UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 10

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

October

Insomniac by Choice

Let's see....The first one is yourself adding that there are 200 zeds, and the second is the man's page history which Insomniac by Choice has abosultely not contributions to. There is no impersonation in either of these edits. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
No look at the User making the first edit and the signiture he makes. Sockem 04:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sockem, look at it yourself. You made that edit and signed it. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ignore my post look at insomniac's NOT MINE. LOOK AT THE FIRST WINDOW. He does not impersonate me he impersonates the man Sockem 04:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't impersonate the man,Sockem. His edit to the man's post were cleaning up grammatical errors. Secondly, I'll point at the links here. The first is the The Man's userpage,the second is the Lockettside difference between your post and his post, and the third is the page contribution history of the man's user talk page, in which IBC did not take part in. You have no evidence that IBC impersonated The man. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, Impersonation does not occur:here's what you think is impersonation. --User:Axe27/Sig 05:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
No you can clearly see at Insomniacs contrib that he signs as the mans name not that grammer edit. here you can plainly see that the man never edited that page at that time, and Insomniac signed in his name. Sockem 05:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Here you can plainly see that The man requested it during the Protection of the Lockettside page. If you want to accuse anyone of impersonation, then you need to accuse Grim of it, because he posted it at the User's request. --User:Axe27/Sig 05:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit Conflict: Sorry didnt see that I was confused cuz it was added post-protect. Sorry for all this trouble. Sockem 05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, I guess we can logically assume Not Impersonation? --User:Axe27/Sig 05:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes again im sorry. I jumped the gun. Sockem 05:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. That's some delicious spam... and is that backseat modding sauce? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope just my stupidity. Sockem 05:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This was a hilarious and entertaining surprise to discover.--Insomniac By Choice 05:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Not vandalism. Not impersonation. Not hing.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, please limit your comments limited to the talk page Kamden and Cyberbob. Next time it shall be warnings like were given to Nalikill and Sockem. And, for the record, it was hagnat who posted the comment at the request of The man, not myself. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Jeez...all this spam on the vandal reporting page just because insomniac and grim were doing me a favor? what has this world come to...? The man 10:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It was hagnat, not myself. I already corrected Kamdens factual error three hours before you posted. Look at the history for crying out loud. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigman

Shouldn't this have been only a 24 hour ban? Quick, change it back before anyone sees ;) --Toejam 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines say differently, 1 and 3 mean perma is right. --Karekmaps?! 15:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think he meant i shouldn't have perma-banned him. The guidelines tell when a sysop can warn/ban a user, but not when he can perma-ban one without following the warn-warn-24h-48h-week-month-year-perma order. I will permanently ban any user who vandalize several pages, no matter how many warning he have. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The following section to the one I linked seems to state pretty clearly that the above section is for when a user can be permabanned.--Karekmaps?! 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This guy had it coming. Any account created simply for vandalism gets perma'd. He deserved a permaban on his main as well, for creating a vandal sock and trying to pin it on SA. On top of it all, he was an obnoxious hothead whose main contribution to the wiki was stealing userpages. --Pavluk A! E! 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Some good points raised here, but this guy was still treated worse than tradition/precedent would say is appropriate. I can understand going straight to perma-bans if the circumstances are extraordinary, but that's not the case here. This feels like you're moving the goalposts: how would you like it someone did this to you, punishing you three steps worse than you deserve? Even if he did vandalise the wiki, we should still treat him fairly. There's still hope that he'll change his ways, and go straight. Plus this decision sets a distasteful precedent. --Toejam 21:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You're just trying to find fault with Hagnat's ruling it looks like. There is a long history of banning users that use sockpuppets to come back on vandalism sprees, there is also a long history of permabanning a sockpuppet, any sockpuppet, but those of users who are currently on any length of ban when sockpuppetting are the frequent abusers. The ban probably wouldn't have been permanent for the main too if he hadn't vandalised in excess of 50 pages, a few of which were utility templates and would have screwed up tens, if not hundreds, of other pages.--Karekmaps?! 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I actually tried to help the guy... oh well, I see how that turned out... Thanks for reverting my page hagnat. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What I wonder though, is whats with all the references to that Zinker guy? I find it kind of odd that he put the links to Zinker's page everywhere, even on his (Ahrimmagicks) "user page" (and I use that term lightly. It's still more or less a copy of mine). Nothing important really, just kind of odd.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They're supposedly real life friends. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahrimmagicks

Is it at all possible that he may just be copying your code, and plans to put in his own information later? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've given him a long time to at least change my name to his name.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh. In that case... --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If you look in his history, he did the same thing to me, for a longer period of time.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on Grim! At least mine directly pertained to the case! It pointed out useful informations! :/...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ahrimagics is retarded, just like the rest of the CDF. he clearly lacks the ability to learn and that is the main characteristic of a retard. The man 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about, y'know, handling the case Grim. Keeping us wayward posters off the main page is so much more important. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I said i wouldnt touch this case with a ten foot pole while talking with the gnome on IRC when he brought it up. This is way too borderline for someone like me to touch. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, OK then. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, we has an IRC now don't we's? Iz forgotses.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
What's an IRC?--SeventythreeTalk 11:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nalikill (Week ban)

Not even sure what he did. What it looks like is that he was banned for disagreeing with a Mod... that is not fair and IF its the case this needs to be revoked now!!! --Honestmistake 03:19, 27 October 2007 (BST)

1, there are no mods, there are sysops. 2: Bad faith recreation of a spam page whos only purpose would be to fuck up the wiki. Thats worthy of a warn in and of itself. 3: Fucking with the copyright deletion request was completely stupid and in violation of four warnings to cease and desist, two backed up with bans. He brought this down on himself. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:10, 27 October 2007 (BST)
It was created before his last warning (ban), you can't go back and ban him for that -- boxy • talk • 04:17 27 October 2007 (BST)
Fair enough, but the sass alone, defying the requests to cease shitting up the pages and acting like a troll is more than sufficeint cause for the ban. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:20, 27 October 2007 (BST)
He has a right to a bit of sass in the cases where he was directly involved, but taking it to the copyrighted image discussion was enough for me. I agree, but wish you wouldn't report and ban in one go. I'd rather you make your case and get someone else to confirm it, especially in cases like these -- boxy • talk • 04:35 27 October 2007 (BST)
Ill keep that in mind for next time. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:37, 27 October 2007 (BST)
You have been already warned for this, so I don't believe that last bit. If you don't want to be called biased don't put yourself on a position were you'll look like one. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:40, 27 October 2007 (BST)
Because it's completely impossible for people to be human and make mistakes. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:41, 27 October 2007 (BST)
Please continue, ill be out for probably the next 5-6 hours. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:47, 27 October 2007 (BST)
I'm done talking with Cyber, but if you dissappear what will I do? Now, seriously talking, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but you have proven to be quite the tick-skulled guy (i.e. Vista's misconduct case), so what has changed now that you'll review your behaviour? Your "Ill keep that in mind" really sounds more like a sarcastic comment than a real one. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:56, 27 October 2007 (BST)

" as well as attempting to keep vote a copywrited image the author had requested deleted, to gum up the process some more. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:03, 27 October 2007 (BST)" everyuser gets one vote. how can you punish someone just because they vote differently then you? i agree with the other parts of the comment though.--'BPTmz 04:09, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Theres no vote on such things. Look at the page and see how he carried on. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:20, 27 October 2007 (BST)
still isnt everyusers right to be able to edit administration pages? he wanted something undeleted so he used the undeletion page. how is that vandalism?--'BPTmz 04:31, 27 October 2007 (BST)

My only concern, if only to voice it, is that he wasn't given even 24 hs since his last ban to be banned again for what can be defined as a very liberal interpretation of bad faith edit. I'd rather see someone banned over several contenious breachs like this, not over a single one, and also i'd rather like to have Sysops not bossing around users saying things like "making this got you a hair lenght's from your next ban" or other "I'm watching you closely" style of messages every three contributions the targetted user makes. Also, i'd like to be pointed out why the DEM Roster recreations weren't dealt the same way or anything like that? As far as I can see right now the only difference is that the users that recreated them were far more poipular than Nalikill himself. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:23, 27 October 2007 (BST)

