UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 01

January

The Return Of Nalikill!

We aint gonna be happy till Nali's gone are we? Omega 17:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's another load of hoary old bollocks that belongs in arbys. Note how the kookster hasn't attempted to solve the problem first - just straight to A/VB with it. Pathetic. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're scottish...--Thekooks 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No shit, Sherlock - did you figure that out yourself or did you have a team of monkeys working around the clock? --Funt Solo ^QT 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha! Anyway, yes, thing is, every now and then a specific user gets targeted, or appears to get targeted for the most minor of offences. Either they get banned, or they don't. Either way, it creates a whole load of useless crap and brings these pages to a standstill for a bit.--Seventythree^Talk 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

*cracks whip* back to work you hairy beasts, I need a witty comeback.--Thekooks 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats wrong with being Scottish? -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We invented television, for a start. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And there's something wrong with that? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 10:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Plenty, look at reality TV.--Karek^maps?! 11:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As if TV were not bad enough the men also wear dresses and get offended when you point it out ;) --Honestmistake 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Its no a dress, its a kilt ya cheeky wee beggar. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 00:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My one's a dress. *cough* --Funt Solo ^QT 09:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's extremely funny to me that boxy chooses to leave his abusive diatribe at home for this case, when Grim and I copped the full brunt of it for our cases (mine in particular was dismissed on extremely similar grounds). Bias much? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Grrr! Me got stick! Grrr! Me poke boxy with stick! Waaargh! Why boxy not fight me? Grrr! Waaargh! --Funt Solo ^QT 23:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL @ Solo!--Squid Boy 13:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Donathin

Bullshit, take it to Arbritration if you disagree. Going against a Sysops means nothing, Sysops are glorified janitors. --Thekooks 20:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

YEAH! --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nalikill - again!

Sorry. I hadn't known that would be impersonation. I'll put it back.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mitigate it in any way, shape or form unless the reversion is performed before a report is filed. Also - you've been around here a little too long for the "I didn't know it was vandalism :'(" argument to carry any weight. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you contact me before you filed the report? I would've reverted it. It was from good faith ignorance, not trying to make you look bad. I honestly didn't know fixing a link could ever be considered vandalism. Also, considering our recent spat, I hope it's not beyond reason to request that Grimch recuse himself from ruling on this case.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  04:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know something is vandalism after - how long is it? - on the wiki, there's something wrong. It's a very simple and basic rule - you cannot under any circumstances edit a comment once it has been commented on if said editing changes the meaning of the reply. I had specifically mentioned the brokenness of the link, thus your fixing it is vandalism. Ignorance is not an excuse when you've been around as long as you have. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is when you were just doing something technical. I'm sorry. And this report could've been avoided if you'd gone to my talk page first. You and I know you're just doing this in an attempt to get me banned and to stir up drama.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to invalidate the case against you by attacking the person behind it. Where I come from, that's called an ad hominem. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an ad hominem, but it's a VALID ad hominem. You've got to stop hiding behind technicality and terminology to try to protect you, and face it: You're not doing this because you felt I was harming the wiki, you're doing this to spite me and get me banned. You know, everyone knows, I would've reverted it if you'd asked me. You have yet to answer that point. It's valid because it means that this is a bad faith VB report.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  04:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll start acknowledging what you say when you stop using logical fallacies. How's that sound? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be a logical fallacy if it was irrelevant. If I said you strangled kittens, it would be irrelevant. If I say you're making this report in bad faith, it's very relevant.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't - because apart from being false, it doesn't change the fact of your vandalism. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Because if you did this out of bad faith, then the sysops can pretty much dismiss you out of hand as having handled the situation by assuming bad faith, and reporting me when it was a faux pas easily settled by one message on the talk page.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One could argue "lol didn't try to settle on teh talk page" for almost every vandal case ever, so I'm sorry if it doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument. Also, Nali? Keep the talk to the wiki where everyone can see it. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is my last word. I'm honestly sorry, it's midnight over here, and I was sleepy and not thinking when I made OR fixed the link. It was a mistake, made in good faith, and I rectified it as soon as I was aware of my mistake. And the penalty for me this time would be a year ban...and I'm begging that the sysops keep all this in mind when they rule. I want to help.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  05:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the penalty should enter into it. Why do you deserve leniency for being a repeat offender? And like I said before; ignorance is no excuse. The rule in question is pretty blatant, and I would even go so far as to say it's become common sense. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk to the person first, when it's a minor (and this is as minor as it gets) thing like this... if they're willing to put it right (or even not do it again), then yeah, don't bring it here. I've had much worse examples of impersonation happen to me, and just let it go with telling the person not to do it. I'd truly be embarrassed to bring a case like this myself -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:15 16 January 2008 (BST)

You would. Gotsta keep that shiny rep intact, eh? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay - does anyone else think this is weird - a couple of days after Nali is put up for vandalism by Grim for something that wasn't vandalism - on a case where cyberbob was loudly shouting (see below) that it should have been vandalism, cyberbob then goads Nali into making an edit that (at a really big stretch of the imagination could, just, be considered vandalism under some obscure version of the impersonation rules) and immediately brings him to A/VB for it.

This is just fucked up behaviour in the extreme. Anyone can see that both Grim and Cyberbob have it in for Nalikill and are trying to get him banned for a year, for some minor infraction of some fairly spurious rules. This is sick shit. Grim should be brought to Misconduct for spamming up the A/VB, and cyberbob should be brought to A/VB for hitting the hornet's nest with a big stick.

