UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 05
May 2010
User:Craptalker
Craptalker (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Wiped the MOB page for his very first edit on the wiki. And with a name like that, it sounds like someone with a grudge. —Aichon— 05:39, 30 May 2010 (BST)
User:Saromu (2)
Saromu (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
A couple of additions from the last cast. 1. This is in reference to the stoopid case on Yonnua Koponen for simply going through with a ban that (IMO) was 3 days late. 2. Every time he goes on his idiotic misconduct spree and is let off on the basis that "he's allowed to make stupid cases" I will most probably do the exact same thing against him on A/VB with precedents (such as this and the doozey this) since as a user, I should have an equal right to make the exact same questions about what I personally believe is vandalism (even though Sonny doesn't actually think any of the cases is misconduct). And theoretically the more you rule Sonny's as Not Vandalism the more it perpetually makes these cases also. 3. I don't actually think the below sonny case is vandalism, if you check his contributions he makes no reference to acknowledging that he saw the original A/M case, and given the unusual circumstance surrounding the quick A/M case it would be beneficial to give him the benefit of the doubt. This, however, I believe he is guilty of. Even a soft warning is apt imo. --
13:45, 24 May 2010 (BST)
see talk page
Not Vandalism. Thanks --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:27, 24 May 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - I was okay with the Yonnua case (despite it being frivolous and unnecessary), since it was not a repeat and had a clear line of argumentation. I'm still deciding about the other one though. —Aichon— 21:20, 24 May 2010 (BST)
Not vandalism - as below, without the duplication thingo -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:27 25 May 2010 (BST)
Closed as Not Vandalism. —Aichon— 01:03, 28 May 2010 (BST)
User:Saromu
Saromu (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Soft Warning |
Reposting a misconduct case (against Cheese) that had clearly already concluded decisvely. This is clearly just wasting the team's time and attempting to harass a sysop for no good reason. This vandalism for spamming admin pages needlessly. 
22:51, 23 May 2010 (BST)
(Weak) Vandalism - The case had been made literally two or so days before. Reposting old cases for dramas sake is in my opinion, vandalism, unless anyone can show he wasn't aware of the last case.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:19, 23 May 2010 (BST)
- ummm fuckoff with weak vandalism or i'm a/m-ing your sorry ass. If you're willing to destroy a users a/vd record and declare guilt you should be 100% fucking sure its vandalism, not this weak bullshit. wtf? xoxo 12:33, 24 May 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism cycled so quickly even sonny may have missed it. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:02, 24 May 2010 (BST)
- I highly fucking doubt it. 22:58, 25 May 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - there was still a link to the archived case at the bottom of the page, and Sonny's no newb, so I doubt he missed the case. However, admin page abuse has only been ruled vandalism in cases where there has been long and sustained periods of spamming up the admin pages with drama cases with no validity. I feel that this case should serve as a soft warning that Sonny is pushing the limits, but not result in an official warning, yet -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:25 25 May 2010 (BST)
- A soft warning sounds about right.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:57, 26 May 2010 (BST)
Anyone going to close these cases up? I'm reluctant about ruling on or dealing with the above one in any way, because I'm involved, but if no-one else says otherwise, I'll close this as not vandalism tomorrow and let it serve as a soft warning.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:53, 27 May 2010 (BST)
- The numbers are there so you shouldn't worry imo (backseet modding ftw). Just can't wait for next month for sonny to come back for another month of op-encouraged frivolous case spamming. -- 01:13, 28 May 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - As boxy. I'll go ahead and post a soft warning to his page in just a moment. —Aichon— 02:46, 28 May 2010 (BST)
User:Poodle of doom
Poodle of doom (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Requested Ban |
|---|---|
| Action taken | 1 Week ban |
Apparently, I'm a complete douch, and the community would be better off without me... how long the ban is, is up to whomever bans me... -Poodle of DoomM! 
