UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 12

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

December

Suicidal Angel...Again

Wow, I'm becoming more and more popular with this page, aren't I? /sarcasm. Stuff from main moved to here.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(Talk aimed at Zinker)

just a helpful hint from another user who had the exact same problem. take it to arbies.--'BPTmz 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Zinker I have noticed your comment on my talk page. As for the conflict between you and Suicidalangel I have to choose the side of Suicidalangel. He is just trying to help you with what you failed at. From what I see all Suicidalangel wants is to help you with what you failed at. Zinker he is helping you not trying to decimate your page and your time on this wiki. As for your talk page, none of the recent content seems offensive. You should try to get as much help from others as possible, trust me it helps a lot. It isn't offensive for someone to post on your talk page, look it isn't like he is saying offensive things. Just so you know Zinker&Suicidalangel I think you two should see an arbitrator for this. I've got parts of both of you backed up.--Novascotia 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
If needed I will put my hand up as an arbitrator in this situation.--Novascotia 22:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note #2 - Please do not delete other users' comments. Thanks.--Novascotia 22:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Stay off the main page of A/VB unless you have something to report (A case, for instance). --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
meh. just thought i'd point zinker in the right direction, but whatever.--'BPTmz 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe he was referring more to Novascotia. But thats just me.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - He is just helping you, and there is no rule you or an arbitrator made that says he can't post on your talk page.--Novascotia 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved to talk, and now im soft warning you for "ruling" on a case when you arent a sysop. Ive moved your comments here enough for you to know you shouldnt be posting on the main A/VB page. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mobius187

I don't know if it is relevent but he spammed some pages with false claims, eg the Miltown page, both NT's have been ransacked for months now, I know because I have been in them.--Thekooks 15:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but disagree with all of you by in large. I don't feel that what mobius posted, be it in or out of character, was spam. I added depth to the game and did encourage people to post to the wiki. Both of these in my mind are far more important that perhaps a minor violation of the neutral stance that is almost NEVER observed on the suburb pages. If you disagree I encourage you to look at some of the posts on the suburbs recently hit by the BB2 and tell me how neutral most of those are? Be they posted by survivor or zed they are all squewed one way or another. The fact is that outside of the external military reports there are very few unbiased posts on most of the suburbs. I personally think Mobius deserves a pat on the back for the massive changes he's done to all of the NT pages and if that means a minor little post under "news" that will be archived in a few months anyway then so be it I say.--Mr NoName001 18:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved to talk. And this isnt about neutrality. This is about him hitting at least 83 suburbs with the same message (The ones Ryiis and I reverted yesterday). Given he did it a week ago, others may have removed his crap from the other pages before we got to them. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 18:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with you calling it crap. It's no more crap then some of the useless postings put up by the CDF or any other special intrest group. The pages are supposed to be about shareing information. He didn't put up a comment saying "Join the necrowatch" he put up a simple clean entry saying that something had changed and been made available to others on the wiki essentially "if you want to know more go here". How is what he entered less valuable then some individual posting under the news "CRAP the mall has 50 zeds inside your all dead!" In all seriousness if I have to choose one of the two to read it's going to be the latter. Not to mention that his entry had considerably more depth then either of the two cases cited as examples.--Mr NoName001 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


I am happy at your ruleing, but am disappointed that someone acted without at least giveing the rest of the admins a chance to voice there opinions. Mobius is a good person that would not do something to deliberately damage the wiki, and even if his actions were not liked by some of those resideing over the Admin status I think that they should at least act more like adults then 12 year old children curseing about it. His case was clearly diffrent from those that were cited as evidence against him and that is in my mind what the admin pages were created for, so that you all could get together and discuss the merrits of a particular item before takeing cartblanche measures against it when it may fall into the gray area. If it is blatant spam it makes sense to delete it without asking, but in an issue like this I think it pays to look at it and perhaps use a bit of reservation in ones actions. I am glad this at least proves the system works, but can't help but agree with Mobius' decision to leave the material off the page anyway so as not to further the wiki drama. In my personal opinion I feel that if you can't do ones job as an admin dispassionately then you should resign your status as one. By in large the people that are makeing these mistakes are not doing them maliciously , and not directing them at you, so takeing offense at them seems just a bit immature. Thanks you for all your work that you admins do. You are some extremely dedicated people and your work makes the game better for us all.--Mr NoName001 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about posting that on the Admin page, I wasn't reallly paying attention and accidently posted it there. Thank you for moveing it for me.--Mr NoName001 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I again can't help but get the impression that this is more about being angry that your decision was overruled, then a genuine attempt at discussion, however I digress. The point of haveing a page like the Admin discussion page is so that a consensus can be reached amongst the admins. That dosen't meant that any one opinion is more, or less important than the others, but it does mean that when a general consesnsus is reached it's a little juvenile to perhaps react the way you did about it? You seem to have more of a criticism about what he said then the fact that he said it. The point of the game is it allows everyone to play in there own manor. Just because he chose to make his entry in character dosen't make it any less important then one made of cold hard facts. His statement was in fact quite diffrent then the 5th Ad in that the 5th statement was just that, advertiseing for people to participate in an in game event that would be over after a particular date. The Necrowatch page is something that will be around for long after a particular date, and is in fact an attempt to improve the knowledge of all those that participate in the wiki and game. besides the fact that there is no reason that a small group of intrepid survivors couldn't make there way into even ridleybank and make some repairs on a building(I should know I have), however that is more of a discussion about game mechanics, and play then one about the wiki. I would like to believe that the reason that the admins ruled in favor of Mobius isn't because you all like him, but was in fact because his project holds merrit for the game and is a genuine attempt to assist people in there gameplay, where as the other examples given are either clearly spam, or merely a minor event that one person was trying to perpetrate throughout the wiki. --Mr NoName001 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


