UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 09

September

Izumis banned

Went through the block logs and pulled out the whodunnits for Izumi Bans The current rankings:

1. The Grimch, 7 bans
2. Karlsbad, 6 bans
3. Hagnat, 4 bans
4. Max Grivas, 3 bans
5. Vista, 3 bans
6. Boxy, 2 bans
7. Thari, 1 ban
8. Zombie slay3r, 1 ban

Doesnt look like she will be learning her lesson anytime soon, so expect these to change. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 06:01, 1 October 2007 (BST)

Discussion part 1

while i dont like to see this kind of thing being recorded (it didnt worked that well with PQN), this is good to illustrate Izumi how many alt accounts she have created and why we are so pissed about her. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:45, 1 October 2007 (BST)

This is idiotic. If it's true that Sysops want a "rational progression of a vandal banning page with less drama" then things like this should be avoided. Vandal bannings used for the sake of bragging and having fun over actual users that got themselves banned isn't a step towards that objective at all. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:45, 2 October 2007 (BST)

Oh pull your head out your arse. Izumi has stated she wont go away, so why cant we make a competition out of banning her? She will go on doing what she was going to be doing anyway, and we sysops get to have a little harmless fun. Besides, she cant reform, she has already earned her permaban almost four times over now. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:52, 2 October 2007 (BST)

27 bans, i thought it was more.--Darkmagic 02:00, 2 October 2007 (BST)

6 of the bans are the original Izumi bans. I figured since it was a complete collection, we may as well toss em in. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:02, 2 October 2007 (BST)

What happens when you get tired of banning her?--Darkmagic 02:04, 2 October 2007 (BST)

Other SysOps start banning her. :P.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:07, 2 October 2007 (BST)

After that?--Darkmagic 02:09, 2 October 2007 (BST)

They deal with the annoyance and ban her anyways. IT's their job, someone has to.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:10, 2 October 2007 (BST)

For how offical wikimedia was, they never really made a feature for sock puppet users.--Darkmagic 02:11, 2 October 2007 (BST)

If by "harmless fun" you mean how the Sysop's overall reputation is being spoiled by actions such as this, I clap my hands at you. If this only affected yourself, I wouldn't even care, but making fun of an user that got him/herself banned over almost no clear cut vandalism is the kind of thing that makes the community doubt their own administration. We don't have a blanker not a spambot not anything like that here in first place. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:13, 2 October 2007 (BST)

So...Editing someone else's page isn't clear cut vandalism? Even doing it multiple times and being told not to, and when quite a few third parties tried to tell her how, she ignored them? Man, in that case, back to 73's page I go! :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:17, 2 October 2007 (BST)

I mean that the user isn't a blanker or a spammer, or otherwise like those PQNs or 3page. He's even asking for forgiveness from time to time, and when he makes alts he's not doing any mischief. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:20, 2 October 2007 (BST)

She matt. izumi is a she. or at least thats what she says.--'BP^Tmz 02:22, 2 October 2007 (BST)

Ha! Sorry. You're right in that within the boudaries of this wiki you'll never know: look at User:Mia Kristos case. I still have doubts about that myself. I may be a woman as well O_o. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:25, 2 October 2007 (BST)

i imagine a fat guy in dress holding a doll saying ,"im a pretty girl" over and over again, whenever i talk to "her".

You people are disgusting. All I ever wanted was a second chance, a chance to become a legitamate member of the community. A chance to redeem myself for my past behavior. I've even sent email after email apologizing and asking for just a little consideration. And this is what I find? I hope you're proud of yourselves. You're supposed to be setting standards for this stupid wiki. Instead of helping me to reform you've opted to kick me down at every turn and act as though YOU'RE the victims, and I'M some monster. Sunset Wind 03:16, 2 October 2007 (BST)

Laughs, Izumi, you broke rules AGAIN by coming back during a permaban, that is why we keep banning you, you won't stop coming back, if you'de stop that we might consider it, but the fact you've made 23 alts, 24 now, goes more against you then help you, stop coming and they'll think about it.--Darkmagic 03:19, 2 October 2007 (BST)

one day. ONE DAY. You couldn't stay a single day whitout creating a sockpupper account and break the rules AGAIN. How are we supposed to let you come back again, izumi, if even a simple request made by those who are trying to bring you back you are unable to follow ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:21, 2 October 2007 (BST)

We mostly said the same thing, yours was more pro. though, how many proxies do you think til we hit a virus infected one?--Darkmagic 03:24, 2 October 2007 (BST)

For your information, HAGNAT, I wasn't going to create a sock. Not ONE. I was going to listen to you in hopes you would help me. But then I found THIS: "while i dont like to see this kind of thing being recorded (it didnt worked that well with PQN), this is good to illustrate Izumi how many alt accounts she have created and why we are so pissed about her" So suck a fat one. Im not leaving 03:29, 2 October 2007 (BST)

WE should find out where she lives so we can get her internet disconnected, a great way to solve this problem, cut her from ALL internet. and officaly, izumi, you made a sock puppet the moment your second, post ban account was made.--Darkmagic 03:31, 2 October 2007 (BST)

We can't realy do that. To be honest she's never gonna get back in, It's just a case of ignoring whatever she posts and banning her alts as soon as they are uncovered. All this drama will go away soon, and when the only affect she has on the wiki is to create account, get banned, no real discussion, she will give up and go away. If you ignore em, ect. I was a little confused with the discussion about wheter she was a she, or a guy posing as a girl. Personaly I've always taken the veiw that it realy doesn't matter who you are on the internet, male or female. That's why I've always taken specificaly neutral names and never stated my sex. It shouldn't matter wheter you are male or female, black or white gay or straight and I'm always a little dubuious when a conversation starts to turn to who the person is in real life. I don't think this is the place for it.--Seventythree^Talk 11:38, 2 October 2007 (BST)

A feamouse qoute, "This is the internet, where men are men, woman are men and underage teens are FBI agents." And how do you think they figured out who supershadow really was? [1] is a link to those of you who don't know,

he's a star wars fan who claims to be freinds with lukas and has impersonated him on several occasions. They found out who he was through the internet very much the same way we could.--Darkmagic 22:36, 2 October 2007 (BST)

It realy shouldn't be about that. I was just pointing out that I don't think we should be making judgements on someone about who they are in real life. If someone tells us that they are a girl, we should accept that, not question it, cos it realy has no place on the wiki.--Seventythree^Talk 23:15, 2 October 2007 (BST)

Whats the first ip address she used? i just need to know.--Darkmagic 01:41, 3 October 2007 (BST)

We's not supposed tah gives out dat infomation homie! Only SysOps know it, and you aren't allowed into their secret club!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:48, 3 October 2007 (BST)

Discussion part 2

Can't we quit this squabbling about guys, girls and banning please? Give Iumi a week to recollect as stated by hagnat, then try it all over again. Insults aren't really helping either.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:58, 3 October 2007 (BST)

Wait, did I insult someone? I can't remember doing it......-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:05, 3 October 2007 (BST)

26 bans, 26, thats why we shouldn't let her recollect, she keeps coming back, she probly came back again, but hasn't made herself visible ywet.--Darkmagic 03:42, 3 October 2007 (BST)

i agree. she had her chance, she blew it. she could have stayed under the radar from then on, but she had to keep bitching and blew her chance once again. she shouldnt be allowed to return even if see "recollects" herself.--'BP^Tmz 04:14, 3 October 2007 (BST)

I would really like to see someone coming back through the proper channels after a permaban, with Sysop's sponsorship. This would be a true way to express a change in the administrational style after all these years. Still, users that weren't vandals per see at the start of their wiki lives (like Gold Blade) or that got themselves permabanned after strange maneuvers by the administrational team (Amazing) still are banned when the peers that incited them to break the rules through "proper" channels like trolling, harassing, nitpicking and general asshattery are still around. Even if current Sysops believe that there wasn't any case deserving a permaban comeback in the past, this is probably as close as we'll get. It would be interesting from now on to see the current administrational team behaviour concerning this issue. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:02, 3 October 2007 (BST)

... Are. . . Are you seriously implying that Amazing wasn't that bad of a user, and should be allowed back?--Jorm 05:35, 3 October 2007 (BST)

I'm saying that some of the guys that wanted him banned were far worse than him, that his "vandalism" isn't the type of destructive vandalism that gets an user permabanned on this wiki normally, and that the way he was banned (suddenly two warnings from the past reapearing just at the right moment) was cheap. Anyways, the discussion isn't about him. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:22, 3 October 2007 (BST)

No fucking way. People, to get permabanned from this wiki, need to do some pretty seriously persistent shit. You have 8 fucking chances. if you blow them, thats your own damned fault. Permaban is permenant. If a person blows their 8 chances (without allowing the warnings to be erased through normal procedures), they dont deserve any other ones. In Amazings case, the warnings came from the time when the recording system wasnt permenant. Warnings were only kept track of on a persons talk page, not an official vandal data page. It was a damned good thing they were remembered too. If it makes you feel better, i can post my two warnings and ban from november 05 on the vandal data page, though i cant see what use they will be, seeing as how they would all be struck under the current rules, what with 22 months and well in excess of 4000 edits since then. Also, i dont understand what the hell you are trying to prove with this restarting of the OMG SYSOPS! drama you were involved in before your stint as a sysop without a clue. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:55, 3 October 2007 (BST)

While I agree with you, Grim, that anyone able to get a permaban on this wiki is very much an undesirable contributor, Mathew's position that "a permabanned user could get a last chance to return if sponsored by a sysop" isn't an altogether unreasonable one. There'd have to be some pretty stringent limitations of such a return (in that the merest hint of trouble, and they're out), and some real penalty for a sysop who sponsored the failed return of someone... but it's not totally unreasonable. Having said that, no, I don't think I'd support it, all the same -- boxy • talk • 14:43 3 October 2007 (BST)

Grimch, every discussion is not another opportunity to talk about yourself. Keep my stunts for myself: we all know you don't have the balls to do anything like that but just make the role of opinionated bastard without actually doing something to back it up. And, finally, read the guidelines for Christ sake: bans don't get struck. Anyways, about Izumi: as a vandal I think her data is pretty clean, and she's is probably the least destructive vandal the wiki had, so that's why I think that if she's not coming back from her permaban then probably no one ever will. I don't know what else are you waiting for: someone whose only vandalism is changing personal pages content that she thought offensive/misleading/whatever and creating alts to argue about herself is as far as we can get in the not-so-destructive-permabanned-users department. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:00, 3 October 2007 (BST)

