UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 11
User:Perers
Perers (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | 3-Edit Rule |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
Qww (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Blanking shitloads of pages. Made a vandal alt as a workaround.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- both alts are perma'd for now, but I'm expecting more.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I may have missed something but I see no common thread linking all the blanked pages, which puzzles me. Were they just the ones in Recent Changes at the time, or what did I miss?
11:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- A few were users in recent changes - Me, DDR, but I think for the most part he scrolled down an alphabetical list of users.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I may have missed something but I see no common thread linking all the blanked pages, which puzzles me. Were they just the ones in Recent Changes at the time, or what did I miss?
User:Misanthropy
Misanthropy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Nothing |
Users seem to say this should have been taken here as per precedent with obnoxious images on admin pages, I agree, and I think with Yonnua keeling over with a still annoyingly and unnecessarily large image on A/DM, this is probably the better place to at least make a decision.
This case is regarding A/DM#Aichon, where Misanthropy posted an 800px animated gif image like so. These have been considered A/VB material in the past, memory first brings up this case where Read was warned straight off the bat for uploading two large images during a fight. Given it was more extreme, but this is just to show it's been vandalism in the past.
Read didn't (apparently) know how to resize images. Misanthropy knows the technicalities and rules of the wiki, and defends his action with an argument of "it's not page breaking so it's okay", to which I think "fuck off, it's an animated gigantic annoying red blob which demonstrates your opinion no more effectively than it would if it were 50px wide".
For the record, I think this is Vandalism, and I think the current 300px compromise is maybe okay, but the idea of changing it back to 800px after archival is not, in fact I think it's completely fucking stupid. There is nothing to say this is can't just be the same size as, say, what Cyberbob has done on A/DM before here.
It seems that I've been one of the more vocal blokes when it comes to this case, so obviously my opinions are above, but if they are overruled by the op team I'll be happy with their decision. So just give your rulings and just close it at that, no half-arsed arbitration. -- LEMON #1 00:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not Vandalism and handle it on A/A - Unless it's page-breaking, forces horizontal scrollbars on most browsers, is likely done in bad faith (e.g. spamming), or is otherwise obviously inappropriate (e.g. pictures of penises), A/A is where it should be handled, not here, and none of those fit, in my opinion.
- <rant>I honestly don't care what decision comes out of the arbitration proceedings, since this whole thing is just stupid. Seriously. When was the last time any of you ever really took a look through the Demotion archives? And would a single image really be that annoying? Use your heads and some common sense. This whole thing doesn't matter. I cannot believe how juvenile everyone is being about this situation, so, in no particular order, let me highlight a few of the moments where a little common courtesy, respect, patience, or tolerance could've fixed everything. Mis could've ended it immediately by simply understanding that Yonn (and potentially others) had a problem with it, sucking up his pride, and honoring their request as a courtesy. Yonn could've ended it by simply letting it go, since apparently no one else seemed to be bothered by it for the first day-and-a-half it was posted. DDR and the peanut gallery could've ended it by simply respecting Mis' and Yonn's agreement, not meddling, and letting them conclude things as they had, instead of involving yourselves in a matter that was already concluded or was in the process of being concluded. And if they honestly did have an issue with the non-binding arbitration agreement the two of them reached (maybe "it's about the principle of the matter" or something, despite the fact that we weren't setting precedent at all up until now), then nothing was stopping them from opening an A/A case of their own to argue why everyone else is wrong about how things should be handled.</rant>
- I don't want to leave while I'm thinking of all of you guys as idiots, nor do I particularly enjoy the fact that this sort of thing makes me glad I'm resigning. Let it die already, but let it pass away somewhere else, since A/VB is not the place a case like this should be handled. —Aichon— 01:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- You really want to know? I've looked at the demotions archive countless times, maybe you don't care for wiki history but I read a lot of archival stuff when I'm bored. And do not try to tell me that image put at 800px wide wouldn't irritate your eyes if you did read the demotions archive and find it. The reason I don't respect their decision is because it's fucking stupid and defeats the purpose of the entire case/complaint.
