UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 07

User:Lostcauseman

LOL I GET CALLED FOR VANDALISM BUT GRIM GETS TO SPREAD HIS BULLSHIT ALL OVER MY PAGE? WTF IS THIS? Atleast my comments are friendly and not hate speach. Good God I'm done with this game. --Lostcauseman 00:00, 19 July 2008 (BST)

Make sure to take your zerg alts with you. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 00:01, 19 July 2008 (BST)

WOW one person in our group technically zerged (had two units next to each other) yet I told him not to fight with them and to move one of the units out of the area. Grim picked up on it and FLIPPED OUT. I had told my group not to do it and had the situation under control. Then I go and use an alt in south monroeville to SCOUT for a new location for my group which was a ridiculous distance away. I made up the 15 ap rule to try and enforce the rules in my group. Can't do much more short of kicking people out which would of been the next step. Thought I was doing a good job, but Grim so rudely told me otherwise in a wonderful display of 13 year old nerd rage.

YOU KNOW WHAT Maybe I should make like 160 alts, name them all Grim Sucks Ass and put a number at the end. They can all be survivors and free food for the zombies. That would be cool right? every day log in and make 160 new ones? Bet that would piss you guys off. Hell I'm good with code, how about a little script to fuck with your wiki page Grim that runs every few minutes? But seriously I wouldn't do any of these things cause I'm not a dick (like grim). Just saying watch who you attempt to fuck with on the interwebs, you're gonna get burned. --Lostcauseman 00:14, 19 July 2008 (BST)

Scouting alts are still multi-abuse. No two ways about it. Think different? Take it up with Kevan. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 00:20, 19 July 2008 (BST)

OMG I scouted with an alt oooo big deal. If it CAN be done in a game it WILL be done. If I hadn't told anyone about it not one person would care or know. You think taking your angry out on me will solve this issue? Until you make it one character per account this WILL go on. GO ahead be pissed at me. Won't solve your problems.--Lostcauseman 00:38, 19 July 2008 (BST)

OK, retard, listen carefully, YOU ARE CHEATING. Grim is right in calling your shit and Bob is right in his interpretation of the rules. You admit to using an alternate account to gain intelligence for your main, this is cheating of the highest order. As for your ridiculous "watch who you attempt to fuck with on the interwebs, you're gonna get burned" threat, I wish Bullshido rules applied here, because I guarantee someone would call you on your internet tough guy act.

Also, A/VB is not your soap box, take it somewhere else where someone will actually give a shit. You'll notice all these extraneous comments will be moved shortly, as is the rules, like the ZERGING RULE YOU CAN'T GRASP FUCKWIT. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:43, 19 July 2008 (BST)

HEY CHECK THIS OUT... I've been using zombie spies to see what the Monroeville Many are up to... is that cheating? Oh you say it is... well how the fuck to you track something like this? The only way you would know is if...

• 1. Someone told you.
• 2. Someone is dumb enough to have the same names.

You guys are retarded... this is a TEXT BASED MMO which took a week to make and hasn't been trully updated for YEARS. I've come to realize that the majority of players are too young to buy their own games and so waste their times with this kind of shit. NO ONE CARES ABOUT U!!!! Also, The Grimch is a d-bag. --Lostcauseman 00:53, 19 July 2008 (BST)

For someone who doesn't care you sure post a lot. I also notice your internet tough guy act has disappeared. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:55, 19 July 2008 (BST)

Also, what happened to the ZOMG Swearing routine? --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 01:11, 19 July 2008 (BST)

User:Crabappleslegalteam

I don't believe it's possible for someone to be taken to misconduct for voting on A/VB, is it? Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 01:46, 1 August 2008 (BST)

Case irrelevant chatter removed to talk: It has been done before by a number of people. Its just never been ruled misconduct, and for bloody good reason. If it were for anything but the most absurd breaches we would be getting taken to misconduct over every decision that people dont like, and very, very few people like being warned for vandalism. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:43, 1 August 2008 (BST)

User:G-man-in-clothes

Suggestions|C:RCS]]| 13:25, 31 July 2008 (BST)

Seems too random to be pure vandalism...i asked him wtf his deal is on his talk page.--xoxo 13:25, 31 July 2008 (BST)

Okay scrap that, his Malton edits (particularly the one with 500 bigs that for some reason made the writing small) is clear vandalism.--xoxo 13:27, 31 July 2008 (BST)