Because all this drama is in no way reinforcing the ego of someone who has been banned from the wiki.--Seventythree^Talk 16:52, 3 October 2007 (BST)

I was discussing ways to bring back izumi, but she was unable to follow a simple request, and then i no longer look foward her return. And Jedaz did came back from his perma-ban. So, how come no one returns from them ? õ_O --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:11, 3 October 2007 (BST)

So, as far as I see it, the three things that there needs to be a consensus on are 1) Should Izumi be able to come back to the wiki? 2)Should there be a possibility for people being reinstated after a permenant ban? 3)should there be a recognised process as to which people under a permenant ban can apply to be reinstated, or should it be on a case-by-case basis?--Seventythree^Talk 18:52, 3 October 2007 (BST)

If you want a way for people to come back after a permaban, write a policy for it. Under existing rules, any sysop is well within his or her rights to permaban any previously permabanned member of this wiki if they come back with an alternate account. Apparently the jedaz thing was handled differently to normal procedures, and thus would be classified as wrong. Basically, im saying that if you want to invite a legitimately permabanned member back without the support of an actual policy, i will exercise my abilities to enforce the standing rules of this wiki. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:17, 3 October 2007 (BST)

That's kind of what I'm trying to ask. Is it, in the opinion of the wiki as a whole neccisary to create a way for Permabanned users to come back? Is there any way to block an account from editing all but one page, a page that would basicaly be for banned users to make an appeal? --Seventythree^Talk 19:21, 3 October 2007 (BST)

No, there is not a way to do that, at least on any wiki i have seen. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:43, 3 October 2007 (BST)

Shame. Should there be an appeals procedure on the wiki? --Seventythree^Talk 19:45, 3 October 2007 (BST)

In my opinion, no. you have to show some pretty serious contempt for the rules to get kicked off permenantly. We are so lenient it is fucking ridiculous. To not only break the rules, but to never, ever learn from your mistakes is to demonstrate that you truly have no interest in being a member of this community. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:58, 3 October 2007 (BST)

I agree in some cases. Possibly there should be a system, like a vote 6 months after someone receives a perma ban. If they get more yes than no's then they get voted back in. Maybe have it so if 3 Sysops veto them coming back then it automaticaly fails (seeing as sysops are the ones who would ahve been wiping up their mess) What do you think?--Seventythree^Talk 20:05, 3 October 2007 (BST)

That makes absolutely no fucking sense at all. 1 day, 2 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year... 6 months? That fucking ridiculous. Permenant means permenant. Gone. Finished. If you are going to make the mistakes, you should have to suffer the consequences for making them, especially when its so damned hard to get it done in the first place. Checking vandal data, there are only two people went the whole way through the process to permaban, and only two others sitting on a year ban. Its so fucking hard to get permabanned from this wiki without being a complete douchebag its ridiculous. There should be absolutely no appeals process for a permaban. Its by its very nature PERMENANT. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:16, 3 October 2007 (BST)

Discussion part 3

Can somebody give me a summery of the past discussion since i last posted? cause i can't read that many updates, get's confusing, also, exactly what did amazing do?--Darkmagic 22:05, 3 October 2007 (BST)

Well, if you're too lazy to read a few posts (I did...I have no life. :(. ) then maybe you shouldn't be here. :P. Amazing did a lot of things. Caused a lot of drama. Created a few crappy games.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:09, 3 October 2007 (BST)

i think one problem with the izumi case was, she got most of her bans all at once. maybe a policy were you can only get one increase of ban level per day? is one "spree" of vandalism considered one ban level addition, or many?--'BP^Tmz 22:33, 3 October 2007 (BST)

Her increases were because of ban evasion. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:56, 3 October 2007 (BST)

yes but the reason she got permabanned was as follows. she got banned for one week(month? i forget) for vandalising. then in her anger she made alts to come back. she was caught and banned for the next time length and so on. now that was all one incedent, so shouldnt it just be one ban level?--'BP^Tmz 23:14, 3 October 2007 (BST)

I'm not saying that an appeal should get Izumi back. I'm just asking wheter in case of exeptional circumstances there should be a policy by which a permabanned user can be let onto a probationary period of "good behavior" during which time anything the do results in a total Irreversable ban. I beleive that there should be some pretty strong controlls on this so that only in very exeptional cases when the weight of opinion held by a large number of long term and trusted wiki members warrents it someone may have a chance of being let back in. Personaly I beleive (this is only my opinion of course) that while it is very hard to get yourself permenantly banned, everyone can act in a very stupid way from time to time, and, I dunno, It jsut seems to me that drama escalates so fast in this place that people quickly finnd themselves doing and saying things that a week later they deeply regret. People should have a chance to prove that they have changed and learnt. In my opinion anyway. --Seventythree^Talk 23:29, 3 October 2007 (BST)

BP, it wasnt one incident, it was three interrelated yet still sperate incidents. She vandalised. She got banned for vandalism (One month). End of first incident. As a result of the first incident, she signed up an alt and came back the next day. She was caught and banned again, this time for a year. End of second incident. She then, as a result of this, signed up again. She was caught and banned permenantly. This was not the first time she had evaded a ban either. Her week ban was also the result of ban evasion. She knew perfectly well a LONG time in advance that what she was doing wrong. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:47, 3 October 2007 (BST)

This is growing pointless, --Darkmagic 23:52, 3 October 2007 (BST)

Discussion part 4

You guys all trying to be kind to her really is encouraging her to come back with more proxies and alts account to get MORE sympathy. I agree with Grim - it's so hard to get a permaban, that they should stay permanent. She broke the rules again and again and couldn't even do the smallest amounnt of humility and stay away for the length of those bans. She has zero interest in following the few rules that ARE in place, so why should she get any quarter from the residents of this wiki who do? 'Cos she's a girl? 'Cos she makes a really good contribution to this wiki? I'm not aware that anyone's going to miss her contributions. She seems to think that the in-game fighting extends to this wiki too - well it doesn't. The wiki is a community tool for PLAYERS of the game, and she became a Vandal. She was completely unapologetic about do that, and then couldn't even respect the bans she got. Good riddance. And she has the fucking audacity to flaunt her alt accounts here. She's doesn't even want to become a background user - she just wants to impose herself on this wiki. 'arm. 23:54, 3 October 2007 (BST)

While I do agree with Grimmy that getting permabanned is hard thing to accomplish without good reason, I think its a good thing to try and keep users who aren't alright vandals (correct me if I'm wrong, her first few contributions wasn't vandalism). Letting her back in one week on probation can give her a final chance to see if she could possibly be a good contributer. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:03, 4 October 2007 (BST)

She has shown no intention of being a good contributor to this wiki. She has evaded 27 bans, three of which were before she was perma'd. She made her bed, now she gets to lie in it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:16, 4 October 2007 (BST)

while i agree that in no way should she come back, im still thinking if it was really more then one incident.as grim said above "As a result of the first incident". meaning that if the first incident was handled differently the other incidents might not have occured. this suggests to me that something is wrong with the current system. i wouldnt have a clue about what is wrong or how to fix it, and in no way am i trying to blame the sysops. they're doing the best they can with what they've got. but maybe it's time the community did a rehall of the vandal system.--'BP^Tmz 00:27, 4 October 2007 (BST)

There's nothing wrong with the system if she doesn't deserve to come back and she has a permaban. What are you trying to fix here? 'arm. 00:32, 4 October 2007 (BST)

if there's nothing wrong with the system then why is there this long discussion about one case? obiviously some people feel system could use a little tweaking. for example, in the real world when someone breaks the law they go to court. would it be possable to have some form of a jury system? 8 random people are choosen to deliver a verdit?--'BP^Tmz 00:38, 4 October 2007 (BST)

I'm sure a sysop is going to come along and say how much of an bitch that'd be. But, meh. This wiki is too prone to drama, too uptight.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:45, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Why, she has 27 bans--Darkmagic 00:46, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Dude, just because she was a moron and reacted badly to a banning doesnt mean the system is flawed. It means she is fucked in the head. People are sympathising with her simply because she claims to have an intention to reform, despite all her actions to the contrary. Also, its not entirely about her. Its about any user getting permabanned, with her being used as the most recent ecample. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:46, 4 October 2007 (BST)

oh, i dont belive the system is flawed in any big way right now, but surely you agree it's not perfect. mind you nothing is.--'BP^Tmz 01:43, 4 October 2007 (BST)

The system is designed in itself to try to keep this very thing from happening. When some one is banned for 24/48 or even a week it will normally give them a break to reconsider their edits/mind set, cool off and come back with a fresher perspective. Izumi has not yet given herself a full week to cool off. Even with the added drama of ban evasion I might consider being supportive of giving her a 30th chance to prove herself if she would simply take a break for a week month then make contact through some channel other than further puppeteering. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 02:18, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Thats not our fault, and i fail to see why she should be given a break for breaking even more rules than other people. It just doesnt make any fucking sense. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:33, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Unlike most vandals, Izumi has gone through means that the average vandal wouldn't bother with, like email and talking. That effort to communicate makes her somewhat different from other vandals.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:36, 4 October 2007 (BST)

True, however she should not just get a free pass back to the wiki. i like the month time out. then we'll "talk". not a "for sure" let her back but just talk about it. because right now i dont want her back, with the way she's acting.--'BP^Tmz 02:43, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Other users have used email to protest warnings or bans in the past, and unless there was actual misconduct involved in the case, these have always ended in failure. I would argue that Izumi is different from other vandals in the fact that unlike the others, she has been banned 30 times and still hasnt gotten the hint. As i said before, she claims to be trying to work things out. she claims to be trying to reform. In fact, she has been claiming this since her week ban, and here we are, 27 bans later, her still taking the same line "Im trying to be good, i really am", yet her actions betray any stated attempt at reconciliation. Her latest alt was named "Im not leaving". She flat out said she would keep coming back unless her characters in game were banned. She has knowingly and repeatedly treated the rules of theis wiki with contempt, violating them continually. No. She has no interest in being a productive member of this community. The fact that she repeatedly signs up with alts simply to whine about how she is getting banned for signing up with alts and whining about getting banned goes to show that she is not, and could not ever be, a member of this community. There are rules to be followed, and when you piss all over them like she has done, you deserve neither leniency nor mercy. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:51, 4 October 2007 (BST)