T 06:14, 23 May 2010 (BST)
- How about I give you a week ban to see if you get over whatever has set you off. After that you can either come back, choose not to post, or ask for a perma -- boxy talk • teh rulz 06:36 23 May 2010 (BST)
User:Shazam (2)
Shazam (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
He's been warned for it before, but once again he's making inappropriate edits to Necronauts. Aichon already reverted it, but since Shazam appears to be doing it again and again (examples are other questionable edits such as on May 12 adding [[Image:Example.jpg]] to the page), I believe that officially reporting him is necessary. G F J 10:34, 22 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism - Just as his previous case, further down this page.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:09, 22 May 2010 (BST)
Warned -- boxy talk • teh rulz 06:42 23 May 2010 (BST)
User:Reddeyedjedi
Reddeyedjedi (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
Vandalism. Pretty straightforward, I think. --Maverick Talk - OBR 
404 08:32, 21 May 2010 (BST)
I hate sounding like Iscariot. But please unban this user as he has not satisfied the 3 edit rule. The 3 edit rule requires contributions of at leased 3 edits and this user has made 2. Since the deletion log has no record of you deleting a vandal-created page I can assume that there are no deleted contributions I am unaware of. While I'm here, fucking ban woot. --
10:40, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm just scanning the perma ban criteria. At least 3 yesses and at least 2/3rds of all sysops is needed for a perma. So theoretically if every other sop can and voted yes, he'd be perma'd. So lets give it a day ok? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:44, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- Permaban votes cannot happen unless the user has had his second month ban in a row. Stop making loopholes, this has happened countless times and we haven't been able to ban them. -- 10:46, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- Seriously, if you make me go through the horrible history of A/VD to find the precedents, I will literally murder one of you on A/M, most likely aichon, so please, just unban this user. It's standard protocol. -- 10:48, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- Permaban votes cannot happen unless the user has had his second month ban in a row. Stop making loopholes, this has happened countless times and we haven't been able to ban them. -- 10:46, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm with DDR on this. I botched it up, simple as that, and if someone takes me to Misconduct for it, I won't contest. I'll reverse the ban now and will change it to a warning instead. —Aichon— 10:49, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- Haha, a two and a half hour ban is literally the worst that could happen and it isn't worth the effort making the case ;D But while I'm being a douchebag, a remind to unprotect his talk page, maybe say sowwie -- 10:54, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- His page was
unprotected before you evenin the process of being unprotected by the time you asked. Anyway, fair is fair, and I had actually typed up the acknowledgement of my own guilt before I saw your threat to take me there, but I was edit conflicted, so I was going to acknowledge it either way. I honestly don't mind if I'm taken to A/M, since the case is open and shut, the punishment is clear, and it's all as per protocol. —Aichon— 11:01, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- His page was
- Haha, a two and a half hour ban is literally the worst that could happen and it isn't worth the effort making the case ;D But while I'm being a douchebag, a remind to unprotect his talk page, maybe say sowwie -- 10:54, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm with DDR on this. I botched it up, simple as that, and if someone takes me to Misconduct for it, I won't contest. I'll reverse the ban now and will change it to a warning instead. —Aichon— 10:49, 21 May 2010 (BST)
User:WOOT
WOOT (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Month Ban |
More Promotions Spamming. He's already received 3 escalations for doing this and doesn't seem in any hurry to stop. Going by the guidelines, it's time for a permaban vote as well. -- Cheese 8:13, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- You know if you'd all treat homophobia the way you treat racism you'd not have to try to wrangle cases on minor things like this. 16:12, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- Stop being faggots. Woot was being serious in his promotions bid. You can't ban a guy for wanting to be a sysop. Him and I planned on bringing up a shitload of oldfags to come back and vote for him. This isn't vandalism. Y'all faggots just racist. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 21:26, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- Yep yep. --/~Rakuen~\Talk
I Still Love Grim 02:22, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- Yep yep. --/~Rakuen~\Talk
Vandalism - He's done it before, been escalated before, and clearly hasn't learned. It's minor, but the fact that it's a repeat offense makes it pretty clear, I think. —Aichon— 16:15, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- Vandalism and Humorous plus as an avid player of Risk, I'd like to add I'm a great fan of South America. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:16, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- South America is pretty cool. Easy to get, easy to defend, and has a decent enough reward. I tend to push for North America though...--/~Rakuen~\Talk I Still Love Grim 20:48, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- asia on the other hands is for bastards. "Well done you've secured Siam." Bastards --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:55, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- I always place a huge army on Asia, just so I can make it look like I'm going for there, and so that if someone does go for it, they have to kick me out first.--/~Rakuen~\Talk I Still Love Grim 21:25, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- I personally prefer Europe, if only for idea of controlling the most advanced continent on earth, plus it gives you the center of the map which is quite handy if you can keep enemy attacks down. Also any assignment involving Australia downright sucks. Unless you spawn there it's incredibly hard to get through. --
