UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 02

February 2011

Mis

I lol'ed, especially about the song choice. Still, something you shouldn't do, and worth an escalation for either impersonation or bad faith editing of foreign group pages. (While Thad raises a good point about potentially enciting Bunghole, this isn't a verdict due to lack of precedents, and due to much stronger and more established reasons being available anyway.) -- Spiderzed▋ 22:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained why neither of those reasons applies. This is clearly a matter for A/SD or for nothing at all. Crit 2 or [ossibly crit 6 speedy, but no impersonation has taken place, and vandalism of another group's page clearly can't apply to non-existent pages (see logs, mine was new page creation). 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For any users who aren't system operators, I'll inform them that a page did exist there before it was deleted.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Crit 6 is deletion workaround, and vandalism after repeated attempts. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

@Yon - deleted is the operative word. No actual page was vandalised, or even edited. @Thad - repeated means more than once, surely. 22:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What really puzzles me is that Misanthropy persists it as a legit action :/ --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's because he's a troll. Stop feeding him. -- Cheese 22:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This was not an non-existent page. For one because it was deleted before, another reason is because the page existed on the stats page. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The page did exist, smartass. Red-page /=/ non-existent. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It ceased to exist the moment it was deleted. It literally was not there. Linking it brought up a red link, searching for it didn't bring it up, and attempting to edit it created a new page. How then was it anything other than a non-existent page? This wasn't a case of adding content to a page that was already there. It was the creation of a new page in a space previously occupied by another page which had since been deleted. 22:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Did the group Wotan's Templar cease to exist when this deletion occurred? --Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not relevent. Their wiki page did and that's all that was concerned. No impersonation attempt occured as no claims to be the group or be a member of the group were made. 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF A GROUP IT IS VANDALISM TO MALICIOUSLY EDIT A PAGE BELONGING TO THAT GROUP ESPECIALLY IF IT CAN BE CONFIRMED THAT THAT GROUP IS CURRENTLY ACTIVE NO GROUPS ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR NOT HAVING GROUP PAGES THANK YOU HAVE A NICE DAY.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is beyond flawed. The group never ceased to exist, it is still active. They have the rights to their own group-page, which you broke. Lets have an example here. Umbrella Corporation/Example Page. Hey a red page that does not exist! According to your logic, since the page is empty and has no content you're free to edit it. Well, I'll bring you too A/VB myself if you even try. It's a red page, but still a group page, a group you're NOT a member of. Wotan's Templar has the right to any of the pages of Wotan's Templar including all infinite sub pages whether or not they "exist". --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

But that's not the same, and you know it. I have clearly stated "mainspace" for a reson. Pages in your group's namespace are not mainspace pages. They're in the namespace of a group, and belong to that group. For instance Dead Hand/Dragonhead are Zergs is a group page, even if it doesn't exist. Dragonhead are Zergs would be a mainspace page, and belongs to anyone until claim is laid to it. They aren't comparabale pages in that regard. 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Claim of a group page was laid the moment the group became active on the stats page. In-game claim > Wiki claim --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This makes zero sense. Explain then what would happen if two in-game groups with the same name attempt to create a wiki page. You can't just say that a group existing means they forever own rights to a page which doesn't exist. 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

	Attention
	Please do not feed the Trolls

-- Cheese 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. So much drama on the first day of the month. Reminds me of the old days on this wiki. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

this is nothing. Well done thad for using the talk page. Now answer my question on your bid. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Next time add new questions at the bottom (I did see it a couple of days ago, just haven't came around it but the bid lasts 2 weeks for a reason so..). I'll answer tomorrow, I should have gone to bed an hour ago... Still have to fetch DDR to answer my own bid question too. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Admitting to trolling, and not for the first time. Man, when are you taking into account your responsibility and exemplary role as a sysops? And yes, I know sysops aren't moderators, and that you don't have to be a saint but come on...there is a reason nobody is agreeing with you. Not because we don't like you, before you pull the victim card, but because you're wrong. Accept this for the love of God.--Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You ever weigh into consideration that I argue the point so much at times because I enter into these things fully believing them to be within the rules? I've accepted escalations before with full knowledge that I did something wrong (an A/M case for editing a protected page, and another for some complex red tape with multiple cases), but when I do something like this, it's because there isn't a clear case for A/VB, and I by all means should be able to argue the case here. My responsibilites are at no point impaired by the odd attempt at fun, and it's worth bearing in mind that these pranks don't always end up on A/VB - just the ones where a line is toed, and in this case, I still adamantly refuse to accept that this was impersonation. 23:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this wasn't impersonation, just for the sake of argument, but whatever it was it sure looks like vandalism. Not trying to pile on you here Mis, but I'm wondering if you think creating fake trolling pages of existing groups is good for the wiki. To rephrase, do you simply reject the arguments that have been presented in favor of the vandalism ruling, or do you reject the claim of vandalism outright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giles Sednik (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 February 2011.

Wutz

People have never been wiki-banned for in-game zerging, and probably never will. If we did, than quite a few people (including regulars as Thad) would have been banned ages ago. It's probably still wise to keep an eye on Wutz' contribs, but that just seemed to be a drive-by edit. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively it could have been someone messing about via proxy. -- Cheese 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one of my thoughts, though I live in hope that it's genuine and that the alts have actually been banned. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And no. Because thads in game character never got banned for zerging, so it's essentially a different issue -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:XxXD3M0NIKXxX

I was trying to find it but I think Gage got escalated years ago for having an ascii pic of a naked woman.... atleast he had to remove the nipples. or some such. Could be wrong.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this during Nipplegate? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Gage never got an escalation. He was let off the hook. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought: this is case is rather meaningless because we do not prescribe bannings or warnings as punishment. The user is inactive, and any action (warning/ban) is hardly preventative, it's just punishment long after the fact. tl;dr what's the point?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing: that precedent was from a guy who was uploading goatse images and sticking them on main page templates, and after he kept making new accounts I just started banning from the first edits these accounts made. Meaning the goatse wasn't the sole reason for the ban, but also where he was putting them. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Gnome. Glad to see someone else can make rational conclusions these days. 23:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say this stopped being an actual vandalism case around the fourth comment. Now it's essentially a porn/precedent argument that would probably be better off in A/PD. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 23:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)