UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 04

User:Cyberbob240

"Creating petty cases to harass users he has a history of constant disagreements with.--User:J3D 14:30, 6 April 2009 (BST)" I'm trying to decide between fukken loled or picard....--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:04, 6 April 2009 (BST)

User:Honestmistake

In that case I'm no longer restricting myself to the talk page.--Thadeous Oakley 15:25, 6 April 2009 (BST)

User:Midianian

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is prefered that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

comment replaced as explaining the posting rules seems pretty relevant to me! --Honestmistake 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

comment replaced (again) as explaining the posting rules seems pretty relevant to me! --Honestmistake 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

comment replaced (for a 3rd time) as explaining the posting rules seems pretty relevant to me! --Honestmistake 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

comment replaced (for a 4th time) as explaining the posting rules seems pretty relevant to me! --Honestmistake 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

comment replaced (for a 5th time) as explaining the posting rules seems pretty relevant to me! --Honestmistake 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

How many times do you want me to replace this comment Bob? It is relevant and reasonable to point out WHY this case is made in error and as such this is the right place for it --Honestmistake 13:57, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Don't pretend you didn't think this would happen. You got involved knowing he would react to you just as he did with Midinian, and you persisted the same. You should have stayed out after the first instance, like Blake and myself. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 14:24, 6 April 2009 (BST)

And the sysops aren't idiots. They can and would have read the box without your input. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 14:26, 6 April 2009 (BST)

As I said on my talk page, I always get involved when i see someone using that guideline to take the piss. I see no reason to avoid doing so just because it is Bob doing it. --Honestmistake 14:31, 6 April 2009 (BST)

o rly? I've been moving comments for fucking ages and you haven't said boo. nice one fuckbag Cyberbob 14:33, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I said "when I see" I have not been very active recently and have been deliberately avoiding A/VB cos you keep acting like a prick and annoying me. We both know that my comment was perfectly fine where it was. --Honestmistake 14:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

no it wasn't you stupid fag. gb2bed Cyberbob 14:40, 6 April 2009 (BST)

One outa 2 ain't bad ;) --xoxo 14:27, 6 April 2009 (BST)

and again...

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't.--Honestmistake 14:27, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't.--Honestmistake 14:27, 6 April 2009 (BST) And again... --Honestmistake 14:33, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 12:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

How many times do you want me to replace this comment Bob? It is relevant and reasonable to point out WHY this case is made in error and as such this is the right place for it. I am now asking for a Sysop to decide where the comment belongs as it is clear that this edit war will continue until someone does. --Honestmistake 14:41, 6 April 2009 (BST)

ARBIES pretty please? --Janus ^talk 14:46, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Why? The box is perfectly clear and this has never been a problem before. If what I was doing was against the rules I'm sure a sysop would have let me known somewhere along the way. Cyberbob 14:47, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I am finishing work now and cannot be bothered continuing to post via mobile, as such I am requesting that a Sysop (any sysop) look at my comment and decide if it is was relevant to the case and either replace it or explain to me exactly why they consider it inappropriate. I accept that I should have done that an hour ago but Bob's trolling annoyed me far too much to just let go.--Honestmistake 14:53, 6 April 2009 (BST)

excuses excuses Cyberbob 15:00, 6 April 2009 (BST)

User:J3D

First, this needs to be under the april header. However I don't have a clue how to do this. As for the actual case: I am sorry but your dragging him down to A/VB because he made petty cases against you? Aren't you doing the exact same thing now? Someone confirm Irony for me.--Thadeous Oakley 20:40, 1 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I never would have thought all of it VBable but I guess I never took the time to think of J3D's actions as specific bad faith as opposed to just being bitter. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 22:55, 1 April 2009 (BST)

Well, it'd be hypocrisy, not irony. Man, I can't believe how many people misuse the word "irony" these days... --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:40, 1 April 2009 (BST)

Good to see you posting on the talk page. Cyberbob 23:45, 1 April 2009 (BST)

If I were Nubis I would have waited for a third example of a petty case from J3D before making a VB case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:07, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Luckily you aren't! One is enough.--xoxo 03:24, 5 April 2009 (BST)