I guess I give in then. This isn't me we're talking about, nor do I know Izumi. Let's put this to a rest then, or at least I will.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:54, 4 October 2007 (BST)

well i do agree on the "rest" part. lets wait and she what she does next.--'BP^Tmz 03:02, 4 October 2007 (BST)

She will probably just sign up again in a couple of days with another slew of alt accounts. Myself and the other sysops will swarm over each other to ban them, and she will sign up a few more to bitch and moan, then we wont hear from her for a couple of days, maybe a week before she repeats the process. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:06, 4 October 2007 (BST)

and if she doesnt?what if she quiets down for a month or so?--'BP^Tmz 03:16, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Then we say good fucking riddance and get on with our lives. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:17, 4 October 2007 (BST)

we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.--'BP^Tmz 03:19, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Discussion part 5

Well, what I can get from this discussion up to now is that people, while having their differences on wheter Izumi deserves another opportunity or not, agree that such treatment won't be necessarily seen as a bad thing. A policy about such a special case won't be needed if the Sysops can reach a consensus (See Jjames permaban for that matter) and if such consensus is possible then it's by far the better thing to do. The hostility that some members of the community show towards such a treatment (with one very special case that opposes this motion in any shape, way or form) seems to be just a matter of opinion and, in the same way that the acceptance of such a motion implies, carries by itself the perception everyone has of this individual case. Anyways, no matter how much we discuss this the last word in this particular case rests ultimately in Izumi's own actions, whether she starts making more alt accounts or not, so this discussion itself should be about if any case of a permabanned person should be granted forgiveness or we'll just tolerate the creation of more and more charts just as the one above where our administrational team competes on who has got more alts in his bag. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:35, 4 October 2007 (BST)

I have an idea. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results." We have done NOTHING but yak on about it. Let's try to let this sit, okay? Izumi seems to have quieted down again. Let's us all stop talking about this, and if Izumi comes back, address it again then, with a calmer and clearer head- and maybe a solution that won't come out of arguing in circles.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  03:51, 4 October 2007 (BST)

I don't think she's calmed, either she's waiting for us to not ban her right away and therfor waste a proxy on nothing, or she's already rejoined but hasn't madeherself known.--Darkmagic 04:59, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Personaly Izumi realy is not an issue for me, My issue is wheter it would be possible to bring in a system for permabanned users by which after several months they may get a hearing of sorts where a large group of long-time users (over 200 edits maybe?) have to agree to them being let back in, for a probationary period of a month, during which time, any misdermeenor results in a permenant ban, no question. I guess what I'm asking for is another level in the banning policy, one that allows a great period of time for someone to "grow up" and such. --Seventythree^Talk 07:40, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Well, for starters, it doesnt take very long to get 200 edits. Id say closer to 2000 edits and a year posting to count as a long time user, and thats after you remove the welcome newbie template spam and the iwitness locationblock creator edits from the mix. Secondly, as i have said from the very beginning, you have tro show a thorough and persistent contempt for both the rules in particular and the community in general to get permabanned from the wiki. If you do manage to earn one, you shouldnt ever be able to get back. Besides, making the permaban any shorter than a year fucks over the value of the yearban. Permabans are, and should remain permenant. If you get permabanned... well, you had your chance, you blew it. Quit whining and fuck off. You arent welcome anymore. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:41, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Welp, that wait and see didnt last very long at all. I just nailed another of her alts. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:53, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Heh, in that case does that mean that if a sysop goes on a mad spree of perma-banning users then the users should stay blocked ;P But seriously Grims right. I can't think of a case where by a user has got perma-baned by the rules and tried to come back to make useful contributions. If people don't stop after being told then it's their own fault if they keep going and get perma-baned. It's not that hard to follow the rules. If you've been perma-baned the best thing to do is wait two weeks (apparently thats the time limit that check user extends to) and then rejoin the wiki under a completely different name and just start over. That is if you are serious about contributing positively, otherwise you'll probably be discovered in no time. - If Jedaz = 11:17, 4 October 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

Right. Making new accounts like Quite Storm and Easy Breezy is stupid. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 11:28, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Grim's formula for discerning between novices and experienced users: what a laugh! Anyways, you forget User:The Devil case, where 3page used an account to contribute for around a month before being discovered, or User:God case for that matter. And yeah, when they were discovered the only thing Sysops could think of was banning them, no conversation not anything. My biggest concern is that bans are meant to grant "cooling periods" for the users commiting vandalism, but in this case where alt creation is present, then this cooling off period is effectively nulified. When you create an alt evading a ban the situation actually heats, because there's a Sysops that will make some smart comment about you ("quit whining and fuck off") and the ban will escalate another level. Probably the need is in a system that forbids ban escalations through alts unless they actually commit vandalism themselves (but we ban them anyways) or something like that. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 17:20, 4 October 2007 (BST)

WTF are you talking about God and The Devil ? Both users were only discovered because they were big fucking douches like they were in their previous, perma-banned, accounts. If they trully behaved nicely and in the good interest of the wiki, they would've never been discovered, and prolly forgiven if they ever did. I already said that i am one that would welcome Amazing back in the wiki, most of the users that used to antagonize with him are long gone and the CDF is almost unheard of. The only thing that keep him away from the wiki is the rules that say he was perma-banned, and because of that rule he should not be allowed to come back. End of story. In real life you dont get second chances, in this wiki you get 8! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:19, 4 October 2007 (BST)

I may not be a sysop, but I think of the permaban as the wiki death-sentence. After warning Izumi over and over, she simply refused to get her act together. Then she started saying whatever she thought people wanted to hear in order to get it lifted. She wasn't reinstated right away and went nuts yet again. That's her way. Someday, she may grow up, but why should anyone here have to put up with her petulant behavior until then? I imagine a LOT of wiki users who have been warned for doing things wrong have changed their behavior in order to stick around. Should we tell them that the rules only half apply? Should there be NO lasting consequences for habitual bad behavior? Matt, I'd bet that your parents tried to raise you with an understanding that there are consequences for your actions. Izumi's parents seem to have failed. Let those who have selected that path reap what they have sown. It's the only way. --8 Bucks 18:37, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Matt, you are an idiot. I said old user, not experienced. The two are completely different things, though it is heartwarming to see your insistence on using strawmen to go after people has yet to fade, if you actually ever had a point you might be somewhat more formidable than a gnat. The warning/banning system is fine. Just because some ignorant brain dead douchebag like Izumi cant take a hint and starts whining about it doesnt mean it isnt working fine. It just means that she is a whiny little bitch who is fucked in the head. This community has rules, and when you disrespect and disregard the rules of the community you are disrespecting and disregarding the community itself. The only reason we are even having this discussion is because she cried that she was going to try and change her ways. What so many people here seem to be forgetting is that her actions have been precisely the opposite of her claim. She has continued to shit on the rules of this community, she has insisted on claiming that the rules should not apply to her, and that it is really the sysops fault. And for some reason, to my eternal bafflement, so damned many of you are actually falling for it. Look at her fucking actions. She has no respect for the rules of this wiki at all, why should we ever let her back in? Especially since she has earned her permaban four times over now? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:51, 4 October 2007 (BST)

I admit I tried to help her at first, but this was back on her third or fourth alt account. After she ignored my request to let things cool off for 2-3 weeks, I said screw it. Let the games begin! Oh, wait, I'm not a Sysops. Dang.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:57, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Discussion part 6

Haha, I welcomed Izumis latest alt, I'm such a robot when welcoming.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:54, 4 October 2007 (BST)

IIRC there was a time when the maximum ban level was a year. Editors could come back after a year, and if they vandalised they were kicked out again for another year. --Toejam 19:26, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Izumi's contributions are as follows: "Hee hee The Vandalism Rules don't apply to me! Hee hee The Banning Rules don't apply to me! Hee hee Why won't someone ignore the rules for me?" She has a history of vandalism previous to her escalated ban. She deserved every ban she received up to and including her perma. The dialog has long turned into an insult contest. Lets close this case, archive it, and move on. --Karlsbad 21:34, 4 October 2007 (BST)

As you might imagine, I agree with 8 Bucks above. If you guys were to unban Izumi ever, it would bascially send the message (to me anyway) that there is no rule that can't be broken. To me, each additional sock puppet after the permaban is an exponent to the amount of time she should be gone. so 2 to the 3rd power, 3 to the 4th power, 4 to the 5th and so on. I think she's probably approaching infinity by now. I do hope it was ok to comment on this discussion page. --Squid Boy 22:30, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Permanent is already infinity ;) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:43, 4 October 2007 (BST)

Well, if anyone lets her back in, ill toss her out on her arse again immediately. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:59, 4 October 2007 (BST)

So wait, is there anyone who is arguing for Izumi on the grounds of "s/h/it deserves to edit the wiki again"? Or is it all an excuse to argue with each other? I'll go back and check. --Karlsbad 02:40, 5 October 2007 (BST)

Alright, I looked through the discussion and the only SysOp saying that Izumi could be unbanned is Max Grivas, and its a really weak one at that. The rest is a whole lot of people complaining about the system while also refusing to make a policy discussion to change said system. Mostly alot of yap yap yap, really. --Karlsbad 03:08, 5 October 2007 (BST)

Is there a reason you are posting above a older comment then yours?--Darkmagic 03:10, 5 October 2007 (BST)

I already explained this in my unofficial warning on your talk page. Please go over it again. --Karlsbad 03:15, 5 October 2007 (BST)

Tis is growing pointless, the decision is to do nothign and keep banning her alts, shes a vandal no matter what.--Darkmagic 03:17, 5 October 2007 (BST)

