UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 03

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

March, 2008

User:TerminalFailure

They intend to have me executed either way, so what's the point? The case required that all untrue statements be removed. From a certain point of view with evidence(The user's contributions), what is on my main page is true. It is also true that the user suspects Saromu of zerging. It is worth noting that the ruling requires an apology, not a retraction, if no evidence of zerging is produced, and that it only requires all non-true statements be removed. It is certainly true that I feel Saromu has not contributed to the wiki in any way and that he zergs. I state that the above is my POV, and as such it does not violate the ruling. --TerminalFailure 14:23, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Just because you think something, it doesn't make it true. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 15:22, 30 March 2008 (BST)

And he goes and breaks the ruling again up there, and ignores the possibility that it could refer to both the talk pages and the wiki in general. I win. --TerminalFailure 15:34, 30 March 2008 (BST)

What the hell do you mean "possibility that it could"? If you actually read the ruling you'd know that there is a certainty that it doesn't. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 15:47, 30 March 2008 (BST)

It DOES refer to wiki contribution in general. "Both of you will refrain from commenting directly to eachother on the entire wiki also for a period of six months." was the second point AnimeSucks made in the "To Both" section. Are you blind or just stupid, Cyberbob? --TerminalFailure 15:53, 30 March 2008 (BST)

The second means the general wiki. This is part of the Administration section. In this part of the wiki you cannot avoid speaking to each other because of its importance. You're arguing semantics and you're failing. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 15:56, 30 March 2008 (BST)

First, arbitration is part of the wiki and Saromu has violated the rules. Second, directly addressing other users is not necessary, but Saromu did so anyway. He has also directly addressed me through this argument. --TerminalFailure 16:01, 30 March 2008 (BST)

The part where we have to address each other in the third person says it cannot be enforced. Like serious. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 16:06, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Saromu intentionally misread the third pargraph as applying to the entire ruling. In that case, I could safely ignore all of the orders under "To Both", which is what Saromu seems to be doing anyway. --TerminalFailure 16:12, 30 March 2008 (BST)

"Also, it is this arbitrators suggestion that when you do refer to eachother on the wiki it must be done in the standard congressional faire of "The Distinguished Gentlemen from..." with the respective groupname of the player as the location. Sonny would be, preferably, "The Distinguished Gentlemen from DORIS," and TerminalFailure "The Distinguished Gentlemen from the CDF." Though, while it may not be enforceable, it would please me greatly" Not enforceable. Stop making a fool of yourself, seriously. It isn't funny anymore. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 16:14, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Saromu ignored the line that the third paragraph was an optional amendment to: "Both of you will refrain from commenting directly to eachother on the entire wiki also for a period of six months." Very much enforceable. This never was funny, and I intend to see Saromu banned. --TerminalFailure 16:18, 30 March 2008 (BST)

See the part where he mention the exception in Administration pages such as Deletions. Vandal Banning is an Administration page. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 16:20, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Saromu is intentionally misreading the page. Administration is never mentioned as an exception. --TerminalFailure 16:26, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Deletions in an Administration page and give as an example of what to do in that example. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 16:27, 30 March 2008 (BST)

This case against TF is over now as he has complied. All that is left is the apology to the wiki on his main page. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 16:35, 30 March 2008 (BST)