Thadeous Oakley 21:39, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- North has only three entrances and is worth five units a turn. Grab yourself south america as a bonus, and it's easily the strongest setllement on the board.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:48, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- I personally prefer Europe, if only for idea of controlling the most advanced continent on earth, plus it gives you the center of the map which is quite handy if you can keep enemy attacks down. Also any assignment involving Australia downright sucks. Unless you spawn there it's incredibly hard to get through. --
- I always place a huge army on Asia, just so I can make it look like I'm going for there, and so that if someone does go for it, they have to kick me out first.--/~Rakuen~\Talk
- asia on the other hands is for bastards. "Well done you've secured Siam." Bastards --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:55, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- South America is pretty cool. Easy to get, easy to defend, and has a decent enough reward. I tend to push for North America though...--/~Rakuen~\Talk
- Vandalism and Humorous plus as an avid player of Risk, I'd like to add I'm a great fan of South America. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:16, 19 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:37, 19 May 2010 (BST)
Perma? -- Cheese 20:26, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- Narp --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:30, 19 May 2010 (BST)
- Nope -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:11 20 May 2010 (BST)
- No. As much as I want to because of drama like this, no. Maybe next time. —Aichon— 03:27, 21 May 2010 (BST)
- Definately not.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:10, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Well there's no way we can achieve a perma then as half "the team" have voted against one. No Perma.
- Which just leave the banning. Unless anyone has anything important to add I'll do it in an hour. What is is, Month? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:17, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Yep. It's a month ban. -- Cheese 13:38, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Jesus, can one of your shits just fucking ban him already? Even I've been asking for this to quell the Sonny induced QQing for at leased two days now. It's not exactly a grey area here. Half of you are crying about the backlash of the A/PM removal but no one is banning him to finish it. Argh. -- 13:47, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Sorry, figured someone else had already done it. Banned for a month.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 14:06, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- I'm really itching to put you up for promotion now. --Thadeous Oakley 14:07, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Dooo itt.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 14:09, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Maybe, I'd like to try in time, still have one week of semester. Atm though, We're not usually strict on this, but given the length of the ban and the circumstances, I reckon his talk page should be scheduled protected alongside his ban, y/n? -- 14:34, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Hmm. I don't see the need, but we can always throw it up as a specific scheduled. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:29, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- I dunno. I just thought since it was long and "controversial", but yeah, you're right, his talk isn't usually used. So it shouldn't be a problem. -- 15:34, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Hmm. I don't see the need, but we can always throw it up as a specific scheduled. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:29, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Maybe, I'd like to try in time, still have one week of semester. Atm though, We're not usually strict on this, but given the length of the ban and the circumstances, I reckon his talk page should be scheduled protected alongside his ban, y/n? -- 14:34, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Dooo itt.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 14:09, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- I would have banned him myself but seeing as how I brought the case I thought I'd let you guys do it. =p -- Cheese 16:14, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Jesus, can one of your shits just fucking ban him already? Even I've been asking for this to quell the Sonny induced QQing for at leased two days now. It's not exactly a grey area here. Half of you are crying about the backlash of the A/PM removal but no one is banning him to finish it. Argh. -- 13:47, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Yep. It's a month ban. -- Cheese 13:38, 22 May 2010 (BST)
- Which just leave the banning. Unless anyone has anything important to add I'll do it in an hour. What is is, Month? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:17, 22 May 2010 (BST)
User:VashX20
VashX20 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Possibly an alt of CptWesker listed below, therefore circumventing a ban.