Why can't you people see why we ban the alts of banned users? if you havn't yet, heres why, they go around the rules in order to post again, and on all forums, alot of sites, and some wiki's, that equals a ban. for a perm ban, even being a good wiki-user on a alt still equlas a ban simply because you are going around a ban for being bad, that is why she has a perm ban, she didn't stop coming back, even i wouldn't come back unless the reason i got banned was a fucked up reason, the fact is, this discussion is pointless, It's jsut us arguing over a user who can't see the wiki is a seperate entity from the game, the only connections are a few links and the fact it was amde for UD alone, this is my suggested course: Ban all alts of izumi til she stops coming back, any aolts she does make and be good on, should be banned because it was used to get around a permament ban, she got a chance, she fucked it, she got a few more, fucked it, then she got a week ban, ignored, a year, ignored, a year, we gave her the chance to stop, her reply? Sock puppets, This is longer then i wanted...--Darkmagic 23:06, 4 October 2007 (BST)

And this all started with those damned edits to the Mall Tour '07 page. *sighs* --^T 03:29, 5 October 2007 (BST)

this fell apart so fast, only time i been called a zed to lol.--Darkmagic 03:40, 5 October 2007 (BST)

Wow I read this whole thing... anyway if we were to let her/him back in on the "probation" thing and he/she gets banned this whole thing starts over (hope its ok for me to get in on this.). Sockem 04:15, 5 October 2007 (BST)

I swear that you can do IP bans. Or is that only if your using the IP instead of being logged in? Anyways, those recent edits and sockepuppets have changed my mind. You hear that Izumi? You lost your last voucher.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:40, 5 October 2007 (BST)

We can't ip bam her, thats what we been doing, she uses's proxies to get around them.--Darkmagic 04:41, 5 October 2007 (BST)

Right, then how about we ignore her completely except for bans? Trolls can't live without food.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:43, 5 October 2007 (BST)

Yup. I gotta say, thinking about it, I do have to agree with you, you really have to go some to get permabanned. If permaban can be revoked it loses some of its power.--Seventythree^Talk 10:26, 5 October 2007 (BST)

User:Sexylegsread

Does that even qualify as Vandalism? I don't believe so. Precedent please? --User:Axe27/Sig 17:11, 30 September 2007 (BST)

Admins, sorry to be another normal user butting in; Kamden, you could maybe try looking at the suggestions page, #10 on the advice list? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:35, 30 September 2007 (BST)

Isn't this rule a little bit draconian? I mean, we already have a rule that says Additionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism (A/G). To have a rule that says "doing this or thaat is automatically vandalism ignoring intent or good faith" seems overkill. Was this rule even discussed by the community? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 17:52, 30 September 2007 (BST)

Well, checking the archives, it was voted on here and added here. It's draconian, sure, but it was voted on. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 18:07, 30 September 2007 (BST)

We have also nailed people for it in the past as well. That rule was put in because the suggestions page was being abused with upwards of 4 "humourous" suggestions a week. We had Rocket Skates, Rocket launchers for Zombies, Tanks, as well as the removal of zombies (That actually very nearly passed). Im pretty sure someone suggested Sharks too (A lot were spaminated, and people didnt even bother moving them to the humourous or rejected pages). People, and by this i also include myself, for i did this on one occasion (The zombie rocket launcher suggestion, you can get to it through the interesting happenings subpage of my userpage if you want a look), were abusing it to make fun of both other users as well as other suggestions on the page, pushing things to extremes that made a mockery of the system. Since the rule has been put in place, it has had the desired effect: Calm the place down and make it sensible, instead of laughable. You really should have seen what it was like back before it was put in. Continued enforcement of the rule is needed though to prevent regression. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 19:01, 30 September 2007 (BST)

It's ok Grim, I'm not complaining. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:11, 30 September 2007 (BST)

Alright, we always need more precedents. What's the rule? --User:Axe27/Sig 22:44, 30 September 2007 (BST)

Dem Ribbons and Content Ownership

Even though it's often tolerated by the content-creators, using another user's work without their express permission is against the rules, and this particular case is a good example of why. The DEM's ribbons have symbolic value only because they are hard (well, hard-ish) to get, and to allow everybody to hand them out willy-nilly would rob them of that value and make them meaningless.

When a page's content breaks the rules, it's permitted to edit out that content, even if it's a user page or group page (see the impersonation rules). Jarlian was well within his rights to remove those images. Going to the talk page would have been nice, and it would have been more polite, but it was by no means an obligation. --Toejam 23:39, 25 September 2007 (BST) Edit - It's also not an unreasonable expectation for only the DEM to be able to give out DEM ribbons.

When copyright policy says that "all content on the Urban Dead wiki is owned by the individual user who created it, and may not be reproduced without their express permission", it means that it can't be copied, and used elsewhere. Additionally, adding images to other pages within the wiki is not "reproducing" them. As I said on Jarlian's talk page, there may be a case to restrict usage in this case, but go through people's talk pages or arbitration, don't just go around messing with people's pages. If you still disagree with my decision, could I suggest my talk page to further discuss this? -- boxy • talk • 02:51 26 September 2007 (BST)

Do me a favour then Boxy; Warn the stealing parties just like you warned me. Just for the sake of neutrality. (And join the copyright Gestapo if you like doing it) *grins* --Jarlian 16:43, 26 September 2007 (BST)

But. . . they didn't do anything wrong.--Jorm 17:26, 26 September 2007 (BST)

They have done nothing wrong, therefore there wouldnt be any reasons to warn them. And the Copyright Gestapo is a room full of... nevermind. This report is already over, so any further discussion should go in the talk page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:49, 26 September 2007 (BST)

User:Montana8

What a jerk! Hope a sysop's along soonish to kick him off.--Seventythree^Talk 17:28, 26 September 2007 (BST)

I bloody hate u guys! --Montana8 17:30, 26 September 2007 (BST)

Well, that was a mature, well balanced response if ever I saw one.--Seventythree^Talk 17:33, 26 September 2007 (BST)

You think that was mature, check out his edit to my user page. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 17:40, 26 September 2007 (BST)

I did. I had a go at changing it back, before you did, I think, but I wasn't 100% certain that what I did wouldn't just make things worse.--Seventythree^Talk 17:42, 26 September 2007 (BST)

Thanks, 73. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 17:47, 26 September 2007 (BST)

So, what now, do we just wait around till a sysop bans him then?--Seventythree^Talk 17:48, 26 September 2007 (BST)

Yzzf

...I thought sysops weren't allowed to warn people without getting a ruling here first? Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  21:55, 23 September 2007 (BST)

Nali, stop with the complaints already. They are allowed as long as they file a report ASAP, or even bypass the report if it's just a vandal alt in an homonimus spree... Look for yourself. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:01, 23 September 2007 (BST)

It's just a warning.--Seventythree 22:02, 23 September 2007 (BST)

Okay, okay, I'm sorry.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:03, 23 September 2007 (BST)

Restored deleted comment. It is essential to the flow of the discussion, and you cant just remove it. Indeed, i believe its a way to get yourself banned for impersonation, by making a trollish comment, then removing it when one or more people comes in and tell you to fuck off, thus making the people look bad by removing the context of their comments. We have handed out warnings for it in the past. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 22:06, 23 September 2007 (BST)

Okay, I'll just strike it out to show I've retracted it. Does that mean I could remove the entire chain- like what's his face did with his comment on Kevan's talk page?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:08, 23 September 2007 (BST)

Where the hell do you get that idea? If you want to test precedent, why don't you report what you are talking about and see if it gets anywhere, instead of trying to Lawyer something out of this page? --Karlsbad 23:08, 23 September 2007 (BST)

Nalikill, I'm pretty sure that the only people who can physicaly move comments are Sysops. Copy them by all means though.--Seventythree 23:11, 23 September 2007 (BST)

Nalikill is referring to the dood who removed his discussion about hamas on kevan's talk page. IN that case, Kevan'd didnt took part of the discussion, the guy removed it and it continued in it's own talk page. It had another, better, place to be discussed once he figured it wasnt worth take it up to kevan's. This discussion, on the other hand, can only be moved to the talk page (where i just moved it now). --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:34, 23 September 2007 (BST)

Just to set a few misconceptions straight. Sysops can warn/ban users as soon as they see the vandalism according to policy, as long as they report it on A/VB, however, in practice it should only be used in very clear cut cases (such as this), otherwise they risk misconduct cases (as we've seen recently). I personally would rather report all vandalism for a second party to decide upon, as long as it isn't ongoing (needs to be stopped immediately). Moving extended comments to the talk page isn't restricted to sysops, just be sure to leave an explanation of where it went, and don't remove important comments... and remember, if you're unsure of what you're doing, don't, or you may find you'll be getting warned yourself -- boxy • talk • 06:53 24 September 2007 (BST)

Hagnat

Moved from A/VB:

I know. But I don't remember any precedent. And I can't see any bad faith on Hagnat's side either.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 21:35, 21 September 2007 (BST)

Thari, he meant what isn't vandalism, not what is, thus reinforcing your ruling. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:17, 21 September 2007 (BST)

It's page ownership. I saw it in an arby case or somewhere- I have the right to tell him to get the fuck off my page. By the way: HE DID IT AGAIN. Here.. That's clearly vandalism. I've TOLD him to get the fuck out, in explicit and clear terms. I'll Arby him next if this isn't vandalism.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:21, 21 September 2007 (BST)

Dude, cut down on the coffee, step back, take a deep breath. You're way out of the boat now. Talk pages are how we communicate with one another - and especially how sysops issue friendly warnings that don't go on a record or further explain things to people who don't get it. You're not going to win a fight here, 'cause there really isn't one; Hagnat is trying to be helpful to you.--Jorm 22:25, 21 September 2007 (BST)

well, holy darn. If you are going to behave like a 13 yo, i guess i better stay away from your talk page n'deed. All my comments were made in good faith, even boxy copied them and put in your talk page (with some minor word changes). For someone who wants to avoid drama, you are surely creating a lot of it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:28, 21 September 2007 (BST)

I'll give you a second shot. If you want to debate me about something, fine. If it's a sysop thing, please, ask someone else to do it whenever possible. Okay. I'm trying to calm down now. It's just kinda like drawing a line in the sand and then having someone leap over the line and crap on your shoes.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:33, 21 September 2007 (BST)

But dig it: there is no line. There's no arbitration ruling that says "Hagnat can't talk to you on your talk page". Such rulings exist, but they exist between specific users and not "the wiki as a whole." You're being completely irrational and overreacting to nothing.--Jorm 22:36, 21 September 2007 (BST)

It's a line I drew. I own the page. That's why I was offended at Hagnat's edits and not at the Grimch's way back when- I subconsciously took it to mean Hagnat was insulting my ownership of the page- the Grimch was not, that was just a silly little arby rulling neither of us remembered.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:41, 21 September 2007 (BST)