i dont want to start an argument but has anybody else noticed that whenever someone disagrees with grim, he makes it into a big deal? it's like he always has to be right. this case is yet more proof of that.--'BPTmz 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to singel out Grim or anyone else, I just feel that the admins should be perhaps a little more neutral in there statements about these topics, but neither of these are really on topic. however I can say I identify with the desire to always be right, but in a practical manor it's not possible for that to ever happen. No matter how good you are, there is always someone better.--Mr NoName001 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I am quite passionate in my opinions and in expressing them, especially when i see justice being perverted because a particular user is liked or disliked, or part of a particular clique. I will fully admit i have a vested interest in this issue, given the fact that i myself am one of the less popular individuals on this wiki (possibly because i do what is right instead of cleaving to any percieved alliances or friends or other such concepts), and i have suffered for it, not once, but at least twice. The first being the A/VB case against me at the bottom of the page, in which, during exceedingly long discussions on IRC and debates, i was forced to absolutely prove my innoncence just to get Vantar to change his opinion from vandalism to neutral (Naturally, you can see why im taking exception to him here as a result). To do so i literally had to prove every single thing said was wrong, including shooting down some seriously arcane twists in interpreting the guidelines and policies of the wiki) prove good faith, prove intentions, and then after all that, i had to try and convince him to change his opinion regarding me. The second case boxy banned me for alleged misconduct before i even got a whiff of due process (It was subsequently overturned, but all the same). As an unpopular user, i start any case and argument with a massive handicap against me, people either ignore what i have to say or they give it a far lesser weighting than others opinions simply because it is me saying it. I have checked pretty much every other possible explaination for this phenomenon and i am sad to say this is the only one that holds up to the test. The logic in my arguments is, unfortunately, unassailable (I wish it was otherwise, then i would just be able to pass this off as silly paranoia, but i cant). I provide empirical arguments for or against a particular proposal, and then i either get ignored or overruled on something arcane like "We can ignore precedents if we want" or "Stop being a dick".
The opposite is true of popular users, who, if it werent for crotchety old bastards like myself being sysops, would get away with almost anything up to murder, with several sysops, (and i wont name names. Have a rummage and look for yourself.) willing to warp and bend rules to let people off the hook. Well, i will name one name. Vista. He doesnt particularly like suggestions rule 10 which defines humourous suggestions as vandalism, and rules not vandalism on those cases, by throwing the irrelevant issue of good faith into the mix.
This case clearly demonstrates such a divide between the types of justice for the popular and the unpopular, as does the case in which i was wrongly convicted of breaking an arb ruling, though not as clearly, because there was almost a case there. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The simple fact is Grim I don't know you from adam(not the person, the hypothetical non existent person) I had no former opinion of you, but the manor in which you handeled this did in fact have a tendencey to bias me against you. However I must say after your lasst post I must say you have at least one more person on your side, maybe not on this particular item, but you can count that I will not dismiss your opinion on other topics. I think perhaps if you tone down your emotional responses to some of the more mundane items you may perhaps find you get a better response from those reading them. After you posted your belief that What Mobius posted woould have been better served in another location, you made a much better argument then trying to compare this event to the other cited ones. The examples provided were similar in only that they appeared on many pages, not in the material covered by the posting. Haveing looked at the things you have posted in the past Grim you are by in large a very through researcher on the wiki and your opinions are often flamed simply for being your opinions. That is no more fair I think then removeing a gray area item without perhaps just working with your other admins? I know I have said this several times, but I really do mean it when I say I appreciate all the work you all do. Your all volunters and takeing crap over stuff like this I am sure is the last thing you want to get at the end of your day. So thank you again for doing it. If you like Grim we could talk about this on my personal chat page so as not to fill the Admintalk page?--Mr NoName001 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
dont get me wrong grim, what you said is spot on. re-reading what i wrote above i think i sounded a lot more harsh then i was aiming for. however i dont think the wiki is as "preverted" as you say. it's just two different opinions, and different opinions arent wrong, just different.--'BPTmz 04:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Bah, Gray area my ass, gray area is an excuse to rule slightly out of line with the rules or to ignore them in certain situations, that's how it's used in government that's how it's being used here. The WelcomeNewbie templates is more spam than what Codename V did, it's done more and with less variation it's just certain Sysops hypocrisies that lets that get posted. As for this, it's useful yes, but it's basically a news template format to keep uniqueness of the wiki. If you're going to accept this you're claiming any preformatted news templates are ok as long as their information is relevant. The only gray area is if it's smart to do that as it would be a blatant exception to the current interpretation to the spam rules.--Karekmaps?! 05:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By that definition then kevan could be hit for spamming if he were to make a change to one of the buildings and then post that change to every news page! Just because there is alot of them dosen't make them spam. I think thatt is where this is getting maybe a little confuseing. Relevant, and usefull information is not spam, in fact as far as I can tell it is the exact opposite of spam. Just because someone choses not to use it dosen't mean it's irrelevsant either, think about how many people play UD and don't have a radio tuned to the outside band, it's usefull, but they choose not to use it. So by him posting usefull information that not everyone will use he's spaming? I don't think that meets the criteria, or perhaps the criteria need better defineing? Maybe a person is only allowed to post similar information to 5 pages a day? Something arbitrary that will effect only a few people, but perhaps it's vital info and they post it to more then there allotted five, does that make them spamers now? I think that the rules were applied and upon looking at what was provided it was ruled not spam because of the simple fact that the only criteria it met was the volume of it. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so then maybe the system for determineing spam needs to be re evaluated, but I think that this was done right. It was posted as spam, looked at, and then upon a group decision it was decided it was not spam. If that isn't democracy in action then I don't know what is. the wiki is a republic with the admins our reps.--Mr NoName001 18:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
First off, Kevan doesn't mass edit the wiki, users pretty much designed everything you see here today. Second, it's advertising, any group post in the news or any post made to point out the groups actions is advertising. There are acceptable levels of advertising when it's based in fact and not just advertising but posing the a default message in every suburb is pretty much the definition of mass spam, it's not better than those viagra knock-off companies that send people email but change the name based on the user they are mailing to. As is it's pretty hard to do something on the level that people will consider spam, it takes 20 edits as such according to the precedent. There were far more than 20 in this case. By The Way, if it weren't in the news section this wouldn't be an issue at all, but as it was it is spam, which is why they are now discussing implementing something along the lines of the NIC links which are not spam. The difference is obvious unless you are learning impaired and the fact that you are even trying to argue this is mind boggling.--Karekmaps?! 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If something is posted in excessive quantities, it is spam. I could have understood if he had just targeted the talk pages of those suburbs where the changes would probably have been missed, but posting it in the news section (which is for news of in-game happenings, not wiki-projects) of every suburb that has an NT is excessive. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok so then it is quantity, not necessarily what was posted then? As to my "argueing" this it is simply my desire to better understand why this became such an issue a month after it was posted? Thank you for clarifying that Midianian, it makes much more sense why it was viewed as spam. I think your right that it would have been better for him to post it as an addition to the suburb temp. One last thing I'd like to point out, while I know many of the people that use the wiki are young and useing curse words and insulting people that have difrent views on things is still a novelty, I'd suggest you try useing logic and look up adjatives other then the four letter kind. I have not insulted, or cursed at any of you, and ther is no reason to, in the end THIS IS JUST A GAME, so try to keep that in mind please. --Mr NoName001 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
False edits should only be counted as a soft warning not vandalism, besides if false reports are a nuisance just tell him to lay low on the news or delete them.--Novascotia 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Girlygirl

Vandalism reverted and your spelling fixed, grim.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a banwish or something? For fucks sake, play it safe and keep your comments on the talk page. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
there is no rule against commenting on the main page... it is rightly discouraged but ban worthy? I don't think so! --Honestmistake 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
We have been over this time and time again, and i dont want to go over this again. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
then stop threatening people with bans for posting on a page when no rule exists to back it up! --Honestmistake 14:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow... three days of silence and thats the best you could come up with... An unprovoked attack which, as usual, had no foundation in reality. No, i didnt threaten him. It was an honest question for him given the fact that he still has the outstanding warnings on his head for shitting up admin pages, and the fact that he has worked his way up to a month ban in a rather short period of time, then his continuing to post on the administrative pages. Asking if a person has a deathwish is not a threat to kill them, neither is asking if they have a banwish a threat to ban them. It is a query. Especially given its context, almost begging him to keep his nose clean. Hardly the act of a threatening banmonger. Also, it might be good to note that my comment was made as i pulled his comment from the main page and dropped it here on talk. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat

This is stupid. The suggestion was made on the 11th of april, or damn near 9 months ago. Any complaint or whatever should have been made at that time, surely? It would set a very dangerous precident if this gets any kind of consideration as an act of vandalism, as any user wanting to pursue some sort off grudge could merely trawl through another user's contributions untill something approaching vandalism was found. This is not the first time our friend Sockem has tried to use the admin pages to pursue some form of vendeta through using "official" channels. For example, see the Project Unwelcome deletion thing on the deletions page. Can someone in a more official capacity, or with more influence than me please remind Sockem that the administration pages are not for attacking other users? There seems to be no other point to bringing up old stuff from 9 months ago for vandal banning.--SeventythreeTalk 21:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean seriously. Statute of limitations, anyone? And I believe that was from BEFORE they converted the system into having its own page.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Iv'e just spotted the suggestion in recent changes. I'd like to hope that Sockem was merely being over-zeolous in reporting hagnat and forgot to look at the date it was made.--SeventythreeTalk 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a test run when we were setting up the new suggestion system, like this one, and others in Category:Humorous Suggestions -- boxy talk • i 21:35 26 December 2007 (BST)

Y'know, I actualy vaugely remember that.... Must have been a few days after I joined.--SeventythreeTalk 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was actually vandalism they can't do anything about it, he's been reported since.--Karekmaps?! 00:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That rule only counts for related vandalism, like a vandal spree. 9 months old cases could officially qualify for a warning but it would have to be clear cut, severe and over the top vandalism everything else would just get dismissed. Posting explicit hardcore adult material could qualify for example. But I don't think that such cases would go unnoticed for so long realistically.-- Vista  +1  10:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

More Grim

I also would like to point out that the word is PRINCIPAL not PRINCIPLE. A principle is an abstract concept. A principal is a human being.--Squid Boy 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
All instances of it's use were about a concept, not a person.--Karekmaps?! 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
How do you figure that Karek? Here are the quotes Grim posted from the main vandal page in his treatise:
  • Conndraka said: "Max and Grim are to recuse themselves from any issue where Akule is considered a principle." --Akule is an abstract concept? He's chivalry? Or that certain something, je-ne-sais quois?
  • Conndraka said: Additionally, Max and Grim are not to directly comment on any Group Page or Entry where Akule is the principle author. -- WRONG AGAIN! Grim isn't being told he can't merely comment on Akule's principles, he can't comment on anything where Akule is the MAIN author - the PRINCIPAL author.
See Karek? My complaint was both valid and accurate, and you are mistaken. At the risk of being guilty of what I formerly decried in terms of wasting time arguing nonsense minutia, that's it for me - but you know I'm right.  :)--Squid Boy 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No, no it wasn't on this page it is used right, just because Conndraka made a mistake on the arbitration wording doesn't mean it's used wrong on this page. Also, get over it, it's a commonly mistaken usage it happens all the time everywhere.--Karekmaps?! 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't take the law into your own hands; take them to court. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 06:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, maybe I can get them put on double secret probation.--Karekmaps?! 08:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"Get over it?" LOL! You seemed to think it was worthy of commenting upon. Also, have you EVER seen the admonition: "Get over it!!" or "Chill Out!!" have their desired effect? Has that ever worked on you? No? Me either. Generally, I've found both of those statements useful only in an insulting context, which is what I assmue you meant them for me. Regardless, I was right. Nanny nanny poo poo.--Squid Boy 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Azface

I know this guy from outside the wiki. He might not have known it was vandalism, and he's also very, very impulsive, but he should get this one as a "newb" exemption.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  14:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Fuckton of vandalism. He gets da perma. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 18:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
while i agree with the banning, i dont think three can be considered a "fuckton". but thats just me.--'BPTmz 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hrm? Out of 10 edits only 1 or 2 aren't impersonation or blanking of something.--Karekmaps?! 01:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
As Karek. It was far more than three. Think i dont check and judge every single contribution when doing a perma like that? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was a 50/50 call when I reported the guy last night (otherwise I would have just warned him), but the wiping of his vandal report afterwards made the decision pretty obvious -- boxy talk • i 10:36 25 December 2007 (BST)
he's been a douche just about everywhere he's gone. Posting things like "this is how you forge screenshots in photoshop" on brainstock. Silly child, didn't realize that it was much easier to do in html.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 10:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
oh dont get me wrong. the guy was a dick and im glad he's gone. but when i here the word fuckton i just picture alot of vandalism. just my opinon. it really has nothing to do with anything.--'BPTmz 15:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Super Six One

it doesnt matter what the date is. nalikill could have said the attack would take place yesterday.Super Six One edited nalikill's post. i belive that is vandalism--'BPTmz 22:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter, but what does matter is it's Nali misusing the page and then harassing members of the group who were annoyed by the misuse that led to this. Yeah they "vandalised" but they aren't the only ones to blame even if Nali didn't do anything wrong by the rules.--Karekmaps?! 00:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
two wrongs dont make a right. they should have came here or to arbys if they had a problem.--'BPTmz 06:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Not saying they were right, just saying that certain things don't belong in certain places. It's not an issue for arbitration unless it breaks into an edit war.--Karekmaps?! 10:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
not really. arbitration is just that. having a third party step in when you have a disagreement with another person. I wont be the first to say that this most often does appear in edit war fashion, but small problems can be solved through arbies just as easily. in any case it appears we've gotten off track.--'BPTmz 14:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Darkmagic and Nalikill

Wait a second, All those guys are alt accounts of Jakezing. He's redirected a few of the pages to himself (at least his new account) already, I guess Nali was just finishing up the job for him. Powerhouse/Cody/Darkmagic/Jakezing isn't the brightest person in the tree sometimes, probably just forgot to finish them.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved to talk --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian Barbera

Ban him please...I'm getting sick of his spam... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC) You really are grouchy. --Brian Barbera 21:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC) And you're a dick. Begone.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty much what he says. Including a few other things. From what I can see, everything he says is somehow mocking that user's username. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
And now he's making pages.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Along with rude comments. I swear, I need to put a giant "I HAVE A DICK" sign at the top of my talk page or something. :/ -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if I should revert... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandal alt of User:Mr. Krabs et al, so perma-banned. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Woohoo, two points for me!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It would have been 2 points for me if you didn't edit conflict all my edits... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but I guessed he was an alt of Mr. Krabs! You hadn't!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you guys are going to keep writing, please do it on a talk page. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I was gonna write, but you edit conflicted me. That makes 10 editt conflicts in a time of 5 minutes... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Crap moved to talk. Axe Hack soft warned for this. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Suicidalangel

(With respect, and without wanting to engender a a less respectful environment, I'm going to comment here, briefly, and not on the talk page.) Taken in context, this is clearly not vandalism, as it was a good faith edit to strike a bad faith edit. As sysops, surely you can exercise leeway in such extreme circumstances? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved to talk :P --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
shakes fist at the uncaring sky --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a question? The vote was vandalism(bad faith) and a user shouldn't be warned for reverting something obviously done in bad faith.--Karekmaps?! 16:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the rule does state that only a Sysop is allowed to remove trolling based votes via the Note, so I can see why this was brought up. However, I have to agree with Karek, that vote had bad faith written all over it, never mind everything else the user did that day. The question becomes, what sort of message do you want to send regarding the reverting of vandalism? --Ryiis 16:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The correct solution was reached, obviously, but it was a waste of time and energy bringing it here, unless one counts it as precedence. Ho hum. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandr

According to this policy, custom titles like on this page can be considered vandalism. This would mean that the actual page (or at least the custom title) is vandalism, not just the redirects. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 07:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to make a second vandal-case for you to take note and act on this? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if it happened before the last warning levelled, we cant do anything about it except remove it. Having just checked myself, i have found this is the case and i have removed the custom title. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's all I wanted. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Zinker

just wondering. does he even know how to change his sig?--'BPTmz 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He was warned about a previous illegal sig and had it modified, and subsequently changed it to another illegal one. --Pavluk A! E! 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
when you say "had it modified" do you mean he did it himself? or a sysop did it?--'BPTmz 01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Boxy changed it, explained and warned him. Zinker later changed his signature so it once again broke the rules. --Pavluk A! E! 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes he knows how to do it. After my first warning, he did it himself, then decided to change it back a couple of edits later -- boxy talk • i 01:33 8 December 2007 (BST)
okey dokey. carry on good sirs.--'BPTmz 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tomer

His only contribution was malicious vandalism. Isn't that usually a permaban? Not trying to back-seat mod, just asking. --Pavluk A! E! 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Three edits minimum required for perma. We should probably change that. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
He is treading a fine line, but by the rules he needs 3 edits, none of which are constructive, before a permban. If it was something particularly malicious, then yeah, I'd bin him anyway (like Grim says, probably needs changing). But simple page wiping/insulting vandalism, meh, we'll give him a chance to change (usually they don't come back anyway) -- boxy • talk • 23:39 4 December 2007 (BST)
Typically, page wipes/replaces against groups are usually because the vandal doesn't like particular group. A talking to usually sorts it out. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Connieboy

I really don't think that this needs to go here. While he did go a little overboard, I don't think it deserves a warning.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a closer look at the numbered section. Im not asking for him to be warned. This is the only court of appeal i could think of. Its a long shot, but maybe it might do some good, and finish this retarded clusterfuck he started once and for all. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I know you weren't asking for him to be warned, but seeing as this is A/VB, a warning would have been the default course of action.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

im sure arb would be a better place for this.--'BPTmz 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No fucking way am i ever using arbitration again. next time i go there ill probably end up banned from contributing to discussions that anyone else has posted in. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Then A/PD, in the form of a policy that nullifies what has been ruled upon. But not A/VB, as it hasn't almost anything to do with your request (that I consider uncalled for, but that's for another discussion). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Boxy's ruling confirm this. Stop creating drama Grim... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it even possible to disallow someone from being an arbitrator? As that is surely the decision of whoever is in an arbitration case? And as such disallowing him wont work if two sides desire him as an arbitrator in their case. And as for overturning the ruling, has that ever been done before? - Whitehouse 04:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well if the arby was perma banned... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether to laugh or groan, I'll go with laughing as I am sure that was humorous, with a point to it. - Whitehouse 05:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should have taken him to Arbies to have his ruling overturned? It might just have worked...--Honestmistake 13:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I don't know the legitimacy behind that. Truth is we need some way for arbitration rulings to be overturned in the case of a bad ruling, which this one patently was. (let's not forget that it screwed Akule over too) Maybe some sort of vote? ALl I know is that i'm getting more and more sick of the drama that these pages seem to spin out.--SeventythreeTalk 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You should put them up for deletion -- boxy • talk • 14:12 2 December 2007 (BST)
Ah ha, funny Boxy. I'll do it if I'm guaranteed no punishment by doing so...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Where's the fun in that? -- boxy • talk • 14:29 2 December 2007 (BST)
I was considering starting an arbitration case agaignst the arbitration page........--SeventythreeTalk 14:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Quite a few people are telling Grim "you made your bed now lie in it." Thats a crock of shit. If it was someone vs Grim and cockdrama arbitrated, he would have just as much of a fucked up ruling without instigating anything. Cockdrama was blatantly and obviously doing something "bad faith" - the definition of vandalism. This wiki is so geared toward poularity it makes me sick. People hate Nali, month long ban. People hate Grim, wackshit arbitration ruling and now people are telling him he "deserved it". This is shit.--Wooty 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Your point being? This is drama central, what do you expect? Hell, by posting here you (and me, and others) are probably just creating more drama and making the wiki even worse, or "shit" as you called it. - Whitehouse 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
We could call that "the drama paradox"! --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Wooty, calling Conndraka "Cockdrama" and generally swearing your head off (wackshit?) isn't going to convince anyone of your position. It never ceases to amaze me that you actually voted against Grim's Free Speech policy. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I quite like Nalli... he's as frustrating as all hell, but a likable enough guy. He still didn't give me any alternative than to ban him though -- boxy • talk • 09:05 3 December 2007 (BST)
Yeah, when's he coming back, anyway?--SeventythreeTalk 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't be too much longer now.--Karekmaps?! 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
He's just over half way there, I think -- boxy • talk • 00:43 4 December 2007 (BST)
Honestly, in any case involving Grim that Matthew decides to comment on, theres nothing you can do to make MORE drama, only more spam. And I called him that because I have no idea what his name is and thats close enough...Connanadraka...? Hell, the titile even calls him Connie. And very few of my edits have cursing in them, and that one was a bit overboard, I admit. And why are you amazed? I could have "fuck" every second word and be protected under the current policy - until someone started an arbitration case and I was banned from all pages begining with letters e though n for all eternity whilst the arbitrator made a crappy justification, admitted to trying to piss everyone off, and hid in a ditch for a while. Of course, I would have deserved that ruling (if a troll floats, and so does a duck...)--Wooty 23:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sign your posts the first time around Wooty. :)
The difference between me calling him Connieboy, and you calling him Cockdrama, is that everyone knows I'm just poking a little fun at Conndraka, while you were blatantly attacking him.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You think anyone is going to buy that? You didn't know his name, so you settled on "Cockdrama"? Give us some credit, Wooty - nobody is that stupid. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, even I'm not that stoopit! i jsut akt dum to gets atantion!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it was humorous, Whitehouse. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I despise drama, so normally I never attack a user. In the case of an inactive idiot, I tend to not hide that I hate them. Cockdrama fits the ruling more than Connieboy - pissing everyone off with a ridiculous ruling and solving nothing? Please.--Wooty 23:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Go away if you can't at least express yourself without resorting to namecalling. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Grim

What the hell? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What don't you understand? I'm more than willing to clarify. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I understand. I'm What the helling Grim.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah. :P --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Should this be a mod decision or an arbiter one? --Toejam 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Edit. Here's the precedent for arbiter, though keep in mind precedent isn't everything.

