UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 03

Archives

Talk Archives

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

General Discussion Archives

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5
• Archive6
• Archive7

2009, March Discussion

User:Abcvirus

What the fuck? If there's ever proof of bias in the sysop team against certain users, this is fucking it! 13 edits, ALL vandalism and a slap on the wrist from Boxy. Well thank fuck for you!

Let's look at his edits that you deem 'constructive' shall we:
Removal of factual information
Impersonation of an admin
NPOV tactical planning
Wiki-fying earlier vandalism
Blanking of a community page
An alteration to earlier vandalism

That's not to mention the systematic blanking of every page belonging to the largest event in the game. So you fucking tell me which of these edits was constructive you biased twat. If you had any fucking pride you'd take yourself over to Demotions for such incompetence.

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

These four edits to the Shackleville page] were an attempt to be constructive by a total newbie (possibly a n00b, we'll see if he has the ability to learn from mistakes), even though they totally stuffed up the page and violated the NPOV conventions of suburb pages. As I said on the main page, it was a close call, and perhaps one that other sysops may want to over-rule. Hell, any more trouble from him without clear contributive edits, and I'll over-rule myself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:23 1 March 2009 (BST)

Yeah, go ahead and try and justify it any way you choose. Edit like that to suburb pages have been ruled vandalism in the past, people who have committed such blatant vandalism have been perma-ed in the past. Your unrepentant bias is the reason the metagame avoids this resource. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Iscariot on this. Maybe the Shackleville edits were "constructive," but the wiping of the other pages is clearly destructive. That, and he basically insulted (vaguely) whoever created the page of being an idiot. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The disagreement isn't about whether this was vandalism or not, he got a warning for it, it's whether it should have been an instant permban or not. There is no provisions for anything in between, it's either an A/VD escalation or a permanent ban if there is no indication of positive contribution -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:58 1 March 2009 (BST)

I realize, I was saying I lean towards the insta-perma. More harm done that good, and showed some actual harmful intent. :P --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Boxy knows full well he's showing bias, if someone did the same thing except did The Dead's page, The Random's or The DHPD's it would have been an instant perma ban. One rule for sysops and their chosen causes, one for everyone else.

A single warning compounds that, I count six acts of vandalism:
Blanking a category page
Blanking a user sub page
Blanking another user sub page
Blanking a user's personal page
Re-blanking a category page after his vandalism was reverted
Re-blanking a user's personal page after his vandalism was reverted

According to this policy, six individual acts gives a one month ban. Is it ruled that way? Oh, no. Remember people going on a vandalism spree is now fine, just update a location danger report before you do and attack a group the sysops don't like. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)