Actually you only have partial control over your talkpage. Users can place any content they like upon it as long as it's not against the rules and they can delete or archive comments at will as long as the impersonation rules aren't broken. But users do not have the automatic right to disallow persons from posting on their talkpage. As long as the person contacting you does so in good faith, it is not vandalism. The history, frequency and tone of edits between users can make it bad faith if the behaviour starts to resemble harassment. But a disclaimer such as you put up has no influence at all however. It's clear that Hagnat remained well within the normal bounds.-- Evil  Vista  23:02, 21 September 2007 (BST)

And i noticed you have cleared your talk page, but kept the warning general gave to you. You really need to keep these warnings in your talk page. You don't even need to archive them. That's why we have a database with all your warnings. And if i need to talk to you as a SysOp, i am not going to ask someone else to do it. I have better things to do than ask others to do my job, when actually doing it is a click-edit-submit away. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:43, 21 September 2007 (BST)

... Did you tell him this? Did you say, "please stop editing my talk page?" Wait. I can't believe I'm having this conversation. I've better things to do.--Jorm 22:44, 21 September 2007 (BST)

Look, anything beyond the 6th ident in administration pages and all i hear is drama, drama, drama. Shall we end this thing here and now ? Or do you really want to keep being treated like a 13 yo ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:46, 21 September 2007 (BST)

Suicidalangel and A Helpful Little Gnome

Suicidalangel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) A Helpful Little Gnome (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Just like to mention that the only reson some of his page was wiped, was because it was at the 300 limit, and he needed to archive it. :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:01, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Which is his privilege not yours and the reason you were warned after linking to the edit and requesting it yourself. Your welcome. Don't mention it. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 21:13, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Seventythree and Nalikill

Seventythree (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) Nalikill (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

For putting the Deletions page in Deletions, and then adding it again after it was removed. This is clearly not good faith, since the Deleations page is a really useful tool for the administration of this wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by hagnat (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Well, looks like 73 beat me to the vandal page. Lets see if I can get a warning first though! :D.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:38, 15 September 2007 (BST)

It is in good faith. I hate drama. A lot of it comes from the deletions queue. What gave you the right to remove it? Every page can be nominated for deletion. I never saw the policy that said otherwise. Nalikill 21:39, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Was trying to make a point. I'll remove it, obviously. And It obviously would'nt ever be deleted. It's a good faith edit, because I'm trying to introduce just a little perspective into the recent proceedings. People seem to have been caught up just recently with using these pages to attack each other as opposed to what they where intended for.--Seventythree 21:42, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Honestly though, it was such a ridiculous request, so should it even be considered vandalism? It's not like it would have been deleted, and they do have a right to request it. Maybe a policy should be made saying that admin pages can't be deleted?--

dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:44, 15 September 2007 (BST)

I agree. Putting Deletions up for Deletion was done to make a point, to try to improve the wiki. It's not bad faith or vandalism, as blanking the page etc would have been - Pavluk ^A! 21:47, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Stuff like this is why Wikipedia has a WP:POINT guideline. It is bad faith – changes such as the proposed should be discussed in-depth, not thrown in with the intention to disrupt. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:53, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Well...No I have no one to talk to. Will someone hold me?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:54, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Both users banned for a day. This is the same things as going into your Police Department and telling to stop punishing criminals because cops sometimes shoot and kill people. There is no point in asking for the Deletion page to be deleted, and this actions goes against the whole administration of the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:52, 15 September 2007 (BST)

No, this is like standing outside your Police Department and protesting that your local Police Officers are being heavy-handed. Also, why was it a straight ban, and not a warning? Nalikill only had one warning, and Seventythree didn't have any. - Pavluk ^A! 21:59, 15 September 2007 (BST)

I'm sure it's in a policy somewhere...*lurks around*-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:00, 15 September 2007 (BST)

And whatever happened to assuming good faith? :P.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:02, 15 September 2007 (BST)

I smell something fishy.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:03, 15 September 2007 (BST)

There is nothing fishy, there is no good faith. The only thing that adding the Deletion page in itself would create was drama, which is what they claim to end. This is vandalism, since it tries to disrupt the entire system this wiki works on by abusing itself. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:06, 15 September 2007 (BST)

OK, but why not warn them, instead of a ban? And if a ban must be imposed, why as long as 24 hours? I know there's been an even higher level of drama today than usual, and you've had more than your fair share of work as a result, but is there not a case for leniency? - Pavluk ^A! 22:08, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Vandalism said:

The wiki philosophy towards vandalism is not one of punishment. We try, for the most part, to attempt to prevent the vandalism from happening, rather than punish interlopers. So, if someone is actively vandalising a page, and stops after being warned, we will not go any further on the issue. If a user continues to vandalise the wiki after being warned not to, they get a second warning. If, after that warning, the vandalism continues, then we are forced to ban the user for 24 hours from editing the wiki.

Wouldn't they both have just gotten a warning (in Nalikill's case, a second one)?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:09, 15 September 2007 (BST)

in several occasions users got two or more warnings for a single action. This always decided based on the gravity of their actions. I made a judgment call, and decided that a 24h would help them calm their heads, realize that nothing would be gained by following their track of actions, and give us space to carry on with our business. I had reverted the article 3 times to its original form, but they kept adding the deletion request for the deletions page. Even when i filled this vandalism report they displayed no interest in stopping this whole thing, so the only way was to temporarily revoke their rights to edit this wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:16, 15 September 2007 (BST)

1. Both unbanned due to complete lack justification for not following the normal procedure combined with likely misconduct,
2. Ruled not vandalism for Seventythree.
3. a single warning for Nalikill for continued misuse of the deletions page.

The rest will argued on the misconduct page.-- Vista  +1  00:59, 16 September 2007 (BST)

And if somebody could tell me where the bleep the unban button went I'd be much obliged.-- Vista  +1  01:24, 16 September 2007 (BST)

No rule was broken by 73 or Nalikill and in my opinion it is Hagnat who is the vandal. What right does he have to revert/delete, GOOD FAITH EDITS? The only reason I have not put this back up for deletion is laziness (and incompetence!!!) Believe me if it wasn't so late I would try anyway. This whole thing stinks and at the very least he deserves a warning!--Honestmistake 01:27, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Both unbanned.-- Vista  +1  01:29, 16 September 2007 (BST)

I'd like to say everything I have done was in the name of Pluto, and for the reinstatement of Pluto as a planet. That is all.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:35, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Jorm

Repeated deletion of content on Salt The Metagame Policy(history)

Upon attempting contact to see if there was a good-faith motive, my questions were repeatedly removed from his talk page

Byteme42 19:11, 15 September 2007 (BST)

The entire page is bad faith. It originally called to have my servers (irc and forum) attacked with denial-of-service techniques. I removed that as well as the links to my sites from the page. I do not see how the wiki should have a mainspace page that calls for attacking, spying, etc. on other people's networks. Ergo, I won't have them.

This user has already received a warning for impersonating me. He has had nothing but a series of bad faith edits towards me.--Jorm 19:15, 15 September 2007 (BST)

He has the authority to remove ANYTHING from his talk page. But I'd tend to agree with Byteme about the removing groups being vandalism- same deal as removing your name from public blacklists. Nalikill 19:20, 15 September 2007 (BST)

My point about the talk page was that it shows that this was clearly not a good-faith edit. Also, once the DoS section was removed, he continued removing the link Byteme42 19:25, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Page ownership=He has the right to paint his talk page pink and deletion/restorations on that page are irrelevant. And please do take this to Arbitration.Nalikill 19:28, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Man, what's that sound? Hmm...I think it's "WWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH". Besides, the whole mess advocates illegal activity, and it's a complete waste of wiki. It's outnumbered in Deletion's voting, so this Vandal Banning report is nothing more than Byteme bitching. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:32, 15 September 2007 (BST)

1. It ain't deleted yet, so it's still vandalism to vandalize the page. 2. What's illegal about trolling a forum? Nalikill 19:33, 15 September 2007 (BST)

1. Your point? It's going to be deleted, that, and advocating a DDoS attack is wholely illegal. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:34, 15 September 2007 (BST)

1.Jorm vandalized the page. No getting around that. 2. He deleted the DDoS part, moron, look at the page once in a while. Nalikill 19:35, 15 September 2007 (BST)

We've seriously got enougth drama on this page to start a ameteur dramatics society. Let's just wait till a moderator sees this and replies.--Seventythree 19:39, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Not Vandalism. This is not a group page, this is a policy. It is a community page, and should not ask others to commit actions such as Denial of Service attacks against public or private property, even more against a service that is being offered for this community for free. This would be the same thing as to ask people to DoS or disrupt the Urban Dead wiki because people use it to gather information. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:56, 15 September 2007 (BST)

1, hagnat, you're too biased, really, to handle this. 2. READ THE FUCKING POLICY AGAIN. ALL THAT SHIT IS OFF THE POLICY NOW! SONOFABITCH, WHAT DID I JUST TELL AXE27!!!!!Nalikill 20:02, 15 September 2007 (BST)

1. I am not biased. All my actions are always made in favor of what is best for the entire Urban Dead Community. Asking people to attack a service that is being used by a large part of it is not in the good interest of the community. 2. I just read it (for the 9th time). And, yes, this stuff it is off the policy, but only because Jorm removed the DoS attacks part. Your point ? 3. Woo, so much for people who are asking for civility in the wiki, huh ? 4. Look momma, i can count too! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:07, 15 September 2007 (BST)

1.Prove it. 2.Jorm may have removed it, but he also removed the group websites, which he had no right to do- removal of content is vandalism. 3.Again, my bad. I felt it necessary to get my point across, but next time, remember what the issue ACTUALLY IS.Nalikill 20:10, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Who was the first to vote keep on the deletion request for the Salt the Metagame policy ? Does this prove that i am impartial in this case ? barhah.com is a property of Jorm. He pays for the hosting of that site, for the bandwidth used by all users who use the service he provides. If you want people to spread misinformation in foruns, you can easily tell to look for themselves which one are them. Besides, this would imply that this policy would need to change every time the major zombies foruns changed place. A few months ago there was no Barhah, and people used to gather somewhere else. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:17, 15 September 2007 (BST)