--Funt Solo ^QT 09:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He fixed his own link in his own comment. I'm confused on how that is impersonation. If I correct a mistake in phrasing on my talk page after someone has mocked the mistake, does that mean I can get put up for vandalism? --Amanu Jaku 09:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is always a good idea to put up a note mentioning that you have corrected the lapse, so people dont think the person who posted after you is an idiot for badmouthing you for something that isnt there anymore. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, but vandalism? I mean, if I had a complaint with someone, posted on their talk page, and then over the course of discussion decided to drop it and just deleted my post or changed my text to be "complaint dropped" or something, would that get me put up for vandalism? --Amanu Jaku 10:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would. That is an even more blatant breaking of the rule than what is under discussion here. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't see how that is impersonation. When I think of impersonation, I think of someone pretending to be someone else. --Amanu Jaku 10:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's that it changes the context and meaning of the discussion Amanu Jaku, it basically changes what the responder said.--Karek^maps?! 10:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the wiki is always changing. If we speedy delete a stupid template, causing some links around the wiki to be broken, doesn't that change the context too? I mean, if I, a future reader, can't view the template, the responses to the template would seem strange to me, as I would have no idea what the reference was. --Amanu Jaku 10:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother replying to this. I wouldn't know where to begin. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I will. That's not how Speedy Delete works for one, a template needs to be unused to meet a speedy delete crit, for two there was ways around that, if you are worried about template deletion altering context the template can be Subst:'ed. However, altering context of a discussion can cause serious problems and misunderstanding, as such talk pages are a delete all comments(replies included) or delete no comments deal. It's pretty much always been that way. In talk pages you need to preserve context, even if it's an owned page.--Karek^maps?! 10:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a cry, Funt. I didn't goad Nali into anything. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we add that information to the vandalism page then? I wouldn't have realized that a case like this was vandalism, and I'll bet others would make the same mistake. --Amanu Jaku 12:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i should be taken for misconduct for doing what any user can do, and not abusing anything regarding my sysop abilities, and reporting what i feel are violations. And cyberbob should be banned for reporting something he thought was vandalism. Do you even listen to yourself these days Funt? I dont have it in for Nalikill. He isnta threat to me, he is just a pest. I wont say i dont have it in for certain other users of this wiki, but in that respect i keep it and my administration completely seperate, to the point where i wont even rule on cases regarding them.

Anyhow, heres a quick quote for you from IRC this afternoon in #UDwiki on irc.nexuswar.com:

• [17:16] * karek has joined #udwiki
• [17:17] <The_Grimch> hey karek
• [17:17] <The_Grimch> moar drama
• [17:17] <karek> moar drama?
• [17:18] <The_Grimch> should still be on recent changes
• [17:18] <karek> the guy chasing around TZH and badmouthing them?
• [17:19] <Nalikill> Nope. Me.
• [17:19] <karek> yeah, I see that now
• [17:19] <Nalikill> I went and accidentally committed an act of vandalism.

Even Nali knows its an act of Vandalism. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Nali's not in a position to judge it as vandalism or not, as they're not a sysop. Even there, they say "accidentally", which means, doesn't it, that there was no bad faith? You're only seeing what you want to see here, Grim. You're not fit to rule on this because you tried to get Nali banned a couple of days ago and failed. You're clearly biased. Cyberbob's not to be trusted either - he shouted loudly that Nali should've been banned on that case as well. Both of you are biased, and just pissed off that things didn't go your way. Let calmer heads rule on this one and just step back from it. Honestly. I know you and me don't really get on very well, but you need to back off from this one. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I happen to have an opinion on a case I'm automatically biased in all future cases concerning that user? Hm. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not what I said, bob. It's two days later, and you goaded him. You KNOW this could've been settled without all of this drama. Now that two sysops have ruled not vandalism, I guess this charade is over bar the shouting. Look - no hard feelings from me - I make a tit of myself quite a lot and one of the great things about this place is that you seem to get forgiven and allowed to move on. So, let's move on. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was goading him into an argument; not into impersonation. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You've just admitted a bad faith edit - goading another user into an argument is not directly benefiting this wiki, therefore it is a bad faith edit, therefore you are a vandal. No, I don't really believe that either, but it's the logic that you and Grim are using against Nali. Why can't you see that? --Funt Solo ^QT 12:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's wrong? Explain to me again how I made him edit his comment after I'd replied to it. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you slagged me for a typo, I'd be tempted to correct it. Now, I've been here for years - longer than Nali - and I didn't know that some COMPLETE DICKHEAD could take me to A/VB for doing that. Fixing a broken link, especially after someone has just pointed it out to you (the goading part, there, because you did it in a sarcastic way), is actually a good faith edit. It's fixing the wiki. You could've said to him "please could you indicate that initially it was broken so that you still look like an idiot and I look really clever", but I guess that would've been childish, wouldn't it? Far better to do the adult thing and take him to A/VB to get him potentially banned for a year, two days after you loudly shouted that he should've been banned for a year for borrowing a funneh comment from someone. Yeah - silly me - what was I thinking. You're so in the right here, bob. Sorry. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's tough to admit we're wrong sometimes. I'm glad you were man enough to finally see it. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And the reason you're not even vaguely funny, is that your trolling here could've lost another user an entire year on this wiki and caused untold bad feeling. Poor show. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think somebody needs to look up the meaning of trolling. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hint: you're doing it now, and I'm falling for it by responding. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hyuk hyuk --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Cyber, you said "nice link". If you'd meant to comment on it being broken, you should have been clear, rather than hiding your meaning in irony. Really, what's next, somebody fixes their spelling after you call them a genius, and you claim THAT is vandalism?
Besides, this is looks like continuation of argument by proxy, and supporting such things on this page sets very poor precedent.  Swiers 05:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things.