- And yes, A/VB is (and always has been) obviously the best place for this to be handled. You know why? Because the current "agreement" as reached on A/A is based on appeasing two people on the wiki, and obviously others aren't happy about this decision, as seen by [1]. Oh, why don't they just do something about it? Oh wait, they did, and it was reverted using the idiotic arbitration ruling as a basis of authority. People aren't happy with how it's turned out so far at even 300px, why should we follow an arbitration ruling that is only founded on 2 peoples opinions, one that makes it even worse (800px) at the end of the week? You rule what you want, but your reasoning and your faith in A/A for this is as dumb as what you say we apparently are. -- LEMON #1 03:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- To answer your last question, we shouldn't, but I think you've ignored an important fact: there was an agreement, not a ruling. Big difference. No arbitrator was ever involved, no case was ever opened, no official ruling was ever handed down, and none of us are bound to abide by their non-binding agreement. Why have you lost faith in a system that has yet to even be exercised? I agree that a third party's edits should not be reverted on the basis of an agreement between two people, since the third party is not bound by it in the least and it has no authority over them, but since when do non-binding agreements that others disagree with get vetted on A/VB instead of A/A? They never have, and they never should be on that basis alone. If the case goes to arbitration and a binding ruling is passed down, then we can get involved if the ruling is improper or the parties are not abiding by the ruling. In this case, however, no such binding ruling has been handed down, and the original case of Mis posting the image does not meet the criteria I outlined in my last comment. If others are unhappy with their non-binding agreement (and there's no denying that several are), then they have every right to make an actual A/A case to resolve the issue. Does this more adequately explain my reasoning? —Aichon— 04:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's a very good point, I was reading the edit summaries on A/DM edit conflict and somehow got caught up with the idea that the agreement had any sort of authority over other edits. -- LEMON #1 04:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- And regarding your edit summary, it's not just annoyance that is a potential side effect of having an 800px animated monstrosity in the archives. It'll sit there serving as a precedent for other retards to do the exact same to other admin pages, and then this arbies situation (if it keeps going in the direction it's going) will just serve as more beautiful precedents for people to have little power/will against it besides make them smaller when the situation is current, and then have them all maximised when it's archived. No way mofos, where do we draw the line? There'll be conflict resoution nightmares :( -- LEMON #1 04:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Those "other retards" (love that phrase) would fall under some of my earlier criteria, most probably the bad faith one, meaning that they could be cleaned out according to existing case history. That's especially true in cases where people are obviously pushing the limits just for the sake of doing so. And I doubt that the "small now, big later" ruling would be handed down by any reasonable arbitrator at this point, given the widespread dislike for it that's already been expressed by people (I thought it was a fair compromise at first, but I can see where others are coming from and would urge any future arbitrators to consider those concerns as well). That said, if it were handed down, I would hope that a reasonable arbitrator would keep the ruling narrow enough that it could not be used as justification for later cases very easily. Ideally, however, a different ruling would be handed down. Unfortunately, I don't have a great answer for your question, in all honesty. I think the best bet is to give A/A a chance to hand down a different ruling first, and then deal with any situations that arise after that. —Aichon— 05:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- And regarding your edit summary, it's not just annoyance that is a potential side effect of having an 800px animated monstrosity in the archives. It'll sit there serving as a precedent for other retards to do the exact same to other admin pages, and then this arbies situation (if it keeps going in the direction it's going) will just serve as more beautiful precedents for people to have little power/will against it besides make them smaller when the situation is current, and then have them all maximised when it's archived. No way mofos, where do we draw the line? There'll be conflict resoution nightmares :( -- LEMON #1 04:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's a very good point, I was reading the edit summaries on A/DM edit conflict and somehow got caught up with the idea that the agreement had any sort of authority over other edits. -- LEMON #1 04:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- To answer your last question, we shouldn't, but I think you've ignored an important fact: there was an agreement, not a ruling. Big difference. No arbitrator was ever involved, no case was ever opened, no official ruling was ever handed down, and none of us are bound to abide by their non-binding agreement. Why have you lost faith in a system that has yet to even be exercised? I agree that a third party's edits should not be reverted on the basis of an agreement between two people, since the third party is not bound by it in the least and it has no authority over them, but since when do non-binding agreements that others disagree with get vetted on A/VB instead of A/A? They never have, and they never should be on that basis alone. If the case goes to arbitration and a binding ruling is passed down, then we can get involved if the ruling is improper or the parties are not abiding by the ruling. In this case, however, no such binding ruling has been handed down, and the original case of Mis posting the image does not meet the criteria I outlined in my last comment. If others are unhappy with their non-binding agreement (and there's no denying that several are), then they have every right to make an actual A/A case to resolve the issue. Does this more adequately explain my reasoning? —Aichon— 04:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
As an involved party, I obviously won't be ruling, but I'll give my input nonetheless. The 300 I originally reverted it to (instead of the 800) was always what I considered a compromise, as was the restoration upon being archived. I never thought that that size was the right size, only the most acceptable which could reasonably be reached. Since I was having a good day and didn't want it to be bogged down in wiki drama, I compromised heavily on his side. I did however ensure that the ruling extended only to us, with the proviso that anybody who didn't like it (And wasn't one of the arbitration parties in the agreement) could still take whatever action they wanted.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not vandalism Why the fuck are you leaving Aichon. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 08:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cmon, being a sysop at udwiki pretty much guarantees ennui after 6 months. -- LEMON #1 08:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Fucking seriously? DDR, please go smell some flowers or watch a movie. Really this is just not anywhere near the holy-shit-controversial issue you seem to find it. It's a smilie. It's an adorable little aggravated smilie. Am I the only one who can't see what's seriously wrong with a harmless image that isn't breaking anything? 14:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- What's the definition of harmless again? Because when it's pissing this many people off (see adm history and a/a) I don't think this qualifies. -- LEMON #1 23:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- The definition of harmless? Not breaking pages, not malicious in any way, not meant to antagonise, and not actually affecting anything in a negative way but the opinion of, what, three or four people who already dislike me to begin with and aren't exactly impartial in picking up on this? It's a nonissue for anyone but one small gang, so don't say it's "pissing this many people off". It's pissing you guys off and I don't really fucking care if it does, because you're wrong. 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- The fuck? Since when did these people not like you? Playing the victim card without any grounds is unlike you. And we're wrong because, what, you say we're wrong? That'll stop us. -- LEMON #1 00:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- You, Yon and Thad? Since forever, in case you haven't paid any attention. And it's seriously not without grounds. How is an A/A and a VB case over something entirely fucking trivial not unjustly excessive or entirely uncalled for? And you're wrong simply because this just plain is not a fucking vandal affair, nor is it even justifiable to edit my comments on any page without the kind of due reason you're entirely lacking. Image breaks no fucking rules whatsoever, but you've seen fit to twice bring up drama over it for no fucking reason. 01:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- No idea what you're talking about. I've never had anything against you, though I'm starting to think I should after the amount of complete stupidity present in the above comment. So basically, I'm wrong because people (read: not me) started up a stink and I felt it should be better served at A/VB where the opinions of more than just 2 people matter. Notice there is an edit war on A/DM at the moment. Notice I've never had a part it in that. I see your paranoia of "DDR starts everything cause he's the bad guy trying to supress people with his evil skills!" is still alive and well. -- LEMON #1 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- And yes, it actually is justifiable to edit someone's comments if its removing an image that is offensive (not that that's appropriate here) or resizing an image that is deemed to be to annoying or large. It always has been. Since the stone age. Again, stop redirecting arguments into you being the victim, it isn't working and it's silly. -- LEMON #1 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, completely silly to find it over-the-top and offensive to be the butt of two cases in quick succession over nothing at all. Jesus Christ, DRR, can you not see how fucking overblown you and Yon have made this one stupid detail? It literally does nothing malicious at all and you've together seen fit to shit up two admin pages with something really really petty. How is that not unjustified? And removing offensive imagery is a whole other ball game from this one so it's not even worth bringing up as an example, and images that aren't stretching the page should in no way be considered large enough to tamper with like this, especially ones that aren't at all offensive and are pretty commonplace. And just because you think the opinions of more people than were involved in the initial edit war does not warrant a fucking VB case. It warrants adding further comment to the initial A/A case, you gun-jumping fuck. 10:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I still think you don't understand the point of this case. I, unlike others including yourself, are just being consistent, and bringing people here as everyone else since 2008 has had who has added unnecessarily large images to admin pages. Yonnua didn't do the right thing by A/A and I corrected this. If this is overruled, fine, I don't mind and I'll yield, and I'm not even going to vote even though I have the right (and if I wasn't so outspoken towards one side; obligation) to, and whichever the way the vote goes, fine, because I find that a better unbiased way of dealing with things over a dick slapping at A/A. If you can't handle that, get off the fucking wiki, or at least stop thinking the rules apply to everyone but you. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you stopped QQing in my face and let this case take its course. -- LEMON #1 16:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, completely silly to find it over-the-top and offensive to be the butt of two cases in quick succession over nothing at all. Jesus Christ, DRR, can you not see how fucking overblown you and Yon have made this one stupid detail? It literally does nothing malicious at all and you've together seen fit to shit up two admin pages with something really really petty. How is that not unjustified? And removing offensive imagery is a whole other ball game from this one so it's not even worth bringing up as an example, and images that aren't stretching the page should in no way be considered large enough to tamper with like this, especially ones that aren't at all offensive and are pretty commonplace. And just because you think the opinions of more people than were involved in the initial edit war does not warrant a fucking VB case. It warrants adding further comment to the initial A/A case, you gun-jumping fuck.
- see talk page
- And yes, it actually is justifiable to edit someone's comments if its removing an image that is offensive (not that that's appropriate here) or resizing an image that is deemed to be to annoying or large. It always has been. Since the stone age. Again, stop redirecting arguments into you being the victim, it isn't working and it's silly. -- LEMON #1 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- No idea what you're talking about. I've never had anything against you, though I'm starting to think I should after the amount of complete stupidity present in the above comment. So basically, I'm wrong because people (read: not me) started up a stink and I felt it should be better served at A/VB where the opinions of more than just 2 people matter. Notice there is an edit war on A/DM at the moment. Notice I've never had a part it in that. I see your paranoia of "DDR starts everything cause he's the bad guy trying to supress people with his evil skills!" is still alive and well. -- LEMON #1 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- You, Yon and Thad? Since forever, in case you haven't paid any attention. And it's seriously not without grounds. How is an A/A and a VB case over something entirely fucking trivial not unjustly excessive or entirely uncalled for? And you're wrong simply because this just plain is not a fucking vandal affair, nor is it even justifiable to edit my comments on any page without the kind of due reason you're entirely lacking. Image breaks no fucking rules whatsoever, but you've seen fit to twice bring up drama over it for no fucking reason.
- The fuck? Since when did these people not like you? Playing the victim card without any grounds is unlike you. And we're wrong because, what, you say we're wrong? That'll stop us. -- LEMON #1 00:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- The definition of harmless? Not breaking pages, not malicious in any way, not meant to antagonise, and not actually affecting anything in a negative way but the opinion of, what, three or four people who already dislike me to begin with and aren't exactly impartial in picking up on this? It's a nonissue for anyone but one small gang, so don't say it's "pissing this many people off". It's pissing you guys off and I don't really fucking care if it does, because you're wrong.