It's a legal issue. Jorm could bring legal action against Kevan for allowing attacks on his websites on the wiki. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 20:04, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Really? I ain't heard of an 'anti troll law', yet. Or, really, ever even proposed, like ever. So it ain't a legal issue.Nalikill 20:07, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Everyone needs to calm the fuck down. Jeez. No need for name calling yet.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:05, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Sorry. When someone's CNR, especially when I've pointed that same thing out, I tend to get pissed. Nalikill 20:05, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Coming from the idiot who just quoted the same person he didn't know existed on Historical Group Vote... --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 20:13, 15 September 2007 (BST)

We're not talking about the part about DoS(removing that was a good-faith edit), we're talking about his repeated removal of content after the DoS section was removed Byteme42 20:05, 15 September 2007 (BST)

It still calls for a forum invasion and exploiting the free service that is his IRC server, which he pays for. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 20:10, 15 September 2007 (BST)

So? Trolling ain't illegal, number one, and, number two, maybe Byteme should transfer all of that into a subpage of his and just delete the current one. IF it was a subpage of his user page rather than a community one, there'd be less reason for protest. Nalikill 20:13, 15 September 2007 (BST)

No. It's still illegal. If I made a userpage for the images I uploaded that were copyrighted they'd still have to be removed. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 20:16, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Okay, fair enough. Show me- in US or UK law- where forum trolling and chatroom trolling are banned, and I'll agree it has to be deleted outright, rather than able to be moved to subpage of his. Nalikill 20:17, 15 September 2007 (BST)

I said forum invasion. Not trolling dipshit. If trolling was illegal I'd be serving several consecutive life sentences. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 20:22, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Explain the difference to me, then? Nalikill 20:24, 15 September 2007 (BST)

I'm not a litigious person, guys. I'd be far more likely to simply shut the services down than sue someone.--Jorm 20:17, 15 September 2007 (BST)

This is getting a little off-topic:The whole DoS thing is over, deleted. If you want to argue about that, do it on the deletions page. The thing we're talking about here is whether Jorm removing links to his services after the part advocating DoS was removed constitutes vandalism(IMO yes, because there were no legal problems and Jorm does not have ownership of links pointing to his site) --Byteme42 20:24, 15 September 2007 (BST)

No Vandalism. Must i say it again so you people would understand it ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:28, 15 September 2007 (BST)

You already gave your judgement. Please, let another sysop deliver the judgement. And Byteme, please, take this to Arbitration or something. It's clogging up the A/VB page. Nalikill 20:30, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Wherever shall we find another sysop? Oh wait a second. Im a sysop? Oh, ok then. Not Vandalism. --The Grimch ^U! 20:34, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Possible solution: Let Byteme delete the page and move the contents to one of his subpages. This makes everyone happy as it is not a community page calling for metagame attacks, it would be one user, and one user only contributing and making the suggestions. Nalikill 20:36, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Whatever. Let's just leave it here.--Seventythree 20:37, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Everybody has AIDS, AIDS!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:38, 15 September 2007 (BST)

AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS! (someone's been watching team america!)--Seventythree 20:40, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Alright. Nalkil, Thy Sysop(s) hath spoken. 'Not Vandalism. --User:Axe27/Sig 20:40, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Done dumped policy into my userpage, now it can be deleted That said, I'd like a sysop to explain how they arrived at the conclusion of "not vandalism" Byteme42 20:44, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Oh, no! Please! no you wouldn't! Sigh. Roll on pointless drama.--Seventythree 20:45, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Saromu

Saromu (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Has vandalised an awful lot of suburb pages, deleting all groups in the "Survivors" category, even though in many cases they are still there. Not only is this inaccurate, if not often blatantly untrue, it is a case of "blanking sections" without real justification or right. Surely it's up to the groups themselves to remove themselves if they're not there (which they often are)?--Crabappleslegalteam 13:46, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Actually, many of those suburbs I've been through where he removed the survivor groups don't have those survivor groups. That and it is kinda a good thing for those sections to be periodically blanked, many groups have a history of not removing themselves when they aren't in a suburb.--Karek^maps?! 13:56, 6 September 2007 (BST)

This is a bit pre-emptive, however, we think, and somewhat self-servingly innacurate, for a zombie player--Crabappleslegalteam 12:42, 7 September 2007 (BST)

In the case of Molebank, there were multiple groups clearly active in the suburb in the preceding week, with many buildings barricaded and at least two lit around the clock to my knowledge for the whole day preceding the post. It is not up to some Saromu/Karek cabal to dictate policy for managing group lists. Our group did not notice Mr. Saromu/Corleone on his alleged tour, but had he acted in good faith and referenced publicly available intelligence on the area, he could have kept easily avoided any charges of vandalism. Deleting other user's contributions is a criterion for vandalism. He did so with reckless disregard for accuracy. The "not vandalism" declaration recorded below is rash, encouraging further vandalism of this sort and undermining faith in the wiki administration. An addition, boxy speculates on accepting Karek's absurd policy without formal proposal or community input. I move that the decision be reversed and boxy suspended from sysop duties and privileges for an appropriate period. Dylan Mak Tyme 19:19, 7 September 2007 (BST)

That was me who removed all the groups. I toured the whole western side of Malton and over the course of 7 days have not found a single barricaded building in any of the suburbs. That is why I cleaned up the suburb pages. Lukinswood is one I toured recently and didn't see any signs of life, which led me to removing all the groups from the suburb. I thank you for informing me that there are still some survivors active there since the point of removing the groups was to see who was still active. Thank you for your time. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 17:48, 4 September 2007 (BST)

Not vandalism - I can't see any bad faith in this The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 15:47 6 September 2007 (BST)

OK! We've no especial desire to penalise Mr. Corleone, and since he has essentially admitted his error we'll simply revert his edits. Mostly later in the day - we're too drunk right now. Cheers!--Crabappleslegalteam 01:42, 7 September 2007 (BST)

I'd suggest that you don't just revert the edits, rather, just put back the groups that you know are present in the suburb The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 03:21 7 September 2007 (BST)

Well, that would perpetuate the injustice of the original deletions! The wiki is meant to represent the game, and shouldn't be a playground for the most aggressive editors. Firstly, since Mr. Corleone clearly deleted groups we know were in various suburbs while they were still there, we suspect this is widespread. Secondly, by his own admission, he didn't even check inside the buildings. Thirdly, even if he had found no-one alive, being a zombie doesn't stop a person being a member of what have only recently been redefined as 'pro-survivor' groups. Fourthly, the whole thing is clearly set up so that Mr. Corleone and other zombies can monitor when and where groups are willing to 'declare' themselves alive and well and living in street 'y', so they can remove them specifically. Fifthly, he had no right in making the edit in the first place, and so they should be reverted. Sixthly (?) we're not going to waste valuable character time determining the exact extent of this gross misrepresentation. Seventhly (?!?), these things are fiddly! Is there an easier way of doing it than copying and pasting?!?--Crabappleslegalteam 12:36, 7 September 2007 (BST)

actually, we've figured it out now.--Crabappleslegalteam 12:43, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Actually, what Sonny did should happen on a semi-regular basis so that groups that aren't there aren't listed. Otherwise it's misinformation and counter to the purpose of the listing of the groups.--Karek^maps?! 16:52, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Not as misinformative and contrary to purpose as deleting the whole lot within (in some cases) several days (and cerainly not a month!) of zombie invasion, when members of those groups are most certainly often still there, and have certainly often returned in a matter of days. What do you want, constantly expanding and contracting group lists on a daily basis?!? There's enough inaccurate 'reporting' of "there is literally no-one left anywhere within miles, honest, we've checked! There's no point survivors coming here etc etc." without being accompanied by such heavy handed deletions as these. --Crabappleslegalteam 19:03, 7 September 2007 (BST)

And if you and your buddy boxy would like to see such policy instituted, then propose it. In writing. Like a sapient. --Dylan Mak Tyme 15:05, 9 September 2007 (BST)

If the groups are still there, let them put themselves back on. If they arent there anymore, or simply dont care, they wont. If they do care, then whoop de doo. Takes 30 seconds to put yourself up there again. No big effort, and it cleans the page up. This wiki is meant to be informative, and having dead or missing groups listed as present defeats the purpose of being informative. --The Grimch ^U! 19:16, 7 September 2007 (BST)

As Crab says. SSCC has had a presence in Shuttlebank right through Sonny's deletion. Yes, I could have with "no big effort" added us back after Sonny's deletion, but why should the default assumption be that we're gone, an assumption made by someone who doesn't even live/unlive in the suburb regularly? If a member of Extinction had deleted us, I'd find it less grief-ful, since they do indeed have a number of members there who would reasonably be able to assess our presence or lack of it. Basically, I think if we're going to err on this wiki, it should be on the side of inclusiveness, and major edits like this should be done by people/groups with an investment in a given suburb, not by someone just passing through. --Barbecue Barbecue 00:35, 8 September 2007 (BST)

As we've said, the deletions are entirely disinformative. Read above for the reasons. The prize for most blatant bad faith edit we've reverted so far? Chancelwood! There've never been less than about 200 survivors there for the whole time! Why should other players have to keep checking to see if some propagandists have deleted their group from the page that day or not anyway? Oh, and everyone knows that not all the red suburbs (and white ones, for that matter) are correctly tagged as such as well--Crabappleslegalteam 20:25, 7 September 2007 (BST)

finished, we think! Hopefully that's everything, and we didn't faff anything up by accident. Looking through, there are a number of places where other users got annoyed with this blanket editing, and there have been a few mini wiki wars over it. Having checked some of these comments, we've changed our minds, and suggest it's quite clear these deletions deserve a proper warning at least--Crabappleslegalteam 21:12, 7 September 2007 (BST)

In strong support of Crabappleslegalteam motion to reverse the "not vandalism" decision we note that today, and in addition to our statements of response above, we note that only two days after the vandalism incident, Molebank has received an objective review and been recategorized as yellow on the threat map. --Dylan Mak Tyme 21:21, 7 September 2007 (BST)