If you'd read the other discussions on this matter (see A/U), you would know that the key difference between the DEM Roster and Nalikill's "spamgun" is the fact that the "spamgun" was, as the name implies, designed for spam (and only spam; there is nothing else that page could have conceivably been used for). This is an inherently bad faith motive. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:32, 27 October 2007 (BST)
I actually never had the chance to see Nalikill's page, but I can't see the difference between a page designed to spam and several recreations made to annoy people, specially the people that voted it to be deleted. Last time I checked spam was annoying, right? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:37, 27 October 2007 (BST)
The DEM Roster is a kill-list, nothing more. The "spamgun" is an amalgamation of several random pages, which were put together in a completely nonsensical fashion. Spam on that order screws up the server. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:40, 27 October 2007 (BST)
You're still just defending yourself instead of making a point. Both the DEM Roster and spamgun, for the purpose of this new liberal interpretation of bad faith that is being used to ban Nalikill's, are both vandalism. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:43, 27 October 2007 (BST)
Therefore, Saromu needs to be warned. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:44, 27 October 2007 (BST)
Firstly, I'd like it if you stopped making assumptions about people's motives. I'm not trying to defend myself, thank you very much.
I'd also like it if you stopped ignoring what I say. The DEM Roster is not spam. It is no different than all the other kill-lists on the wiki. The spamgun, on the other hand, has no other function than to break things. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:50, 27 October 2007 (BST)
who are you to decide if something is spam or not? im sure plenty people think it's spam.--'BPTmz 04:58, 27 October 2007 (BST)
The majority of users that requested the original page to be deleted did. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:00, 27 October 2007 (BST)
Yeah! Don't make assumptions about Saromu's motives. He has a legitimate reason for remaking the DEM Roster. --Akule School's in session. 05:31, 27 October 2007 (BST)
This deletions vote is what was recreated. It was a template designed to be exceedingly long so as to "spamgun" pages. It's only use would have been seen quite clearly as vandalism -- boxy • talk • 04:44 27 October 2007 (BST)
Boxy, what could've been does not qualify as Vandalism. If we had known that Jerry was going to vandalize, then he would've been banned. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:46, 27 October 2007 (BST)
I think you'll find it does, actually - take Jedaz's "Evil Text" page for instance. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:49, 27 October 2007 (BST)
I think they don't: none of Jedaz's sanctions stood after Xoid realized he was wrong. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:58, 27 October 2007 (BST)
And I'd also stop using Jedaz's thing as an argument Cyber... it was like your little group's worst moment, not good propaganda for your unavoidable next promotion bid at all. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:02, 27 October 2007 (BST)
What the hell? Why do you keep making these little personal jabs? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:04, 27 October 2007 (BST)
Sorry, but you kept lying and made a little snide remark above. When an user is being uncivil I fail to see why I have to keep myself on hold. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:09, 27 October 2007 (BST)
I kept lying in your eyes, Matt. Nobody is infallible, not even you.
Regarding "uncivility" - I believe it was you that kicked it off in this instance with your swipe at my motives. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:14, 27 October 2007 (BST)
This discussion isn't leading anywhere. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:21, 27 October 2007 (BST)
You're absolutely correct. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:30, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Ok, lets get this right out. Even if the page creation doesnt matter, and we ignore his conduct on A/U and A/SD regarding it, the fact is he futzed with the admin pages again, this time shitting on the speedydelete page regarding the removal of content, content which the copyright holder has requested be removed. There are no votes about such things when the author comes to say he/she wants it gone, it is just done. His insistence that it go to A/D for two weeks was a clear abuse of the pages keep rule and an attempt to stir up drama, and flew in the face of no fewer than four previous warnings (Two of which were bans as well, leaving no doubt how serious we were about these). On that basis alone he warranted the ban. The rest is like sauce on your sausages, it makes them more compelling, but arent really essentail to have a filling meal. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:27, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Crossposted to A/VB and A/M --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:29, 27 October 2007 (BST)
If I may just add as someone who follows this page fairly regularly - sysop seems to be the most thankless job on Earth. It's so clear to me as someone who is not embroiled in the tit for tat bullshit that there are a cadre of folks that relentlessly debate nonsense about stuff that has no effect on their wiki or game experiences. Also, there's another group - people like Nalikill and Izumi - who do nothing but test the sysops for whatever reason their toad-squirming brains dictate. I'm all for the ban first, ask questions later approach to people like this. I fail to see the value in their contributions. If Nalikill really wanted to avoid bans, he would not engage in anything that might remotely earn the ire of the sysops who are clearly watching him closely. Even if there are shades of ridiculous wiki-lawyering that could argue they're being heavy handed, the SPIRIT of what Nalikill is doing is assinine and counterproductive. His only wise course of action would be to lay off the editing for a couple days, and keep a low profile until the eyes of the sysops are off of him. No - he lives for the game he's playing, and he's testing testing testing. I would be willing to wager his next banning is a week and a few hours from now. The next one after that will be the next banning term plus a few hours, and on and on until he's gone. For all of Grim's bluster, he seems to be well aware that folks are watching his actions carefully, and therefore ensures his actions are justified before proceeding.--Squid Boy 18:01, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Well, I was trying to work with Nalikill on something that would keep him out of trouble and off the Admin pages (he was to run any edits he made there past me first, so I could check them). Whether you like him or not, we should be trying to help Nali not get banned, not finding things to ban him for. And to be frank, this seems a bit of a daft thing to ban someone for. So, y'know, thanks for helping out. Much appreciated.--SeventythreeTalk 18:51, 27 October 2007 (BST)

I don't know any of the folks involved personally. It's not a question of like or don't like. It's a question of whether there is operational grey matter in Nalikill's brain with the maturity to discern what actions might not be welcome given a string of warnings and bans. All qualitative judgements about the man (or boy?) aside, it should not be rocket science to simply avoid engaging in anything remotely controversial for a few days. The only interpretation that makes sense to me is systematic and willful poking of the sysops.--Squid Boy 19:01, 27 October 2007 (BST)
** nods in affirmation ** Nali should know better than to keep provoking the sysops by being obnoxious on the Admin pages. It is that fucking simple. And if he does't understand that, then he deserves what he gets. Much like Izumi, Nali has been given numerous opportunities to CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR. But Nali still has a chance: if he comes back and stops acting like an assclown on the Admin pages, then he's fine. It's his choice. WanYao 20:38, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Nalikill

Does that even qualify as Vandalism? --User:Axe27/Sig 00:09, 24 October 2007 (BST)

A mod that has not ruled on a Nalkill case should make the ruling. Vantar or Zombie Slayer perhaps? --User:Axe27/Sig 00:44, 24 October 2007 (BST)
That makes absolutely no sense. If you want that, go write a policy for it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:59, 24 October 2007 (BST)
What doesn't make sense? Vantar or Zombie Slayer should rule on the case. What don't you get? --User:Axe27/Sig 01:01, 24 October 2007 (BST)
You are amazingly thick on this: "A mod that has not ruled on a Nalkill case should make the ruling." That makes no sense, but if you want it, by all means make a policy. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:02, 24 October 2007 (BST)
How so? You wanted confirmation, so an unbiased sysop seems appropriate to take the best action.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:03, 24 October 2007 (BST)
Don't say that TZ,Grim will freak out. --User:Axe27/Sig 01:04, 24 October 2007 (BST)
Oops? Oh well, its in the history now.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:05, 24 October 2007 (BST)
You saying im biased? I wanted confirmation because i was not 100% sure. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:08, 24 October 2007 (BST)
And I'm saying a sysop that has not ruled on a Nalkill case should rule on this one, so that their opinions will cast a new light on it. --User:Axe27/Sig 01:09, 24 October 2007 (BST)
We're all biased in this Nalikil thing. I'm sure he annoys you, yes? Then that can lead to the wrong course of action, which is not good for either of you. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:12, 24 October 2007 (BST)
Nope, you are making a baseless accusation of bias. If you can make a case, take it to fucking misconduct. You cant, and you are only whining about this because i did not side with you. If i had ruled in your favour, we wouldnt be having this conversation. You would have taken the ruling and gone on with it. Instead you kicked up shit about who should and shouldnt rule after i lined up against him (Based on the facts of the case, combined with his history (Relevant, Two soft warnings and a ban for shitting up admin pages). He even admits it in his deleted edit of A/VB. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:16, 24 October 2007 (BST)
All right Grim. I'm not one of your typical "stir up shit" people, so I'll agree, even though I wasn't really opposing you. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:30, 24 October 2007 (BST)
My response was directed to Axe27/Kamden, not you. Wonders of indenting. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:35, 24 October 2007 (BST)
Ah, this happens to me alot. Used to always be Armareum.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:39, 24 October 2007 (BST)

I reported it because users have been warned in the past for similar edits, both officially and unofficially.--Karekmaps?! 01:15, 24 October 2007 (BST)