It's bad faith from what could possibly (I haven't really looked at it) a heavy handed decision. It's a very deliberate way to get around the ruling, which isn't a good thing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The ruling was in bad faith. In any case, i am sticking to the letter of the ruling. There is doubt as to whether the policy talk page falls under the jurisdiction of that arb ruling at all. By doing this i am just hedging my bets. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it was a bit harsh, but perhaps you could have just accepted the ruling for the time being and moved on? I'm sure that sometime in the future you can bring up the case and come to a better conclusion.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
HAHA! Thats never going to happen. The stupid cunt forgot to even specify a time limit on the shit thats hit Max and I. Akule gets off in three months with no extra problems, but i have crap for all eternity. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
But that shouldn't stop you from bringing up the case in a few months, right? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no process by which arb rulings can be overturned. Ive been toying with the idea of asking kevan to just put a two week time limit on arb rulings with his owner privilege, but that would just cause massive drama, and i doubt it would get through policy discussion. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that is true, then you're pretty much screwed. Your only option would be to make a policy, or to suck it up. Finding loopholes isn't the greatest idea.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
But this one was soooo clever :( Anyway, its not so much a loophole as it is a creative interpretation of the term indirect. In any case, since i didnt post any of the stuff on the page, i technically didnt break the ruling, and you cant nail bisfan for doing it because he didnt break the rules or any ruling agaisnt him. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't technically break the ruling. Which is why I said you were breaking the spirit of the rule. Bisfan's guilt is dependent on his knowledge of why he was being asked to do it. If he did know, he's every bit as guilty as you are. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I spent some time thinking about it and figured that any person who has an arbitration like ours (such and such cannot post on someone's page) can get other people to post what they want exactly the same way Grim did in order to skirt rulings. It sets a horrible precedent that would undermine numerous completed arbitrations. --Akule School's in session. 03:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. This is more of an exception given the specific wording rather than anything else. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Uh, isn't that sort of logic why I was put up for the arbitration in the first place? ...i'm just sayin'. --Akule School's in session. 03:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You tended to stretch things a lot farther than im doing here. In any case, im now pretty certain that the UDwiki namespace is considered public, and that the silly little arb ruling shouldnt apply there. As i said earlier, i did this to hedge my bets, no more, no less. As for the wording of the page in question, well, what did you expect from Project Evil? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Grim, breaking the spirit or the word of the ruling matters squat. You did this to prove your own (imaginary) superiority and in the full and certain knowledge that it would cause drama, if that isn't the very definition of a "bad faith" edit then what is? Bad faith = vandalism... You have well and truly overstepped the mark this time. --Honestmistake 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on not reading anything and making yourself look silly. As i have said, i was unsure, and di this to hedge my bets. i have since come to the conclusion that the UDwiki and UDwiki talk namespaces are considered public spaces (Except where specified otherwise by themselves) and as such are not articles that are the propery of others, and thus not vulnerable to this particular arb ruling. If people accept that as the case, then no matter what has been done, im fine. And i dont think im better than anyone. I do, quite often, think im smarter than some individuals on the wiki, but i wont ever say who or when. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Fuck of Grim... I am sick and tired of your attitude. You have come to the conclusion, well good for you but I for one do not agree, your intent is clear and you even state it yourself. This shouldn't just be under vandal banning, it should be misconduct as well! --Honestmistake 04:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from main:

Haha! Oh man. If that logic holds up here, you should shit yourself if i ever get to arbitrate a case... --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

By posting that you've opened yourself up to actually legit charges of abuse - you've expressed intent to abuse the system. Ta. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless i do something, i cant be charged. At the moment it is what edumacated people like to call a "hypothetical". If you are going to warn/ban people on the basis of hypotheticals, then you are going to be very lonely here. Besides, i never said id do anything, just that you might shit yourself. It is entirely posible that some bizzare form of quantum entanglement has resulted in your bowels becoming linked to my status as arbitrator. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Did I say anything about charging you without you having done anything? No. I only meant that you shot any plans to "rub it in my face" in the foot by openly expressing your intentions to do so.
Edit conflict here - You're kidding yourself if you expect anyone to believe you there. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course im kidding. I was kidding about the whole venting your bowels thing too. though i suspect theres some selective blindness going on. In any case, this is OT, and im shifting all this to talk. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


(In response to Zombie Slay3rs comment)

within 5 days of creating an account Bisfan finds Grims page and decides to do him an unsolicited favour? Give me a break!!! and please don't move this... i feel that pointing that little nugget out is kinda useful--Honestmistake 04:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bisfan has been around since August 2007, but I do see your point. He/She is somewhat new considering his/her # of edits, so I attributed the "favors" to his/her newness and inexperience. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Akule thread:

Therein lies the problem.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But there is one that might set a precedent for this if Akule has no problem with you're input on that page, I think it involved you and sockem Nalikill. As far as spirit goes that case determined that the spirit of arbitration can overrule the arbitration ruling itself.--Karekmaps?! 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I just know that if I did this sort of thing, I would be banned for 24 hours or it would be argued that I am continuing my wikilawyering and that the arbitration case either failed or a harsher punishment should be leveled at me. --Akule School's in session. 04:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a policy discussion though, of all places such a ruling shouldn't be enforced or should be enforced liberally it would be there, especially considering he is a sysop and it directly involves the daily running of the wiki(there was a small exception about that in the ruling but only for your talk page I think).--Karekmaps?! 04:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm more talking about the workaround to comment on the policy I made and not the administrative edits from moving the automatic sysop cycling policy. --Akule School's in session. 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about his comments being barred, foolishly in my opinion, from that page. It's a Policy discussion which means it directly effects all wiki users but most importantly all Sysops, if there is any time that you should be willing to let an arb ruling like this slide due to a small mention of an exception for things involving the running of the wiki this would be that time. Supporting this means that you are supporting Sysops being banned from being involved in the administrative process and worse yet it sets a precedent that Sysops can be banned from participating in the administrative process. It's his job, not drama and it's pretty obvious that the only reason this case was even proposed is because it is Grim and certain people would like to see him gone. If it were Boxy, Vista, Hagnat, Swiers, ZombieSlayer, or any other sysop this would be thrown out in a second, not only because it doesn't fall under the purpose of the ruling but that it impairs him doing a job he was chosen to do. If you were a sysop I'd be making the same argument, then again policies is one of the places that no arbitration policy should be able to effect, it would give the arbitrator far too much power and make it a censorship committee not conflict resolution.--Karekmaps?! 06:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with you that Banning Grim from any of the admin pages is stupid and wrong... thats not my problem here. It is the way he has wriggled to find a loophole to exploit and then gloated about having done so, that is not good faith its wikilawyering and exactly the sort of thing he was taking Akule to arbies for in the first place! Rather than his petulent "you cannot tell me what to do" response to Conn's ruling he could have appealed to Boxy or Kevan or even the sysop team as a group to mitigate certain parts of the ruling... he didn't he stated clearly that he would not abide by it and then set out to undermine the whole process of Arbies just because he didn't like the ruling it gave him! --Honestmistake 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Karlsbad's Vandalism comment:

It didnt center around Akule, as such he was not the principle of the page in question. It was a policy discussion about idle demotions, not akule. As such it falls under the other section if at all, given the UDwiki namespace is a public namespace, and doesnt belong to anyone. As for the rest of your post, its garbled and incoherent. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The page in question has a stated goal to comment on discussions by Akule. If you were to recreate a different kind of page, simply for your thoughts on issues with the same kind of link-to-comment situation, and you NEVER make a reference to Akule either in asking others to make use of the page or in the use of the page itself- such as making a comment about how Akule is, for example, a gotcha-playing troll lawyer who thinks that brown-nosing a sysop's talk-page in any way makes him a like-able fellow instead of a rat-faced twat- then you will be avoiding this kind of situation in the future. Its just a warning Grim, they go away after a while.--Karlsbad 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You obviously didnt read the talk page. I created the page as a failsafe. It is a gripe about the insane arb ruling by conndraka, as well as pointing out a loophole. The page exists to post indirectly on pages, in direct accordance with the arb ruling, which i think is a piece of shit anyway. As i have stated here, i dont bleieve the UDwiki namespace is subject to that insane ruling as its a public namespace and the pages in it belong to no one. The comments being templated in were merely a safety net, in case, and pardon my language here, some fucking zealot decided to go overboard in enforcing that absurd and blatantly illegal ruling, and did so by following it to the letter. In any case, if the policy page isnt covered by the arb ruling, then the page in my userspace is perfectly fine, as i can do whatever the fuck i like in my userspace so long as i dont break the wiki.--The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Your actions on the policy page weren't covered by the arb ruling. I have already said this. --Karlsbad 06:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As the creator of the page, i am the one who knows what it was created for and why. And i say that it was created to gripe about the arb ruling, a hole therein, and list the sub-sub-sub pages that i had created as template comments to go through that hole. It was not about Akule, but the Arb ruling that just so happened to include him. By ruling vandalism on this case for that reason, you have now extended the ruling to prevent me from talking about any page that contains a mention of him. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 06:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The arb ruling doesn't just "happen to include him"- he is the primary issue of the arb ruling. I remember a template being used for this, something about straws. If you were to create the page again without mentioning how the page is to create a loophole to that specific arbitration ruling, wherein Akule is the primary issue, and then you would have a point. --Karlsbad 06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont see how what i did there is any different to my posting on the Arbitration talk page regarding the issue, or the talk page here. The "loophole" in question was my using of templates in my userspace to post comments that were then templated in by another person, thus being on page yet indirect. The page is largly a rant about that arb ruling, so i fail to see how you can consider it a page about akule. Akule is not the arb ruling, the arb ruling is not akule. The two are seperate and distinct enties, though im having a hard time deciding which is more annoying. Furthermore, none of this: "So here goes... Max and Grim are to recuse themselves from any issue where Akule is considered a principle. Gentlemen..its going to be best if you just walk away. Additionally, Max and Grim are not to directly comment on any Group Page or Entry where Akule is the principle author. If I need to explain this... well I shouldn't have to. Finally, both are to be persona non posta on Akules personal page unless it DIRECTLY relates to maters of operational functioning of the wiki. If such post contains material that an average user would consider flamebating, it shall be considered as vandalism." Says i cant post about him on my userpage or usersubpages anyway. You are arguing vandalism for something not even covered by the ruling. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
""Max and Grim are to recuse themselves from any issue where Akule is considered a principle." You did not recuse yourself from the ruling where "Akule is considered a principle", through the creation of a page that is directly concerned with the loopholes to comment on issues about Akule. --Karlsbad 06:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. ignore the rest of the post like a good little drone. Here it is again since you decided to ignore it: I dont see how what i did there is any different to my posting on the Arbitration talk page regarding the issue, or the talk page here. The "loophole" in question was my using of templates in my userspace to post comments that were then templated in by another person, thus being on page yet indirect. The page is largly a rant about that arb ruling, so i fail to see how you can consider it a page about akule. Akule is not the arb ruling, the arb ruling is not akule. The two are seperate and distinct enties, though im having a hard time deciding which is more annoying. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 06:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The creation of the page breaks the Arb-ruling- amazing how you've gone down to having to compare unrelated actions as "the same" instead of trying to disprove this fact. You're down to how you "don't see" and "fail to see" how a page which has a statement of By having others post my comments as template calls from here, i am commenting on discussions by him, isn't directly about Akule, which is laughable. --Karlsbad 07:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ive said it twice already. It was created to gripe about the arb ruling, and to keep track of the templates i made to use the indirect commenting. The only thing it had to do with akule was the fact that akule was involved in the arb ruling. You are just being fucking retarded now. I have exdplained everything perfectly here. What the fuck happened to the assumption of good faith? I dont get it anymore because you dont like me huh? Lose the bias or fuck off. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, Grim, try and say how the creation of a page that is directly called a loophole around an Arb ruling is "good faith". --Karlsbad 07:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, ive already done it at least THREE TIMES ALREADY. The page was created as a failsafe. A safety net. It is also created to gripe about a fucking retarded arbitration ruling. Its no so much a loophole as it is going about the indirect commenting in a creative fashion (Hence the use of the term loophole). Actually, ive been over that in this discussion already, i dont see the need to go over it again. It was done as a way to ensure this kind of shit didnt happen if some douchebags tried to start shit with it. This failed, because i underestimates just how fucked in the head they were. Also, Its not my responsibility to prove innocence, its yours to prove guilt. Despite this, ive done what i consider a fairly good job of defending myself from this kangaroo court. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"Its not a loophole, its only something that is defined as a loophole and so I called it a loophole, continuously. You can't depend on my own comments to be in any way consistent or relevant, ever." --Karlsbad 07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yay ignorance! Fuck off you biased cunt and dont come back. You have no interest in being fair or balanced. You have already admitted that the UDwiki and UDwiki talk namespaces are not covered by the arb ruling, so NO MATTER WHAT ELSE HAPPENS, I HAVE NOT VIOLATED IT. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"As a note, by requesting an Arbitration, all parties are thus obliged to accept the outcome of the Arbitration. Not doing will be considered Vandalism, and such vandalism attempts will be treated as if the vandal has already received two warnings." --Akule School's in session. 05:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbtration Cases that break the warning structure, such as threatening a Permaban if you break it, have been shot down in the past. Arbitrators are not allowed to re-interpret what the punishment for vandalism is. --Karlsbad 06:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And an arbitrator is only permitted to rule upon the case requested. Conndraka violated this, and the arb ruling is void, as i have said repeatedly. Conndraka was asked to resolve the issue of Akule troll wikilawyering. He was not asked to resolve the issue of any interuser conflicts that may or may not have been happening. By attempting to address those with his ludicrous ruling, he abused his position as an arbitrator and violated the proceedings. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 06:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
AS I HAVE FUCKING SAID - YOU DO NOT FUCKING GET TO DECIDE WHETHER THE RULING IS VALID OR NOT.
With that out of my system... I believe I have a way to settle this. Why not let Conn decide whether Grim's actions were breaking the spirit of the ruling? He is obviously in the best position to know what his own intentions are. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 08:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And Conndraka does not get to decide on what the case is about. That is decided by the person/people who bring forth the case in the first place. Guess who they were. Conn ruled on something that was not part of the case he was asked to arbitrate, and that part of the ruling is, as a result, invalid. You dont even need to take my word for it. look at the damned case. Also, as has been discussed several times in this, mr "i dont need to read whats been said", pages in the UDwiki and UDwiki talk namespaces are not owned by any user, and thus are not subject to the arb case. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll back down if you can get Akule to agree with you. In the absence of an official mechanism for appeals, both sides need to agree before anything can be changed IMO. As for the namespace... if you'd known that was the case originally, you wouldn't have made the templates. That and the text on your template page screams bad faith to me. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ive gone over this so many times now its not funny. I was UNSURE. I made the templates to play it safe, then you had to waltz in and be a dick, start this drama fest off, consistently assume bad faith (Despite my repeated insisntance to the contrary, along with very detailed explainations as to why). As for getting to akule to agree with me? Id have better luck brokering peace in the middle east. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Grim, how can I not think you're acting in bad faith when you've stated repeatedly in the past that you planned on ignoring the ruling, and then go and post that drivel on your template page? You only started mentioning "playing it safe" when this case was brought against you, I note. Before that it was all "loophole, loophole, loophole". I'm trying to see where you're coming from, but I'm just not coming up with anything other than bad faith. You know I'd support you if I honestly agreed with you. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Im not going to repeat myself again. The answer to everything you have said is in here and on the talk page, multiple times. Im tired, im sick of all this drama, and im sick of dealing with people in this kangaroo court, where people apparently believe that if they pretend i havent said anything, i havent! --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've read what you've said, and I don't see anything in it besides frantic attempts to weave around the accusations with some inventive interpretations of the guidelines and what you had said before the case. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats because you are what is called a drama whore. Selective blindness such as that which you are experiencing is a classic symptom. If you have anything constructive to add, go right ahead. if you are going to continue trolling with nonsense accusations, then please go do it Somewhere else --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, Grim, I love arguing. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Just because you disagree with my sentiments in no way automatically makes me a troll, I'll have you know. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok then. Just for you:
You said:
Grim, how can I not think you're acting in bad faith when you've stated repeatedly in the past that you planned on ignoring the ruling, and then go and post that drivel on your template page?
Earlier i said:
Ive said it twice already. It was created to gripe about the arb ruling, and to keep track of the templates i made to use the indirect commenting. The only thing it had to do with akule was the fact that akule was involved in the arb ruling. You are just being fucking retarded now. I have exdplained everything perfectly here. What the fuck happened to the assumption of good faith? I dont get it anymore because you dont like me huh? Lose the bias or fuck off. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You said:
You only started mentioning "playing it safe" when this case was brought against you, I note.
Well, what do you know, a person would post a reason why he did something when someone asked aboutb it. Thats ever so suspicious *eyeroll*
You said:
"Before that it was all "loophole, loophole, loophole"."
Earlier, i said:
"Its no so much a loophole as it is going about the indirect commenting in a creative fashion (Hence the use of the term loophole)."
You said:
"You know I'd support you if I honestly agreed with you."
haha, bullshit. Your first act when you got to this wiki was to pick a fight with me and then attempt to harass me incessantly. Of late you decided to ressurect the very, very dead discussion of soft warnings here to stir up drama. You then went and had that circlejerk on your talk page regarding me. Yes, you would so support me if you thought i was "right". You just wont ever think that. Go away, troll. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, whatever. If you're going to go to that much trouble simply to paint me as a troll I'm not even going to bother to change your mind. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Anything to avoid a rebuttal without backing down... --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
OR, I'm tired and would like for this argument to end? I don't mind if you have the last word (since I've stopped caring), but please don't try to stir the pot. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
STFU the pair of you, or you'll both get one of those famous "soft warnings" yourselves. Take your bickering to the talk page -- boxy • talk • 10:18 1 December 2007 (BST)

