UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 12
User:Izumi of Lockettside
Izumi of Lockettside (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Ban avoidance |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permban |
Either Izumi avoiding a permaban or impersonation. Take your pick as the action unfolds.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Anybody else interested in ruling on this case?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Checkuser? I think with someone very similarly named as a perma-banned serial vandal with an as looooong history of sockpuppeting/ban avoidance as this, that would be a move that is called for. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Have done, but it isn't showing anything, which is why I'm leaning towards impersonation.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Checkuser? I think with someone very similarly named as a perma-banned serial vandal with an as looooong history of sockpuppeting/ban avoidance as this, that would be a move that is called for. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Permaban it. IP check won't do poo because Izumi personally has like a million IP's and if it's someone else then they are more than welcome to return with a normal name, given the context and history of the account name I'm more than willing to take the risk of it being a normal guy. -- LEMON #1 15:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Really? It's been 3 years, leave me alone. I've been here the whole time under different names, and caused you no ill. Using an alias is confusing to new members who rely on my group's page for information and questions. Digging up and continuing to beat this long-dead horse will do you no good, but that said it won't do me any either. Just buzz off and leave me to my business. I won't bother you anyway. Izumi of Lockettside 06:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Reference for the last time this happened. —Aichon— 07:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, well, Izumi lies, obviously. 6 months since the last vandal spree to "teach us a leason". Permbanned -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:46 3 January 2011 (BST)
- Templated and protected.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Boxy, did you ban the IP?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Leafy'Greens
Leafy'Greens (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Standard smear-campaign-vandalism. --VVV RPMBG 04:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Dirgenowitzki
Dirgenowitzki (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Erased Extinction's page. Obvious vandalism is obvious, but if you want to have mercy on the wikinewb, feel free. —Aichon— 04:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, we don't like vandal newbs around here, fuck'im. Warned. -- LEMON #1 09:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Survivor 2.0 and User:Zombieman 11
Zombieman 11 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Survivor 2.0 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Someone want to confirm they're the same person for me via checkuser. Thanks. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
actually this is my roomate u banned his other account nexus thinking it was me please dont ban him he is not me--Zombieman 11 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Orly. It's sharing the same IP, as well as being a virtual clone activity-wise. I am outright calling you a liar now. Prove me wrong.
23:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- fine i will--Zombieman 11 00:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Same IP. If it vandalises, it should be banned, and Zombieman gets another escalation -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:08 20 December 2010 (BST)
Sorry, can I just point out I was misconducted for this a couple of months back?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- You posted that two vandalism-free accounts were the same person without cause, this is something that has clearly come up as a result of a known vandal being looked into. It's not the same thing. 19:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, he was investigated because he was talking in a conversation where the other alt had been involved, much like in my case. He hadn't committed vandalism, but was investigated because he seemed to be acting similarly, just like in my case. It's the same thing. If there isn't a misconduct case by new years, everybody who ruled misconduct in my case should self-demote themselves.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- You actually serious? Aich's comments on the talk page sum this up perfectly, but to reiterate them - an active vandal having their IP checked again after having already committed sock offences is not at all the same as an innocent member having their innocuous (and might I add zerg-hunting and therefore sensitive to griefing) account posted after committing no wrong whatsoever. 00:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- I take time from my christmas lunch to support these positions, by making his own alts he is trying to subvert/avoid our a/vd records of him which may have him banned sooner if he breaks the rules again. That is the main difference between this and your case, he had alts not to game the wiki's system but to keep anonymity from certain people in the game, not the wiki (which we are expected to not intervene, unless on behalf of the wiki's rules). Zombieman's deception has one purpose, to game the system/rules of our wiki. And given his very recent history of abusing the "alt right" to try and start afresh in light of the HUGE uproar his last account received, it's more than fair to make a note of any alts he edits under if there is a chance he goes postal with them. And I think given the circumstances this is definitely one of those cases.