Claiming Alt. And
creating this group and listing CptWesker as leader. --
Thadeous Oakley 22:32, 17 May 2010 (BST)
So this may indicate zerging, but this is of course beyond this case, and more something for Resensitized. --Thadeous Oakley 22:32, 17 May 2010 (BST)
- IP doesn't match anything. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:51, 17 May 2010 (BST)
- Right. Well he did admit CptWesker was an alt of Vash, or vice versa. If you don't think that's enough then feel free to go not vandalism on this case, fine by me. --Thadeous Oakley 22:58, 17 May 2010 (BST)
- Actually, I believe he's accusing Ryan Rocksmith of being an alt of CptWesker. :P Wait a minute... He editted someone else's user page. Damn, I should really pay more attention.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:10, 17 May 2010 (BST)
- Wait, I was right the first time. Realistically, he hasn't done anything to be accused of.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:11, 17 May 2010 (BST)
- Considering I haven't accused him of vandalism that's true in itself.--Thadeous Oakley 23:17, 17 May 2010 (BST)
- Considering I haven't accused him of vandalism that's true in itself.--
- Wait, I was right the first time. Realistically, he hasn't done anything to be accused of.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:11, 17 May 2010 (BST)
- Actually, I believe he's accusing Ryan Rocksmith of being an alt of CptWesker. :P Wait a minute... He editted someone else's user page. Damn, I should really pay more attention.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:10, 17 May 2010 (BST)
- Right. Well he did admit CptWesker was an alt of Vash, or vice versa. If you don't think that's enough then feel free to go not vandalism on this case, fine by me. --
Not Vandalism - As above.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:19, 17 May 2010 (BST)
Not vandalism - your iwitness report seems to indicate that they are coordinating closely, but not the same person. It's rather difficult (not impossible) to get two alts to make alternating attacks like that in such a short timeframe -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:30 18 May 2010 (BST)
- and your logic behind Thad's bolded link where he admits he's Vash? -- 03:35, 18 May 2010 (BST)
- Bullshitting an enemy? Attention seeking behaviour? Anyway, it's not enough evidence for mine, but we can keep an eye on it, and apply a warning for the below if needed -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:47 18 May 2010 (BST)
- In all honesty I'm not too sure there's enough here for a vandalism ruling but I'd keep a damn close eye on him in the future just in case. I ran a check user and it came up with nothing though. 03:57, 18 May 2010 (BST)
- "The below" was permabanned bro. -- 08:51, 18 May 2010 (BST)
- Yes, because of the 3 edit rule. However, if they turn out to be the same person, Vash did make a number of somewhat contributory edits before that (the page was deleted, however when he wiped the page to make their new group). If they are one in the same, Vash should get a warning for creating a vandal alt, and Wesker remains banned either way -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:59 18 May 2010 (BST)
- No he fucking shouldn't, if a user gets permabanned and makes an account a week later to evade the ban, makes an account and makes a "contributory" edit (in this case, making his own group page) then he should be banned again. 3page and Izumi did the same thing; making "contributory edits" over the last year then reveal they were vandal alts just to see how we would handle it and they were banned, this shouldn't be any different. Having an account here is a privilege, not a right, and that's how we always deal with vandal alts. If this account was around before Whesker I'd agree, but since it wasn't then there shouldn't be a second doubt about it. Jesus Christ Boxy, those last two comments I made above were open ended to allow you to dig yourself out a hole from the stupid comments you made before them, and you just made even dumber calls, no idea what you're smoking tonight dude :/ -- 12:31, 18 May 2010 (BST)
- Actually, Vash was made first, but the page he'd been editting was deleted. That would mean that he should get a warning for the vandalisms, as with when people create a vandal alt, I think. i could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:54, 18 May 2010 (BST)
- My apologies to Boxy then. I thought he was tripping balls or something :( -- 13:31, 18 May 2010 (BST)
- Actually, Vash was made first, but the page he'd been editting was deleted. That would mean that he should get a warning for the vandalisms, as with when people create a vandal alt, I think. i could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:54, 18 May 2010 (BST)