Since the fellas with rollback were being slow, I undid his edits. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:47, 31 July 2008 (BST)

Permaban - More than 3 edits, none of which seem very contributive to me. -- Cheese 14:03, 31 July 2008 (BST)

I am probably wrong here but isn't the instapermaban policy that they get the instaperma if they have 3 edits or less and all are vandalism? Or if all their edits are vandalism? It's late here sorry apologies if i'm wrong. clarification please?--xoxo 14:28, 31 July 2008 (BST)

It's three or more no contributive.--Karek^maps?! 22:02, 31 July 2008 (BST)

Spam moved to talk. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 15:48, 31 July 2008 (BST)

User:Grim_S

I know my opinion has very little sway to this case but i might as well take advantage of my ability to post here while remaining within the bounds of the 'guidelines' on this page. The note was added an entire minute after the header was made which, coming from a user as familiar with the wiki as grim, should get him warned. Regarding the heading, i left it there because 1, changing it would make me look (and feel) like a petty loser and 2, i kinda like it - sums up Grim's attitudes really nicely i think...--xoxo 07:58, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Yes but are you really claiming that someone read it and thought it was your title in the minute before Grim added the note?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:01, 29 July 2008 (BST)

How the hell should i know? Considering that it was in recent changes for potentially as long as 118 seconds and that i've had people read and respond to things listed in RC far quicker than that there is a real chance someone did. --xoxo 09:25, 29 July 2008 (BST)

No one responded and I do not feel that I can charge Grim with vandalism for the two minutes it was there.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:51, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Lessee... Arguing that something trivial that would get no one else warned should get me warned... Check! Discarding assumption of good faith... Check! You are really, really making me feel good about my decision to reject your app. Butthurt much? --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:37, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Not just you, any "trusted user". Making a heading called J3D's moaning, really not getting the good faith vibes there. And yeah, before you ask i think the more experience on the wiki you have as well as the more power you are given by the community should mean that you are held more accountable for your actions. While the public wouldn't bat an eyelid if Joe down the road cheated on his wife with a prostitute they would care if Kevin did, same deal here imho.--xoxo 14:07, 29 July 2008 (BST)

As i said before: Everyone gets treated equally. Its the only way rule of law works. I made the title, looked at it, andf then typed in a message to acknowledge it as my own. Dont like it? Well, i told you you could change it. But this is just a petty vendetta, and you are pathetic for trying to follow through with it here, demonstrating perfectly clearly all the character flaws i spotted and pointed out in you for my rejecting your bid. As i said before, grow the fuck up and stop acting like a child. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 14:29, 29 July 2008 (BST)

J3d following this logic: the more experience on the wiki you have as well as the more power you are given by the community should mean that you are held more accountable for your actions. then that means we should ban you and Wan Yao and almost anyone else that "shits up" admin pages for bad faith since you both have been around long enough to be held "more accountable" for your actions. That would mean any user with time on should be punished more severely for any infraction since according to you they should be "more accountable". It isn't fair that way and it isn't fair to let long time users slide (which we probably do more often than we should to be honest) but at least that way there is an error on the side of good faith.

There is a reason that each case (unless part of a series of acts) is judged on its' own merit of good/bad faith. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:39, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Yeah, you're right, It was me who created this a/vb case against you. Don't make it out that i'm on some crusade to get you and if thinking those with power should be more accountable then those without is a character flaw, i'm flawed and happy to be so. Goodnight.--xoxo 15:14, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Stop it. Both of you. --WanYao 15:16, 29 July 2008 (BST)

We are more accountable, but in the appropriate areas. In our interactions as users of this wiki we are accountable just the same as any other user of this wiki, on this page. For administrative actions we are accountable to a whole pile of additional rules regarding their use, on A/M. Insisting on a double standard in simple user to user behaviour is silly. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 15:31, 29 July 2008 (BST)

You are not more accountable at all. Twice in the past week I've brought up breaches of written and displayed rules and you and Karek have dismissed it out of hand even though you were both in the wrong. What you meant to say is "We are more accountable provided there's another member of the admin team that wants to drop us in the shit in the appropriate place". -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:09, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Entire discussion thread moved to talk. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:01, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Iscariot said:

You are not more accountable at all. Twice in the past week I've brought up breaches of written and displayed rules and you and Karek have dismissed it out of hand even though you were both in the wrong. What you meant to say is "We are more accountable provided there's another member of the admin team that wants to drop us in the shit in the appropriate place".