- aichon explains here too which I vouch for. He also probably could have said here since he was being directly addressed by Yon as one of the sysops who ruled against him at the time but obvs that's not so important. If one were to twist the letter of the law, you could also argue that in this case above, zombieman more or less admits it before IP match is confirmed publicly anyway, which more or less makes the announcement legal under any circumstance. -- LEMON #1 01:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- You actually serious? Aich's comments on the talk page sum this up perfectly, but to reiterate them - an active vandal having their IP checked again after having already committed sock offences is not at all the same as an innocent member having their innocuous (and might I add zerg-hunting and therefore sensitive to griefing) account posted after committing no wrong whatsoever.
- Actually, he was investigated because he was talking in a conversation where the other alt had been involved, much like in my case. He hadn't committed vandalism, but was investigated because he seemed to be acting similarly, just like in my case. It's the same thing. If there isn't a misconduct case by new years, everybody who ruled misconduct in my case should self-demote themselves.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Zombieman 11 (3)
Zombieman 11 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Nexus (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Told you we should have hoofed him right out. 01:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- You had me in agreement. I still don't know why he wasn't 3ER'd, since not a single one of his "good faith" edits had remained intact prior to today (including those ones cited by others on the talk page), and fully 2/3 of his edits were clearly intentional vandalism. Now, though, you can't 3ER him anyway, since he has some legit contributory edits. He really needs to be brought up for all of the pages he's vandalizing. Going on a tantrum that spans a half-dozen or more pages is clearly a case of extreme bad faith and is much worse than someone who only engages in a single misdeed, yet for some reason they're being handled the same way, which simply isn't right. People shouldn't get a pass just because they do all of their acts of vandalism within a few minutes of each other. If the 'ops aren't going to escalate because they're shy about doing multiple escalations for one case, I'm inclined to just make separate cases for each act. This should be obvious. —Aichon— 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly, the entire escalations system is stupid, but counting vandal sprees as one escalation has always been how cases are done, so make a policy allowing discrete punishments or live with it, I'm afraid. :( --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that's how it's always been done. Really, what allows you to escalate multiple times is that there are separate parts to the spree. In his case, I wouldn't suggest escalations for every edit, obviously, since that'd be foolish, but escalations for every page or every set of actions actually make a good deal of sense. And we definitely have escalated people repeatedly in a short period of time before, so long as their spree has separate aspects to it, such as these. Anyway, meh. Career vandal is a career vandal. As soon as someone pisses him off, he'll get himself banned, and if he actually reforms, I certainly won't complain. —Aichon— 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- One precedent against the millions of times it's been counted as one offence is hardly worth writing home about, especially since it's been assumed to be one as early as 2006. Also, talk page.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- As a victim of the vandal spree, I'd say Aich is an involved party. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. Anyway, it's precedent, not policy, and a bad one at that. It should simply be tossed for something more sane. Beyond that, I'm not going to argue it any further. —Aichon— 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Tell that to the cunts (ie. the entire sysop team minus me) who weren't ballsy enough to take on Nubis/DCC's misconduct/vandalism charges as individual cases in themself. Normally I'd join in the argument and agree with you, but once I'd unsuccessfully argued for the "individual escalations for each infraction" to be implemented in that case (you know, the most obvious bad-faith occurrence of that kind ever happening on the wiki) I knew it never would happen. -- LEMON #1 07:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. Anyway, it's precedent, not policy, and a bad one at that. It should simply be tossed for something more sane. Beyond that, I'm not going to argue it any further. —Aichon— 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- As a victim of the vandal spree, I'd say Aich is an involved party. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- One precedent against the millions of times it's been counted as one offence is hardly worth writing home about, especially since it's been assumed to be one as early as 2006. Also, talk page.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that's how it's always been done. Really, what allows you to escalate multiple times is that there are separate parts to the spree. In his case, I wouldn't suggest escalations for every edit, obviously, since that'd be foolish, but escalations for every page or every set of actions actually make a good deal of sense. And we definitely have escalated people repeatedly in a short period of time before, so long as their spree has separate aspects to it, such as these. Anyway, meh. Career vandal is a career vandal. As soon as someone pisses him off, he'll get himself banned, and if he actually reforms, I certainly won't complain. —Aichon— 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly, the entire escalations system is stupid, but counting vandal sprees as one escalation has always been how cases are done, so make a policy allowing discrete punishments or live with it, I'm afraid. :( --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I Agree with Misanthropy--Zombieman 11 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Vandalism. And is the above comment a self request? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Warned, and his alt, Nexus banned as a vandal alt -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:44 19 December 2010 (BST)