- No he fucking shouldn't, if a user gets permabanned and makes an account a week later to evade the ban, makes an account and makes a "contributory" edit (in this case, making his own group page) then he should be banned again. 3page and Izumi did the same thing; making "contributory edits" over the last year then reveal they were vandal alts just to see how we would handle it and they were banned, this shouldn't be any different. Having an account here is a privilege, not a right, and that's how we always deal with vandal alts. If this account was around before Whesker I'd agree, but since it wasn't then there shouldn't be a second doubt about it. Jesus Christ Boxy, those last two comments I made above were open ended to allow you to dig yourself out a hole from the stupid comments you made before them, and you just made even dumber calls, no idea what you're smoking tonight dude :/ -- 12:31, 18 May 2010 (BST)
- Yes, because of the 3 edit rule. However, if they turn out to be the same person, Vash did make a number of somewhat contributory edits before that (the page was deleted, however when he wiped the page to make their new group). If they are one in the same, Vash should get a warning for creating a vandal alt, and Wesker remains banned either way -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:59 18 May 2010 (BST)
- In all honesty I'm not too sure there's enough here for a vandalism ruling but I'd keep a damn close eye on him in the future just in case. I ran a check user and it came up with nothing though.
- Bullshitting an enemy? Attention seeking behaviour? Anyway, it's not enough evidence for mine, but we can keep an eye on it, and apply a warning for the below if needed -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:47 18 May 2010 (BST)
So both users were created on or around the tenth? Not enough proof yet, so Not Vandalism--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:16, 18 May 2010 (BST)
- Looking more closely, vask was created less than an hour after the other account went on its vandalism spree. Pretty close to convinving, but not their yet. Saying that We'll be watching Vsk like a hawk --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:18, 18 May 2010 (BST)
User:CptWesker
CptWesker (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permanent Ban (3 Edit Rule) |
Too many to bother listing individually. I hate doing the three-edit thing, someone just verify shit for me. 01:02, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- I know I'm no sysop so you'd just have to trust me ;D But yeah, bad bad boy needs perma >=[ This should have been on the talk page I know but it might mean Mis has a better chance of seeing it. -- 01:08, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Dones. 01:09, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Dones.
User:Shazam
Shazam (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Please evaluate this change to Necronauts. As it looks like Shazam is not part of the Necronauts (and judging from his other edits is actually owning or affiliated with two of the profiles he removed - "Zumm Zero" and "what's happened"), the edit seems questionable. G F J 17:11, 8 May 2010 (BST)
- Vandalism - I'm not seeing any evidence that he's a member of the Necronauts and it looks like those characters are his. I'll see what the others say though before warning him. -- Cheese 17:16, 8 May 2010 (BST)
- Vandalism - Yep, pretty cut-and-dry. Warned. —Aichon— 02:30, 9 May 2010 (BST)
User:Cornholioo (2)
Cornholioo (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Week ban |
Racism. He is blatenly abusing the jewish race here. --
TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:45, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism - Fuck it, I banned Woot for something similar, may as well be consistent. 16:47, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Damnit, Michaelson beat me. Let me dish out the precedents of non-vulgar racism... if something this dumb can constitute vandalism even when a joke, then doing the exact same thing in a serious manner in all ways should too. --
16:49, 7 May 2010 (BST)
lolvandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 17:24 7 May 2010 (BST)
sigh Vandalism --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:28, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism and Week ban - I was planning to bring this here myself after I read some of what he was posting in the last 24 hours. —Aichon— 21:21, 7 May 2010 (BST)
User:Cornholioo
Cornholioo (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Month ban |
Breaking arbies ruling here preventing him to make arbies cases without neutral arbitrater Yonnua's go-ahead. Said case which breached ruling is here.