user:The man

I like how it's conveniently not vandalism when it's against The Dead. --Cythrelo 21:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It had literally zero effect upon the look of the page. Have a fucking cry. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The man was undoing the vandalism of Lektroluv. As you can see here], Lektroluv edited The man's post (impersonation) earlier, and The man simply removed the vandalism. Vandals get warned for vandalism, not the people who fix it later -- boxy talk • i 02:27 30 March 2008 (BST)
So Once AGAIN the goons aren't allowed to edit their pages as they see fit, but lo and behold any fuck head that is friends with the mods can edit them AND subpages of a group they don't belong to because the edits "had literally zero effect upon the look of the page." Such HORSE SHIT! And I liked the way you edited out my earlier comment too. Good job! You can't be called out on anything cuz that will make you look uncool in front of the internet. OH NOES.--DCC 02:53, 30 March 2008 (BST)
DCC, stop complaining damnit. First of all, the man removed all content from your page that was considered impersonation, as the user who did the initial edit he removed was warned for such act of vandalism. He then reverted his own edits to what your page looked like before, thus not changing your group page in any way. If there was any damage done to your page, then i could punish the man for vandalism. Since there isn't, he is free to go. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:23, 30 March 2008 (BST)
So it's ok if I made it look like you said, 'I enjoy gigantic penis' and then edited it back a few days later? If that's cool then awesome. I was in the process of doing so earlier but you apparently warned me for some reason. Perhaps a few Logic 101 courses at your local community college might work better.--ScoobyDooDoobie 04:11, 30 March 2008 (BST)
My defense on this case is kinda of flawed, as i was using another case as evidence which was somehow similar to this one... but, related to this issue... you changing my words to say 'i enjoy gigantics penis' would be considered not only vandalism, as it was an edit made in bad faith, but also impersonation. If you had reverted my comment to it's previous wording, the charges on impersonation could be removed if, and only if, you had reverted it right away (like, 1 or 2 minutes after you edited them). Keeping it for a whole day or more would not ease any charges against you. And it wasnt me the one who warned you, please get your facts right (yeah, so says the guy who just didnt got the facts right and backed his defense on them, lol) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:32, 30 March 2008 (BST)
I'll ignore the rest since this doesn't pertain to me though the "My defense on this case is kinda of flawed" is cute. At least you're honest about yourself. I guess that counts for something.--ScoobyDooDoobie 04:36, 30 March 2008 (BST)
What gives The man the right to edit The Dead's own pages? The page in dispute is NOT a talk page, it's an archive that is NOT meant to be edited any further. Someone who is not a member of The Dead changing the contents of the page is a vandal. Yet another example of this wiki's shitty, biased administrators. Congratulations. --Cythrelo 03:25, 30 March 2008 (BST)


Look, let's make things very clear now. You CAN'T copy the content of your group talk page, move it somewhere else, call it an archive and then alter what others have written in any way you see fit. This is considered impersonation, therefore vandalism. You goons seems to like to edit other people comments to make them look like idiots and/or to make it look like the administration team are conspiring against you guys. This can lead to many of you guys getting banned from this community.
I'd like to point to DCC talk page as an example... he selectively copied content from other pages, including things other users wrote during discussions and quoted them below a silly header. I, for example, could remove that line where i say i'd enjoy seeing you goons banned from this wiki, or have it removed after accusing DCC of impersonation, as i never said that in his talk page but in a discussion here on A/VB. Doing so, unfortunately, could be seen as an act of censorship which would only backfire against me a la Streissand Effect. Since i am against censorship, nor stupid nor caring for what others quote me saying on their own talk pages, i will never seek to have this comment removed from his user talk page or to punish him in any way. If i, or anyone from the admin staff, were really biased against you guys, we would embrace this opportunity to further escalate DCC vandal count.
What the man did can't be considrered vandalism, as he only removed the edits another user made. edits that caused the user to be reported and punished as a vandal.
To sum it all: if you goons want to have an archive for the dead's talk page, you must keep the exact words of the editors. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:39, 30 March 2008 (BST)
Just ignore them Hagnat, they're being willfully ignorant. It's been explained quite clearly a number of time to them now -- boxy talk • i 05:48 30 March 2008 (BST)
More like clear as mud. Don't even try to attempt some weak willed 'ignorance' argument with your Red Herring bullshit trap. This is Vandal Banning about The Man not an argument about DCC. Make another request for him if you want. Hell, I even have have Hagnat admitting that he has a 'flawed' defense. Stop being pigheaded. Ban The Man and ban me for the same issue and prove to the wiki that you're all not just a pile of useless authoritarian crap.--ScoobyDooDoobie 06:03, 30 March 2008 (BST)
As I said above... The man was undoing the vandalism of Lektroluv. As you can see here, Lektroluv edited The man's post (impersonation) earlier, and The man simply removed the vandalism. Vandals get warned for vandalism, not the people who fix it later -- boxy talk • i 06:06 30 March 2008 (BST)
So we can't have anything we want on our own talk pages because it might be IMPERSONATION even if it is copied and pasted directly from the source? Are you saying that your users are too fucking stupid to realize that snippets out of context on a USER TALK page have probably been taken from somewhere else? If so I agree. So are the mods.
You think that someone that isn't a mouthbreathing retard is really going to look at a USER talk page (that they SOMEHOW found) and say "well, that there Hagnut sure said some right mean things, I reckon" . They will be looking for some insanely important mod ruling and stumble across this and think WOW this must by it because it is tucked away on a USER TALK page and not under the proper page with headlines and formatting?
FUCK - I am glad that we finally got you all to admit your users are wastes of flesh that should have been swallowed! --DCC 20:56, 30 March 2008 (BST)
BAWWWWW!.jpg Wah!
Save me from the psysops!!!!!111one
-- boxy talk • i 03:10 31 March 2008 (BST)
Hey guys, I've been away for some time. How can it be considered vandalism to revert a vandalism? This does not make since, in fact its an paradox. Also, I think lextrutov needs reporting to Vandal banning since he re-vandalised the page It was direct impersonation and since it was not reverted back to its original state after having been reported I decided to do so myself. I'm not going to press charges on lex though because I would rather not continue to participate in this silly fight. Oh and.. nice picture boxy. The man 11:53, 31 March 2008 (BST)
He's been reported and warned for it already. Big thanks to DCC for bringing this case, and pointing out his vandalism to us... we would have completely missed it otherwise >:) -- boxy talk • i 12:05 31 March 2008 (BST)