I was wondering what he was doing with that page when he was making it, but when I saw the edit on the deletions page, then I knew it was all part of his little "running gag" with the administration. --Akule School's in session. 01:22, 24 October 2007 (BST)
And he removed the edit,Grim. Obvisously, asking for confirmation is "Stirring up shit". Maybe I should just bow down at your feet like a good doggie then hmmm? --User:Axe27/Sig 01:25, 24 October 2007 (BST)
Im grim, he's akule, and apparently we dont like each other that much. And those are your words, not mine. Now you are just playing martyr. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:33, 24 October 2007 (BST)
Yup. But I agree with your current choice of methods to pursue this matter, even if the reason that I thought you did it was different than the one you gave. It still looks like a wise move. Now all we have to do is get Nali to understand why people are irritable about it, instead of him just thinking that the reason why we are irritable is that his warning for the vandal banning page applies to all of the administration pages. --Akule School's in session. 01:39, 24 October 2007 (BST)
Personaly I think Grim did the right thing in asking for other opinions from other sysops, and I'm glad he did, even though I beleive the ban to be wrong, but thats not realy of any concern. Maybe not a policy as such, but concerning the history of Grim_s and Nalikill, one of those little guideline boxes to sysops saying If you've got a bit of a history with the user in question, and the case is a bit of a borderline one it might not be the best idea to pass judgement on it yourself, unless the vandal is continuing their vandalism at the moment and there are no other sysops. Something like that? As I said though, Grim_s got it right this time, and as such doesn't have a misconduct case. If Nali realy wants to be able to edit those extra 3 or 4 pages, he should realy just put himslef up for sysop.--SeventythreeTalk 11:15, 24 October 2007 (BST)
The case was ruled as vandalism, not just because he voted keep, but because the page in question was specifically created for the purpose of putting it up for deletion and then doing exactly what it did. It was nothing but Nalikill writing DING then signing it each time he edited it for 8 edits, and then he immediately tossed it up for deletion, then voted keep. This was not just an attempt at being funny, but a premeditated attempt to waste our fucking time, which backfired spectacularly when karek took him to A/VB for it. Yes, he backpedalled afterwards, when he realised he was in for a world of hurt, but thats not enough. He shouldnt have done it at all. It was made in terrible faith, and as a result was vandalism. The prior history of Nalikill and his shitting on administrative pages merely served to reinforce the ruling already made. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:31, 24 October 2007 (BST)
Is there anyway to bar him from editing certain pages? Its not so much that he is a vandal in the normal sense, rather that he seems unable to resist trying to annoy Mods! If he keeps it up he will soon ramp up a perma-ban and that would be a shame as he is being stupid rather than malicious. --Honestmistake 11:37, 24 October 2007 (BST)
He not only put a page he created in his user namespace for deletion, but in the same edit he also voted Keep for it. There is no way such a move could be considered good faith. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:03, 24 October 2007 (BST)
It's a shame, because when he uses his brain he's a good editor. I'm afraid, Honestmistake, Nalikill is being purposefuly stupid, as a long time editor he is fully aware of his actions and has failed to learn from them. While a certain leniancy may be allowed to either new users who may not know what they are doing, or long term users who may have bent some rules slightly but where genuinely acting in good faith, Nali has neither the lack of knowlege to justify it as a mistake, nor the justification of bending a couple of rules in the interests of a good faith edit. I'm erring to Honestmistakes Idea of having some kind of ban on him editing admin pages, but that would realy require someone to take a arbitration case out againgst him, right? I'm also not sure whether that would do any good. I'd rather see him be given something usefull to do and take his mind off the admin pages. I've stuck up for him before, nad will continue to do so where possible but in this instance I fail to see how he can usefully justify his actions.--SeventythreeTalk 16:59, 24 October 2007 (BST)
Not justifying him... he is being an arse! just think he needs to be locked out of the pages so he can focus his energy on being productive. His edits are bad faith and thus vandalism but its not in the same league as "real" vandals. He is not destroying pages he is wasting time and pissing mods off, basically if we all ignored him his edits wouldn't damage stuff would they? This last case is just him goading the mods, how would leaving it up for a 2 week vote before deletion have been more work for the mod team than deleting it now? --Honestmistake 00:10, 25 October 2007 (BST)
His edits are not as bad as if he deleted or defaced pages as most vandals do, and that has been reflected in the relitive leniancy of his warnings so far. If he had made as many delete/wipe page edits as he has, and I use Grim_s term here "shitting up the admin pages" edits he would have been permabaned by now. He's a nice enougth guy, and a good editor, as long as he stays of the admin pages. And he was looking for an argument for creating that crap that's lead to the recent case, and he got one. In the simplest terms possible he created more, completely unnecisary work for sysops who volunteered to do this. He shouldn't be doing that. So, I hate to contridict, but that is, admittedly lesser but still real vandalism. I agree with you that he should be kept off the admin pages, Honestmistake, you're spot on there, but there may be circumstances where he genuinely needs to use those pages. We can't take that away from any user. The only way I can see this working is if there is an arbitration case where a ruling is reached by which Nali is forbidden from using the admin pages uness it's important, but that's already the rule in place now, and he still chooses to ignore it. It's of my opinion that Nali ahould be mature and responisble enougth to stay away from the admin pages unless it's absolutely neccisary. Mostly everyone else manages it, after all.--SeventythreeTalk 00:39, 25 October 2007 (BST)
I just want to pipe in with a quick observation here... Nali has also been, in effect, trolling the suggestions pages with asinine and obnoxious comments... just exhibiting some trollish behavior traits in general, lately... so there is a pattern that goes beyond just the admin pages. Honestly, I do not know what his damage is... I find it all kind of weird... maybe we should just give Izumi his # and hook them up??? ;P But seriously... NALI IF YOU ARE READING THIS: smarten up, dude. For real. --WanYao 03:34, 25 October 2007 (BST)
This entire thing is ridiculously biased. I've seen people shit up arbitration/vandal pages 10 times worse than this, and get if because everybody likes them. It's humor. Everyone just hates nali, so they jump at every chance for a ban. And I still hate how you banned over a GUIDELINE. If you want to ban people for something, make a policy.--Wooty 03:40, 25 October 2007 (BST)
I really wish this made some kind of sense... and did something other than leave a really ugly taste in my mouth... I mean, Wooty... you are not necessarily wrong... and yet I genuinely feel Nali pushed his luck... meh, all in all this is just ugly... and kind of sad... sigh... --WanYao 04:00, 25 October 2007 (BST)
He is not being banned over a guideline. If you had, oh, i dont know, read any of it, you would have seen that he was banned the first time after two unofficial (soft) warnings to stop fucking up the admin pages (He already had two real warnings, hence the ban. It was a one step escalation). We have been recently cracking down on the misuse of the administrative pages because, to put it bluntly, it takes a good deal of our time to deal witha case in the first place without people being dicks and shitting up the cases so that we not only have to sort through it but avoid the drama shitstorms that sprang up because of them. Nalikill was particularly vile in his misuse of the page, saying what was and wasnt vandalism, what punishments should be handed out. Thats tantamount to telling us how to do our jobs. That was why he got the first one, because he had been asked very kindly multiple times to cease and desist such inane crap, and he refused to do so. There was a misconduct case over it, and guess who won. Check my misconduct archive for the case. His most recent banning, while it was shitting on an admin page, was also outright vandalism. He deleberately created spam, then put it up for deletions and voted keep on it, preventing us from nailing it under crits 7 and 8 until karek reported him to A/VB, where he suddenly realised he was up to his neck in some seriously nasty shit and tried to dig himself out. It was outright vandalism. The fact he had been trolling and shitting up teh admin pages here was merely incidental, another nail in a well nailed coffin. If you think this is all ridiculously biased, go to fucking misconduct about it. Nalikill was the straw that broke the camels back, and now the admin pages are getting cleaned up. Sockem has also copped a soft warning from me for his abuse of the page. its not just nalikill. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:13, 25 October 2007 (BST)

Might I add that I stopped 'shittin' up teh admin pages after being warned unlike Nali. Nalis just a drama llama. Sockem 04:34, 25 October 2007 (BST)

Well, yes, most people stop once they've been warned. That's how it should work. User does something dumb, user gets a warning, user realises their mistake, user stops. I don't think Nali is after drama in particular, but he has turned it into a conflict betweeen him and several sysops. While I can accept some of what Wooty was saying, the majority of the fault lies with Nali. Hell, a lot of people have arsed around on the admin pages, I, myself put the deletions page up for deletion and as Sockem, I realised how annoying what I had done was, and I stopped. Thing is, Nali is the one in the wrong here, he's been picking arguments with the Sysops on a fairly regular basis. I wish he would stop, because he's not a bad guy, and he's not a mindless Vandal.--SeventythreeTalk 12:18, 25 October 2007 (BST)

ADHD? -- boxy • talk • 12:26 25 October 2007 (BST)
Nah, I've worked with ADHD. If anything he would be more inclined to just edit pretty much at random. He seems to have a specific goal involving the admin pages. I realy hope he realsises how daft it all is before he gets permabanned.--SeventythreeTalk 12:33, 25 October 2007 (BST)
ADHD isnt an excuse for dumb behaviour. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:30, 25 October 2007 (BST)
Yeah, some sysops am ADHD too. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:50, 25 October 2007 (BST)
Do we even know how old Nalikill is? maybe he's acting like a child because he might actually be one.. -shrugs- --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 15:23, 25 October 2007 (BST)
I'm 16, not quite an adult but not a child either.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:32, 26 October 2007 (BST)

Sysops are not moderators, and they shouldn't have to put up with childish shit like the stuff that Nali has been pulling lately. This isn't daycare - if you can't control yourself, see a doctor. Nali isn't a bad guy, and can/has actually contribute(d) positively to the wiki page. But then he does stupid stuff like making a useless page (spamming Recent Changes in the process), putting it up for deletion, only to vote keep on it. The only reason why he turned around was after the A/VB case had been filed. The sysops did their job, and I look forward to them doing it again. Regardless of whatever past events that have occured, this one is 100% vandalism. Oh, and it isn't humor if someone has to clean up after it... then it's just bullshit. --Ryiis 15:32, 25 October 2007 (BST)

Nali's a good guy. He's just got to learn to stay away from messing around on the admin pages.--SeventythreeTalk 23:26, 25 October 2007 (BST)
I look forward to them doing it again too, Ryiis. :) --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 07:21, 26 October 2007 (BST)
I dont. Dealing with his crap is tiresome as hell. Next time he dicks around with the admin pages im putting him down for a week. He has now been amply warned not to do it to admin pages. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:40, 26 October 2007 (BST)

Now that all that's through... I DO have a plan. Grim, am I allowed to have an Arby case against myself and have it binding? If so, I'll make a case against myself and have 73 arbitrate it. If not, I'll work out a case with 73 and myself and, if she agrees, S.A. to arbitrate, who would rule that I must get 73's permission to do anything other than vote on administration pages. No moronic 'misconduct' crap this time; I honestly screwed up and went too far in the heat of stupidtity.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:29, 26 October 2007 (BST)