If anyone is wondering what he's talking about that would be this and, unless I'm missing another one, this. Both of which are in fact not incorrect for various reasons, the first one is because which warning is struck is irrelevant as the time for the next warning struck does not change(ask Funt or any other Sysop) and the second one is an obvious misunderstanding of both Impersonation and the standard Voting Rules templates' purpose.-Karek^maps?! 17:51, 29 July 2008 (BST)

You say irrelevent, I say clear and obvious breach of written policy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:05, 29 July 2008 (BST)

That's fine, it's called rules lawyering and it's you trying to find fault where there is none by ignoring common sense, which is why I didn't see a need to respond. If you want to harass people sysops for being kind enough to remove warnings don't be surprised when we stop doing it when asked, it's a favor and it's certainly not punishable if we don't want to waste our time to help people who will harass us for it.--Karek^maps?! 18:11, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Oh no, wait, I seem to have made a mistake, it was Grim who made the policy, silly me.--Karek^maps?! 18:16, 29 July 2008 (BST)

It's not a favour, a favour is something you don't have to do. As policy the reduction of vandal escalations is something required of the administration team.... unless of course you want to unprotect the page and let the community go to work on that.

Regardless of Grim's French style advancing to Hagnat's old excuse for making shit up, the fact remains, the correct conduct is dictated by community voted policy, you demonstrated incorrect conduct. I'm sure there's some other prefix I could use instead of incorrect.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:26, 29 July 2008 (BST)

You're reading the wrong policy. There is no requirement for me to do everything anyone asks of me, there are other Sysops and even then we can ignore the request until such time as you are up for vandalism escalation. So no, you're suffering some major misconceptions in your attempt to pursue this completely pointless argument, thus why it's rules lawyering and thus why you're twisting the reasons for why the policy was made by ignoring all actual discussion on the inclusion of those sections(it's using the community's words to back up your point but ignoring the community and why it was done). The fact is that we aren't required to do every single administrative function someone asks us to do and we aren't required to meet every single user's demands outside of the time frame we choose, if I went to Grim's user page, insulted him, and then ordered him to move x page to x place I'd be an idiot to expect him to accommodate me.--Karek^maps?! 18:40, 29 July 2008 (BST)

You'll notice I'm quoting the correct policy as it alters the paragraph as regards your actions. You'll notice I never said you were required to do it, I said the administration team. However by taking on the task you bind yourself to following the policies governing the action, which you did not. Your example regarding Grim's user page is straw man, moving pages has an established system that a user must go through, this action does not and as such users are forced to seek out members of the admin team individually. You seem to be glossing over the fact that your conduct in this matter is mandated by policy, you chose, either deliberately or through ignorance or incompetence to not follow the prescribed conduct. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:52, 29 July 2008 (BST)

No, A/MR can be done freely by sysops to any page we thinks needs moving whenever we want to move it, the fact that some of them even bother to document is something I pressured some of them to start doing, which is exactly why the point holds up. Second, your whole argument is irrelevant because of this line from the policy that set up the striking rules; No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on his or her record on the vandal data page, even if he or she has been banned before.
Third, I understand you don't care because actually looking at it neutrally would take away your chance to harass the Sysops, it's also why I'm done with this conversation, if you have something relevant feel free to stop by my talk page but if you're just gonna try and harass me for not breaking my back to conscribe to what you think I should do don't bother, I don't care, what I did was right, it followed the spirit of the policy, it was inline with the purpose of the policy, it was something I had no need to do, and if this is what I get for it I'll be sure to not do it in the future, it's an ungrateful job but there's a point where helping users out and getting shit for it just is not worth the effort on my part.--Karek^maps?! 19:08, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Troll. A/G states:

Guidelines said:

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.

My bold. Ops. Total failure Iscariot. How about you do something useful and write some good policies instead of shit disturbing for the sake of shit disturbing. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:12, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Ah, Hagnat's old catch all get out of shit card. Isn't that the same guideline you used to chastise him for using? Hypocrite. And oh, yes, guidelines, hmmmm, I wonder what should take priority, guidelines or community approved policy?

Write some new policies? What an excellent idea, I have several in mind. I'll be sure to put them up for voting as soon as I see the current policies being followed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:26, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Well, that's pointless. You don't like how the current policies are followed but you won't get them changed until we follow them the way you'd like?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:44, 29 July 2008 (BST)