So, since three of the sysops are involved parties here, and I doubt we're going to hear from RHO, that leaves just boxy and Cheese. —Aichon— 17:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I only count two. DDR isn't. --
Thadeous Oakley 18:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- He brought the case. —Aichon— 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- So he obviously thinks it's vandalism. There have been cases before where sysops ruled on cases they brought, under specific circumstances. Last time this happened was a long time ago and probably before your time, but it was controversial. I don't remember the specifics, but it certainly isn't cut and clear as you seem to think. Wait for someone else to clarify.--Thadeous Oakley 18:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I could vote vandalism if I wanted to. Thanks to Cyberbob and a following A/M case it's been embedded into precedent, though i never really agreed with it, hence why I haven't voted vandalism yet. -- LEMON #1 23:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Truth be told, I've never cared much for that particular idea either, since it'd be trivial to get a non-sysop to bring the case forward by merely asking someone on IRC or the like, and if there's no precedent saying you can't, then I have no issue with it. That said, I've also never been a fan of changing the way things are done in the middle of something when it's convenient for us. Your call how you want to handle your potential vote. —Aichon— 00:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- The only reason why a sysops shouldn't be ruling on a case he brought is because of a clear vested interest. Hell, even Yonnua could rule if he didn't went to A/A first. When Boxy comes in and votes Vandalism, and he will considering his comment on the arby case, ending this case as a 2-2 tie would be out of touch with reality; It's pretty clear what the majority of sysops want here. Again, like I said on the talk page, this isn't about Misanthropy at all for me, it's that edit in question should be discouraged. --Thadeous Oakley 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- The only reason why a sysops shouldn't be ruling on a case he brought is because of a clear vested interest. Hell, even Yonnua could rule if he didn't went to A/A first. When Boxy comes in and votes Vandalism, and he will considering his comment on the arby case, ending this case as a 2-2 tie would be out of touch with reality; It's pretty clear what the majority of sysops want here. Again, like I said on the talk page, this isn't about Misanthropy at all for me, it's that edit in question should be discouraged. --
- Truth be told, I've never cared much for that particular idea either, since it'd be trivial to get a non-sysop to bring the case forward by merely asking someone on IRC or the like, and if there's no precedent saying you can't, then I have no issue with it. That said, I've also never been a fan of changing the way things are done in the middle of something when it's convenient for us. Your call how you want to handle your potential vote. —Aichon— 00:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I could vote vandalism if I wanted to. Thanks to Cyberbob and a following A/M case it's been embedded into precedent, though i never really agreed with it, hence why I haven't voted vandalism yet. -- LEMON #1 23:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- So he obviously thinks it's vandalism. There have been cases before where sysops ruled on cases they brought, under specific circumstances. Last time this happened was a long time ago and probably before your time, but it was controversial. I don't remember the specifics, but it certainly isn't cut and clear as you seem to think. Wait for someone else to clarify.--
- He brought the case. —Aichon— 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism going by the various precedents we've had over the past few years. -- Cheese 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"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." Im looking at you here thad. You know the rules. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
A week has now passed without any further rulings. Closed as Not Vandalism. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
User:DDRSUCKSKNOB
Sexylegsread (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
DDRSUCKSKNOB (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandal alt |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
| Verdict | Same IP as Sexylegsread |
|---|---|
| Action taken | 1 Month ban |
Turns up, insults DDR and uploads a very unfashionable photo of the male anatomy. Banned Under the three edit rule. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Protected user page, reverted edit to DDR's main page and put on banned template.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
| Via Email said: |
| Yo Homie,
Its sexylegsread, the boys are at my house and are drunkards and decided to post this from my desktop upstairs as the topic of wiki-ing got brought up from way back in the day. Is an IP ban a necessity? I dont come on much any more but I would still like the right to edit... Hope you understand what it is like when veteren wiki goers who are all irl friends and irl friends with DDR get together and have a few brews, I'm completely innocent here! Thought id jump on and let you know before it went too far |
Thoughts? Specifically DDR? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I shouldn't be the one you ask cause I'm gonna have the most inherent bias, but if Read's willing to admit it's him (or from his computer), I believe him, so we can unban the IP address cause it's technically "his" not a random vandal (the ip data supports that it's one of the BBK crew too) but if that happens imagine Read would have to cop a warning for the vandalism as even if it wasn't him in person, he takes the responsibility of the IP I guess? Also I'm very hurt that they would do drunk wiki vandalism without me. -- LEMON #1 12:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see the picture (quite glad for that, actually), so I'll leave it to those of you that did to decide whether or not a warning is necessary. If I was going off of just the text that was on DDR's page however, I'd say slap on the wrist and that's it. —Aichon— 13:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- We seem to be on an honesty is the best policy kick at the minute. I'll unban the IP, and tell read to get himself sorted out. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see the image because Ross deleted it before I got a chance, so he's the only one who did see it. Personally, he doesn't seem to have been the one at fault, so I'm down with whatever.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 16:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really an honesty is best policy imo, it's just that the IP really belongs to read, so I'm considering this account a vandal alt of his. -- LEMON #1 23:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- IP does match Read's in the checkuser archive, but it's pretty silly to say it's a vandal alt of his when he probably wasn't even the one making the edits. :P --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- We seem to be on an honesty is the best policy kick at the minute. I'll unban the IP, and tell read to get himself sorted out. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see the picture (quite glad for that, actually), so I'll leave it to those of you that did to decide whether or not a warning is necessary. If I was going off of just the text that was on DDR's page however, I'd say slap on the wrist and that's it. —Aichon— 13:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone make sure I've done that correctly. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks right.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 16:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Escalation for read. He has two choices. Pick a better class of friends, or don't let them vandalise the wiki on his equipment -- boxy talk • teh rulz 05:57 2 November 2010 (BST)
- I hate to say it, cause I'm part of read's "less better class of friends", but I agree, so my vote regarding this case reflects boxys vote. -- LEMON #1 14:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Escalation for Read, permaban for the alt. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, that'll be a month ban then. Am I correct?--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Escalation for Read, permaban for the alt. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Right, Perma, and 1 month ban, respectively now served. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Hermann von Teutoburg & User:Hermann von Teutoburg2