You CANT have an arbitration case against yourself. End of story. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:45, 26 October 2007 (BST)
Okay. Then, 73, come to my talk page, and we'll work out the script for the arbitration.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:46, 26 October 2007 (BST)
So, here's an idea: instead of doing something pointless that wastes people's time, like creating a fake arbitration case, how about you just, you know, stop being an asshat on the admin pages. Either you can stop editing the pages or not; a "fake" ruling on yourself isn't going to stop you.--Jorm 00:14, 27 October 2007 (BST)
Can't we just ban him from all admin pages? Also, Grim, you're a biased fuck. Nali needs to stop fucking with the pages, yes, but what I see when I look at your rulings is a childish troll war with one side having admin powers. If Nali had ever put deletions up for deletions you would have banned him without a second thought, even though that's fucking hilarious. It would have instantly changed from a joke to "childish fucking up arbitration pages even though..." Once you start an arbitration case on the grounds of "Generally being a prick and wikilawyering", you really need to cool the fuck down and let someone unbaised take over. There's bias coming out of your fucking ears. And I actually based my userpage off shit from "nali's useless spam gun" which you speedydeleted despite 4 keep votes and no delete votes. Keep means exactly that - KEEP.--Wooty 01:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was me who deleted nalikills spam gun, lets all ignore boxy saying "Deleted - A workaround, and it's only use was for malicious activity (spamgun) -- boxy • talk • 00:46 27 October 2007 (BST)" Lets all ignore the logs: "23:44, 26 October 2007 Boxy (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:Nalikill/TemplateTemplate" (deletion workaround of a page that the author admitted was for malicious purposes (spamgunning))". Yes, i fucking deleted it. All these pesky facts must all be lies and fabrications by the grimmist media. The rest of your post is more of the fucking same. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
How is Nali creating a page with the potential for vandal usage any different than Project unwelcome's stated goals and methods? Unwelcome advocate trolling and many other antisocial activities which would all be considered as bad faith if followed through. Nali created a page which the majority who got to vote (see it) saw as harmless and or funny and voted Keep. Vandalsim is a bad faith edit but if he was only creating it for kicks then it is surely not vandalism? The rules are clear here and even state that it is "bad form" to assume bad faith... unless something is used to vandalise then surely it is not vandalism??? As the page was deleted within hours of coming up I never actually saw it but recent history does seem to point to Nali being singled out, he has made some very bad edits but even those i would not call vandalism (more cause for Arbitration) However a ban was given and now seems to act as precedent to punish him whenever he does something the mods don't like! --Honestmistake 10:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You're forgetting one key element of Project UnWelcome. It's a joke. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The template in question dumped about 10 pages of the most inane rambling conversations from vairous pages that got taken from where they where and put on my talkpage by a sysop, and on top of that a list of templates. It was silly, Nali would never have used it, and it was designed for a laugth. And yes, Honestmistake, I agree, the policy does seem very much to be to ban Nali for infractions where a bit of leniancy would usualy be offered to other users. I can understand why people don't like what Nali has been doing recently and all I can hope is that when he gets back people will offer him a "clean slate" and that he will stick to what he said and run any edits for the admin pages past me first. I'm all for vandals getting banned, but I don't want to see someone get banned because (absolutely not saying who is in the right and who is in the wrong here) they didn't back down in some silly row with some of the sysops.--SeventythreeTalk 10:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Project UnWelcome is a group made in jest, as is Project Evil. If you have trouble sorting such things out, then i suggest you try something less cerebrally intensive, such as a childrens book. What happened with nalikill was this: He posted verdicts on A/VB repeatedly. He was asked to stop for over a week. He didnt. Hagnat gave him an unofficial warning to stop after he did it again. Nalikill refused. He posted another verdict and i gave him another unofficial warning to stop shitting up the admin pages. He refused. At this point, because of all these warnings, he lost the assumption of good faith with regard to abuse of administration pages. The rest is history. I am not against returning that assumption of good faith if he can refrain from shitting on the admin pages for a period of 28 days after he returns. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that project welcome is a joke (not a very good one but it has its moments) but Nalikills spamgun may also have been a joke (though without as much actual humour!) point is that its easy to look at project unwelcome and see it as an edit not made in good faith because of the behaviour it advocates. If someone were to take it seriously enough to actually follow its guidelines they would be guilty of bad faith towards the community and thus vandals. They do not (or not often ;D) because its a joke. Nali creates a page which if used would be bad faith, indeed could have no other purpose if used anywhere but his name space... that is not the same as vandalism, that is essentialy the same as creating a page of guidelines which if followed could only be deemed vandalism. Both are jokes but I personally don't find either to be particularly good ones. Nali's could be seen to have an ulterior purpose as a kind of "nuclear deterent" but it is against the spirit of this community to assume bad faith. That opens us up to abuse but it is also a fundemental aspect of "free speech". Oh and thanks for the "ad hominem" attack ;) --Honestmistake 11:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
As for Project Evil... I support its aims wholeheartedly and considered joining... at least until I realised that you just weren't evil enough! --Honestmistake 11:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I am glad that you are willing to give Nali a "clean slate" after 28 days, Grim. May I quote you on that? Hopefully we can all put this shitty business behind us after this.--SeventythreeTalk 11:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Feel free. But remember, its 28 days without dicking around with the admin pages (Regular, sensible reporting is ok) starting from the time he gets back. And thats only my opinion, other sysops will have to agree with it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Grim. I'll try to make sure he runs any edit he wants to make past me first (exeptions being reporting definate vandals)--SeventythreeTalk 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Izumi

I looked at the Vandal Data page- she's had 47 alts. Holy hell, I don't think I've ever met anyone that thickheaded. She needs to let go and GTFO.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  02:40, 20 October 2007 (BST)

"unless you feel like going to proxy.org and hand blocking every single one of those, I'm always five minutes away after a ban! "- That might not be a bad idea, actually.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  02:41, 20 October 2007 (BST)
That would be the strategy practiced by Conndraka, Xoid and myself back in the days of Gold Blade, PQN and 3page. I think we banned nearly 2000 proxies..
I don't believe it makes a lick of difference - the proxy list on that site is constantly being changed. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:46, 20 October 2007 (BST)

Can we keep all the alt ban reports in under the one heading when we get a series like this? Keeps the VB page to a manageable length without having to archive every -- boxy • talk • 02:44 20 October 2007 (BST)

Sounds good to me.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  02:52, 20 October 2007 (BST)
Lern2sign.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 02:50, 20 October 2007 (BST)
I forget once, and you bite my head off. :D Just kidding.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  02:52, 20 October 2007 (BST)

Um, can any active sysop please sign into #udwiki on irc.nexuswar.com for a quick chat with Thari, Hagnat and Myself. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:58, 20 October 2007 (BST)

I'd like to bring something up about Izumi... This may seem a little over the top, I dunno... But, this person is engaging in a kind of telephone/internet harassment... and I'm wondering if there isn't legal or semi-legal action that could be taken against her? Seriously... What she's doing is almost, it's soooooo damn close to hacking... especially with the extensive use of proxies... It's certainly malicious. It might be considered a violation of various telephone regulations... At the very least, a funny and probably VERY effective thing to do would be (if she attends a junior or senior high) to call her school and complain about this person who's using the school computers to harass and abuse the UD Wiki... assuming you have IPs linking her to a specific school. But seriously you guys (sysops) shouldn't have to be dealing with this... Maybe Kevan needs to step in and do something? Because, again, this is not only downright INSANE, it really is abusive... abusive of the wiki, of you sysops, and thus by default of the whole wiki community... --WanYao 03:53, 20 October 2007 (BST)

It is getting a little beyond a joke, I agree, but to be honest, how would that work? How would we find where she lives, start a court case, whatever? What I am realy quite worried about is the possibility that she may be right about us accidentaly banning new contributers whose only crime was to edit a specific page. Looks to me that the only way orward is to play wack-a-mole with every alt that pops up and hope to god she gets bored sometime. What kind of personality gets fun from this kind of thing? She must realsie that no-one realy wants her back here, and any friends she may have had here have been alienated by her actions. Personaly, If I was banned from this site, even if I thought the ban was unfair, I would move on, y'know? I feel sort of sorry for someone who seems to have nothing else to do with their lives than cause a bit of an inconveniance on an internet page.--SeventythreeTalk 15:25, 20 October 2007 (BST)
What she's doing is almost certainly a violation of her user agreement with her actual ISP. Since she didn't start with a proxy, it would be simple for the sysops to round up her home IP address and trace that to her actual ISP. Then it's a matter of a simple letter from the owner of this domain to the ISP. Bing Bang Boom. Most ISP's don't want the hassle of having their customers wreaking havoc on the net and will shut them down after a single warning. Plus the ISP's server logs will quickly verify the claim of malicious conduct. --Stephen Colbert DFA 19:01, 20 October 2007 (BST)
There are ways around that, has anybody asked wikimedia foundation about what to do?--Darkmagic 19:05, 20 October 2007 (BST)
Frankly, I actually *do* have sympathy for the fact that Izumi may very well have been banned unfairly. However, after that she kept making sock puppets... THAT is what got her permabanned. If she had calmly just sat out the ban, or even waited a while before appealling... this wouldn't be happening. New users aren't getting permabanned left-right-and-centre for making a mistake. Warned, or banned for short periods -- yes. But Izumi blew it. Big time. It's her own fault. That is what she doesn't seem to get, and doesn't want to talk responsibility for. And thus I personally have no sympathy for her -- outside of an abstract pity for someone who is obviously quite emotionally disturbed to be obsessing and reacting this way... And Izumi isn't really the issue here... the issue is that of a user abusing proxies and circumventing security and wasting the time and patience of people who volunteer their time to help maintain our wiki. Mr. Colbert seems to have the right solution: contact her ISP.... --WanYao 23:06, 20 October 2007 (BST)
Just a bit curious, if you're not a Sysops why the hell do you care? It's not like she's hassling you(quite the contrary).--Karekmaps?! 23:42, 20 October 2007 (BST)
People get attached to this wiki. If someone is hurting it, they want it to stop. It's like seeing someone's dog getting wacked with a machete. It's not yours, but you like dogs so you stop it. (Ain't that a great analogy?)--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:46, 20 October 2007 (BST)
She touched my page, so i have a enemy in her. and izumi is the issue, she did alot of bad faith edits and messed with others pages that she had no right to--Darkmagic 23:48, 20 October 2007 (BST)
Please excuse my ignorance of proxies and such. I kinda get the fact that they're like a code, yes? I'ts jsut someone said on the main page that if she keeps using proxies she might get to a proxy that could damage her computer. Is there any chance that she might use a proxy that could damage the wiki?--SeventythreeTalk 11:35, 21 October 2007 (BST)
Proxies are simply servers that mask your real IP. Nothing more, nothing less. The damage Izumi is referring to is probably the possibility of viruses and the like which may be present on the servers she's using - none of which can affect the wiki. The only damage I've ever seen from proxies on the wiki (apart from any vandalism performed) is the addition of a bunch of /'s to edits made while using them. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:19, 21 October 2007 (BST)
Thanks for explaining that. As long as she's jsut putting her computer at risk by doing what she's doing. --SeventythreeTalk 18:49, 21 October 2007 (BST)