User:Oliver_Sykes

Color me not surprised. Did I really expect the rules to upheld for goons? OF COURSE NOT! Why would anything ever be fair when it comes to us? Let me guess - I'm going to get another Karek banning special for spamming admin pages when I try to fucking play by your rules and actually report something the right way? GODDAMMIT When you all get your heads out of your asses and stop jerking each other off how about you fucking mod the wiki like you are supposed to and uphold some of the fucking asinine policies that you all can't write and hugbox vote up fast enough? You fucking retards --DCC 12:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Please cry moor. The guy made a mistake and fixed it 3 minutes later. There is no bad faith in that. How exactly did it harm you or your group? No harm, no foul -- boxy talk • i 12:30 29 March 2008 (BST)
**goon cries into his beer**
--WanYao 07:17, 30 March 2008 (BST)

User:Illusionist

I haven't seen direct vandalism from this person. Although some of the editing on the Vandal Reporting page has been unnecessary. Anyway, if this isn't an Isumi Orimoto sock-puppet, I'll vote for a democrat! --Stephen Colbert DFA 19:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You think so? Prove it.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the two IP's coming back from the Illusionist comes back as a proxy, and therefore the PROXY will be banned. The other IP however does not. Based on the Location of the one that does not, I would say you are voting Democrat this year Stephen. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 19:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I sure hope Hillary gets the nomination then. I'd vote for Nalikill before I'd vote for Obama! --Stephen Colbert DFA 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you use to check those Conn but it sucks. Neither one of those IPs looks to be a proxy at all.--Karekmaps?! 04:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Hagnat

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

Vandalism. Now let's make a big series of arbitration and misconduct cases about it, and someone has to put me into Vandal Banning for commenting here.--Jorm 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
you are too cool to be reported as a vandal jorm <3 --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And lo, the prophecy shall be fulfilled.--Jorm 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The Prophet noticed I existed :D *faints* -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


User:Sergeant Hastings

There was no edit war! This seargent dumbass guy just came in and ruined everything. Please remove the protection or change it to ghost town, Wan Yao has provided ample evidence to his claim whereas saromu and Hastings edited the page regardless of the evidence. The man 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 08:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied there.--Karekmaps?! 12:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:CunntLikka

If that name isn't inherently bannable then I'm starting a petition for anew naming policy. There are different levels of offensive. There's poor taste and then there's stuff that gets you fired if it shows up on your work computer. - Headshot Hal Talk +1 Casting Call 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There are worse names that have been used in the past, this one is just a term that was used by another SomethingAwful goon to refer to Conndraka before, it's not meant to be vulgar, it's meant as an insult to Conndraka.--Karekmaps?! 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


"We" don't really tell people to dislike him. We simply point out the obvious flaws like zerging and power abuse then let other people make their own decisions. That being said, this guy probably is one of ours based on the wording of his post. --Laughing Man 15:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Mr Aushitz, that name is much worse yet nobedy did anything against him. Or Neo Nazi for that matter.--Thekooks 17:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No no Kooks, that's not how this game works, it's only names Conndraka our lord and mighty king, dislikes that are ban worthy.--Karekmaps?! 01:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If it was ever an issue I'm not aware of it, Kooks. Nor was I active during the period where Neo Nazi would have been (as far as I can tell). And I will point out once again...I wasn't the one who brought this up. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