• I don't see how anyone with half a brain could not interpret "Nice link" as commenting on its brokenness.
• Arguing by proxy? If anyone else had done it I still would have reported them. Caustic as I might be, I am capable of objectivity. As with Nali, you're (falsely) attacking the person rather than the case - which is a logical fallacy and has no business interfering with administational duties. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you document a previous instance where you have brought a case like this when you were not persoanlly involved in the argument? That would give your point two some believability. As to point one, my meaning was that your flip bit of irony isn;t the sort of meaningful conversation the "don't edit things that have been commented on" etiquette (it would be nice to have a ling if its a rule) is meant to protect. In short, your case looks petty to me. But that's just my opinion; any other sysop is obviously free to act on it.  Swiers 05:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't, because I wouldn't have noticed it. What I'm trying to say is that if I were to notice something like that, I would report it. Arguing by proxy is a stupid reason to dismiss a case; it attacks the person presenting the case rather than the nature of the edit(s) in question. That's an ad hominem attack. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 06:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If the sort of thing that would not be noticed by (or affect) anybody but the two people invested in the argument, is it worth bringing a vandalism case here?  Swiers 06:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism is vandalism. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 06:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha Sweirs. And i get called a rules lawyer when i put up cases. Hee hee hee. Oh, funny. Look at you grasp at straws there. Nice to see theres two sets of laws, one for the popular, one for the not. Id have been crucified for this if id done it. My opinion is that this is vandalism, but im not ruling because if i do, people will fall over themselves taking me to misconduct. We have ruled vandalism on cases exactly like this in the past though. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to rule on it. I just gave my opinion, and don't see how acting on a differing opinion is misconduct, especially if there is precedent I'm unaware of. I'm not sure where you get the two sets of laws thing; I've never commented on a case you were involved in that I recall, and Cyber's a pretty popular guy, afaik. I don't really know or care who's more popular; I just think this is a bullshit waste of time case brought about as a way to continue an argument, and not on its own merits. Maybe I misjudged, maybe not, but either way I'm allowed to give my opinion here.  Swiers 05:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm far from popular amongst the current sysops, let me tell you. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 06:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If nali wanted to avoid vandalism charges, he should have put up a notice "Link fixed" or something. Ah well. He will walk. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough claim, and I don't see how my opinion alone lets him walk. I'm not opposed to anybody else acting on this, I just wanted to voice that I thought it was a waste of time.  Swiers 06:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion gives other sysops an easy opening to dismiss the case. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 06:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Since when one fixing a link on one own comments is considered vandalism ? And please do not carry lenghty discussions in the main page... we have a talk page for a reason. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When it changes the meaning of the comment that succeeds it. I had commented on the brokenness of the link; when it was fixed it made my comment a little out of place. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who read your comments and has half a brain will understand that nalikill link was broken when it was initially posted, and then fixed afterwards. Anyway, now that the link was fixed, you could easily remove any comments about how it was broken, or move it to nalikill talk page, where it should have been discussed in the first place. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hagnat you nitwit, of course it was fixed afterwards - after I had commented on it. Are you being deliberately obtuse or something? You know as well as anyone that you aren't allowed to edit your comments after someone has replied to them, as you are changing the context from the one in which the replies were made. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The link is the same, but now it works. Your comments means nothing to the flow of the orginal discussion. I have already ruled Not Vandalism in this, please carry any discussion in the talk page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a moron. My comment's relevance to the original discussion is irrelevant. It was directed at the brokenness of the link; fixing the link renders it meaningless, which is vandalism. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And then you want me to ban a user for a whole year because he fixed a link and made your little trollish comment meaningless ? No way. You are the moron here... i believe nalikill have already learned his lesson in here, there is NO need to punish him further. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should he receive preferential treatment for being a repeat offender? Before you go slagging off against my comment, keep in mind that his comment was intended to achieve a similar goal. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Because unlike some users who recently only appears in the wiki to cause drama, nalikill has already displayed care for the wiki in several occasions. And yes, i know that his comments were of trollish nature... one more reason for me to simply dismiss this case as it is merely trivial and dont cause any impact on the community as a whole. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop ignoring the rules when it suits you to kthxbai --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I question the capability of a person to render a judgement on a case when they have stated in an open channel "<hagnat> well, fuck the rules" when they have disagreed with his opinions, and then acted on them, as your vast misconduct archive shows. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And i question the capability of one to question capabilities of another when this one doesnt even bring said argument into context. I did said fuck the rules, but only to note that these rules should not be enforced all the time, or we would end in a bureaucratic mayhem like this wiki was in the past. Rules should exist only to protect and make our lives easier, not to be enforced in all occasions and by the letter. The first leads to a healthy community, while the other leads to a wiki-lawyering community, which i believe no one here wants. And carry this discussion in the talk page, please --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rules must be enforced equally across everyone, or else we have tyranny. There is a (fairly large) line between fairness and the wiki lawyering extreme you describe hagnat. Your stance of opposing the rules where they do not suit you has come back to bite you five times already, and i question your suitability as a sysop as a result. Selective application of the rules is tyranny. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Like i already said to you, i don't care to be brought to misconduct. I always do what i feels is right and fair for the community as a whole. Sometimes my decisions causes some drama and are found wrong by the ruling clique of the moment, but most of them don't. The fact that i am the one with the more cases against me doesn't say i am a bad sysop, but actually that i involve myself in drama-centered situations as i do my work here in the wiki... and being the most active sysop of the second breed, not only now but during the past two years, i find it highly natural for me to be brought to misconduct so many times. And unlike other people, i lack the grammer skillz in english to persuade people to think the way i want they to think. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Our job is to do what is right within the rules. Not break them when we do not like them, as you do Hagnat. As you should well know, i get into a lot more dramariffic situations than you do. I still have a clean card, unlike you, who have an atrocious record. If you do not like the rules, go through policy discussion, or petition kevan. Do not go out on a limb and break the rules to do something, like you are here. While this case does suck, it is vandalism. Even Nalikill has admitted it (IRC quote on talk). The fact that its a year ban should not enter into it. Izumi got her month ban for a small edit to another groups page. Shit happens. Your job is not to like the rules, but to enforce them. Since you lack the ability to do whats right by the rules of the community, i ask that you recuse yourself from this case, and from all future proceedings on this page. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I liek the rulez the way they are... i only think they dont need to be enforced all the time. And while i have been successfully misconducted several times, while you have a clean record, it's not me the one people want to get rid of. I have survived all ruling breeds, it's not you who is gonna say i am not good enough to serve as a sysop when my wiki history has already proved that i am more than fit for that. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If they don't need to be enforced all the time, what's the point of having them? We might as well just scrap them all and let rulings be made on sysop intuition. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism rules are intended to preserve order and improve the wiki, and for the large part do so, so are worth having. Enforcing them when the case is a brought mainly as a means to extend a personal grievances encourages disorder (aka drama) and degrades the wiki.  Swiers 22:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This rule must be selectively applied. Here is an even more obvious case, editing someones reply without changing the sig, but because it was probably a mistake, he get's let off, and the sysop just has a word with him. That's what not assuming bad faith is all about. This case is so minor, there is no way it should be treated the same way as someone changing people's posts to make it look like they're saying "I'm a gay cowboy!"... that would be tyranny! Anyone not deliberately looking to get someone banned would never have brought this here. Reporting him for such trivialities is more bad faith than actually fixing the damn link to include an http:// -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:25 16 January 2008 (BST)