Dragon fang

izumi alt? made the exact same edit word for word as windgoddess below. see?--'BPTmz 04:49, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Dragon Fang is one of her pals, a fellow Lockettside Valkyrie. While he's fun to kill, he's no where near as offensive as Izumi. Unless he gave her his login, he's a real and different feller. Kiss kiss!--Sarah Silverman 05:03, 16 October 2007 (BST)
Still. A meatpuppet?--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:08, 16 October 2007 (BST)
Still word for word. Didnt recall you being a mod Sarah. Leave it up to them. Sockem 05:06, 16 October 2007 (BST)
She was being informative. I want to hear another sysop word on this.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:08, 16 October 2007 (BST)
My my sockem! So crabby! Just trying to be helpful. I learned all I know from Pavluk and Nalikill!--Sarah Silverman 05:11, 16 October 2007 (BST)
Mods and those involved should be the only ones talking here not me or you. Sockem 05:13, 16 October 2007 (BST)
In which case, neither you nor Sarah, nor I should be commenting on this case. Please,don't be a hypocrtie. --User:Axe27/Sig 05:15, 16 October 2007 (BST)
I get the last words! And they are: Kiss kiss!--Sarah Silverman 05:15, 16 October 2007 (BST)
to be fair that notice is gone, so.....back to the case. lets let a mod run a check user scan.--'BPTmz 05:20, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Discussion moved to talk page. Everyone involved in shitting on the page in this discussion being unofficially warned to cut it out. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:57, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Another Izumi Alt

No, actually I don't anymore, you piece of shit. I've given up trying to come back legitimately. It's never going to happen, i was doomed since I was first perma'd unfairly by you for taking my name off a blacklist. I don't care what you say. You're the one in the wrong here, Grim. I'm NOT the bad guy. I see myself more like a revolutionary standing alone in the face of a fascist state. Why can't you just get a life and leave me alone, anyway? Just ignore me. I don't bother anyone except the mods who police me for no good reason. As far as I'm concerned, you should all be shot dead. The wiki would be better off without sysops like you. Kari Kamiya 02:10, 15 October 2007 (BST)
People should be shot for editing a wiki. Yes. Sure. gb2/watching naruto.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 02:14, 15 October 2007 (BST)
Im not the one who broke the rules Izumi. You are. Think about that before you decide who is right and who is wrong. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:16, 15 October 2007 (BST)
I made a mistake. i apologized. I wrote countless emails begging for one last glimmer of hope, swearing by all that was holy that I would do nothing but make this wiki a better place. But you couldn't stand for that, could you? I'm a threat to the wiki, after all. Or maybe it just gives you a power rush. I don't know, I don't care. All I know is I'm NOT the villain here. The one at fault, yes. The villain, no. That would be you. So go masturbate in the shower, Grim. Trolling the wiki like you do all day long we both know you haven't got a girlfriend. Or a life, for that matter. Grim is a Fascist Pig 02:22, 15 October 2007 (BST)
Izumi, do you realise that i find your hate filled rants exceedingly amusing? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:26, 15 October 2007 (BST)
Exactly my point. You do nothing but cause problems. What right do you have to be a sysop? You can't even be bothered to reply to my emails, so why should I respect you or your authority? Pig. Noriko 02:34, 15 October 2007 (BST)
Because your emails are nothing but torrents of verbal abuse in which you deny responsibility for your actions and ask for a second chance, when you had 8 chances. That, and i have no intention of letting you get my email address. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:37, 15 October 2007 (BST)
Shut your lying mouth. I never denied responsibility for anything. What IS your fault is the initial month ban which you lied about my actions, saying I "repeatedly vandalized a group page" when all I did was remove my name ONE time. Even if that counts as vandalism, its sure as kittens NOT "repeated". Go play in the desert or something, you lying Australian shit! Grim is a LYING Fascist Pig 02:46, 15 October 2007 (BST)
Oh no. You were saying it wasnt fair, wasnt your fault you lost your temper at the completely fair month long ban (Ive been banned for doing exactly what you did) and then you kept asking for a second chance just because we didnt give you time to cool off. We were in the wrong because you were an idiot and lost your editing privs permenantly. Well, fuck off. Take some responsibility for your actions and grow up, instead of basing your life around trying to get back at me for doing my job. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:55, 15 October 2007 (BST)
Fair or not, you still lied about it, which should have resulted in at very least a misconduct case. And no. I think I'll make a few dozen more alts. :) Grim Likes Men 03:11, 15 October 2007 (BST)
Lied? You did wrong. You got banned. End of story, except you seem to be trying to slap on breif crappy sequels. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:15, 15 October 2007 (BST)
Yeah, well I'm still not going anywhere. And you DID lie, in saying I vandalized it repeatedly when I only edited once. That's a lie. =P Izumi Loves Grim Forever 03:31, 15 October 2007 (BST)
How mature. I have to go out now, but thankfully Hagnat and Thari are both on to take over. Enjoy your immaturity. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:38, 15 October 2007 (BST)

Cort firefighter

Grim, can you let him go? I reverted it, talked to him, please, assume good faith newb stupidity and walk away.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:14, 15 October 2007 (BST)

I saw it, i had to report. You will notice i didnt rule on it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:49, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Axe27

Wait, we can't spam with the Welcome Newbie template anymore? When did I miss that memo?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:01, 13 October 2007 (BST)

We're not allowed to welcome people anymore? What?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:03, 13 October 2007 (BST)

Ooops, forgot about the new guidelines. Sorry 'bout that, and sorry in advance, as it'll take a bit o' time to get used to.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:05, 13 October 2007 (BST)
It's alright. I guess I should change the colors for the guidelines so they'll attract attention easier. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 23:12, 13 October 2007 (BST)
You have a strange and disturbing definition of helpful.--Karekmaps?! 23:41, 13 October 2007 (BST)
Strictly speaking, it is spam. And its fucking huge, you cant even ignore it. Putting a guide to new wiki editors on the main page would be much, much mroe efficient. Why does the welcome newbie spam get a special pleading when all other spam is smacked down (Other spam is arguably good faith, such as the Codename V stuff)? (This is not a ruling challenge, just a question, and a request that perhaps you guys could streamline your welcome stuff into a single link on the main page. Possibly in a box titled "New to the wiki? Click here" or something.) --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:57, 13 October 2007 (BST)
I think its somewhat because its helpful. I've noticed a few comments and such about it.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:15, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Ive been told its annoying, for both new users and people talking to those new users. Its a pain in the arse to use a page with a big honking welcome newbie thing on it. Hell, ill even volenteer to build a damned new wiki user guide if it will stop the welcome newbie spam in the recent changes and pages. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:28, 14 October 2007 (BST)
I'm good with that idea. And I volunteer to correct your typos. :)-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:34, 14 October 2007 (BST)
I do disagree with the Codename V stuff being ruled vandalism, even though I didn't state it, because I see it as good faith. Although I still support my ruling, the link or user guide you (Grim) suggested is an excellent idea. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 02:14, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Huh?What? *blinks* Seeing as I'm helping Project Welcome, how am I accused of spamming when Matthew did the exact same thing? Whatever.Thank you Zombie Slayer. --User:Axe27/Sig 03:13, 14 October 2007 (BST)

The welcomenewbie template is part of general wiki maintenance, whereas group related, "cold call", spamming is done to promote in game groups, individuals or events. The first is helping the wiki, the later is helping yourself, hence the difference in their treatment -- boxy • talk • 03:27 14 October 2007 (BST)

Bullshit, this doesn't help new users any more then me telling them to not report news on suburbs. If the people posting this were trying to be helpful they would follow up, wait until asked, answer questions the users might have, etc. Project Mentor is helping, Project Newbie is spamming up user pages under the guise of helping.--Karekmaps?! 18:51, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Well, that's your opinion, I know I appreciated the help of the WN template when I arrived here, and left it on my talk page for a while to refer back to -- boxy • talk • 10:57 15 October 2007 (BST)
Well, that's your opinion, I know that many would just as rather a simple welcome message with a link to a central help page. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:39, 15 October 2007 (BST)
I like the newbie template, it helped me out quite a bit The man 22:26, 17 October 2007 (BST)


Axe27 said:
Huh?What? *blinks* Seeing as I'm helping Project Welcome, how am I accused of spamming when Matthew did the exact same thing? Whatever.Thank you Zombie Slayer.

Some would argue that Matt deserves a vandalism report as well. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:18, 14 October 2007 (BST)

Personal Vendettas aside, I don't see how doing what Project Welcome states is vandalism if it's in good faith. Though, Grim's suggestion does seem a better thing to do. --User:Axe27/Sig 03:21, 14 October 2007 (BST)
It's not vandalism Kamden, just people misusing the admin pages, yet again, to try and force change -- boxy • talk • 03:33 14 October 2007 (BST)

The welcomenewbie template doesn't receive "special treatment" because it isn't spam: it's a tool meant to introduce newbies to this wiki so they don't get berated by users not so willingfull to keep their criticism clean or just are complete assholes when dealing with the not so experienced, and so it teachs and protects them. It has been always meant to be placed in good faith and this is done thanks to a group of uninterested users that took the responsibility as their own (I used to place it myself until a significant userbase got adept to place it themselves) and this has been accomplished except maybe in a couple of occasions (I only remember one). That some users consider it a bother has always been an inherent problem of the template or any kind of welcome for that matter (even 1 link), but there are far more pros than cons in placing them than leaving newbies unhinted (I think I heard someone on this wiki say that's it's better to get them young...) and there have been plenty of users that have thanked and even asked for further help because of the template; this pros/cons matter has been already contested plenty of times by only a handfull of users that sometimes seem to be aiming at whatever reason (like its creator) other than the idea. That said, changes to the template were, are and will be always welcome as long as the main purpose and structure remains the same. The template has always been a tool to help newbies, so if some new thing takes it's place as Nº1 welcoming tool then it wouldn't be a bad thing at all, but the template isn't meant to be placed in bad faith and it depends on individual users who gets wich (if any) like with project's mentor template or the Template:Welcomenewbie? one.

That said, the 1 link idea was discarded early on development because how most new users accustom to ignore useful links, more so if they point to long to read rules or basic help. Anyways, a single link wouldn't be needed at all in first place because we already have the Help:Contents included on the sidebar, so new users already have these links at hand. The campy tone used in the welcomenewbie template was meant to make it easy and entertaining to read and the visuals and placement on the talk page itself make it hard to miss (heh) and intuitive to use, and it does has several links to the rules and basic helps it refers. When we compare single link help with the welcomenewbie idea it seems that it would be used more often as a further excuse to flame new users ("you had the help at hand!") than for helping them in any way.