Before anyone suspects that I actually baited Cornholioo into this, I don't bait users into A/VB cases (I was just fucking about with him) and honestly, I actually forgot the ruling myself until Spiderzed mentioned it to Yonnua.
But really. Hey Cornholioo, you were right, sure looks like you won in this one.
You always win.--
15:38, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Frankly, I think it's counter productive to limit drama magnets like Corni from creating arbies cases via such rulings. Despite his agreement with the ruling, I feel that the ruling was outside the scope of the case in question. It would have been smart for Corni to actually gain approval before the case, but he does need to have arbies open to him, to stop people abusing his talk page (if he can actually prove abuse).
Not vandalism - invalid arbies ruling -- boxy talk • teh rulz 16:10 7 May 2010 (BST)
- It wasn't a banning of his use of A/A, he just had to ask Yonnua the go ahead. Yonnua isn't an unfairly minded user, he probably would have allowed it to go through. The only time I remember arbies rulings being overturned in A/VB was when Anime and Sonny raped Terminalfailure, which was justified because of its basis of trolling and bullying but I don't believe this is. It means ruling not vandalism can be done, but I don't think the same purpose applies to this case at all. The ruling was in no way harsh, unfair or draconian and it is incredibly easy to follow for Corn... -- 16:23, 7 May 2010 (BST)
- Actually I know for certain that arbies rulings have been overturned in at least 1 other case on the basis of placing ufair/unrealistic demands. --Honestmistake 10:08, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- I always welcome other examples or precedents but without elaborating or providing any actual links your claim is mostly insubstantial. -- 13:59, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- And it doesn't exactly affect my argument since I used the precedent to actually demonstrate that ruling against A/A rulings was possible but (imo) not necessary or just in this case. -- 14:00, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- I always welcome other examples or precedents but without elaborating or providing any actual links your claim is mostly insubstantial. -- 13:59, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- Actually I know for certain that arbies rulings have been overturned in at least 1 other case on the basis of placing ufair/unrealistic demands. --Honestmistake 10:08, 14 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism - As DDR kindly explained. 16:47, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Vandalism - Cornholioo could've simply waited until next week before starting the arbitration proceedings (there was no reason why he needed to start it today), or could have easily gone through Yonnua, who has already said that he would have allowed the case to go forward. Had he asked Yonnua, been denied for shady reasons, and then posted it anyway, I would have agreed that it was not vandalism. Had he even questioned the rightness of the ruling itself when it was handed down, he may have had a case. But the fact that he didn't make any attempt to honor the ruling while also never contesting it tells me that he voluntarily chose to ignore it, and that constitutes vandalism. —Aichon— 21:45, 7 May 2010 (BST)
I consider myself an involved party so I won't be ruling. Just to clear that up.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:39, 9 May 2010 (BST)
Sigh. Corn accepted the arbies ruling, and complied with the process in the past, as Yonnua's archive shows. Much as it pains me to say, Vandalisms. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:38, 9 May 2010 (BST)
Given the quick succession of cases against Corni, and the fact that they both deal with the same arbies case, I'd suggest that this case and the one above be treated as one, and no further escalation is required -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:36 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Um, one is about racism/anti-semetism, the other is about the breach of a valid arbitration ruling. Why should they be conflated? 03:41, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Agreed. But even if we do as boxy says, then the right thing to do would be to make another case with a list of every other anti-semitic comment he made that day, since there were plenty to choose from that were worthy of escalation, not all of which were on A/A. I treated the above racism case as handling all of those other comments as well (since it would have been ludicrous to take each one here). If we're going to roll these two into one and treat it as an arbies issue, then there needs to be another case to deal with the racist comments that weren't on A/A. It'll be the same outcome either way, since many of his other comments were much more racist than the one cited in the above case. —Aichon— 03:56, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Some quick examples of other comments from that day: [1], [2]. [3], [4]. Though the last one is from A/A, it's not his initial post there and I'd say it's a separate issue