User:Zombieman 11 (2)
Zombieman 11 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
Special:Contributions/Zombieman 11. Multiple full and partial page wipes in an attempt to throw teddy from the pram. Have temp banned him for 2 hours to get a ruling on this without having to keep reverting wipes in the meantime. I'd be inclined to treat each page he's vandalised as a separate incident, but that's because I'm a cunt and don't particularly care to see him here any longer. 03:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Proper Vandalism I'd throw in 2 escalations. Anyone mind if I leave an in depth "if you don't know how to do stuff do this and this on his page? If He continues to ignore it we'll throw in a bunch of other stuff. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Vandalism - 1 warning and time served. He tried to contribute, failed badly, and chucked a tanty. None of which changes the escalation system -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:30 18 December 2010 (BST)
- Vandalism - As Boxy.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Warned -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:00 18 December 2010 (BST)
User:Zombieman 11
Zombieman 11 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Soft warning |
sigh, again, soft/warning time? -- LEMON #1 01:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism. Has been told specifically several times how to go about things, and I made particular note to remind him not to remove others' comments when posting. He's ignored this and continued to break things. 02:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree, his talk page is flooded with helpful suggestions that he's completely ignored through and through. -- LEMON #1 03:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Soft Warning for now, as Ross.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ooooooo another one, sept this one's official, that'll make him listen! -- LEMON #1 23:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well if he doesn't then it's easy enough to start escalating him. Right now, he isn't hurting anyone, so (soft) warning him is the right way to go.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Not vandalism - newb -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:00 18 December 2010 (BST)
You have absolutely no idea how inadequate "I told you so" feels right now! :D -- LEMON #1 07:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- So, we're going to go around banning people before they start vandalising now? You guys seem so bored, that you're looking to find people to bring here, and then when they get upset about that, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Meh -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:16 20 December 2010 (BST)
- Never said ban :| And if any, ANY of you guys think this guy was never just trying to be a cunt from the start then you're all naive as shit. -- LEMON #1 03:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Poodle of doom
Poodle of doom (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Spamming stuff. Specifically some nonsense on Kevan's talk page and an arbitration case against DDR that had no serious grounds.--
(Thad)eous Oakley Talk 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- He has also been unofficially warned for this and asked to stop on these pages by people but he chose to seemingly ignore it. --
(Thad)eous Oakley Talk 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Simply going to say not vandalism for the time being because I fucking hate messy cases across several admin sections. Whilst Poodle was being an annoying twat, it genuinely seemed to me to be an A/A matter so I'm not willing to rule for an escalation on VB. 18:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is this an A/A case? The way I see it, Ross' complaint was that Poodle was "senselessly spamming". Spamming's always been a VB issue, and it shouldn't be dealt with on Arbitration. The only distinction is that Arbies deals with edit conflicts, which this in no way is. Whether you think he's committed vandalism, he hasn't, or he deserves just a soft warning, it should still be a matter for VB.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, though I respect your decision. However, spamming has been dealt with on A/VB before, multiple times, and whether this case here is vandalism or not I do believe it should be dealt with here rather than A/A. --(Thad)eous Oakley Talk 18:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's a case of staying away from a single user's talk page, which has always been arbitration material. Just because that user is Kevan doesn't mean it should follow a different set of circumstances. 18:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's an arbitration punishment, not a reason for creating arbitration. Read Ross' complaint. He says the problem is spam.