Hermann von Teutoburg (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Ban Avoidance, open proxy |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Perma |
Hermann von Teutoburg2 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Ban avoidance, open proxy |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Perma |
Open Proxy, poor grammatical English, anti Jewish Ramblings, and another name for User:Arminius, anyone think its not Corn? The proxy is already blocked, as per tradition, but I'm assuming we block the alt and remove whatever its posting? Because of the ban avoidance. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:11, 26 October 2010 (BST)
I'm not sure, honestly. The English is poorer and the writing style is quite different than what Corn previous exhibited. That said, they did jump onto the wiki and start using it like a veteran, they're (mis)using the phrase "National Socialist", they didn't stop or pass by Go before immediately starting the anti-Jewish rhetoric, they're using a blatant German reference for their name, they used a proxy to make their account and comment, and...well...10-to-1 says it's Corn. I'm tempted to suggest contacting them and asking them to respond here without the use of a proxy, but I honestly don't know that doing so would change my opinion. —Aichon— 00:19, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- Of note, not misuse of the term. Nazi is a contraction of the Nazi Party's german name, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party). Whilst the complete opposite end of the spectrum from plain socialism, it's still the correct appelation. Cf/ Irish Republicanism and the US' Republican Party. Oh, and ban the proxy, ban the alt as a workaround account, and protect the page. Consider the idea of a policy limiting the use of real-world politics as wiki group pages after an open discussion. 00:26, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- Why Protect the Page? Why not delete it? It is vandalism, as its an edit by a banned user? The Proxy is already banned btw. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:59, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- Ban the alt, delete the page, make no such policy as it stems free speech. Also, Aichon's correct. Whilst the party was called the National Socialist party, as soon as Hitler became leader of the party he ousted all socialist elements (Well, he did it in 1934). The terminology isn't apt at all, which is why people refer to them as "Nazis". But yeah, obvious alt is obvious.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 10:21, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- If we're ruling it's an alt of a banned user, then, yes, delete the page as a vandal edit. Now that we've corrected the IP banning so that it'll take effect on Hermann, it may be interesting to see what happens. —Aichon— 19:27, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- I don't mind waiting but in the long run I want the page gone. Otherwise it just shows that people avoiding bans can post happily and we'll tolerate it, even when its full of basic chemistry mistakes. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:30, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- I'll delete the page some time tonight if there are no objections.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 20:49, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- I'd say not, just protect. I was in cahoots with the guy who edited Nazi Party of Malton page, and he used a proxy too? I dunno. I just don't think we have enough evidence to kneejerk in Corn's direction. There are other nazi's out there, they all use rhetoric (it's hitlers thing), and while I have to be honest, I think it's corn, we could at least wait on some evidence (or at least inaction after the proxy ban) before deleting, until then this seems draconian. -- LEMON #1 23:28, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- I'm happy to wait a few days. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:35, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- Works for me.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 23:57, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- I'm happy to wait a few days. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:35, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- I'd say not, just protect. I was in cahoots with the guy who edited Nazi Party of Malton page, and he used a proxy too? I dunno. I just don't think we have enough evidence to kneejerk in Corn's direction. There are other nazi's out there, they all use rhetoric (it's hitlers thing), and while I have to be honest, I think it's corn, we could at least wait on some evidence (or at least inaction after the proxy ban) before deleting, until then this seems draconian. -- LEMON #1 23:28, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- I'll delete the page some time tonight if there are no objections.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 20:49, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- I don't mind waiting but in the long run I want the page gone. Otherwise it just shows that people avoiding bans can post happily and we'll tolerate it, even when its full of basic chemistry mistakes. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:30, 27 October 2010 (BST)
- If we're ruling it's an alt of a banned user, then, yes, delete the page as a vandal edit. Now that we've corrected the IP banning so that it'll take effect on Hermann, it may be interesting to see what happens. —Aichon— 19:27, 27 October 2010 (BST)
All the sysops
I'm reporting all the sysops for being facists and racists and I demand an unban for user Hermann von Teutoburg.
The reason why I'm using an open proxy is the same reason as why I'm using a nickname. I don't want my personal data on the internet. In my country, when you have someone's IP adress you can look up personal data of this certain person which I do not wish to be on the internet. I use it 'everywhere', with the exception of websites I trust.
That said, I do not know who Corn is.
Yes, I have experience using wiki. No, I have never had an account on this wiki. I had an account on 'The Vault'.
No, I am not anti-Jewish. Yes, I am anti-Zionist.
I'm reporting all the sysops here for being facists because I didn't have a chance to defend myself here on Vandal Banning and because they ban for no reason. (I have done nothing wrong, so leave me alone.) That leaves banning me because I'm an anti-Zionist. This makes all the sysops racists. Zionists would like to see the White race destroyed. Banning someone for being anti-Zionist makes you a Zionist. This means the sysops (Zionists) are racists. Since user Hermann von Teutoburg has done nothing wrong, or be it at least that he can't be proven to have done anything wrong, I demand this user unbanned. --Hermann von Teutoburg2 07:14, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- I have a couple of questions (and yeah, you're probably gonna have to answer or at least acknowledge them if you want anything done cause I'm probably the only op on the team slightly open to communication). Firstly, I'd like (though this isn't necessary) for you to tell us which country you're from, out of curiosity. I'd also like to know how you found this Vandal Banning page, were you linked here from the ban notice? Also: Was the account banned or the proxy IP? Because if the account was banned, we apologise, we don't have the right to ban accounts that use proxy IPs, only the IPs they use (if this is the case and the original account has been banned, please do specify so).
- I'm willing to talk to you over this one, though I'll give you a heads up that doing the "report the whole admin team for evil and corruption" route has been done to death by many, and it goes nowhere, not because we are evil heartless zionists but because we have a brain and understand proportion, or at least where it counts. I respect that you're not hiding who you are or what you believe in, though I've heard it all before and as tiring as it is I don't care how many nazis are on this wiki as long as they don't break the rules we have in place. -- LEMON #1 07:42, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- I wanted to edit something, saw I was banned, typed in 'banning' at the search function, found this page, looked around. The IP was banned, I was assuming the account would be too. Anyhow, I demand also the page not to be protected or deleted. Same reason as for the account being unbanned. --Hermann von Teutoburg2 07:54, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- I'd implore you to check the account but on a different IP, because as to our knowledge (and the wiki software supports this idea- though it is out of date and can be wrong on stuff like that) the account isn't banned- only the IP that you use it from.
