UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 12
Vandal Report Discussions
Old Content has been archived. See below.
December 2008
User:HAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS case
If you people are trying to claim it was me, firstly you can't prove anything so i don't care. And secondly you are entirely wrong, it wasn't me. Believe if you want. Oh and i didn't actually find it hilarious, it was a parody of what cb said...--xoxo 06:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, because trolling on administrative pages is certainly much better.--Karekmaps?! 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- You do realize you just did it, with that comment, just then, right?--CyberRead240 06:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- You do realise you just did it, with that comment, just then, right? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do we want to go down this path??--CyberRead240 06:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Plainly you do. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- You realize your comments are shitting up the admin pages, right?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Very very minorly - if at all. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- You realize your comments are shitting up the admin pages, right?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Plainly you do. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do we want to go down this path??--CyberRead240 06:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- You do realise you just did it, with that comment, just then, right? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- You do realize you just did it, with that comment, just then, right?--CyberRead240 06:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
What we have here is an immediate permaban due to having the same name (minus a slight one letter change that doesn't change the overall name) as an established user. Why then, was the good faith principle not followed here and this user not allowed to demonstrate good faith? This user was given the opportunity, even with a name that is hardly popular, in this case the name is of a well popularised internet meme. The lack of consistency in such situations, especially when concerning new users, should be further scrutinised by the community. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 14:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Because that's an understandable coincidence and one I've run into multiple times in the past. This is extremely far from it, the IP made it clear what was going on, and the responses since have made that even more clear. There never was any good faith and it was obvious from the start.--Karekmaps?! 14:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- The fact is, allowing enough contributions to would not have hindered the wiki, nor caused great damage. By choosing to immediately ban this one it sets a poor example of A/VB. Whilst the comments since may have made this conclusive, acting purely on geographical location does not set allegiance or intent. I could have an Extinction fan boy move in two streets from me, that doesn't mean it's automatically a trolling account made by me. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 14:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- The fact is, allowing enough contributions to would not have hindered the wiki, nor caused great damage. By choosing to immediately ban this one it sets a poor example of A/VB. Whilst the comments since may have made this conclusive, acting purely on geographical location does not set allegiance or intent. I could have an Extinction fan boy move in two streets from me, that doesn't mean it's automatically a trolling account made by me. --
- There is nothing new on this case. A Bothan Spy was also banned because of a similar issue. Coincidently, it also involved someone (mia kristos, iirc) creating a user based on how cyberbob signs. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You recall incorrectly. It was Mattiator; I always had a good relationship with Mia. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I remember having a harsh talk with a mia about a similar case... must be different one then. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You recall incorrectly. It was Mattiator; I always had a good relationship with Mia. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
User:MisterGame case
How precisely is this 'Not Vandalism', when this case is?
Both cases concern removal of information from a group's subpages. This is vandalism, as has been proven time and again.
The notion that the Umbrella page could be considered public by accident is simply fallacious. Using the "/" is the accepted way to establish a user/group subpage. He clearly knew it was vandalism, hence the copyright rubbish, which has no basis in any way.
Kill lists have always been allowed, so have enemy and intelligence lists. The simple fact remains. This user edited another group's page, given the history between the groups, this user knew clearly that the page belonged to another group. This must therefore be considered vandalism. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- The page Philosophe Knights/Kill List can't be mistaken for a main namespace battle report, that would be like thinking it was a page about the Philosophe Knights versus Kill List. The use of the battle template confuses the issue. On the copyright issue, the information has clearly been copy and pasted from somewhere, but I do agree, calling "copyright" on such stuff is a weak argument -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:24 30 December 2008 (BST)
- The template does nothing, a group can have whatever they like on their page, if other users are too stupid to work this out, it's their problem. The battle template is not forbidden on non-battle pages, page ownership rules apply that mean they can have it there without the page changing from a group page.