I'll enjoy seeing you in misconduct, I doubt anything will come of it because people like you but this is blatant abuse of the position, especially because it's spurred on by a user whose name happens to be an insult to you. Oh, and I'll be sure to point out your long history with the SomethingAwful users too, you have a lot to answer for in regards to them.--Karekmaps?! 00:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that's out of line, Karek. I find that name very offensive. I thought it was offensive before anybody said it was a terrible wordplay on Conndraka, and I don't find it any less offensive now. The fact that you don't says a lot, and honestly I thought better of you. I think that Conndraka is making exactly the right decision here by following Wiki guidelines, and I don't see at as being at all personally motivated. - Headshot Hal Talk +1 Casting Call 00:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not voicing my opinion on the vulgarity of the name, just the fact that Conndraka is making an excuse to ban vulgar names even though we do not have any policies that allow us too and have had two civility policies rejected largely on the grounds of there's no way to neutrally and without bias decide what is and is not offensive, it's completely open to personal interpretation which is why exactly what Conndraka has said he will do is a gross abuse of his powers as a SysOp. That's the problem, I find the name bothering, I also find the racial slur names bothering, however I can't ban them and if I do I am expressly going against the communities' preferences for my own personal ones.--Karekmaps?! 01:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being dense but I didn't eve realize it was a slight against me until Laughingman said something. I responded to the request by ciggy, And you'll find out that I don't have a problem with SA in many regards, and have even supported at least one suggestion put forth by an SA member. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 00:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't buy that at all, especially considering I mentioned it at least once in this case.--Karekmaps?! 01:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry...Did you comment? I'm trying to avoid reading anything posted by you since anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you is either incompetent or guilty of misconduct.Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 01:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Before you continue, Karek? Do you think me incompetent? Dead serious, answer is expected.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't buy Conndraka's spiel, He's just pissed because of both this and the Misconduct case where I told him he was blatantly abusing his powers when he was. It's quite impossible to find a user on this wiki I haven't disagreed with over something. --Karekmaps?! 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Out of all that text, I didn't even get an actual answer? :'(. G'night everyone. Remember, the answer will disprove or prove Conndraka's last comment....-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a long way of me saying no.--Karekmaps?! 01:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...and as another night fades under the morning glow, the wolf says to the hare, "By my growl you are undone".Illusionist 01:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Excluding the two people on the wiki who seem to be aware that this is a reference to Conndraka, to everyone else this is just inappropriate. If you'd care to sort through the a/a cases you'll see there was once brought against me that Karek, amongst other people supported as it set precedent about what is and isn't appropriate on the wiki. And if an article about cockburn is ZOMG THE CHILDRENZ!! why is the name of a user cuntlikka ok? And if theres no policy, not only should there be one, but sysops should be able to ban where they see appropriate. Send a email to this guy saying 'sorry your name is rude, try again' and let them make another account, with an appropriate name.--xoxo 06:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I was about to say. Now we see how blatantly contradictory Karek is, when he started an arbys case against Nick and Jed for the purpose of censoring what they wrote on suburb pages, using the excuse that kids should not have to read it. Dudes name is CuntLikka, a little worse than the words Cock Burn, which Karek fought so desperately and ignorantly to remove. Regardless of who it is aimed at, the name is vulgar and offensive. You ruled not vandalism only to give shit to Conndraka, rather than look at the words in front of you. I say, isn't that misconduct in itself? --CyberRead240 09:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody voiced a concern over Neo Nazi, which is a far worse name than CunntLikka in my opinon. Anyway, the point Sexy is that there is no POLICY saying you can not have an offensive name. So he shouldn't be able to BAN or WARN the person. There is no POLICY against having offensive words in suburb pages, so that is why Karek had to take it to arbritration. Karek follows the law, Conn doesn't. You can't pick and choose the law, if for no other reason than Sysops are not special, their opinon means nothing special, they are not better than anyone. So why should Conn get to choose which laws to obey, and not me.--Thekooks 17:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Because it specifically says I can here primarily Moderators are considered "more authoritative" than normal users in the sense that only moderators can make decisions regarding moderator-specific responsibilities, and only moderators can definitively enforce wiki policies. and more importantly Moderators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, moderators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Flipping

ahem. are you allowed to have multiple wiki accounts? I was under the impression you weren't but this seems to indicate otherwise...someone?--xoxo 07:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

you are.--Luke Skywalker
You are as long as you aren't currently banned or using it as a sock puppet. Quite a few users do have multiple accounts simply because they are commonly known as a leading figure on one side of the game and wish another group they are in not to be connected to their reputation.--Karekmaps?! 07:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Krazy Monkey