All this over Nali fixing a broken link? Anyone with half an eye on the wiki knows that Cyberbob and Nali have been scrapping on and off since Nali served his recent ban. I'm sure that I've done identical things to this as well, correcting a link after someone has commented that the link is wrong. I'ts realy not VB worthy, in my opinion. Considering the vauge emnity between the two this entire thing should have been scrapped from the word go. Seeing as something can only ever be judged as vandalism or not vandalism with no middle ground, in cases such as this where it appears a personal conflict has flowed over into the admin pages, and the "vandalism" itself is relitively minor with no severe implications in my opinion it is a case for selectively applying the rules. We should be aiming for fairness over total enforcement in all cases. Hell, even in most courts the severity of the criminal act and mitigating circumstances are taken into account. In my opinion, and yes, this is just my opinion one of two things should have happened: either the case gets thrown out as not vasndalism due to the fact that it's patheticaly minor and seems to be the continuation of a conflict between two users, or it is ruled on as vandalism, but too minor to have any punitive action taken over it. Now as the second option cannot occur given the rules we have at the moment, the first option appears to be the only viable option. Sometimes the current system does not completely serivce the needs that it is supposed to serve and requires some level of interpritation from the people judging the case. That's why (in my opinion) voting in sysops and beurocrats is such an important process.--Seventythree^Talk 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. So this is what it's like to be on the outside of things. Anyway. Don't we have soft warnings now? Why not issue one of those? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we done being idiots or do I have to say something? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