How is it you sysops can write essays on this ridiculous argument, and not deal with a very simple protections request?--Thekooks 10:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Look, just saying here, Don't shoot me or anything but I've had a look at these template texts Grim used and all I could see was a fair discussion againgst Akule's policy. Now, seeing as Akule didn't bring this case and seeing as Grim wasn't actualy doing anything particuarly damaging, merely discussing a policy which Akule seemed to have no problem with. Yes, Grim may have been bending the rules a little, even breaking them, whatever, but was it actualy doing the wiki any harm, or was it providing needed and warranted feedback that Akule was himself asking for when he opened up a policy discussion? This seems like a big case of turning a teeny little molehill into a gigantic Mt Drama with a specialy built 2,000 seat theatre on the summit.--SeventythreeTalk 12:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat said:
Grim knew that he shouldnt be part of the discussion

This bothers me a lot, arbitrators don't have the right to decide users shouldn't be a part of a Policy Discussion. If this were a page about banning/removing his sysop powers Grim, would the case still hold water?--Karekmaps?! 15:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he would be forbidden to say a word in there. That's why i say this arby ruling is silly (and wrong), but as long as it's valid it will be vandalism for grim to comment on any policy akule creates. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is an insane ruling where Grim, a sysop is not allowed to discuss, perfectly politely, I might add a policy that directly concerns him. Grim is well within his rights to challenge and disobey this ruling. Unfortunately, however he must also accept the consequences of an unjust ruling. Unless everybody agrees that this is all a bit dumb and we make this a special case.--SeventythreeTalk 16:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Or the UDWiki namespace is made a special case, outside the scope of arbitration rulings? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There was a specific effort made to allow exceptions to the ruling in cases pertaining directly to the day to day running of the wiki, this is one of those even if it wasn't included in the exception it is included in the purpose of the exception.--Karekmaps?! 16:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This entire thing is insane! How is it that a ruling by only one person can go totaly unchallenged by anyone? I could understand if Grim was breaking the rules of the Arb and insulting Akule, but he wasn't. He was making pertinant, valid contributions to a discussion that direcly affects him! Please, if anyone can explain to me why he shouldn't have done that without mentioning the arb verdict, tell me. Where's the bad?--SeventythreeTalk 17:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's face it, Grim pisses people off. Not everyone, but quite a few. In a way, he's much like Akule and Nalikill in that people become polarized about him and his contributions. The difference is that Grim is doing the sysop job and in my book should be given more benefit of doubt. Disagreeing with a person or disliking a person in no way justifies the witchhunt that's going on here. Akule and Nali have both behaved like twats on this wiki and have both been spanked and are hopefully cleaning up their acts. Grim spends day after day keeping the wiki going and the thanks he gets is this?!?! That's a shame. --Stephen Colbert DFA 18:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Grim is doing the sysop job and in my book should be given more benefit of doubt. Certainly that's one way to look at it. Another is that he should be held to the same standard of behavior as any other user, not given preferential treatment because he is a sysop. Yet another is that the position of trust he holds mandates that he be held to a higher standard of behavior than regular users. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 19:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but a normal user wouldn't be in this situation, then again as a normal user it's just as big of an issue because Policy Discussions directly effect normal users.--Karekmaps?! 19:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to receive an awnser as to why a user cannot comment on a policy discussion that directly relates to them.--SeventythreeTalk 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