- As for the IP tracing of your personal details, that's something I'm afraid you'll just have to deal with if you want to use UDWiki. The facts and truth are the Sysops can find your IP details but are bound by policy (and also law) not to discuss in public ANY detail of you which was gained via that IP- or any part of your person that can reveal where you live or who you are. In fact, one of our sysops was officially misconducted and punished for accidentally breaching IP confidentiality a few weeks ago (don't worry, it wasn't IRL information leaked, just that one account on the wiki was linked to a certain other account. The controller of both didn't want the two accounts to be publicly linked and the sysop breached this)- so the issue is still alive in our minds and concerns.
- The reasoning behind this derives from two things. The first one is that the sysops are the only guys who can find this information and we've been qualitatively given the confidence by the community to handle this information as well as a lot of other tasks that aren't designated to all of the community. The other reason is something a lot of users tend to forget when spewing demands of terms of use on the wiki and that is that use UDWiki, as all other forums or wiki, is a privilege, not a right. We can't bend our rules (banning open proxies, the misuse of which can cause havok by those so inclined and has before) just for your concerns of privacy, I'm afraid if you want to be able to use our site you'll have to accept our rules and regulations and trust us with your IP information- which, to be frank, we don't give two shits about as long as you aren't using it to breach rules eg. avoid a ban or sockpuppet votes.
- All I can say that your IP details are safe with us as long as you're not breaking any rules on our sight (the big two IP related breaches are mentioned in the previous sentence), and as far as my word goes, you'll just have to trust us. As for being a Nazi or leading a Nazi party in Malton, that's not against the rules. Similarly, if this is a concern about the amount of crap you'll get for being a nazi, either in roleplay or IRL, then that's something you'll have to get used to on this wiki, anonymous or not. We don't persecute nazis, though the community tends to react to you guys in a hostile way. -- LEMON #1 08:50, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- Oh, and as for the protection/deletion of the page, there is a large chance it won't be if you can accept our terms of membership and not edit with a proxy IP. Beyond that, the page has every right to be there and we're more than happy to not kick up a fuss. -- LEMON #1 08:52, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- Yep. IP is banned, account is not. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:31, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- Of course they can. If I post here with no proxy, you place an external icon on the wiki, match the download time against the reply time, and you have the IP. Even when you there no sysops. In this way I have found a persons IP once, on a forum where I wasn't able to check IPs. --Hermann von Teutoburg2 16:55, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- Except for the fact that external images are incapable of being placed on the wiki. The wiki software does not allow external images to be used anywhere for security reasons such as the one you just listed. If you can think of another reason why you can't use your actual IP address, feel free to share, but every other user on the wiki seems to be okay with it, and we have a history of cracking down on sysops who betray the trust of the community.
- Anyway, I agree with everything DDR said. Open proxies are banned on the wiki, and you need to play by the rules of the wiki if you want to use it (which, as was said, is a privilege, not a right). Your old proxy IP address has been banned, but the account itself was not banned. If you want to continue being a user here, you need to stop using proxy IP addresses. This is not a request, but simply a statement of fact. Otherwise, the additional proxy IP addresses will be banned as we become aware of them, and, if you keep it up, you may be brought up on vandal charges as well since you'd be breaking the rules on a regular basis. —Aichon— 17:34, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- Be it an external imagine, be it a link to another website; it works on the same way. Match the download time against the reply time and you have the IP. I can trace everyone's IP on this wiki if I wish so, even though I'm not a sysops. (with the exception of people that use an open proxy.) That sounds rather shocking to you guys, but it's true. I'm also wondering if there is any place where I can start a vote or something like that for a change in the rules. I think this is quite an issue. I hope the sysops on this wiki can imagine my motives; I am not, under no conditions, sharing my personal data with the entire internet. --Hermann von Teutoburg2 06:05, 29 October 2010 (BST)
- "That sounds rather shocking to you guys, but it's true." No, it's not. There are NO means of someone passively discovering your IP address via this wiki unless they are a sysop or somehow compromise the system. If you disagree with my assertion, feel free to share my IP address here just as soon as you figure it out. You have my permission.
- Be it an external imagine, be it a link to another website; it works on the same way. Match the download time against the reply time and you have the IP. I can trace everyone's IP on this wiki if I wish so, even though I'm not a sysops. (with the exception of people that use an open proxy.) That sounds rather shocking to you guys, but it's true. I'm also wondering if there is any place where I can start a vote or something like that for a change in the rules. I think this is quite an issue. I hope the sysops on this wiki can imagine my motives; I am not, under no conditions, sharing my personal data with the entire internet. --Hermann von Teutoburg2 06:05, 29 October 2010 (BST)
- Of course they can. If I post here with no proxy, you place an external icon on the wiki, match the download time against the reply time, and you have the IP. Even when you there no sysops. In this way I have found a persons IP once, on a forum where I wasn't able to check IPs. --Hermann von Teutoburg2 16:55, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- Yep. IP is banned, account is not. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:31, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- Oh, and as for the protection/deletion of the page, there is a large chance it won't be if you can accept our terms of membership and not edit with a proxy IP. Beyond that, the page has every right to be there and we're more than happy to not kick up a fuss. -- LEMON #1 08:52, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- I wanted to edit something, saw I was banned, typed in 'banning' at the search function, found this page, looked around. The IP was banned, I was assuming the account would be too. Anyhow, I demand also the page not to be protected or deleted. Same reason as for the account being unbanned. --Hermann von Teutoburg2 07:54, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- Now, sure, if you go clicking links to unknown places from untrusted sources, then yes, someone could discover your IP address, but as you pointed out, they wouldn't be able to tie it back to you without having a post to correlate it to, and since you're already aware of the danger, I'd trust that you'd be smart enough not to click such links and post at the same time. Simply put, you're overstating the problem immensely since I have never seen a case where this happened here, nor is the danger real unless you engage in some risky behavior yourself. You do know that some of us actually have a strong background in stuff like this, and that your fear-mongering is not a valid excuse for violating the established rules, right? You're not the victim here, so stop playing as if you are one.