dont be an idiot gnome.... dont be an idiot!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope my contribution does not add to the drama here, however, I think there's a point here that hasn't been addressed. I think everyone can agree that Nalikill isn't Izumi. Nali has never adopted an open policy of taunting the rules or the sysops who enforce them. He has, however, consistently and persistently skated on the fine line. He's been busted for it a fair number of times at this point, and shows no sign of stopping. It's obvious to me that he will find himself on the wrong side of a vandalism ruling soon enough. It's also obvious that after all his warnings Nali can't understand that at least one of the sysops is just sick of his shit, and has a good reason for it. I doubt any of them signed up to work on this wiki with the plan to babysit a petulant child. Nali does contribute positive content to this wiki, but he brings way too drama and heartburn along with it. At what point is his positive work overwhelmed by the amount of policing that has to be done in his wake? If I ran a business and one of my regular customers cost me this much time and heartburn, I would kick them out of my store. At some point, their business isn't worth the effort. With that said, Nali really has brought out the worst in some of our sysops. Grimch is constantly checking his work, and then having to fight with the others when he sees a problem. The other sysops are stuck between defending the indefensible or supporting the heavy-handed tactics of one of their own. I don't envy them the choice. Nali and Grimch are BOTH doing the wrong thing, and should both be given a timeout to check themselves. Seriously, both of you, exercise some self control. --Stephen Colbert DFA 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When a sysop states: "You have burnt all my remaining mercy. None shall be shown in future". that sysop should recuse themselves from any rulings or discussions involving that individual, as they cannot be the impartial and trusted user that they pledged to be when that user is involved. Continuing this cycle will only lead to further drama, more wikilawyering, more wasting of time and space on the administration pages, and the eventual arbitration case that we all can see coming. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Grim didn't rule on the case.--Karek^maps?! 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you know what I mean, as I stated rulings or discussions. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the probably the easiest thing that can be done is for those who don't want nalikill messin with their junk, even if they are good faith edits (such as fixing links, or editing spelling and grammer) is to take him to arbys to prevent him from doing such things. Class action suit against nali. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my favourite quote ever on this wiki. I mean, it's so over-dramatic. It's like something from a bad movie, where the villainous overlord is standing on his castle parapet shouting at the peasants who helped the local freedom fighters rescue the maiden he was going to sacrifice to the dragon which gives him his evil wizardly power. You can almost feel the spray of spittle on your face coming out of the monitor everytime you read it. Class. Plus, a really good demonstration of someone taking themselves far too seriously for their own good. And on the internet. Who'da thunk it? Nali's never caused me any grief - do I move in the wrong circles? Rhetorical. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nali has a habit of placing himself in positions that some people don't like (not saying wheter it is toatly his fault here, or placing blame in any way), but in such a way that there is a fair bit of ambiguity over whether what he has done is actualy vandalism or not. As such, most of the times Nali is put up here everyone has a massive row about how best to interprit his actions and the rules and guidelines he may have broken. Personaly I'm begining to think we should create a sub-page for Nali's cases!--Seventythree^Talk 08:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Funt, I think you misunderstand my emotional stake in this. I could care less. I'm just saying, if people are so gung-ho on getting nali banned over fixing his OWN broken link, then they should do something about it. All I was suggesting is that if people want to hang nali, which obviously they do and are looking for any possible miniscule way to do it, to tighten the noose more and more so he has little wiggle room.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I messed up my indentation/placement there. I was replying to Akule's post. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting more and more ridiculous! 2 meritless cases brought against Nali in one week, I mean come on guys leave him alone. I can almost see why Grim got annoyed given his and Nali's history, still think it was a massive over-reaction and a mistake on his part but compared to this its almost justified! He fixed a mistake that you drew attention to Bob, thats it not vandalism and not trying to make you look stupid. Indeed if anyone was trying to make someone look stupid it was you (as you have admitted) It worked and he cleaned up his mistake, why the fuck did you feel the need to bring this here? Oh thats right, you've moved over to NW and no longer care so you think its ok to be a drama whore over here... Grow up or sling your hook, I used to have some respect for you but I can see I was sadly deceived :( --Honestmistake 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A few things. 1. "WARNING: This page is 35 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." I should never see that on a single section of the A/VB talk page.

And 2.Guys, it's over. Can we please put this behind us? Neither side will yield ground, and all it does is act as a drama generating device. I'm starting to think it'd be better if I was perma'd; there'd less drama around here then. Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

TerminalFaliure

He vanderlises a group page twice, once after his comments have been reverted, impersonated Don Tickles...and you give him a warning? Shouldn't he be on his second warning now?--Thekooks 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, where did he impersonate? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Second_Big_Bash&diff=975752&oldid=975224 Ah, I'm sorry I thought Don Signed that part, still...he is issuing orders that are not his to give, seeing as he is not part of the bash leadership. Nevermind, as long as he keeps clean from now on I suppose the warn is keeping with the numerous precendents.--Thekooks 21:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nalikill

Yah, you shoulda saved your speech on your computer rather then posting it on a wiki...--Lachryma^☭ 23:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I did the exact same thing before you made the template include your signature. I don't see you saying anything about that. Grim, just let it go. Delete the thing if you must, but are you honestly going to get him banned for...what, a year (?) over something as small as this? Let it go.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it didnt have my signature on it at the time. You did notice how the signature was part of the argument here... --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the levels of controversy that both you and Nali provoke, and given your past history together, was it realy such a great idea to stick this here? Please tell me that one of you made the effort to talk to the other before this got posted, because I predict a massive flood of drama in rougthly 3 hours here.--Seventythree^Talk 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I stick things where i think they are appropriate. Nalikill being a little troll was clearly and indisputeably a bad faith attempt to piss me off. Such does, actually, fall under the definition of vandalism. Thus this was in the right place. Do i particularly care if other people want to bitch and moan and start up drama about such a simple thing? No. Should i let it get in the way of putting things where i think they best belong? No. Given the context he was clearly doing it to annoy me, so why should i bother talking it over? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If trying to piss people off is in fact vandalism, I'm quite surprised you are still allowed to log in, Grimch. Just how does this vary from the garden variety sarcasm that gets used so often? Where does the line get drawn?  Swiers 06:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a marked difference between being aggressive in an argument and going out of one's way to get a reaction. Trying to annoy isn't vandalism in itself; Grim is arguing that this couldn't possibly be considered good faith given the obvious motive behind Nali's action (he mentioned loopholes in the edit summary, for Chrissakes). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 06:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Take him to arbies and get him to change the text -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:48 14 January 2008 (BST)

so wait...once someone says something, no one else can say the same thing? how does that work?--'BP^Tmz 04:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a signed comment referring back to my personal experience and history. He is free to say what he wants in his own template, so long as he isnt copying me word for word. Indeed, if you look at the context in which he originally posted the first template, you will see thats its being done intentionally as a form of antagonisation. As well, in the not so recent case against me, the use of the term loophole was used to argue that what i was doing was made knowingly in bad faith. Guess what phrase nalikill himself used to his original posting of the first template he made? Loop Hole. The same assumptions should apply, doubly so given he is a demonstrably troublesome and antagonistic user who flouts the rules and guidelines with some regularity, as demonstrated by his exceedingly long Vandal data record. Of course, despite his obvious flaws, he is a popular user, and is therefore far more likely to be granted leniency than say, if someone like myself or, heavens forfend, someone like Amazing did it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