Keep in mind that nowadays new users get a once-in-a-lifetime "mini-welcomenewbie template" when they create their account, so the welcomenewbie complements this. And they are shown various help links there more effectively on this first template and when they get the real thing on their talk pages than in any main page link (that were always there anyways). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:08, 14 October 2007 (BST)

Well, at least we have a firm precedent set down on this issue, and as Matt said, it's better to do it now and avoid the later consquences, then not do it at all and have constant issues. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:54, 14 October 2007 (BST)
My major complaint with that template is that it is fucking gigantic. Simply creating a page for everything where it gets explained in detail, broken down into clear subsections would be better than a massive spammed template. Also, your point that people dont click useful links can be applied equally well to people not reading the welcome newbie template. At least if its on the main page in a seperated link like the new to malton guide (Perhaps alongside it), p-eople can check it as needed, and if they dont, and they get burnt for it, they can easily find and examine the link and get the information they need. I just dont think such amounts of spam are really needed, and a less maintenance intensive approach is a much better idea. At the very least, by providing all the information on a seperate page, the welcome newbie template could be shrunk down to a few lines explaining the improtance of reading the page as well as providing a link. It would make it a lot more user friendly. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:58, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Sorry, but you're wrong, it takes only one line on the talk page. If you think it's content is overwhelming and should be shortened - you're welcome to the according talk page to discuss it. I don't know any user that was really bothered by the template on his talk page and couldn't remove it's single line. However i know plenty of usersers thankfull for me placing it and seeking further help in context of editing wiki. Once again, the aproach of a single link to a big guide was and is in use but it's less efficient. One of the main reason of WN efficiency is the level - it is personal welcoming and care that new user recieves, it gives much more motivation to read the advices. Also, on a side note, such welcomings are common stuff on, for example, en.wiki --~~~~ [talk] 10:54, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Oh, im sorry. I must have hallucinated the times i saw while reading the page its a fucking gigantic page long box. And the Welcomenewbie template is anything but personal. Its one huge template that gets signed by the user posting it. It is just as mass produced as any other approach excepting project mentors. The template as it is now is an annoying impediment to reading their talk pages. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:00, 14 October 2007 (BST)
The content of the template and it's gigantism is a thing to discuss on it's talk page and is open to modifications; there are users including myself willing to make it more compact. This doesn't have anything to do with the efficiency of aproach. If you're annoyed reading it on other users' talk pages - please don't read it on other users' talk pages. --~~~~ [talk] 11:13, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Ok, this realy isn't funny anymore. Can we please refrain from trying to drop other users in the shit for good faith edits now? Or is this ameteur dramatics month and I jsut missed the memo?--SeventythreeTalk 11:21, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Y'see, thats the problem. Its so huge you cant help but see the damned thing, and it disrupts the page. Just put up a seperate page and have the template be a link and description of the link, with a little welcome text. Much shorter, much sweeter. For project welcome, you certainly are close minded. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:52, 14 October 2007 (BST)
I'm with you on that, Grim_s. Great idea, but why is someone being taken to VB for placing welcome messages?--SeventythreeTalk 12:58, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Because everyone is bored, and we haven't had any good drama in, what, 3 hours? ;).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:04, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Ok. Ummmm, drama. K. Er.... I might start an arbitration case againgst S.A. Gotta think of a reason though.--SeventythreeTalk 15:53, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Woah, hey fuck that! I don't want it seen as vandalism. Humorous cases are just that. I already have two warnings, so lets not go there, okay? :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:55, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Oh, don't worry mate. I was joking. Hey, I just looked at my Vandal data, and I got no warnings. Not quite sure how... Hang on, you said a naughty word! Vandal!--SeventythreeTalk 15:57, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck...What'll this get me? :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:09, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Y'see part of me knows that in the current climate of wikilawering and Ametur dramatics that seems to be around at the mo a VB case againgst you because of this actualy would ahve a fair chance of succeding. As it is, we're probably gonna get warned for, you know, not taking this seriously or something. I kinda miss the days when someone like vista would come along and go what a bunch of idiots. I'm gonna stick this on one of their talkpages. Why does nobody seem to get the concept of leniancy and sometimes you should bend rules cos pulling everyone up for minor infringements is actualy gonna do much more harm than letting it be?--SeventythreeTalk 16:13, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Those days died, along with my pet spider. Poor guy. I really liked it too.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:18, 14 October 2007 (BST)
What was it's name? I had a pet stick insect once, at school. It died but no-one realy noticed for quite a while.--SeventythreeTalk 16:19, 14 October 2007 (BST)
I never gave it a name. I thought it was too cool to be named by a mere mortal.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:20, 14 October 2007 (BST)
I had a spider that lived in my room for a while. I only named him after his death. Someone introduced him to a newspaper and then he was called Mr. Splatty.--SeventythreeTalk 16:24, 14 October 2007 (BST)
I found my spider when I moved into my old apartment. And then when I moved, I brought him with me. He just kid of wandered around my house, eating things. He was really big, big enough to eat a mouse. He died of old age though. At least I think so, thats the only reason I could think of.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:29, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Must have been quite old! I hear that some spiders make it to 20. We had one like that that lived in the airvents in the bathroom. Probably still there.--SeventythreeTalk 17:43, 14 October 2007 (BST)

Sexi Katie868

Now wait a minute, she was just using that proxy to explain her situation. She's new, she didn't know how to do that without creating another account. C'mon, give her the benefit of the doubt, as her explanation seems not only plausible but probable.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  05:34, 13 October 2007 (BST)

Nali, she says she only used the 1st proxy from school and the second was used to defend that action? Well unless it is Izumi it won't really matter will it because that means her 1st user ID was not banned. As long as the "1st" account does not get banned as a Proxy of the 2 latter ones she is not really being punished just very firmly made to obey very sensible rules! Of course if its not Izumi and she does have a previous ID she can log on with that and pint out to a neutral Sysop (Boxy?) that this is the case. Izumi won't contact Boxy, but if this isn't Izumi there should be no reason not too! --Honestmistake 12:15, 13 October 2007 (BST)
I'm not sure I understand, but it said on there that her first account- yoko ono- WAS banned. Check the block-log.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  14:34, 13 October 2007 (BST)
Right under here in the Yoko section you can read her posting as Sexi to defend her previous alt (yoko) as being a proxy because she couldn't use her main in school! That tells me that Yoko was a proxy for another account (Izumi?) If Yoko was not an Izumi proxy then her original account has not been found and I suspect that if she uses it now it will show up as a proxy and be banned! This gets confusing as she will be getting a ban for being a proxy of the account that was banned for being a proxy of the one now getting a ban. head hurt yet? Now if that is the case its a vicious circle: account 1 is legitimate but account 2 (yoko) is not and is banned as a proxy. Account 3 (sexi) is created to defend account 2 (yoko) but gets banned as an obvious proxy!. Now if whoever it is logs on as account 1 and is user checked there is a good chance they will appear as a proxy of their own proxy and thus be banned! Understand? No? Tough ;) --Honestmistake 17:23, 13 October 2007 (BST)
The way I understand it:
1. Yoko is the main account.
2. She logs onto Yoko through a proxy
3. She gets banned from Yoko as a proxy
4. She logs on to sockpuppet SexiKatie.
My point being, if it occured like that, she didn't violate the spirit of the law  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  19:24, 13 October 2007 (BST)
You are incorrect. --Karlsbad 20:16, 13 October 2007 (BST)
If she had to use a proxy to get on from school it means that the schools IP address(es) have been banned by one or more sysops. Given her obvious familiarity with this wiki (Leaping right into the administrative pages to challenge the sysops) it is pretty damned obvious it was her that earned that ban (or bans). As such, we ban as sock puppet. The dodge the ban to complain about the ban is classic Izumi. As amusing as it is futile. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 22:16, 13 October 2007 (BST)
I agree with your conclusion, Grim, but I need to point out that requiring a proxy at school is not necessarily a sign of the school's IP having been banned. As is the case at my school, they simply might have blocked this site as part of a global block on "unacceptable" sites (ie. gaming, porn etc.). --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:11, 14 October 2007 (BST)
There are much better, if complicated ways, to bypass a net nanny. I found several while in school (Some of them quite cunning indeed). Besides, in my experience, using proxy websites wouldnt work because of login issues. You could look but not touch. One of my methods involved signing in on a account that enabled uploading and installing from a hard drive, and then using a program to block off the school network (A customisable personal firewall, i used the old Sygate one), then rebooting the computer and getting thrown to its internal user rather than the school network, and accessing the internet that way without the nanny (Such sabotage was easily undone by unblocking the network and removing the program). --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:14, 14 October 2007 (BST)
I understood all of that except the bits that followed.... well th dots at the start of the post really! some of us have no clue you know! --Honestmistake 01:44, 15 October 2007 (BST)

You banned you banned no exceptions. Sockem 19:47, 13 October 2007 (BST)

Yoko Ono

proxys are againest the rules. end of story. try going to a public libary.--'BPTmz 03:00, 13 October 2007 (BST)

Well I'm SORRY I didn't KNOW THAT, k!?!?!? I mean, I'm not a wiki expert but all I see when I look at this page is VANDAL BANNING. Not "oops u used a proxy now lets all gang up on the newbie banning"! U guys arent supposed to witch hunt, I read som of the rules and you're supposed to think of good faith and protect the forum from being vandalized. I WAS JUST HERE DOING WOT MY GROUP LEARDER TOLD ME TOO!Sexi Katie868 03:09, 13 October 2007 (BST)

*Non-sysop Discussion moved.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  03:08, 13 October 2007 (BST)

SERIOUSLY! I don't give a fuck whos right! Quit it now until a sysop comes on or keep it to your talk pages.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:25, 13 October 2007 (BST)


Is this yet another sock from the same perma-banned user?