- And if you want to make a policy, head here. That said, you'll need to stop using an open proxy before you can do so. At least with me, I've only avoided banning the one you're currently using because you're only using it to engage us here, but if you used it elsewhere, I'd have no second thoughts in banning it immediately. In my opinion, you need to resolve this situation before doing anything else on the wiki. —Aichon— 06:41, 29 October 2010 (BST)
- "nor is the danger real unless you engage in some risky behavior yourself." I am a National Socialist, that is risky enough and I have experienced this myself more than once, to put it like that. I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but there are a lot of folks in this world who don't agree with me on this. I do not know the sysops of this wiki in person and do know they do not support my believes and ideals, got the intention of bias, proven themselves fascists and racists, or at least given the intention of racism. Simply put: what reason do I have to trust them? The sysops having my IP would be as bad as it is, so why would I, at least, take any risk and chance of ANYONE else knowing my IP adress? I see no reason to, hence I am not going to stop using an open proxy. --Hermann von Teutoburg2 09:52, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- Well, I'm afraid, if you keep using open proxies, we will keep banning them. It's a well established rule, and if you can't trust the 8 people with the utter belief of the community here, you may not find many people to trust on the internet. In terms of who I am, I'm a Capricorn. I enjoy reading, exploring new places, and long walks on the beach.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 09:56, 29 October 2010 (BST)
- You believe in free speech but when others criticise your point of view, you delete their comments from your talk page?, You call us biased, when we have specifically left this proxy unblocked for you tovoice your opinion, even though we'd be well within policy to block it. Aichon has asked you to reveal his IP address. Please do so, to prove your claim correct. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:40, 29 October 2010 (BST)
- Sorry, but that's just how it is. You'll have to trust us with your IP information, as everyone else does, before you're allowed legal access on the wiki. I respect that you don't want us to know your IP and that's your prerogative, but it's going to have to be a high enough priority for you to not edit on this wiki at all. That's all I can say, again, my word that we won't misuse your IP information is all I can offer, and you're going to have to deal with that or co-ordinate your UD group using another medium. If it helps, I live in Australia and I have no intention of going abroad to beat up internet nazis anytime soon. -- LEMON #1 10:52, 29 October 2010 (BST)
- Being at risk is not the same as engaging in risky behavior, so don't conflate the two. And I love how, once your "truths" were refuted, you switched from objecting on the basis that others could surreptitiously procure your IP address to objecting on the basis that we would know it. Why not just tell us right from the start that that was your reason? Anyway, let me know when you get that IP address of mine. I'm one of the more prolific editors on the wiki, so it should be fairly simple to correlate my edits with addresses you discover, right? —Aichon— 15:24, 29 October 2010 (BST)
- Well, I'm afraid, if you keep using open proxies, we will keep banning them. It's a well established rule, and if you can't trust the 8 people with the utter belief of the community here, you may not find many people to trust on the internet. In terms of who I am, I'm a Capricorn. I enjoy reading, exploring new places, and long walks on the beach.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 09:56, 29 October 2010 (BST)
- "nor is the danger real unless you engage in some risky behavior yourself." I am a National Socialist, that is risky enough and I have experienced this myself more than once, to put it like that. I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but there are a lot of folks in this world who don't agree with me on this. I do not know the sysops of this wiki in person and do know they do not support my believes and ideals, got the intention of bias, proven themselves fascists and racists, or at least given the intention of racism. Simply put: what reason do I have to trust them? The sysops having my IP would be as bad as it is, so why would I, at least, take any risk and chance of ANYONE else knowing my IP adress? I see no reason to, hence I am not going to stop using an open proxy. --Hermann von Teutoburg2 09:52, 28 October 2010 (BST)
- And if you want to make a policy, head here. That said, you'll need to stop using an open proxy before you can do so. At least with me, I've only avoided banning the one you're currently using because you're only using it to engage us here, but if you used it elsewhere, I'd have no second thoughts in banning it immediately. In my opinion, you need to resolve this situation before doing anything else on the wiki. —Aichon— 06:41, 29 October 2010 (BST)
As its the weekend, we'll give Hermann until Monday to respond to the requests listed above. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:04, 30 October 2010 (BST)
Monday
Hmm. Right It's Monday, and as such Hermann has failed to prove any evidence that IP's are freely available to all. As such I want to ban the proxy under the normal wiki terms.