so if he went through the template and re-wrote a fair bit of it, change a word there, insert a new sentince here, you'd be fine with it?--'BP^Tmz 05:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done; I've rewritten it. I liked it better before, but I gave it my best crack.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  05:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse it if it was vandalism in the first place. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous... next you will be saying "as above" is impersonation because it steals someones opinion! Its not funny Grim so go find someone else to persecute. The template you made is an exceptionally well observed summary of what is wrong with almost every new gun suggestion, its surprising that no one borrowed it earlier... The only thing more surprising is that you are offended by the fact, i guess the opportunity of going for a year ban was tempting though? As for your complaint that it was posted in bad faith, since when has annoying other users counted as vandalism? You go out of your way to annoy Jon Pyre with every vote on his suggestions and knew damn well that being the one to Spamminate him was going to wind him up, is that bad faith? I don't think so... his last two suggestions were pretty crap even by his patchy standards and you just happened to be the Sysop active at the time. The problem is that you seem to be judging 2 actions (which could be seen to be similar in intent) by different standards ie: its fine for Grim to annoy folk but don't dare target him! For the record I think its about 50:50 whether Nali set out to annoy you but either way its not Vandalism.--Honestmistake 09:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

... --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As above --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that you still have a sense of humour :) --Honestmistake 11:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC

Nice to see your selective illiteracy still remains firmly untreated. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you for spotting that I had spelled "Surprising" & "exceptionally" wrong... of course had I got them right I may have ended up in A/VB for stealing the correct spelling from you but constructive criticism from the grand master of the language that is Grim is always welcome... However I am wondering what happened with these postings of yours? "antagonisation" & "indisputeably"? Perhaps illiteracy is catching... --Honestmistake 12:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your inability to read, not write. Well, strictly speaking, your ability to understand what was written, but still. A triviality. There is a difference between casting a vote where appropriate or performing an adminsitrative task and going out of your way, in the middle of a confrontation, to make a page specifically for the purpose of antagonising another user. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly able to both read and understand what was written thank you. What I understand is that you have written an excellent and perceptive comment on gun suggestions which you have templated for repeat use. Nali appears to agree with you and rather than write his own (less articulate version) has taken yours. He may claim he was exploiting a loophole but as the rules are very very clear on the matter of altered comments there was no loophole to exploit. You made a fuss and he offered to change the wording; you instead insisted that he alter the meaning, sense and reasoning... or to put it anotherway you told him to find his own reason rather than agree with yours! That my friend is what I mean by saying you will try to outlaw "as above" next. If you had created and saved the template somewhere other than a Wiki I am sure you could have enlisted Akule to help chase Nali down for copyright infringement, sadly you didn't as that would have been unelievably funny :D--Honestmistake 13:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My other point regards your accusation that his posting with the (percieved) intention of annoying you be construed as bad faith. His (your) point was relevent and reinforcing someone elses (also yours) just because it annoyed you does not make it bad faith, knowing it would annoy you and posting anyway in the knowledge that the comment was both a perfect summation of his opinion and likely to make people laugh is still not vandalism... If you had posted something like "see my above comment as posted by two cheek buggers!" none of this would have happened and a quick word with both of them would almost certainly have sorted it out there and then. It seems that it is you who cannot understand things and then you lash out without thinking. The comments may have been cheeky, they may have been made to make fun of you but it was your reaction that has made you look foolish and not that sincerest form of flattery... immitation! --Honestmistake 13:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

HOW ARE YOU PEOPLE ABLE TO RECOGNISE SOMETHING AS BAD FAITH BUT NOT RULE IT AS VANDALISM? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cyberbob said it, if it's bad faith it's vandalism, if it's not bad faith it's not vandalism. Rules are pretty clear on that one. And no, I'm not gonna tell you whether I think it's Bad Faith or not but as soon as you utter the words "It's bad faith but" the next words better be, "I'm not gonna like what I now have to do". I will however, mention that Boxy is a bit wrong, it's not about how you determine what Bad Faith is insomuch as what you determine an edit that should be contributive is.--Karek^maps?! 12:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

From main page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:27 14 January 2008 (BST)
Um. Vandalism is defined as an edit made in bad faith. So you basically are saying he was vandalising. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How loose a definition of bad faith do you want, Grim? Abusing people could be defined as bad faith... want us to go there... sucker? This is similar to those people who upload images to the wiki, and then demand that no one else use them, under threat of A/VB. Blah, take it to arbies, the talk page... anywhere, this has been ruled on -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:18 14 January 2008 (BST)

How about you butt out? You have already demonstrated that you are more than willing to let your bias against me spill over into your administrative tasks, to the extent of violating established due process. I dont think we need you in here in an administrative matter shitting all over things. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So... nothing to say on the point I made... just I'm biiiiaaaaassssed, so shouldn't rule (even though I havn't, yet). Ironic -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:30 14 January 2008 (BST)