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. The spamming of a single user's talk page, and the way to combat that is with an A/A case where the creater is seeking a bar on commenting there. VB spam cases have dealt with profilic edits to many pages, not with unwanted edits to a single talk. Regardless of the terminology used, this should still be an A/A case with Ross or anyone else seeking to just put a block on Poodle commenting on Kev's talk page. An escalation doesn't fix the issue, it just escalates someone who is likely to do it again anyway, whereas a ruling would create a situation where every edit there would rack up these cases quicker than individually bringing them without one would, acting as an actual deterrent. 18:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you seem to be breaking the eggnog open early this year. He's done spam, which is a vandal offence. Vandal offences are dealt with on Vandal banning. Running in and yelling that it's an arbies issue makes no sense, especially since you're arguing a precedent which doesn't exist. Harassment is most likely what you're thinking of, where two fighting users get a cool off period not to argue with each other. If I repeatedly posted the word "Hello" on your talk page every day for a month, I'd go on VB for spamming your talk page. I wouldn't go to arbitration. It's quite possibly the most well known precedent. Ross didn't even ask for Poodle to be banned from kevan's talk, he asked him to stop spamming it with comments about snow.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. He's looking for a prevention of future edits, not a warning based on past edits. VB is to deal with events that have happened, arbies for events happening or likely to happen - to prevent future comments to Kevan's talk page, an arbitration ruling is the way to go, not a warning for previous edits. Regardless of whether it's considered spam or not, it's about restraining future edits from occuring, and that's the purpose of arbitration, not of VB. I'm not getting into whether or not spam is VBable. I'm saying that preventing a user from commenting on another user's talk page, spam or no spam, is an A/A matter. 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, that's actually not what arbitration is, by a literal definition, by a wiki definition or by any definition. It's for resolving conflicts between users.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Present conflicts or forseeable future conflicts. You can't resolve something that's already over. Hence, arbitration - by usage, not by definition - is for dealing with present and near-future issues, and that's what this is. It's an issue about possible future edits. 19:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- But it isn't a conflict between two users, so what you said makes no sense.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is clearly a conflict between Ross and those who agree with him, and Poodle. 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ross told him to stop. So did DDR, before him. Thad also said to stop before him. This is in no way a conflict between Ross and anyone. This is about Poodle doing something which is against the rules of the wiki, and Ross telling him to stop. It's a vandal case.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- But it's not against the rules. The only thing resembling a rule on this mentions prolific page editing, not a few edits to one page. He was asked to stop simply because it was annoying, not in any official function due to rules being breached. Therefore it's a case of conflict between the party wanting him to not do it again, of which Ross, as the A/A case starter, is a figurehead, and Poodle. VBing someone in order to stop future happenings is a stupid idea, as it's meant to be used to apply escalations for infractions that have already incurred. VBing Poodle now to stop him editing Kevan's page in the future, all over some vague interpretation of what isn't really a rule, is a terrible idea, when this should simply have remained an A/A case asking him to stop. 19:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the first person to warn him (as I said a minute ago) was DDR, who did warn him in an official capacity and threaten vandalism. And since you keep trying to pretend nobody's accused him of spamming, which is vandalism, even Ross accused him of that.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's clearly not what I'm saying at all. Don't put words in my mouth - just read what I'm actually saying. What I'm saying is that the point of this case is to stop him doing it again. Regardless of whether it is spam or not, and I don't care if it is because it's irrelevant, the prevention of future edits to a user talk page is the domain of A/A. This case doesn't hinge on punishing Poodle for past spam and being done with it, or I'd have voted vandalism and washed my hands. The purpose here is to do something constructive for the community by stopping future unwanted and annoying edits to Kevan's talk page, regardless of spam or intent or any of that, and the way to do that is through A/A. I can't be any clearer than that, but you don't seem to be grasping me. I am not arguing over the issue of spam. I only brought it up in order to show that it's not a clear-cut VB case and should be A/Aed. I'm saying that this is the wrong avenue to use in order to pursue the goal at hand. A/VB is for doling out escalations for past offences and being done with it, and hoping they don't repeat them. A/A is for trying to reach a ruling on contentious issues which aren't actually over yet, and for trying to prevent future issues from happening. Poodle posting bullshit to Kev's talk in the future is something that is beyond the scope of an A/VB case. So the way to stop it is to pursue an A/A case with the aim of barring him from posting there as a result. That is it. That is what I am saying. 19:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Right, can you stop saying that A/A is to do with current or future issues, because it isn't. It's to do with mitigating conflicts between users, VB is to do with vandalism. It doesn't matter for fuck if the vandalism is a recurring problem and the goal is preventing it by warning or bannign the user. If it's vandalism, it MUST go here. You previously said if this case were about punishing Poodle, then you'd vote vandalism. So why the fuck haven't you voted vandalism? This is a VB case, so don't vote based on some stupid line of thought that you don't ever want him to post on Kevan's talk again. That isn't what this case is about, and it isn't even what Ross started the case about. He said specifically, he didn't want the spam to continue. It's a VB matter, so stop whining about how it should be on Arbitration, and rule based on the fact that it's here.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- OH MY FUCKING CHRIST. I give up. You are obviously not reading what I'm typing at all or you'd know exactly what I mean by current and future issues. A/A CAN'T FUCKING CHANGE WHAT IS OVER AND DONE WITH SO ALL OF ITS CASES ARE BY DEFAULT ONES THAT ARE HAPPENING (CURRENT) OR ARE TO BE AVOIDED (FUTURE). FUCKING SERIOUSLY. I am voting as I did. Because I believe that this is the wrong way to go about this issue, as I have spent too long explaining. 19:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- /Discussion. Time for a break. --(Thad)eous Oakley Talk 19:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- /Discussion. Time for a break. --
- OH MY FUCKING CHRIST. I give up. You are obviously not reading what I'm typing at all or you'd know exactly what I mean by current and future issues. A/A CAN'T FUCKING CHANGE WHAT IS OVER AND DONE WITH SO ALL OF ITS CASES ARE BY DEFAULT ONES THAT ARE HAPPENING (CURRENT) OR ARE TO BE AVOIDED (FUTURE). FUCKING SERIOUSLY. I am voting as I did. Because I believe that this is the wrong way to go about this issue, as I have spent too long explaining.
- Right, can you stop saying that A/A is to do with current or future issues, because it isn't. It's to do with mitigating conflicts between users, VB is to do with vandalism. It doesn't matter for fuck if the vandalism is a recurring problem and the goal is preventing it by warning or bannign the user. If it's vandalism, it MUST go here. You previously said if this case were about punishing Poodle, then you'd vote vandalism. So why the fuck haven't you voted vandalism? This is a VB case, so don't vote based on some stupid line of thought that you don't ever want him to post on Kevan's talk again. That isn't what this case is about, and it isn't even what Ross started the case about. He said specifically, he didn't want the spam to continue. It's a VB matter, so stop whining about how it should be on Arbitration, and rule based on the fact that it's here.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's clearly not what I'm saying at all. Don't put words in my mouth - just read what I'm actually saying. What I'm saying is that the point of this case is to stop him doing it again. Regardless of whether it is spam or not, and I don't care if it is because it's irrelevant, the prevention of future edits to a user talk page is the domain of A/A. This case doesn't hinge on punishing Poodle for past spam and being done with it, or I'd have voted vandalism and washed my hands. The purpose here is to do something constructive for the community by stopping future unwanted and annoying edits to Kevan's talk page, regardless of spam or intent or any of that, and the way to do that is through A/A. I can't be any clearer than that, but you don't seem to be grasping me. I am not arguing over the issue of spam. I only brought it up in order to show that it's not a clear-cut VB case and should be A/Aed. I'm saying that this is the wrong avenue to use in order to pursue the goal at hand. A/VB is for doling out escalations for past offences and being done with it, and hoping they don't repeat them. A/A is for trying to reach a ruling on contentious issues which aren't actually over yet, and for trying to prevent future issues from happening. Poodle posting bullshit to Kev's talk in the future is something that is beyond the scope of an A/VB case. So the way to stop it is to pursue an A/A case with the aim of barring him from posting there as a result. That is it. That is what I am saying.
- Actually, the first person to warn him (as I said a minute ago) was DDR, who did warn him in an official capacity and threaten vandalism. And since you keep trying to pretend nobody's accused him of spamming, which is vandalism, even Ross accused him of that.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- But it's not against the rules. The only thing resembling a rule on this mentions prolific page editing, not a few edits to one page. He was asked to stop simply because it was annoying, not in any official function due to rules being breached. Therefore it's a case of conflict between the party wanting him to not do it again, of which Ross, as the A/A case starter, is a figurehead, and Poodle. VBing someone in order to stop future happenings is a stupid idea, as it's meant to be used to apply escalations for infractions that have already incurred. VBing Poodle now to stop him editing Kevan's page in the future, all over some vague interpretation of what isn't really a rule, is a terrible idea, when this should simply have remained an A/A case asking him to stop.