since he went back in and deliberately added the "Jewish childmurderers- and rapists" part later, just for additional effect. Long story short, the racism issue needed to be handled separately, just as it has been. —Aichon— 04:11, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- One last additional note, I know Google Translate isn't perfect, and I don't speak Dutch, but I think you can get a sense of what he was saying in one of those comments I linked. —Aichon— 04:15, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Some quick examples of other comments from that day: [1], [2]. [3], [4]. Though the last one is from A/A, it's not his initial post there and I'd say it's a separate issue since he went back in and deliberately added the "Jewish childmurderers- and rapists" part later, just for additional effect. Long story short, the racism issue needed to be handled separately, just as it has been. —Aichon— 04:11, 10 May 2010 (BST)
- Agreed. But even if we do as boxy says, then the right thing to do would be to make another case with a list of every other anti-semitic comment he made that day, since there were plenty to choose from that were worthy of escalation, not all of which were on A/A. I treated the above racism case as handling all of those other comments as well (since it would have been ludicrous to take each one here). If we're going to roll these two into one and treat it as an arbies issue, then there needs to be another case to deal with the racist comments that weren't on A/A. It'll be the same outcome either way, since many of his other comments were much more racist than the one cited in the above case. —Aichon— 03:56, 10 May 2010 (BST)
Has anyone actually added on the ban time, or are we waiting for him to be unbanned first?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:20, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- No one's applied it yet. I'm waiting until it's a bit closer. Personally, I don't have a problem if we shave off just a few hours by applying it in advance a bit, but I'd prefer to do it as close as possible to when his other one expires, just to be as fair as possible. —Aichon— 19:26, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Why don't we just add the ban time from this one to the end of his current one? That would seem the most logical to me. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:53, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Sounds great! If you can tell me how to do it, I'll get right on it. :P —Aichon— 22:41, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- I dunno. The "other" field on the dropdown maybe? If we worked out how much he had left and added a month to that, then stuck it in the box, that should theoretically sort it out, right?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:55, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- I know it's not my place to get involved in such things, but it seems to me that I've heard somewhere else that the ban length/time limit begins counting down from the moment its awarded, and can't be tacked onto the end of another... I could be wrong though. -Poodle of DoomM!
T 23:56, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Yes, but if you add the amount left to the amount needing to be given, it'll give the overall time. I just don't understand the "other" field which I'd need to use, because I've never banned anyone before.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:02, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- That doesn't make any sense, because it would negate the length of the ban before it, and not only that, but the ops could easily just wait until the first bans over before applying the second ban making that precedent rubbish anyway. Yonnua, fiddle with the "other" tag on yourself (you can unban yourself as a sysop even when banned so you won't accidentally perma yourself) until you can work out how it works? -- 01:20, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- Ooh, good call. I'll fool around with that and will write up my findings after applying the new ban, assuming I figure anything out. —Aichon— 02:03, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- Done. He's now blocked for an additional month. I was off by one minute, meaning that he'll technically get one minute shy of a full month's ban time, so you can Misconduct me for that, since I have no intention of trying to fix it. As for how you use the "other" field, I just entered something like "1 month, 19 hours, 7 minutes" with the commas like that and the numbers as digits. Seems to have worked fine, since the expiry it's showing is correct (aside from being one minute off). —Aichon— 02:17, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- Ooh, good call. I'll fool around with that and will write up my findings after applying the new ban, assuming I figure anything out. —Aichon— 02:03, 14 May 2010 (BST)
- I know it's not my place to get involved in such things, but it seems to me that I've heard somewhere else that the ban length/time limit begins counting down from the moment its awarded, and can't be tacked onto the end of another... I could be wrong though. -Poodle of DoomM!