i am not even reading anymore of this shit... frankly, i think condraka and grim should **BOTH** be fucking smacked up this side of saturn and back. for fuck sake. this is complete BULLSHIT... all round... condraka should be stripped of arby powers. and grim, well... let's just say this... in legal terms, when you add bisfan's role to all this? there is a term for it: it is called conspiracy ... as in the legal term, not your dumb wiki drama template crap. frankly, i am just disgusted with everyone involved in this, makes me wanna fuck this wiki, let it rot. that is all... --WanYao 19:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. Are we realy going to consider someone comenting reasonably on a policy that has a direct affect on him as a user a vandal?--SeventythreeTalk 20:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because the arby ruling was wrong, doesn't make Grim's actions right (two wrongs don't make a right). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite an awnser though, is it? Are we going to consider someone comenting reasonably on a policy that has a direct affect on him as a user a vandal? was my question. Your awnser directly assumes that Grim's actions are wrong. Are they? Why? --SeventythreeTalk 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
He was breaking an arby ruling and thus his actions were vandalism. He should have directed his energies towards overturning the ruling, not going around it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
1, i did direct my energies to overturning the ruling. 2. I didnt go around it. Try reading that essay i posted on my case, as well as teh rest of the discussion. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
How would he have overturned that ruling? It's almost impossible, especialy considering the fact that the arbiter has dissapeared for a while. The ruling is at fault. Not Grim--SeventythreeTalk 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Both are at fault. The policy has to stay in discussion for two weeks before it can go to voting, right? Plenty of time to try to overturn the ruling. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning: You say that you weren't sure if the ruling forbade you from commenting on the policy discussion, but did you ever think to ask? Instead you created the commentplate pages to be directly templated into the discussion, thus leading me to believe that you broke the ruling in bad faith.
I've tried to read all of the discussion but there's a lot of it so I might have missed some; please tell me where you get the "UDwiki namespace is public domain, not owned by anyone and thus outside arby rulings". Especially the relation between "not owned by anyone" and "outside arby rulings". --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 21:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't think what Grim did is vandalism or bad faith. For the vandalism argument: It was not direct commenting as was forbidden as stated in the arbitration ruling, he could have been even more indirect and discussed with a friend who then could post: "Me and Grim discussed, and he thinks: whatever Grim said". As for bad faith: Wanting to contribute to something in a proper way is not bad faith in my books, as long as he followed the rules set down. And I think he did follow the rules (personal opinion). - Whitehouse 20:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have said before that banning Grim (or Akule for that matter) from commenting on policy/admin pages that affect them is stupid and wrong. The problem here is not so much what he did but how and why he did it. Akule quietly accepted the ruling while Grim chucked his dummy out of the pram! He could easily have put it to the rest of the sysops that this was over the top or to Boxy or even to Kevan... all of whom could easily have supported his request for the ruling to be either mitigated or overturned, instead he threw a hissy fit and stated very clearly his intention to defy the ruling. The page he created to get around this clearly shows his contempt for any attempt to rule against him and even gloats about how he has found a "loophole" the whole thing stinks of arrogance, wiki-lawyering and bad faith! That his comments are reasonable in no way excuses his actions!--Honestmistake 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, its ever so much easier to justify your foolish opinions on a matter if you completely ignore everything a person says in their defense. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sadly you haven't actually said much in your defense, what you have done is accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being "foolish" or "stupid" etc... I don't think many people have an issue with what you had posted just how you did it and your attitude to anyone who suggests you might be wrong. As for your detailed "legalistic" defense on the other page.. well I am not even going to get involved in that as it annoys me far too much to articulate! --Honestmistake 23:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh and it's pretty easy to defend yourself on a matter if you ignore anyone who disagrees with you. Isn't somantics fun!--Honestmistake 23:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Grim s said:
I ask that the warning that was delivered be struck, and i am either banned in accordance with the arbitration page guidelines, or exonerated, as the innocent person i am. I ask for a full sysop vote on this issue. Either way, i wash my hands of this mess. Good day.

Who gave Grim the power to demand a "full Sysop vote" in this sort of ultimatum he makes when there's already a mayority of 3 vs 1 sysops that think he's guilty? Is his case so extremely different from any other we ever had or it is because it has his name on it thus he receives special treatment? I won't be telling you what to do, as the next step is yours to decide, but this case lenght is already trying the community's patience, and I'm saying "community" indifferently of the group that constantly check on administrational issues (that I belong to) or the mayority that doesn't. It's screaming "this guy is special", and that's not a good thing for any community as a whole. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Grim isn't special, this case, with it's potential for drama to be spread out for days is. I'd much rather this case gets specail treatemnt and any potential drama is nipped in the bud.--SeventythreeTalk 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, Grim isn't special. What is special is what led to this case of vandalism. And the question of whether or not it is a fair case. Due to the impossibility of overturning an arbitrators ruling Grim utilized a loophole to post, so it can hardly be vandalism for breaking the arbitration rules (since he went around them). But it seems using a loophole is judged as bad faith, whether or not the loophole was supposedly used in good faith, so this is vandalism. Doesn't make it "right" so to say, at least not in my opinion. - Whitehouse 01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's one measly little warning that will go away in 2 months. Seriously. Just take it and move on. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Y'see, thats the thing. taking it would mean id be saying "Yeah, i did wrong", and i havent done anything wrong (Well, except maybe tick off an extremely vocal minority of whiners, but thats outside the scope of this case), if it can be proven that i actually did wrong, then thats another thing. However, i should warn you right up front that the only way to do that would be to win a protracted argument over the matter by systematically debunking all my points in ways i cannot refute. (Simply contradicting me does nothing) The burden of proof is on the people making the assertion to prove it is indeed true, in this case so far, accusation has been treated as proof. Its like the Salem Witch Trials all over again. I will not "admit" i have done anything wrong because i have not done anything wrong. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you found a loophole in a bad arbitration verdict, which is in bad faith although the resulting comments weren't. You did wrong, but for a good reason.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the giant essay, specifically paragraphs 3-7 again. They answer that. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

On the page that started this you write "Fortunately, i have found a loophole. By having others post my comments as template calls from here, i am commenting on discussions by him, yet doing so indirectly, and thus i avoid that whole messy business of arb ruling violation bannings and such.....It was a silly ruling anyway, and deserves what it gets."

Is that or is it not gloating that you are getting away with ignoring an Arbies ruling? The ruling is a bit much but its spirit is in the right direction... you didn't like it and did this to avoid it. If no one complained at this point and you continued doing this you would almost certainly try to complain that it wasn't challenged before so you have precedent that its ok.... We all know this is bollocks and that you posted this to flout the rules and little else!--Honestmistake 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the giant essay, specifically paragraphs 3-7 again. They answer that. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the only real problem I had with him posting in that way is that other people could use it as prescient for getting around other arbitrations (future or past). If Grim had posted his thoughts on his page and Bisfan had either gave me a link to them or just voiced them, I would have been fine with that. But, hey, apparently my wikilawyering is a problem. Or something. --Akule School's in session. 00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, despite finding Grim to be an unnecessarily rude person, I think that in a case about idiotic wiki lawyering, his idiotic wiki lawyering is the strongest. Which is to say, I agree that Condracka overstepped the bounds of his mandate in the arbitration case, and that Grim cannot be forbidden from addressing Akule in this way. I think this is a somewhat dubious honor, because after reading all of this I mostly feel cheated as a wikizen that the clever people involved didn't spend this time doing something more constructive to advance our community. Perhaps his subsequent actions earned him the ban, but history is rife with examples of the less than perfect reactions of those who've had their freedoms infringed upon, so the ultimate responsibility rests on the poor ruling.--Squid Boy 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to post on my talk page your suggestion on what the wiki really needs us to focus on. --Akule School's in session. 05:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2007_12&oldid=1723424"