Its been pretty well established that i respond to points when they are made. Unfortunately, your post seems to be lacking one. Oh sure, theres stuff in there, but its relevance is questionable at best, and nothing but yet another attempt by you to stick your nose in where it is neither needed nor welcome (For the aforementioned reason) and cause trouble, as seems to have become your raison d'être of late. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Grim, you just went into negative respect. So what you're saying, is that when someone makes a template call, it's impersonation? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Just saying that he screwed around, but he's not within the confines of a vandal. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 19:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nalikil has a large history of making questionable edits and occasionaly provocative edits, but do you genuinely think he created that edit to sabotage the wiki? Sure, he might have been dumb, (oh, and Nali, if you want one of those things for gun votes I have one in my sandbox, feel free to use it) and yes, he should'nt have done it but it's not like he has shown a history of deliberately malicious edits before. THis may be silly, but it's not malicious.--Seventythree^Talk 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jebus H Overreaction! Take a wiki-holiday, Grim. This is nuts. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. "He stole mah wurds - waaaaagh!" --Funt Solo ^QT 18:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Urkileader

I have a few things to report about this case.it looks like Christo387 and Urkileader are in the same group, meaning the whole thing was mostly likely a joke. then there is this edit. he updated himself on his group page. that is a constructive edit. a small one yes, but one none the less.--'BP^Tmz 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That isnt constructive or contributive. That is neutral, at best. Also, nothing about it says joke to me. Seems to me that you dont, as a joke, impersonate someone to call them a homosexual and try to have them assassinated (I can see the latter happening, not the former). Even if it is joking (Very, very unlikely), vandalism is still vandalism, and there can be no question the impersonation was in bad faith. Of course, if you want to throw out absurd theories, be my guest, just do it somewhere else. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's the Watchman's page edit too BP.--Karek^maps?! 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A permabann does seem a little harsh, considering it could just be one of the guys mates joking around with him (kids will be kids). He was already listed as a member of their group -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:18 9 January 2008 (BST)

Guidelines and vast, vast tracts of precedent say perma. Whats a guy to do? I cant just ignore them. See that over there? Thats Tyranny. Im trying to avoid it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i think we should at least hear what Christo387 has to say about it.--'BP^Tmz 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines say you can permban him, it doesn't say you have to (or am I missing something?). As far as I'm concerned, permabans are for serious and obvious vandalism, like page wiping, constant vandalism, or advertising spam. This just looks like a kid playing a practical joke on a mate (unless Christo387 comes on and says it's something more serious) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:28 9 January 2008 (BST)

Well, he should have thought about how he would go about that joke before he vandalised two pages. Shouldnt he? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

the guidelines say "The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive" two of his edits are vandalism, but that third one(the SHURLMNP) is not. It's contributive. he contirbuted to his group page.--'BP^Tmz 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, edits of that claibre have never been considered contributive. They do not contribute to the wiki or community in any way. Giving a few reports on suburbs, Voting sensibly on a suggestion, or making more than one line updates about oneself on a group page. They are considered of neutral quality. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Precedent?--'BP^Tmz 02:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, User:Patients, theres more than 40 more down there, but im busy elsewhere now and cant devote all the time id need to sweeping the archives, however, you are more than welcome tyo do so yourself. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. As long as you werent making this up as you went along:p--'BP^Tmz 02:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All seems reasonable to me... Its not like he is a frequent contributer so he won't miss edit rights very much. If he does and it was a joke; I am pretty sure that this could be bumped down to a warning if the "victim" asked on his behalf! --Honestmistake 09:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

well, there we have it. It was a guy being a dick as revenge. Perma upheld and sealed with brackets of cold forged steel. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

yup, I guess my suspions were unfounded. oh well better safe then sorry.--'BP^Tmz 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this guy is probably the same as the latest vandal alt creator -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:38 10 January 2008 (BST)

Ioncannon11

I have a special meter as well, and right now it's off the charts. Want to know what it records? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't start this here.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Slicer

Could I hear a second opinion on this case? --Toejam 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ioncannon

Nice way to assume bad faith. ;) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking not vandalism, but I'm scared someone is going to yell at me. :/ --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's realy not vandalism. It's just a new user getting rather confused. The entire thing should be sorted out in no time.--Seventythree^Talk 00:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I can see why you wouldn't want to get messed up in it 2 days in.--Seventythree^Talk 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Grim is watching me like a hawk. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Trial and error mate. Give it a go, and see what happens. The most they'll do right now is give you a little advice, as there not going to haze you already. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really Nali's links, it's this impersonation. Totally a newb thing. Mmkay.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at this edit here. He's asked for help before. Being new isn't the same as being a vandal.The impersonation thing might be because he hadn't figured out how sigs work. I can't see how anyone can say he's a vandal.--Seventythree^Talk 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Errors in the MallStatus and BuildingStatus templates like that are surprisingly common, forgetting the |user= and/or forgetting to change it happen all the time because of lack of experience with the template.--Karek^maps?! 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lh778

Rule on the case already, it's pretty clear vandalism due to this policy and the other edits such as the removal of Grim's comments on his talk page, or at least how they were removed. Stop trying to force something through A/A That obviously shouldn't be there.--Karek^maps?! 06:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Echo, echo -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:45 4 January 2008 (BST)

Savant 231 A

I'll accept the punishment for the vandalism, but I think that Cyberbob shouldn't post that in the first place.--  Savant  Chit-Chat  21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you like a tissue? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Omega