That's because it was Faerie Queen. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 04:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
MatthewFahrenheit = Faerie Queen. He censors things because he wants things to be child friendly. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Mmm. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Just give him his punishment already. There's enough drama between me and Saromu already...TerminalFailure 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No you. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 04:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:AAA

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Headless_gunner&diff=960268&oldid=958249 There may be many things people would like to say to Headless Gunner, but this is not how it should be done. Other ways of saying "happy new year!" would be much more desirable (the day of the edit). Blatant offense and vandalism are shown here, 'Permabanning' or a 'ban' should suffice.

-- Dirk tiggerfinger 18:03 17 March 2008 (GMT)

User:JR streets

Awww....and it was funny too. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 15:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It was. :( I feel almost sad about banning him. -- Cheese
This has got to be the most original vandalism ever! I've made a screencap of the suburb page at the time of vandalism. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:Lolsuburbnames.JPG Bloddy hilarious! edit: wow 2 replies already. lol The man 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Har har... why can't we have more vandals like that? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone who's been perma-ed still be put up for a sysop position? --WanYao 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No, he wouldn't be able to accept the nomination. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol. Good Point. :P -- Cheese 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why Permaban him, the guy obviously commited vandalism, but it was in a fun way, and it can be reverted with a single click of the mouse, I would have thought a simple warning, followed up by a banning if he continued vandalising would be a better course of action. --Thekooks 20:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
We have a rule that says if a user has only 3 edits, and all of them are vandalism, it's insta perma. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the rule, but its not like you to follow rules too religiously is it :P --Thekooks 21:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, 1 edit is vandalism, the others are just modifications of his vandalism and therefore I don't think they can count as vandalism. Its just like someone makes a comment and forgets to add their signature. The man 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, so all his edits are vandalism. Modification just makes it more of a pain to revert it, unless you're a sysop. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Demonstrate bad faith, peoples. Come on, do it... And I can argue that it was in GOOD faith just as easily, maybe more so. Why? Because there was NOTHING malicious in what he did. Not by any standard definition of malicious. In fact, I think he arguably acted in good faith... well... sorta... ;) But it was intended to amuse and entertain in an ultimately harmless way. Not to destroy. Therefore, I believe it was not bad faith. Fuck, I see worse BAD FAITH edits to the News, for example that are let go... Anyway, I know no one will agree with me, but whatever. --WanYao 21:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Your logic is completly flawed. As much as his actions were fun and amuzed many users in this wiki (myself included) one can't deny that such actions were vandalism, made in bad faith towards the wiki community. Laughs are laughs, but changing a page to reflect something that isn't supposed to is not an act of good faith, no matter how good the intentions of the vandal were. Your logic could be used, say, to legitimaze the actions of the vandal who painted the nails of that hand statue in uruguay last week... it made people laugh, but still is an act of vandalism --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the point here is that he only vandalized one page. On the other two edits he merely added the word "nope" and then changed it to "nuh-uh". I don't think that this overall can count as 3 vandalism edits. At least he is not like Izumi. The man 22:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No doubt it was bad faith, vanderlism yaddah yaddah yaddah...point is why go for a Perma straight away. He wan't an active vandal, he only made those three edits then stopped vanderlising. If we had warned him then the worst that could happen would be that he continues to vanderlise and so gets perma, the best is that we get another user, and a humourous one at that on the wiki.--Thekooks 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

lrn2spel --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Because he knowingly and purposely chose to vandalism the Most Viewed/Linked page on the wiki in a manner that couldn't have been anything but vandalism. Whole point of the accounts creation, so much so that it was it's very first edit.--Karekmaps?! 05:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