- Ross told him to stop. So did DDR, before him. Thad also said to stop before him. This is in no way a conflict between Ross and anyone. This is about Poodle doing something which is against the rules of the wiki, and Ross telling him to stop. It's a vandal case.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is clearly a conflict between Ross and those who agree with him, and Poodle.
- But it isn't a conflict between two users, so what you said makes no sense.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Present conflicts or forseeable future conflicts. You can't resolve something that's already over. Hence, arbitration - by usage, not by definition - is for dealing with present and near-future issues, and that's what this is. It's an issue about possible future edits.
- No, that's actually not what arbitration is, by a literal definition, by a wiki definition or by any definition. It's for resolving conflicts between users.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. He's looking for a prevention of future edits, not a warning based on past edits. VB is to deal with events that have happened, arbies for events happening or likely to happen - to prevent future comments to Kevan's talk page, an arbitration ruling is the way to go, not a warning for previous edits. Regardless of whether it's considered spam or not, it's about restraining future edits from occuring, and that's the purpose of arbitration, not of VB. I'm not getting into whether or not spam is VBable. I'm saying that preventing a user from commenting on another user's talk page, spam or no spam, is an A/A matter.
- I'm sorry, but you seem to be breaking the eggnog open early this year. He's done spam, which is a vandal offence. Vandal offences are dealt with on Vandal banning. Running in and yelling that it's an arbies issue makes no sense, especially since you're arguing a precedent which doesn't exist. Harassment is most likely what you're thinking of, where two fighting users get a cool off period not to argue with each other. If I repeatedly posted the word "Hello" on your talk page every day for a month, I'd go on VB for spamming your talk page. I wouldn't go to arbitration. It's quite possibly the most well known precedent. Ross didn't even ask for Poodle to be banned from kevan's talk, he asked him to stop spamming it with comments about snow.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. The spamming of a single user's talk page, and the way to combat that is with an A/A case where the creater is seeking a bar on commenting there. VB spam cases have dealt with profilic edits to many pages, not with unwanted edits to a single talk. Regardless of the terminology used, this should still be an A/A case with Ross or anyone else seeking to just put a block on Poodle commenting on Kev's talk page. An escalation doesn't fix the issue, it just escalates someone who is likely to do it again anyway, whereas a ruling would create a situation where every edit there would rack up these cases quicker than individually bringing them without one would, acting as an actual deterrent.
- That's an arbitration punishment, not a reason for creating arbitration. Read Ross' complaint. He says the problem is spam.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's a case of staying away from a single user's talk page, which has always been arbitration material. Just because that user is Kevan doesn't mean it should follow a different set of circumstances.
Soft Warning - The posting every day was really annoying, but he mostly stopped after the "I'll take you to VB" from DDR. He did post twice more afterwards, but imo they weren't enough to constitute full blown spam. I say soft warn him officially, and if he does it again start piling on escalations.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism - He's been doing crap like this for a while, in the forms of A/A cases and annoying messages on peoples talk pages. The reason he should be warned is because this time he was TOLD what he was doing was wrong and kept doing it anyway, while full well knowing the preciousness of the page for serious conversation. If he'd done this on any other talk page no one would have cared, but spamming on Kevan's talk, which is the only communication medium we have to publicly contact him, is a no-no, and Poodle knew this.
In fact, I don't know why people are saying that after I "warned" him, he stopped harassing Kevan about snow and started spamming nonsense, as if it's a good thing in his defence. If anything, that's miles worse because all it shows is that he disregarded the reason he was spamming (which was legitimate, although way too harassing imo), and just resorted to spamming paragraphs of nonsense instead. He knew it was wrong, he was told it many many times and kept going, somehow thinking he was being funny or clever or witty or ironic or whatever he thinks when he does this garbage. He needs to get this "the wiki is my playground for dumb and lols and making nonsense" shit out of his system. -- LEMON #1 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Not vandalism - at the moment. Do take it as a warning not to be deliberately annoying to third parties, even on talk pages, though. Eventually it will be deemed vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:28 9 December 2010 (BST)
Closed as Not Vandalism with 2 votes for Vandalism and 2 votes for Not Vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