He was hot-headed, but his reasoning's sound. There's people who've had less justification than he did and got away with it. His reversions should be lumped in with his original reversion of it, rather than being seperate cases; and really, he didn't do anything wrong since there was a justification- no matter how small- to the vote. Even if the :( didn't count as a justification, it ought to be chalked down to a sore temper rather than bad faith.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Trouble is though, he's landing himself in deeper shit with his conduct on the Vandal banning page. Plus his previous campaign to enforce the "must provide a justification" rule isn't going to win him any support with this particular case. However, as with all of these cases a fair ruling does have to be reached. I only hope he doesn't get too pissed off and do something dumb.--Seventythree^Talk 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose attempting to add the vote twice should be added as two other warnings?--User:Axe27/Sig 23:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I can see where this is going to wind up. The entire thing is kinda crappy realy.--Seventythree^Talk 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind of crappy considering that he could have simply changed his vote from a :( to "this sucks" or something. Honestly. It's not that hard, and it's obvious he'll do the work for something he's...interested (read as: causing everyone else trouble) in. He's one of those people that cause trouble for the hell of it.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not possible as per the rules of A/VB. It's all bulked into the one warning.--Karek^maps?! 02:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He is an annoying ASSHAT but his vote of :( is a damn side more useful than "WTFC" The smiley says it all and just because others don't like his justification should not matter. It clearly indicated that he was not happy and that is above and beyond the called for minimum. His insulting nature should not have any bearing, he was within the guidelines and rightfully defending his position, this ban sucks!!!

that said he is still an annoying ASSHAT! --Honestmistake 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Within guidelines? Bullshit. Defending his position? More bullshit, unless you think name calling and related things are considered defending. Did you even see the fit he threw over Funt's justification of calling a suggestion Grim? Fuck man, that isn't even the minimum anyway. If we went by your way, I could put a % sign, and justify it by saying it makes me think of math. It's bullshit, the ban doesn't suck, and if you really think Sockem isn't at fault here, you're also stupid. Although we do agree on the fact that he's an asshole, right?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

None bigger!

Problem is though that technically someone could vote % and defend it as a shorthand way of saying the suggestion had too much math or not enough math... it would be bullshit but what Sockem voted was :( thats an unhappy face which i took to be a sarcastic but perfectly good shorthand for "this makes me sad". no matter how you look at it that equates to "I don't like this" and that is a valid vote. Hypocritical given his stance on Funts far more dodgy "Grim" vote but still valid. My point is that it seems he is being punished for being unpopular, his attitude may seem like bad faith but it is more than possible to see that he might have felt people where persecuting him in bad faith for doing what they had defended in another user. I don't know or care what his later actions were his vote was fine (Asshattish, but fine) it should have been left alone! --Honestmistake 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh; and if you can't see that then I really think its you that needs the IQ test ;)--Honestmistake 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you hadn't noticed, but I argued for Sockem's right to strike the "it's Grim" vote (in fact I've struck one of them myself)... and I stand by the striking of this vote too. There was no obvious reason why this vote would be spam, the author asked the reason, when none was forthcoming the vote was struck. Instead giving any kind of explaination, sockem decided to start an edit war -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:58 3 January 2008 (BST)

Quite frankly, I'm getting more than a little sick of people pushing the limits to see how tricky they can make our job here, or to try to make some point about how we make judgment calls when making decisions. If someone asks for a justification, spend a fraction of the time it would take to reply to an A/VB case, and just answer them, ffs. Do you think I like having to ban a long term member for such a silly little spat? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:04 3 January 2008 (BST)

EDIT CONFLICT!

Not arguing that, my point is that similar votes have gone unchallenged and even flimsier ones have been accepted under the rules. I could easily see this vote as being smiled on in the past, that alon makes this a bit over the top for me. If I had voted this way; and believe me I might do that because I think it neatly sums up disdain for something; and felt it valid i might not feel the need to further justify myself either. Votes have always been taken to be subjective and you may recall that I have argued strongly for a reform that makes straight-forward justification essential. What should be is besides the point... the vote struck me as a good and (i suspect accidentally neat) way to show disaproval. This should have been regarded as a disagreement not bad faith and I say again that it seems like he was mostly banned for arguing. --Honestmistake 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't accuse you of enjoying it, but I hope you are not saying I have no right to disagree? I am not seeking to make your job difficult but why should anyone (even a trouble maker like sockem) have to justify something that is obviously well within accepted voting history? --Honestmistake 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have the right to disagree, I just wish it wouldn't come to this point. All this would have taken to go away without me even having to get involved is for a simple "i don't like xxxx" from sockem... I still don't know why he thinks this suggestion is worthy of a spam. And the reason some unjustified votes get ignored, is that everyone knows why the voter hates the suggestion (either because there are already plenty of kill/spam votes detailing it, or it's some ridiculous uber-powered nonsense). And yes, I do agree that a ban is an extremely harsh penalty for this, but it only came to that because of all the past offenses (and he was only a week or so away from getting a warning struck too) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:29 3 January 2008 (BST)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20080101_A_really_BIG_rock... In many ways the suggestion that he voted SPAM on is a cleaned up (and 1 sided) dupe of this suggestion from the previous day... he voted SPAM for that one with lame justification and so I can see why he didn't like this one either. My only issue here is that he has been banned for his attitude and for refusing to further justify a valid vote. His attitude stinks but (this time) he was in the right. I just think that a ban over this is unfair and only likely to make him worse, simply put, I think he has been vandal banned over a difference of opinion and not for vandalism. I agree that the whole thing would have just gone away if he had just added any vaguely relevant word but every time this comes up it is eloquently defended with the fact that even nonsense can have the context to provide a valid justification, that being the case :( is more than enough. I know what it means and i think pretty much everyone in the world does as well and that means he had justified the vote and was just being stubborn about things. --Honestmistake 09:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Axe 27

In all fairness, they WERE broken redirects.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  01:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)