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

(Finding her sock-puppets is my new hobby)

--Stephen Colbert DFA 23:25, 14 October 2007 (BST)

Rosslessness

Link to edit in question?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:01, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Oh for god's sake let it go, he obviously doesn't know better. Did you even bother to contact him? I bet you didn't, you just up and brought it here to watch the drama for lack of anything better to do. It's not that hard to click the "undo" button and then talk to him.Yoko Ono 20:59, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Please, if you're only posting on this to abuse other members of the community then at least keep it to the talk page.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:01, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Do you have a link? I checked Rosslessness' contributions and saw no recent suggestion creations.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:01, 11 October 2007 (BST)

It's not even an actual suggestion. It's just on Talk:Suggestions. --Pavluk A! E! 21:04, 11 October 2007 (BST)
That's not vandalism. It has to be on the actual suggestion page, not just the talk.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:06, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Conficts. Official or not it doesnt matter. The rules state place humorous suggestions in the humorous page. Sockem 21:07, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Sockem, you should shut up. I read the whole thing, and YOU were the one instigating. "lol you suck I'm gonna take it to vandal lololol ahahahah". Case and point. YOU should be warned or banned, NOT Rosslessness. Yoko Ono 21:10, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Do you have anything constructive to add, or were you merely trolling?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:25, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Lets stop it right here, I can see where this is going. Mr. General, I know you're online. Care to make the verdict?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:12, 11 October 2007 (BST)
I tried to several times but kept getting edit conflicted. Anyway, I agree with Hagnat.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:25, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Yeah, this wiki is crazy. :/--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:26, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Yup, I just got edit conflicted 3 times in a row trying to post a message to this page.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:08, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Yoko Ono? Or Yoko Orimoto? I smell a sockpuppet. Grimchy, tell me I'm wrong. --Stephen Colbert DFA 21:46, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Chances are high. There is some matching IP in here, but nothing that could prove that they are the same person. But keep your cool, and if they are the same person the administration will know better to deal with them. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:52, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Yup, I ran a check on his ips but it wasn't a match so I left them alone.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:01, 11 October 2007 (BST)
If you watch my show, you'd know that I'm cooler than the other side of the pillow. I thought there was a check-user thingy... --Stephen Colbert DFA 21:58, 11 October 2007 (BST)
There is. I just checked it, but ip's can change a lot, and i guess you don't want me banning all ip's in 6*.*.*.*, right ? And sadly i can't watch your show, mr colbert, but i have already heard about you. Hope you make a job as good as our fine Mr. Burgundy from the Channel 4 News Team. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:02, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Wait...wha?Yoko Ono 22:04, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Someone is accusing you of being Izumi, a permabanned user. Guess they either don't know about the beetles or suspect you because you're new.--Karekmaps?! 22:05, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Brand new user who's first edit is the Lockettside page and then trolls the A/VB page? I'd be a liberal-democrat if I didn't suspect a sock-puppet. --Stephen Colbert DFA 22:07, 11 October 2007 (BST)
I'm a member of the Lockettside Valkyries, if that's what you mean, but last time I checked I wasn't Izumi? 0_0

And theres no edit button for our page so I just edited the suburb itself. Yoko Ono 22:16, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Bah, don't worry about it, Sysops have the final say in all these matters and they tend to actually check before banning users.--Karekmaps?! 22:20, 11 October 2007 (BST)
I CAN DO WHAT I WANT ON THE TALKPAGE! MUAHAHAHA! "BY ORDER OF WIKI KING NALIKILL, THIS IS DECLARED VANDALISM AND ROSELESSNESSSSSSS WILLLLLL BEEEEEEEEEE EEEEXEEEECUTED!"/stupid sarcasm.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  23:14, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Please don't crap up semiproductive discussions.--Karekmaps?! 08:39, 12 October 2007 (BST)

Andria Rose

I already perma'd him/her and purged all its images. Nothing left. Problem is that the person is using something that switches their IP regularly. He/she went through 6 in the spam run. Now lets not give him any more attention, shall we? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:45, 9 October 2007 (BST)
This reminds me of this user. Since everything was posted on his/her userpage, I didn't do anything, but his/her IP was switched around like Rose. Should we go ahead and ban this person, too? --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 01:14, 9 October 2007 (BST)

Nalikill

This is for ACTUAL vandalism, not your personal petty vendettas about crap that isn't vandalism. See my talk page for more of the rant  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:06, 5 October 2007 (BST)
Well, next time you violate it, it'll be an actual warning. Given how you have already had your first two strikes, it would be a 24 hour ban. Please refrain from attempting to boss sysops around on administrative pages and causing bucketloads of drama. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:29, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Like I said on my talk page, TELL ME THE RULE I BROKE, AND I WILL STOP DOING IT. I DID NOT BOSS ANYONE AROUND, EVER. I MERELY OFFERED UP SUGGESTIONS. I apologize if it came off any other way; but I broke no rule. All of the bullshit warnings in the world don't give it force if there's no ACTUAL rule behind it.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:39, 6 October 2007 (BST)
As i said on the talk page: "Fact of the matter is that you werent involved in the case, and you dont have a say in the outcome, so stop wasting everyones time by pretending you have a clue, and a say, when you have neither. If you ever become a sysop (And that is one huge IF there), you will be able to render verdicts on the Vandal banning page, as well as other administrative pages. Until then, your opinion, be it informed or not, be it good or bad, is neither helpful nor wanted in administrative matters such as case processing. Your persistent posting of your foolish opinions on each case merely serve to undermine the administrative process and come across as an attempt to boss the sysops around. Kindly piss off." --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:45, 6 October 2007 (BST)
I didn't render a ruling. Rendering a ruling would be me saying in bold, "not vandalism" or "vandalism". I never did that. I made suggestions, and gave my opinion, as is my right. Also, THERE IS NO RULE AGAINST ME POSTING MY OPINION, AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO QUOTE IT IF THERE IS, so you are the idiot in this case, who kindly needs to get the fuck out of the wiki. EDIT: By the way, the vandalism page says, "What isn't vandalism: AN UNWANTED ADDITION TO A PAGE", and that's precisely your objection to my opinion. Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:48, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Nope, my objectuon is that you are playing little sysop and running around spewing youur garbage all over this page without thought or care to the damage you are doing to the system. The sysops who have chimed in thus far have agreed: You are making our lives more frustrating and difficult by posting your stupid little verdicts. If you really want to comment on a case, please create a section on the talk page for it, and then post a message reading Discussion on talk page on the case itself, but dont shit up the main administration space with your irrelevant crap. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:23, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Consent of the sysops? Consent of God himself don't matter... if there's no OFFICIAL policy against it. So since it isn't against the rules, you can go fuck yourself and the high horse you rode in on. Thank you for confirming that I have done nothing wrong and can continue without possibility of being punished, and that I can take anyone who tries to ban me to Misconduct.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  02:30, 6 October 2007 (BST)
an easy way to solve this would be to make a policy. care to do the honors grim?--'BPTmz 02:34, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Excellent idea; and if it passes in two weeks and three days (minimum possible time, if I remember right.) I will support it wholeheartedly and will obey it when and if it passes.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  02:35, 6 October 2007 (BST)

You told me you were backing off the Administration pages only a couple of days ago Nalikill. And as to this issue, you really are looking like you are deliberately trying to annoy the sysops with your "contributions" to the admin pages. You have little idea how the wiki works, you don't look into cases in any meaningful way, and yet you've always got to put your 2cents worth in... and lately it's been in extremely obvious cases. The vandalism one below, and the deletions page I pulled you up on a few days ago, where you didn't even look at the bloody page, but felt justified in voting keep with the express reason of stopping sysops from being able to delete it. You've been warned time and time again to back off, you've even said you're going to, but you keep coming back -- boxy • talk • 02:53 6 October 2007 (BST)