I'd like to say something. I was gone a few days and I get a vandalism charge? Oh lawdy. And for the one month thing. Yeah, that was a muck up. I remembered, for the most part, to switch around the names of the suburbs when I copypasta'ed what I said into the Summary box but I didn't remember to change the time since the last significant sighting of a group in the suburb. But yeah. The NW and W suburbs are empty of all life, except Dunnel Hills and the ones close to the south which have some pockets of resistance. So we all clear on this? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 03:32, 8 September 2007 (BST

We're clear on the basic fact that you are deleting groups arbitrarily to support the impression the zombies are being more successful than they are - stop talking cobblers mate! The basic fact is, this is one of those times when boundaries and group presence is constantly shifting, and you zombie propagandists keep rewriting suburb pages in your favour at the drop of a hat. Stop it! Just "Dunnel Hills and the ones close to the South!?!" Dream on, mouldy boy!--Crabappleslegalteam 20:53, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Suburb talk page? The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:30 8 September 2007 (BST)

Or arbitration? This is going on a bit for this page - although why you just don't realise Sonny is sloppily rewriting core elements of pages innaccurately, deleting details pertaining to other groups without permission and refusing to accept contradiction we don't know! This is blatantly another aspect of the current attempt by zombie players to encourage survivors to think the situation is worse than it is, along with changing suburb danger levels innaccurately and posting innacurate news points. The latter 2 are relatively acceptable. Deleting other groups names from suburb pages en masse, innaccurately, without permission is not. Bad faith! Bad faith!--Crabappleslegalteam 20:53, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Dude, you already lost the bloody case. Shut the hell up about it already. It was a cleanup, and personally i think all groups, human and zombie, should be deleted from the pages, and only re added by the groups that are still there. --The Grimch ^U! 21:37, 8 September 2007 (BST)

It was not a cleanup, it was propaganda. Some of these deletions were so untrue it was laughable, and the rest are certainly not definite. A cleanup is where you tidy things up. This was quite unfair distortion in support of the zombie cause. We want to ensure that that is accepted so Corleone, and everybody else, thinks twice before declaring whatever side they are on to be the only game in town on core elements of suburb pages. Where have all the moderate moderators gone?!? It's getting so these pages are meaningless, because hardcore zombie players are steamrollering their cause all over them! Look at the evidence, discover objectivity, and realise that this is all just plain wrong!!! --Crabappleslegalteam 02:14, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Then draft a policy change.

Propaganda? Dude...there was no one in those suburbs. You're a retard. Not a person with mental disabilities. No, that would be mean. You're just retarded in the sense that you're a Klaxon going off for no reason. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 02:19, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I was running scout missions through that area over that period and you are an obvious liar and a fool, covering an act of pure propagandistic vandalism with a lame story when tagged on it. --Dylan Mak Tyme 15:05, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Bullshit. Anyone looking at the protests in the various areas knows that! Anyone playing the game in these areas knows that. The wiki is becoming useless as an information source because of this rubbish. Congratulations! This wiki is becoming more useless, and it's partially down to you - you've apparently got the support of several mods, but it is bullshit all the same and everyone knows it!--Crabappleslegalteam 04:07, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Crabappleslegalteam, Boxy told you to drop it and go to the appropriate page. Please, heed his/her advice or you may just wind up with your own entry on this page. Nalikill

Boxy's decision is the problem here, sysops, much less bureaucrats, condoning and supporting obvious vandalism is the problem here. The absence of a process for removing sysops or making them in any way accountable for either mistakes or abuses is the problem here. Get that problem under control and the Saromu's take care of themselves. --Dylan Mak Tyme 15:05, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Not vandalism. POOP. There goes another sysop telling this wasn't vandalism. How many more do you want ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:23, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Crabapple, I gave you a link to where you could further discuss this issue. Now leave this case alone The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 03:12 9 September 2007 (BST)

We just think you should discourage this kind of rubbish. And that link doesn't refer specifically to this, but to more policies that would penalise groups that don't have sufficient wiki representation to defend against such abuse. We'll stop now, but we've had a reasonable amount of support, because we're right, and if this doesn't tell you something, this wiki has a problem. If our deletions of these gross infringements are reverted, we hope you'll consider our subsequent vandal reports more seriously!--Crabappleslegalteam 03:58, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Hey Chicken Little, give it a rest already. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 04:19, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Thats a pretty egregious use of the Royal We there. Exactly how many people are being grossly infringed if not even one of them isn't present on the wiki to ensure its accurate? Five? Ten? Two? --Karlsbad 06:36, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Heh heh. What can we say? We are the Crabapple Legal team, and our numbers are legion!!! Anyway, there's no point arguing against a brick wall, so we'll just report any further such actions by Sonny as vandalism if and when they occur--Crabappleslegalteam 16:02, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Any such cases could be seen as harassment. I'd then take you to arbitration where I'd obviously win. You'd then not be allowed to contact me. But seeing as how you're retarded and all you'd contact me anyway. You'd then get reported for breaking an arbitration case, set by a mod, and get a ban for X amount of times. You'd use a proxy to get around the ban because in your whacked out mind you believe you're right and must argue your point to death. But the one part of your plan that you'd forget is that proxies when banned are not allowed. You'd then get reported again and permabanned. Then we'd laugh and add your name to the witches that we burned. Just giving you a heads up of what will happen if you continue your retarded crusade. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 16:07, 9 September 2007 (BST)

If you'll notice, there's no refutation that you got things wrong with your editing - any idiot can see that, and most of the players in the game know that. The only refutation is that you did these in bad faith, realising you were misrepresenting things on a blanket level, hence requiring a warning. There has been no refutation by a moderator that your edits were very often inaccurate, which is good, because any such refutation would be unjustified. Also, this case didn't go up to actual arbitration, did it? Otherwise, on some sorrier wiki, you might be right. Anyway, any further vandal reports would be based on new bad faith edits, so would be new cases anyway. You think we'd waste our time on your own talk pages? Dream on. You think you matter enough we'd go bonkers and start doing proxy edits against you? In fact, we like your little fantasy as to how we'd go mad and get irate and really faff up. It shows how far up your sorry, self-righteous delusional little arse you really are ;->. You cannot easily know when a group leaves a suburb for sure, nevermind 30 suburbs or whatever it was. You've had a lot of complaints and refutations, but your smugness apparently sustains your belief you were right in the first place - you weren't, everyone knows it, who do you or Karek or the Grimch or the other zombie propagandists think you're fooling?? Other than, apparently, Boxy? Post another sad little fantasy, or meaningless defense of your actions if you want - we can't be bothered with you anymore, until you do some further vandal edits we notice, then we'll just report you again--Crabappleslegalteam 01:22, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Wow you are dense. No one said he was right or wrong, that's not even the issue, it was a necessary edit and was done in good faith, now kindly stop slandering myself and others and go play off your little masturbatory fantasy in a wiki all of your own because it's really getting annoying. If you have something to say about me say it too me but get your facts straight first. I am not a zombie propagandist, I want the wiki to provide useful and pertinent information that is up to date and for the exact damn reason you said.

"You cannot easily know when a group leaves a suburb for sure, nevermind 30 suburbs or whatever it was."

For that reason what Sonny did was justifiable and needed, the information was out of date but no one knew who left and who had stayed. It is also why there is currently a discussion on clearing of all the groups in a suburb on a regular basis, another page where you are insulting people and trying to make into an argument about how anyone who doesn't agree with you is a zombie propagandist who is trying to ruin the wiki.--Karek^maps?! 03:13, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Don't bother trying to explain you're logic to him. He's obviously too stupid to understand. He thinks removing misinformation is propaganda. Because it's inconcievable that a zombie would ever do anything good for the wiki. I'm anticipating the day we get Crabappleslegalteam banned, that way I can add him to the witches burned. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 03:46, 11 September 2007 (BST)

	Attention
	Please do not feed the Trolls

Its just common sense people. --The Grimch ^U! 05:06, 11 September 2007 (BST)

The other piece of common sense is "if you are going to do a cleanup of the groups listed as present in a suburb, remove ALL groups - not just the survivor ones". Removing all is justifiable and needed, removing just survivor groups (or just zombie groups for that matter), is walking a very fine line. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 12:00, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Exactly. Sorry, I really have trouble seeing this as a "good faith" edit. If Sonny had deleted all groups because he felt (which I would have issue with in itself, unless he had an active alt regularly living in the relevant suburbs) the page needed cleaning, that would be one thing. But conveniently deleting just the survivor groups in suburbs that have very recently been hit hard by zombies, smacks, regardless of intent, of bad faith. And Karek, it was not obviously a necessary edit. I'd like to think clean up (granting, at best, that's what it would be) and necessary are not exactly synonymous. --Barbecue Barbecue 18:10, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Holy fuck are you two retarded. I mean you two are so fucking retarded that you didn't even think about what you just said. I cleaned the suburbs up of all groups no longer there. THE ZOMBIES WERE STILL FUCKING THERE. Holy fucking shit. Rayvern and Barbecue Barbecue, you're both the stupidest motherfuckers I've ever met. How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that I was wiping survivor groups and not wiping zombie groups because of bad faith? Did you not read my reason? If you didn't then didn't you know the whole Southwest, Northwest, and Midwest were totally fucked over and had no survivors at all but a fuckload of zombies? You probably did. But you didn't see the connection between a fucload of zombies and Sonny not wiping zombie groups. So in other words. RETARDED. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 22:05, 11 September 2007 (BST)

	Dee-Dee-Dee
	This user thinks Barbecue Barbecue Is a Dee-Dee-Dee.

	Dee-Dee-Dee
	This user thinks Ray Vern Is a Dee-Dee-Dee.