- Copyright has to be established, they haven't. The correct place to do this would be arbitration. If arbitration finds that it is copyright violation then the warning can be removed as it's been established that it was a fair edit, until then this is vandalism, an unwanted edit to a group page by a non-member. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- You said "if other users are too stupid to work this out, it's their problem", which isn't really correct. We have to assume good faith, and stupidity isn't bad faith in itself (if it's repeated, that's another matter). I admit, it was a very close call, and perhaps another sysop would/will decide otherwise. Anyway, I've made it clear that they should leave the page alone, it now has the group subpage category on it, and is clearly labeled, so future messing with the page will see a warning given -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:56 30 December 2008 (BST)
- Consistency does not reign here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Consistency does not reign here. --
- You said "if other users are too stupid to work this out, it's their problem", which isn't really correct. We have to assume good faith, and stupidity isn't bad faith in itself (if it's repeated, that's another matter). I admit, it was a very close call, and perhaps another sysop would/will decide otherwise. Anyway, I've made it clear that they should leave the page alone, it now has the group subpage category on it, and is clearly labeled, so future messing with the page will see a warning given -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:56 30 December 2008 (BST)
- Copyright has to be established, they haven't. The correct place to do this would be arbitration. If arbitration finds that it is copyright violation then the warning can be removed as it's been established that it was a fair edit, until then this is vandalism, an unwanted edit to a group page by a non-member. --
WAITASEC! This page needs to be moved to a subpage of the group that controls it. As does that PK Kill List, or whatever it is. Neither of these pages belong in the root namespace. Period. --WanYao 01:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done. A Move request for both of these misplaced pages has been made. --WanYao 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- They are both already in the correct places for group sub-pages. If you take out "/Kill List", you end up at the Philosophe Knights main page, and the same with UBCS one, take out "/Umbrella" and you have their main page -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:10 30 December 2008 (BST)
- You make and miss the point at the same time. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but you are missing the point, Boxy. They are not in the right place: they are in the "root" or main namespace. They don't belong there; they belong as subspaces of the main group pages. Here's an example of how it's supposed to be done... Myself, I've only ever made one group page and I did put a couple of subpages in under the main groupspace, as follows: here and here. Note that they're both subpages of the XIII groupspace -- exactly where they belong! The UCBS pages are not where they belong. --WanYao 03:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, either they just got moved, or I'm on crack ;) .... Those pages are in the group spaces :\ However, the ones myself and Linkedthewindow have made move requests for are not... --WanYao 03:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- You make and miss the point at the same time. --
- They are both already in the correct places for group sub-pages. If you take out "/Kill List", you end up at the Philosophe Knights main page, and the same with UBCS one, take out "/Umbrella" and you have their main page -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:10 30 December 2008 (BST)
User:We Cell case
This is precisely the reason Hagnat is unsuited to being a sysop on this wiki. Warning at whim based on your real world mood is modding, something that this community has been shown to be against time and again. Such behaviour is unfair to the community in general and causes drama.
The whole notion of not wanting to 'punish' them is clearly fallacious. There is a reason the first escalation is not a term length ban, and if Hagnat actually read the policy that he's supposed to be following (Hagnat not knowing policy and making it up as it suits him? I'm just as shocked as you!) then he'd know that this community does not 'punish' vandals in any way and the entire escalations system is set up around this principle. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Although I don't support your "Impeach Hagant!" tone, I can't help but agree on your basic idea. He should really read up on the policy, as he was in danger of setting up a double standard. Someone could say in future, "Well you let We Cell get away with it!" and then similar cases couldn't even be acted upon. Linkthewindow Talk 11:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's the point, as has happened in the past, people have then pointed to previous cases and even then they've been ruled differently. It creates doubles standards, drama and a climate where it's not what you've done but rather the ruling sysop's mood and opinion of you which decides the case. That's moderation, the community has refused this approach time and again, modding surreptitiously is acting against the community in the worst sense. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's the point, as has happened in the past, people have then pointed to previous cases and even then they've been ruled differently. It creates doubles standards, drama and a climate where it's not what you've done but rather the ruling sysop's mood and opinion of you which decides the case. That's moderation, the community has refused this approach time and again, modding surreptitiously is acting against the community in the worst sense. --
- if Hagnat actually helped to write the policy that he's supposed to be following - there, fixed.
- You actually doesnt know when someone is joking, right ? If it was only because i was in a good mood, then i wouldnt had argued with boxy to keep the case as not vandalism. Unlike you who follow the rules by the letter, i like to sometimes follow the baby blue box at the beginning of the a/vb page. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Odd how you avoided this discussion for over two weeks, putting in your thoughts just before it gets archived. That says everything that needs to be said about your character and suitability for the role of systems operator. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I cant avoid something i dont know about. But go ahead and scream that i am lying and did it on purpose... its not like you havent said that before. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 16:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You knew about the arbitration case and avoided that. QED. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You knew about the arbitration case and avoided that. QED. --
- I cant avoid something i dont know about. But go ahead and scream that i am lying and did it on purpose... its not like you havent said that before. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 16:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Odd how you avoided this discussion for over two weeks, putting in your thoughts just before it gets archived. That says everything that needs to be said about your character and suitability for the role of systems operator. --
Monthly Archives
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