It's just two is hardly a spree of petty cases. It's like that saying "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.". D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) status: IDLE 04:09, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah i agree with you, i don't think either of them were that petty and i don't like this punishment for bringing up misconduct cases, any report by anyone should be allowed to be discussed openly and a decision made. --xoxo 07:15, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Of course you don't think they are petty, you made them. I don't think they were the most solid of misconduct accusations, but its hard for me to believe he genuinely thinks he's being 'harassed' by you when you've only made two cases against him, one of which in my opinion was genuinely worth looking upon (the self-ban case). D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) status: ONLINE 07:35, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah thats my point tho. Surely if even one person thinks its valid it should be allowed on the page and if its agreed its nothing then thats that.--xoxo 07:38, 5 April 2009 (BST)

The presence of Honestmistake on the wiki means there will always be at least one person who thinks a case is valid, so that argument is a little facetious. Cyberbob 09:14, 5 April 2009 (BST)

You do know that I have voiced an opinion of "not Misconduct" on the last 3 cases don't you?--Honestmistake 12:15, 6 April 2009 (BST)

He hasn't been around much, you scare him off? Seriously though this case is annoying me. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 08:32, 6 April 2009 (BST)

No Bob has not scared me off, i just have better ways to spend my weekends.

I tend to think this is not Vandalism though... Neither case was misconduct, the image deletion was a difference in opinion regarding a contentious judgment call and the self banning was again a grey area but both were still reasonable cases and Nubis gives as good as he gets in the frequent exchanges between him and J3D.--Honestmistake 11:52, 6 April 2009 (BST)

oh yes being in arguments with someone is definitely an argument that would support the hypothesis that case one party brings against the other isn't petty.

jesus christ you're a fucking idiot. i honestly hope you die Cyberbob 11:54, 6 April 2009 (BST)

He pretty much sums up my view of the case though. Besides the "the hate/fighting is mutual so it isn't harassment and the cases aren't petty." bit. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 11:58, 6 April 2009 (BST)

yeah I was p much only referring to the bit you mentioned Cyberbob 12:00, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Let me put it in small words for you Bob. J3D and Nubis do not like each other, if Nubis does something wrong J3d will pull him up for it... his dislike does not automatically mean the case is petty. The fact that the two of them argue so much does not make it harassment unless all the arguments are started by one person; they do not seem to be. Even if they were, Nubis brings 2 examples of cases that are not just petty attacks but voice valid concerns and therefore bringing charges of Misconduct is not vandalism. --Honestmistake 12:15, 6 April 2009 (BST)

yeah you're still pushing the argument that them being in arguments makes it less likely that the cases are petty. plz die asap tia Cyberbob 12:18, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I have not said it makes it less likely, I said it does not make it automatically petty. There is a huge difference there and you know it. --Honestmistake 12:31, 6 April 2009 (BST)

yes there is a difference but that's not what you're saying. way to change your message on the fly chump Cyberbob 12:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

How the fuck have i changed my argument? I at no point said that their arguing made it less likely that they would be petty, only that these 2 cases were not petty. The 2 of them have a history of ill will towards one another which does indeed increase the likelihood that pettiness will factor into their dealings but that is not harassment and it can go both ways. The evidence offered by Nubis in this case does not convince me. I will say it again; both cases were valid and I do not feel they constitute harassment and thus feel that this case is not vandalsim. Is that clear enough for you?--Honestmistake 12:58, 6 April 2009 (BST)

no it isn't, please say it again using different wording. I might get it next time, promise Cyberbob 14:28, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Err, not that it matters but i don't dislike nubis. I just think he's a bad sysop. --xoxo 14:24, 6 April 2009 (BST)

And makes a lot of really bad decisions and stretches the rules like no one since hagnat.--xoxo 14:26, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"And why would instantly going to Misconduct over a scheduled deletion ever be correct?" When the deleted page/image doesn't fit the description of the scheduled deletion. If you deleted, say, this image claiming it was porn, naturally you'd be brought to misconduct as soon as someone noticed it. J3D simply thought the image wasn't porn and acted accordingly. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:46, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Conndraka said:

Oh.. and by the way... Demote him because of this serious fuck up is a whole lot different than demote him because HE is a serious fuck up.

Yeah Conn, Thats a personal opinion, see civility policy, or lack thereof. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 10:50, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Umm no. Thats 12 years in retail management with specific real world training in personel management talking, NOT opinion. You can say somone's actions are retarded all day long...the moment you say THEY are retarded it goes to harassment. Now wether or not some of you want to go by that or not, I don't care, thats just the way it technically is. I know it seems like bullshit but hey...rules and regs on defining harassment usually are. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:17, 6 April 2009 (BST)