- I dunno. The "other" field on the dropdown maybe? If we worked out how much he had left and added a month to that, then stuck it in the box, that should theoretically sort it out, right?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:55, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Sounds great! If you can tell me how to do it, I'll get right on it. :P —Aichon— 22:41, 13 May 2010 (BST)
- Why don't we just add the ban time from this one to the end of his current one? That would seem the most logical to me. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:53, 13 May 2010 (BST)
User:The_Colonel
The Colonel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Posting on my talk page after told not to.
To support this I want to bring this. White regards, CORNH卐LIOO REMEMBER WHAT THE FIGHT IS FOR 14/88!!! 9:30, 7 May 2010 (BST)
- There, go look through those, and let me know when you can tell me what rule he supposedly broke. I know Ross may have said one thing, but I cordially disagree with his statement since I can't find anything to back up the idea of "harassment" being vandalism. We've already told you that this is Not Vandalism several times, and it shouldn't need to be repeated. When it comes to harassment as an official matter, sysops aren't allowed to bully around other users by using their status as a badge, which doesn't apply to the people listed on your page, and "harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations," which seems as if it might apply soon if you keep this up. —Aichon— 10:08, 7 May 2010 (BST)
Not vandalism - do you see a pattern forming here, Corni? Go to arbitration and show reason why they should be banned from your page. Telling you not to spam recent changes is not harassment, it's what your talk page is for, so that people can contact you. Banning everyone who says something you don't want to hear is not reasonable (try not being a douchebag instead) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:44 7 May 2010 (BST)
- As boxy. There's a surprise. Theres at least two sysops telling you that it may be a case. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:23, 7 May 2010 (BST)
- ... and a third one that actually told me to get these people to vandal banning. Rings any bells Rosslessness? --CORNH卐LIOO REMEMBER WHAT THE FIGHT IS FOR 14/88!!! 12:18, 7 May 2010 (BST)
User:Spiderzed
Spiderzed (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Posting on my talk page after told not to. White regards,Cornholioo 17:16, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- I have only to add the following: I'm aware of not being welcome on that talk page. For that reason, I've kept my comment short, to the point, factual, and have done it in good faith (to point out an oversight I assumed Cornholioo had at that time). That being said, I'll gladly receive an official warning if the sys-ops deem that this hasn't been sufficient reason and damage control. --Spiderzed 17:32, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Just avoid it entirely. 17:33, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Just avoid it entirely.
Vandalism. Will you guys all just not do things any more?
17:30, 2 May 2010 (BST)
- Fuck it, Acorn makes sense, Not Vandalism. 20:08, 2 May 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - As we explained last time this came up with Cornholioo, until it goes through arbitration, there are no teeth to it. —Aichon— 20:04, 2 May 2010 (BST)
NV -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:04 3 May 2010 (BST)
User:Oidar
Oidar (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
I take highly offence of this: Image:Adolflikedchildren.png. Vandalism? --Cornholioo 14:45, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Category:Humorous Images Oidar 14:48, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Humorous? How dare you call that humorous? --Cornholioo 14:49, 1 May 2010 (BST)
- Tough. Not vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:51 1 May 2010 (BST)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACornholioo&diff=1702380&oldid=1701661 --Cornholioo 15:10, 1 May 2010 (BST)
This is ridiculous. Not vandalism and I'll drop a train full of precedence on you if I need to. 15:44, 1 May 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism. Open and shut case. —Aichon— 23:15, 1 May 2010 (BST)
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
