I wrote. I know this should have gone with it, but you know me, and I cant resist a good dig.--CyberRead240 13:09, 1 April 2008 (BST)

If it involves spanking, consider the punishment already issued. ;) LOL! --xoxo 13:21, 1 April 2008 (BST)

I just vomited in my mouth, just a little bit...--Nallan (Talk) 13:26, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Warnied -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:45 1 April 2008 (BST)

Warned? ;) --xoxo 13:47, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Haha, Jed, I think he means Warnie-d. As in, hes going to have text message sexual relations with Nick as a form of punishment for his vandalism.--CyberRead240 13:51, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Perhaps ;) For all those who don't get it, the context for that comment can be found here.--xoxo 13:58, 1 April 2008 (BST)

User Discussions

It would cut a lot of drama if users followed the notices on the top of A/VB. Talk with the user (in his user page, kkthx), avoid discussing the reports on the main page... i just had to move a dozen comments from other users to the talk page, and there were comments who were merely trolling the users involved (i am looking at you, cyberbob and saromu)... the less discussion we have to read, the better we (sysops) can reach a veredict. It's counter-productive, and users were already warned (and banned) for this. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:07, 11 April 2008 (BST)

And there is plenty of trivial cases being created. Sheesh. Grow a bone, and learn to ignore minor cases. You don't have to report every single action of vandalism, and sometimes they can be solved by talking with the user. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:09, 11 April 2008 (BST)

You aren't in much of a position to be preaching restraint, dickwad. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:01, 12 April 2008 (BST)

Tell you what Hagnat: read your own advice, and then examine what you did with the case below. Notice a problem? "Talk with the user"? Nope. "Trivial cases being created"? Yup. "Grow a bone"? Yes, you should. "Learn to ignore minor cases"? Ditto. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:49, 28 May 2008 (BST)