However I'm still convinced its corn. Spiderzed's research showing its an alias for one of corn's accounts, plus the usual personal values, open proxy and minor grammatical errors. At this point I still think we should be banning both Hermann accounts, and deleting their pages as ban avoidance. Frankly if any time he thinks he can log on with a different IP, post more stuff and we'll ignore it, he'll never stop. Tough love is needed. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I say we just ban the proxies he edits under and leave it at that.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 09:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I approve of Ross' solution.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 10:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave this here for more sysop input. I'm sure Mis and Ach will have an opinion. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Give him until the end of the day, but otherwise do as you suggested. Not even the most security-focused people I know would make a point of refusing to use their own IP address in the way that he has for a low risk site like this. The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that this is just a stupid ploy to engage in simple ban avoidance. There's simply no other valid reason, which is evidenced by the fact that he fabricates additional ludicrous reasons to avoid divulging his IP address as all of his previous ones are torn down. And even if it's not Corn (which I find to be incredibly unlikely), every single one of his edits with both accounts was a vandal edit, and he's indicated he has zero intention of changing his ways. I'd say we could already 3-edit rule permaban him if we wanted to. —Aichon— 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Right. Both Perma banned for open proxyness, and suspected ban avoidance. Contributions outside of UDWiki namespaces deleted. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just wanna get it out there that you're all gay and there's no evidence that he's Cornholioo and that we're being nazi jumpy again and if he isn't editing then he's no trouble and banning like this is stupid for someone who we already know is willing to use proxy IP's to circumvent bans (be it corn or not). Just a heads up so I can use this dif as a future "i called it". -- LEMON #1 03:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Duly Noted. Frankly I don't care a single fig about the content of the page, and if the user comes back without a proxy and recreates it there's no issue. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, sept he's permabanned. So he'll have to come back as ana lt of a permabanned user. eh? eh? -- LEMON #1 22:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- But if he comes back without a proxy, we'll see he isn't Corn (unless he's Corn), so we'll rescind the original ban in error. :P --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- No we won't. Proxy abuse is as much a factor here as anything else. 23:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Except we don't ban people for using proxies; we ban the proxies.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 23:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- As Aichon already pointed out, each of his edits was technically a vandal edit, and TEV applies. 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- How was every one of his edits a vandal edit? -- LEMON #1 04:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- They were all done from behind a proxy, which means that each of his edits was done in a way that ran contrary to policy. I wasn't ruling on that basis however, merely mentioning it offhandedly (which seems to be contrary to Mis' stance). I still think he's Corn, and I agree with Yonn's stance: if he comes back without the proxy and isn't Corn, I'll (eat my hat and then) gladly support removing the permaban. —Aichon— 05:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good, because trying to claim that any of his edits as vandalism is bullcock. I still despise that you all are happy for him to avoid the ban we gave him only to prove that he isn't the alt of a permabanned user (when we could have just left the account as it is) since the onus on proof is on us not him, but meh. You're all still gay and I would have preferred to have him kept here until we could get enough evidence of a pattern of behaviour or see how he reacts to community trolling before we just kneejerk a cornholioo assumption. -- LEMON #1 06:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care if he is Corn or not, nor do I really know if I believe him to be or not (though the page-blanking is a key trait there). I still stand behind my assertion that the only good faith edits you could ascribe to him, loosely, are those before his being pointedly told that he was breaking the rules with his every edit, and even then, good or bad faith, they were still against the rules. 01:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- there is absolutely no way he could be permabanned via the 3 edit rule, there is nothing bad faith or vandalistic of his edits to talk:radio or the group page he made. -- LEMON #1 05:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- The policy states that open proxies may be blocked by a sysop at any time. It does not say that posting with open proxies, itself, is vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 08:51 6 November 2010 (BST)
- Exactly. Knowingly using a proxy itself is never vandalism, unless of course they're using it to break rules. -- LEMON #1 09:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be? Unfortunately, the policy was written to just say "as wikimedia policy". We have a very different situation here though, and I don't see much in the way of legitimate uses of open proxies in a UDwiki context (unlike wikipedia) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:33 6 November 2010 (BST)
- Many loopholes, IP checker's arent always certain (for example, the locator I use pretty much says every IP is unilaterally not a proxy even when others say they are) and unlike normal vandalism that is almost always detected, this is not always detectable with near 100% unbias survey and is only something that can be detected on patrol by sysops, and may easily become subject to the wrath of sysop vendettas. For example, Nazi Party of Malton got away with using a proxy and no one knew, lest cared. But some users abused Checkuser for vandettas all the time, this may not be much different. Plus there's always the users who might use a proxy without knowing it's against the rules (but use it for simply "don't wanna be linked with my actual and legit account") and get slapped for it, that would suck. -- LEMON #1 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be? Unfortunately, the policy was written to just say "as wikimedia policy". We have a very different situation here though, and I don't see much in the way of legitimate uses of open proxies in a UDwiki context (unlike wikipedia) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:33 6 November 2010 (BST)
- Exactly. Knowingly using a proxy itself is never vandalism, unless of course they're using it to break rules. -- LEMON #1 09:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care if he is Corn or not, nor do I really know if I believe him to be or not (though the page-blanking is a key trait there). I still stand behind my assertion that the only good faith edits you could ascribe to him, loosely, are those before his being pointedly told that he was breaking the rules with his every edit, and even then, good or bad faith, they were still against the rules.
- Good, because trying to claim that any of his edits as vandalism is bullcock. I still despise that you all are happy for him to avoid the ban we gave him only to prove that he isn't the alt of a permabanned user (when we could have just left the account as it is) since the onus on proof is on us not him, but meh. You're all still gay and I would have preferred to have him kept here until we could get enough evidence of a pattern of behaviour or see how he reacts to community trolling before we just kneejerk a cornholioo assumption. -- LEMON #1 06:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- They were all done from behind a proxy, which means that each of his edits was done in a way that ran contrary to policy. I wasn't ruling on that basis however, merely mentioning it offhandedly (which seems to be contrary to Mis' stance). I still think he's Corn, and I agree with Yonn's stance: if he comes back without the proxy and isn't Corn, I'll (eat my hat and then) gladly support removing the permaban. —Aichon— 05:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- How was every one of his edits a vandal edit? -- LEMON #1 04:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- As Aichon already pointed out, each of his edits was technically a vandal edit, and TEV applies.
- Except we don't ban people for using proxies; we ban the proxies.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 23:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- No we won't. Proxy abuse is as much a factor here as anything else.
- But if he comes back without a proxy, we'll see he isn't Corn (unless he's Corn), so we'll rescind the original ban in error. :P --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, sept he's permabanned. So he'll have to come back as ana lt of a permabanned user. eh? eh? -- LEMON #1 22:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Duly Noted. Frankly I don't care a single fig about the content of the page, and if the user comes back without a proxy and recreates it there's no issue. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