Sonny, since you apparently only understand ad hominem attacks, let me speak to you in your language. You are a skinny, nasty-looking, vile 18-or-so-year-old child full of his pathetic suit of merit badges (yes, I've seen the pic you posted on the NMC forum--bad idea) who either should have been bullied much more or much less (can't decide which) in high school. You're not terribly bright, you simply want to get your way, and your response to any criticism is a tantrum. You are an embarassment to the RRF, which otherwise has a large contingent of members I respect. I sincerely hope that you're just playing an ass on this wiki, and that your real life is altogether different. Glad we finally understand each other. --Barbecue Barbecue 00:28, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Hey! You actually read what I said. Further proving my point that people only read what others say when they're being insulted. Now why couldn't you have just read what I said to begin with? Then we wouldn't have had that nasty piss-fight. I didn't do it for propaganda. There was no fucking survivors in the suburbs. Simple as that. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 01:49, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Don't be an ass, Sonny. I fully appreciate that there were likely no survivors in the suburbs (not that it matters, I agree with a regular clean up schedule). Did you also bother to confirm that ALL the listed Zombie groups were also still in the suburbs? By your own admission, the answer to that is a big fat NO. You were only interested in cleaning up the survivor groups. You'll also note that at NO point did I say it was vandalism or bad faith, I just said it was a fine line to walk. Take your own advice and read what people post. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 09:31, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Grim s

Apparently even by being a sysop, you can forget that there are some consequences for breaking an Arbitration Agreement. What happens if you break an arbitration agreement where someone states that the penalty against breaking it is a one day ban? Oh, yeah. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:24, 6 September 2007 (BST)

That is an intelligent and overall friendly discussion, non flaming. Certainly not drama. I dont see how rules lawyering good faith into evil can be done. Why dont we ask Nalikill himself to decide? After all, he didnt report it, and he saw the outcome himself. --The Grimch ^U! 03:46, 6 September 2007 (BST)

That's just what I was about to do, leave the decision up to Nalikill. Will leave a message on his talk page The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 03:50 6 September 2007 (BST)

No, please, don't punish him. He started the discussion in good faith, I chose to continue it and reply to it in good faith. He made an honest mistake- I didn't even remember until I saw this- so please, don't punish him. Nalikill 04:20, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Thanks mate. looking back, that particular part of the arb ruling made no sense, as the talk page was never used. --The Grimch ^U! 05:08, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Actually... he never said you could talk to him in Administration pages. Akule needs to make another case against you. What are you waiting for, Failawyer?--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 05:24, 6 September 2007 (BST)

I like the bit where Akule leaves out the fact that sonny said the punishment was either a warning or a one day ban, fixating on the worst punishment. I am left wondering when and where i pissed in his cheerios, as i cannot remember seeing him before. --The Grimch ^U! 05:48, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Plus, it was never banned to talk to me in administration pages The only thing that was forbidden was bringing drama to my talk page. Nalikill 11:39, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Thari is making fun of Akule. Its what people do to trolls these days, make fun of them. Anyhow, if you have any questions about what we were talking about, or wish to continue that discussion, we can do it on my talk page. It wasnt covered at all by the arb ruling, and i am not at all afraid to admit that i found our discussion quite pleasant. --The Grimch ^U! 12:49, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Perhaps its because Akule "needs to get laid or something" --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:56, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Anyone can report breeches in arbitration agreements and vandalism, as well as you should know. As for the ruling, I see I need to explain the fundamental problem further so that everyone can understand. The problem is that you knew you weren't supposed to talk to him on his talk page, yet did it anyway. How does it look for other users who get put up for vandalism for breaking arbitration agreements when it seems that sysops can blatantly ignore arbitration? What is the purpose of arbitration if the very rulings can be ignored at will? You had no idea of how Nalikill would react to you coming to his page and try to poke at his religious beliefs. The arbitration states: "Grim will refrain from posting on Nalikill's talk page and the usual "avoid drama" stuff and Nalikill will get his punishment for vandilism." Grim should have known better as he is a sysop. It's very simple. If he doesn't understand how arbitration works, and doesn't feel that it applies to him, he shouldn't be a sysop. Why should anyone follow arbitration agreements if we don't enforce a punishment when someone willingly breaks them,? What sort of message are you sending to the newer members of the wiki when the sysops can do what they want, when they want to? Yes Grim, I was stating that you should get the higher penalty, as typically the arbitration is considered your warning, and I pointed to previous precedent here. The simple point of it is that you shouldn't have made the first post, no matter if Nalikill doesn't mind it now or not. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 20:45, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Arbitration rulings are there to prevent conflicts. As long as the central fact isn't violated, the Good faith/Bad Faith rule is more triumps in this case. and as Grim S and Nalikill both have made clear that there was no conflict the normal rules trump the arbitration rulings. Arbitration rulings do not have the same standing as the actual rules.-- Vista  +1  09:58, 7 September 2007 (BST)

This is pointless. A real pointless waste of time. Grim_s obvoisly figured out that Nalikill was a reasonable, Inteligent individual who was more than capable of defending his religious beleifs, after all that drama when me and Nalikill had an unfortunate argumet. Both of them clearly thrive on intelligent, reasoned debate. After the conversation that me and Nalikill had (of which Grim_s was a part of, much to his credit) It was clearly obvious that Nalikill would not be offended in the least by a criticism of his beleifs, but was far more likely to, as he proved-conduct an argument in an adult manner. If by Drama you mean Intelligent and informed debate as to the nature of religious beleif then yes, Grim_s was wrong. Grim_s knew from previous experience that Nalikill would not be offended, end of story. Oh, and Grim_s, when are you going to respond to my comment? I'm looking forward to it.--Seventythree 22:16, 6 September 2007 (BST)

I always assumed the purpose of Arbitration was to prevent drama. Silly me, it's obviously so that anyone involved in an arbitration case can have random rights revoked on users pages whether or not the user desides to let them post, edit, and comment there. Page ownership be damned. Yay Arbitration, you make all my dreams for a petty, vindictive, and counterproductive wiki come true.--Karek^maps?! 22:20, 6 September 2007 (BST)

I have an idea. Don't use arbitration if you don't want it to be enforced. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:51, 6 September 2007 (BST)

I too have an Idea. It involves chickens and sawdust, but this is no place for it.... yet. I do also have something to say. Why bring a case up if there's no victim?--Seventythree 23:35, 6 September 2007 (BST)

The problem is that it sets a bad precedent for future cases and weakens arbitration. Sure, sysops made it so they are free to ignore precedents and make whatever decisions they feel at the time (weakly controlled by misconduct), but Grim had no idea that Nalikill would have no problem with Grim's statement of: "Hee hee hee. Young Earth Creationist. You do realise that the same stuff that we use to date the earth to 4.6 billion years or so is the same stuff upon which we built our technology and power. If you truly believe the earth is 10, 8, 6 or 4 thousand years old, then you should stop using the technology that proves you wrong." Yeah, that sounds like he started off very civil. Why even bring it up on his talk page? The arbitration was done a week before and Grim and Nalikill both agreed to stick by it. Grim broke that by posting on Nalikill 's page. Since Nalikill now likes Grim again (and it is clear that the whole thing was a waste of time). Either reverse the arbitration (since both parties are clearly on good speaking terms) or warn Grim for breaking it. It can't be both ways, lest it confuse future arbitrations. Pick one outcome. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:49, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Oh, come on! It's not like Grim_s broke the saftey rules governing a nuclear powerplant or something important. It doesn;t matter, and no-one would have noticed if you hadn't put this up. --Seventythree 23:52, 6 September 2007 (BST)

If an arbitration is not effectively used as a means of deterrent then why should users follow it? It raises uncomfortable questions such as: "Are sysops more equal than other users, or was the ruling for Grim just favoritism?" By either reversing the arbitration or enforcing it, you show that the system works and will continue to do so and not call into question the user's faith in the justice of the system. Just ask Nalikill and Grim if they are both willing to drop the arbitration. If so, then yay. The system works and we can move on. If not, then Grim needs to be punished as per the terms that they both agreed to. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:01, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Actually Akule, this is a great example of the system working. What you are suggesting is a step backwards and is just you using an arbitration case to create drama and further a vendetta. You're abusing the system, not the people involved in the arbitration case, or the sysops who ruled against this being vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 00:08, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Not really. The arbitration is worthless according to this. What was the point of having it? Despite that, Grim had no idea of how Nalikill would have reacted when he posted that on his talk page. He shouldn't have done it, and when someone else does it in the future, they will get slapped for it, which is unfair. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:13, 7 September 2007 (BST)

You flogstick, the aim of that arbitration case was to separate them until they could get over their disagreements, they have moved on, and now talk to each other without problems. The system worked. This is a warning to future arbiters, don't leave open ended rulings... according to the letter of that ruling Grim would never be allowed to edit Nalikill's talk page ever again. Just ridiculous if they are no longer having problems The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 00:25 7 September 2007 (BST)

Then it's easy. Drop/amend the arbitration or have the arbitrator rule correctly. I know that the letter of the ruling and not the spirit has come up and ruled on before. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:59, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Go away Amazing. --The Grimch ^U! 01:19, 7 September 2007 (BST)

This is a relitively informal internet community, not the high court of some ultrarepressive reigieme. And as such, occasionaly rules and laws are not meant to be applied absolutely in every case. If it was 90% of the users would have been banned by now. There is no dispute between Grim_s and Nalikill, and there wasn't one when or shortly before Grim_s posted his comment, so realy what is the point of them obeying by a rule that was set up over a specific greivence that happened ages ago? They where not at fault, the rule was. --Seventythree 01:25, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Seriously. Akule == Amazing v. 3.0.--Jorm 01:29, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Yawn. Jorm == Amazing --Akule ^{School's in session.} 02:47, 7 September 2007 (BST)

He's not that bloody amazing. He just has a fast internet connection, an understanding of copyright law, a lot of time on his hands and a willingness to be the brave defender of all those poor helpless multibillion dollar corporations.--Seventythree 01:33, 7 September 2007 (BST)

You werent around for his run. Akule's posting style is exactly the same as Amazing's. He carries on the argument well beyond the point any reasonable person whould have stopped caring, then goes on and triples its length again. The tone of his posts are exactly the same, and he is still a troll rules lawyer. Its also the only reason he would go to such obscene lengths in an attempt to get me (Mostly, because i kicked his arse at the time and he couldnt do jack about it). --The Grimch ^U! 02:16, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Yay! Proboards level speculation! That's quality that Gage would be proud of. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 02:47, 7 September 2007 (BST)

The fuction of arbitration has never been officially codified as such the rulings do not have an automatic status of a rule. Such a set-up would be against the foundation of this wiki. The rules of this wiki have always been interpretated according to what is their spirit not their precise wording. Especially when Arbitration is concerned.-- Vista  +1  10:13, 7 September 2007 (BST)

As the arbitrator I said for Grim not to post on his talk page and cause drama. That doesn't mean "do not post on his talk page and have good faith conversation". Grim has done nothing wrong. The only drama that was created was from this vandal case. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 18:04, 8 September 2007 (BST)

---