I'm trying to back off. But it's like... Let's say you promised yourself you wouldn't use your right arm for one day. You'd keep forgetting, wouldn't you? Same thing happens to me. I make the promise, try to back off, and then I forget. Maybe if the assylum was more active (hint hint to assylum members) I would remember better.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  03:03, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Just so everyone knows, because of these warnings that have been given, as well as numerous other talks on the subject with Nalikill on the matter, means that next time he edits the administrative pages and posts his crap there, we can be certain it was not a good faith edit to improve this wiki. It would be an edit made in bad faith to stir up drama, and because of these warnings, we can discount good faith when dealing with furture instances and can legitimately warn Nalikill for refusing to cease and desist in the face of numerous reasoned arguments as to why he should not do so. There is a rule there for us. Its under the definition of vandalism. Just because this process isnt explicitely spelled out doesnt make it invalid. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:58, 6 October 2007 (BST)
And no, it will still be a good faith edit...BECAUSE I HAVEN'T YET BROKEN ANY RULES, YOU BASTARD. IF I HAD BEEN TOLD OFF- FOR BREAKING RULES, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE GOOD FAITH. No one, not even sysops, bureaucrats, or anyone except Kevan can unilaterally warn someone for doing something that isn't against the rules, can ban someone for doing something that isn't against the rules, so I promise you, I'll do it again, just to make the point that it's good faith and that I have a right to do it, you'll be stupid enough to ban me, and I'll take you to misconduct... or you can propose the policy, and I'll vote in the for column on the policy. I will. I like the idea- but it isn't policy yet.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  03:03, 6 October 2007 (BST)
I spelled out perfectly how we can do this within the rules. You dont need to break the rules of the wiki to make bad faith edits in spite of repeated calls to cease and desist. There is no defined rule on spamming, but we nail them under the same thing as what we are going to nail you under if you keep going. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:08, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Seriously, what is an "unofficial warning"--on a page dedicated to vandalism cases? Either it's a case that needs to be assessed as vandalism, with a real warning potentially to follow, or it's not. I'm not interested in defending or supporting this particular case, but I would like to say that it sounds like Grim, you need to wait for proper policy to be in place, or you should have taken this to arbitration... no? --Barbecue Barbecue 16:52, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Unofficial warnings should not exist. Personaly I do not beleive that an unofficial warning is productive, quite the opposite in fact. It doesn't carry any weight in terms of punishment or whatever, but succedes in getting someone wound up as it sounds like they have definately in the eyes of the sysop issuing it made a bad faith edit. This entire thing could be delt with much better with a little less posturing and anger, which seems to be what these "unofficial warnings" seem to create. Nalikill is a reasonable, sensible person, despite what recent edits seem to show. (Nalikill mate, you have got to stop typing in bold and swearing. It sabotages your point of veiw faster than anything) Was there an attempt to reason with Nalikill before all this kicked off? Personaly I made a couple of dumb comments on the VB page a while back, and all that happened to me was someone asking me to knock it on the head. Was a reasonable conversation with Nalikill attempted before all this buisness with the "Unnoficial warning"? Please tell me it was. --SeventythreeTalk 18:36, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Unofficial warnings serve their purpose. It tells the user what he did was vandalism, but wasn't something that worthy to get punished by. There are several cases where a user can be unofficially warned, such as newbies who edit other people user page instead of their talk pages, newbies who edit a regularly used template (such as the welcomenewbie, the groups templates and the suggestions templates), and in cases where there is only a guidelines to be followed and we need to ask the user to follow it, like in Nalikill's case. There is a guideline, he was told to follow it and, since he decided not to, was unofficially warned. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:52, 6 October 2007 (BST)
unofficial warnings are simply the sysop saying that the edits were unproductive and and probable vandalism. But that there were either mitigating circumstances or that the user got the benefit of the doubt because the sysop felt that it would have more positive effects for the wiki to simply ask somebody to stop instead of continuing onwards on the escalation tree. But that next time such an edit would result in a warning. And yes, Nalikill was asked before.
There are the different forces at work at the vandal banning page, one is the reporting of the facts inherent to the the case, which everybody is allowed to do and the second is weighting those facts and deciding whether or not that the case reported is really vandalism which only is done by sysops. That is the reason we have the current promotion system that is design to vet users on their judgment. A non-sysop making not adding facts but making a judgment call isn't adding anything useful to the case. For the reporter or the reported his comments are useless as they have no standing, for the sysop it is also useless as he must disregard that opinion and only use his own judgment or that of other sysops as those judgments are sanctioned by the community and that of the commentator is not. The commentator making a judgment call for himself isn't adding anything of value to the case, he's merely discussing the case.
The page itself is set up with that in mind. It's an administration page and as such has different editing standards then the pages in the other name spaces. But one thing is the same, you don't discuss the content of the page on the page itself, you discuss the content of the page on the talk page. The fact that the content itself is a vandal report made by a random and the verdict of a random sysop doesn't matter. If you are not directly involved in the case the talk page is the normal page to use. Although it doesn't have the traffic that the primary page has you will reach the relevant persons non the less. traffic is not an excuse.
Besides the technical aspects already mentioned there are also some more emotional reasons, it is a drama prone page and the more people that get involved, the more likely it is that misunderstandings lead to drama and more vandalism.-- Vista  +1  20:32, 6 October 2007 (BST)
So the basic rule is Unless you're involved with the case, stick it on the talkpage. And Nalikill was asked to stop. Seeing as nobody has been banned or officialy warned I do hope this is the end of it.--SeventythreeTalk 21:18, 6 October 2007 (BST)
And please, see the policy I'm proposing and help me to format it and word it correctly. I support the idea, and will try to refrain unless I have seriously well-thought out comments on the situation.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:10, 7 October 2007 (BST)
Well-thought out or not, if you aren't involved in the case your comments belong on the talk page. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 07:34, 9 October 2007 (BST)
Um, fuck you? That's what this whole argument was about, not that I was posting at all- which there is no policy against- but that it was spamming up the page. So, fuck you, I'm using the VB page when I want to, as is my right, until there is an official policy against it, rather than some prissy sysops playing at being dictators.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  11:31, 9 October 2007 (BST)
Of course, I don't mean to offend sysops with that last remark- I was just remarking that to keep normal people off the vandal-banning page would require a policy change, which has not yet happened.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  11:36, 9 October 2007 (BST)
Not everything takes a policy, common sense means not shitting up pages needed for administrative action. If you don't comment every time a page is up for protection unless it concerns you what right do you have to do the same thing every time a user is up for vandal banning? Do you really need a policy telling you that sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong is a bad idea?--Karekmaps?! 12:09, 9 October 2007 (BST)
I have pointed out twice how we can nail you under an existing policy, specifically the Vandalism policy. We have asked you repeatedly to stop, so good faith goes out the window, and thus your term comes under the heading of common vandalism. Since your (hagnats rewritten for of your rant) policy is going to fail horribly, because its the fucking status quo already, you better get used to the fact that policies interact in funny ways, and that repeated use of requests to cease and desist disruptive behaviour, as they have been used in the past, can be used to make further comments of what would normally be "within the rules but annoying" qualify as vandalism. You have no allies in this Nalikill. Its there in black and white, and more colours too if i ever was bothered to string together coloured letter code. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not valid, but by all means, if you want to put it to the test, feel free to do so tomorrow after i have had my nap. that way it can be me that smacks you down and im the one you can lose your promised misconduct case to. Then i will have enough failed misconduct cases against me to make a little fort, from which i can lord over all i survey. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:52, 9 October 2007 (BST)
Hah. Nice attempt at a backflip. First time's the charm, Nal. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:24, 9 October 2007 (BST)

GUMBjork

He's incredibly new, though. If I may be so bold as to offer up an opinion, might it suffice to move the comment to the talk page and give him a warning off the record?  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  11:45, 5 October 2007 (BST)
Nalikill, you have been warned to keep from making a mess of this page. Dont tell us how to do our jobs. If you have anything intelligent to say on the subject, please use the talk page. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 20:37, 5 October 2007 (BST)
Warned? For what, trying to contribute? I INTELLIGENTLY contributed here, pointing out the guy was new, and acting as humbly as I could, and making a suggestion, as is my right. You'll notice that the guideline is just that- a guideline. Fuck the guideline, I'm using the main page.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  20:41, 5 October 2007 (BST)
No, you were back seat sysopping... AGAIN. Please stop doing it. Do not tell us what we should and should not rule. We know a lot better than you, what with all this first hand experience and all, and you demonstrating on oh so many occasions in the past that you dont even have the first clue on either how either the rules or system works. Your comments are nothing more than bullshit that cause arguments such as this one which lead to an escalation of drama in A/VB. Consider this your second informal warning for it. Please refrain from shitting up the vandal banning page with your vast ignorance. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 20:56, 5 October 2007 (BST)
Slapped on the wrist with a piece of wet fucking spaghetti. Woohoo. I'll continue contributing as much as I feel is appropriate, I have the right to my opinion, I have the right to offer my opinion.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  20:57, 5 October 2007 (BST)
Next time it will be a real VB escalation. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 20:59, 5 October 2007 (BST)
Agreed. Back seat modding serves no purpose. If a user rule different from the SysOp, it either makes the sysop look bad if the final ruling was vandalism, or makes the user look bad if the final ruling was not vandalism. Unless you have something to add about a case, don't edit the front page. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:30, 5 October 2007 (BST)
"Awwww, is someone angry that their entire group got wiped out....are you gonna gonna squirt some? Believe me, if you are going to break wind, do so...it helps. Also, you have no penis! Have a Dandy Day!"
GUMBjork
Nali, GUMBjork (quoted above) was trying to be a dick, and stir up a negative reaction. Sure, it may have been a newbie mistake to do so on the User page, rather than the talk page, but when you go around telling people they "have no penis", unsurprisingly, you loose the assumption of it being a good faith edit -- boxy • talk • 23:58 5 October 2007 (BST)
I never doubted he was trying to be an asshole, but, if that was against wiki rules, then Grimch would be Public Enemy Number One, and I would be wanted sporadically... as would half the users on the wiki. The only mistake he made that could've been against the rules would've been the having it on the wrong page, and I was asking sysops to put it down to a newbie mistake.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:16, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Fact of the matter is that you werent involved in the case, and you dont have a say in the outcome, so stop wasting everyones time by pretending you have a clue, and a say, when you have neither. If you ever become a sysop (And that is one huge IF there), you will be able to render verdicts on the Vandal banning page, as well as other administrative pages. Until then, your opinion, be it informed or not, be it good or bad, is neither helpful nor wanted in administrative matters such as case processing. Your persistent posting of your foolish opinions on each case merely serve to undermine the administrative process and come across as an attempt to boss the sysops around. Kindly piss off. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:23, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Wow, yet again, something I do causes tons of talk. Jeez, maybe I should stop editing? Hmmmm.....Nah.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:11, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Yes Nali, being an arsehole isn't specifically against the rules, but if you break one of the other rules while being an arse, don't be surprised if you're not given the benefit of the doubt about your intentions. The sysops here go out of their way to ignore and fix up mistakes made by well intentioned newbies... don't go expecting them to ignore and clean up after people trying to be jerks -- boxy • talk • 00:26 6 October 2007 (BST)
Looking through that guys contribs, i found two cases of impersonation as well. Both came before he was warned though, so we cant touch him. Goes to bad faith though. 1, 2. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:43, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Whats with the weird fascination with man parts though? Odd.....-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:22, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Compensating for his own inadequacies. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:35, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Impersonation #1 is actually just a few hours after Hagnat warned him... but luckily he wiped his talk page, and that comment, within a minute, or it would be a second warning. Maybe he's got the message -- boxy • talk • 02:08 6 October 2007 (BST)
Stop fighting nill--Darkmagic 03:45, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Seriously, what is an "unofficial warning"--on a page dedicated to vandalism cases? Either it's a case that needs to be assessed as vandalism, with a real warning potentially to follow, or it's not. I'm not interested in defending or supporting this particular case, but I would like to say that it sounds like Grim, you need to wait for proper policy to be in place, or you should have taken this to arbitration... no? --Barbecue Barbecue 16:49, 6 October 2007 (BST)
an unofficial warning is when we could hit somebody with a warning but decide against it because it would be better for the wiki that we don't in that particular case.-- Vista  +1  19:26, 7 October 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2007_10&oldid=1723407"