He was obviously out to get a permaban, and knew it was going to happen for the edit. Did so willingly and with malice of forethought - ergo, vandalism in the first degree.
Still funny as shit, though.--Jorm 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Y'all realise it was almost certainly a sock puppet of someone we know well... --WanYao 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to put particular emphasis on Wan's last statement. This vandal was no idiot. He renamed the suburbs quite accurately. Take for example: roywood which was renamed "empty town". It IS emptytown and someone must have a relatively good knowledge of the suburb in order to do so. another example, The suburb of Greentown which was renamed to a more appropriate "redtown". This is clearly a vandal alt of someone who visits the wiki regularly.The man 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Saromu

Anyone with half a brain and/or knowledge of the rules would know that this is not vandalism. It is his talk page; thus it is his perogative to make whatever headings he damn well likes. Nobody forced TerminalFailure to bite back, so why is Sonny being punished for his lack of self-control (referring to TerminalFailure here)? As far as I can tell hagnat is still in his "fuck the rules" phase, and Krazy is still in the usual "follow the leader" mentality shown by newly elected sysops. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a limit on what a user can do with it's own user page. You will remember that a user who abused his own user page got permanently banned for that. As such, Saromu can be punished for refusing to change the header once he was asked to. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a nice straw man you have there. Does it keep the birds away? You know as well as I that the two situations are completely different. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Axe Hack

Just because other people did it and got away with it is no excuse. --Hhal 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright then. If you sysops wish to warn me, you might as well warn Duke G. and Mid as well (Which suggestion? Why XP Level Up version 2.1 of course!) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Look at that...Iscariot did it too. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not vandalism, perhaps abuse to a certain degree. It'd be better if this sort of thing was discussed on the suggestions talk page (one of the categories, whatever is the appropiate one). It looks like a lot of people are doing this, rather than one user cramping suggestion pages with REs. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and here's why. He made the comments pre-struck. It's obviously him trying to abuse the system to get his comments in, to me that's bad faith, he knows the rules, he knows that he shouldn't be doing what he's doing, he shows that much by striking his own res in the same edit that he's making them in. No, I do not know if this is a trend that's been starting there or not, I just know the diffs from this specific case right here right now cause I'm sure someone is going to try and say we've ignored it before so it can't be vandalism if I don't mention that. :1, 2.
Sorry to make this more than a simple case but, I've got to contradict the ruling with my own ruling of Vandalism, knowingly abusing the wiki is very much bad faith.--Karekmaps?! 00:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Not vandalism, but i strongly suggest you people who strike non-author re's, who reply to every goddamn vote, who strike unjustified votes, who report humrous suggestions as vandalism... to take the stick out of yer arse and let people vote fer cris sake! the current system we have is really handy to fix things when they are wrong. If a suggestion is a dupe, let it stay there for the whole fricking day... unless we find people abusing the system, then we might need to stick to the rules... but only against the abusers. Sheesh. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Disregard the above ruling... agree with Karek and the reporting user. This is vandalism. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Erhem...The one from Mid, Duke Garland, and the newest one from Iscariot. Here's the fun part, Karek. They all made it one edit as well. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And guess what, vandalism, vandalism, and more vandalism. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't you go after them as well? Oh wait, this case is on me. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read the text before the small text in my comment.--Karekmaps?! 01:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Then go after Iscariot. He made the latest one, and it just so happen to have come right after my REs. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to wait to address that after this was done or once someone made a case about it actually. Mostly beacuse there's no point in having this discussion under two headers at once when it's two slightly different but directly connected and related edits.--Karekmaps?! 01:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Especially since my edits were REs and his edit is a troll base comment directed at Hhal. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is silly. It's two REs that he struck, both his own. He does it in other suggestions, so do a lot of users. It's poor form that could be considered a loophole, or abuse of the system, but it is not at all vandalism. It's poor form, not bad faith. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically, this is the first time I've ever done this... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It is bad faith! They know they can't reply, but they do while strucking their own comments IN THE SAME EDIT. If people want their opinion heard when they can't voice it in the main page, they can always leave a "discussion on the talk page" note. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they could quite easily leave a comment on the talk page, that's why it's there. What should have been done instead: the comments moved to the talk page with a summary describing that such REs are poor form. If the user continues to make such REs that the suggestion(s) become undreadable because of the spam, then yes, it's vandalism because it disrupts the suggestion(s). 2 non-author REs struck in that manor is hardly disruptive or abusive, and if you want me to warn people for something they did X months ago, you've got to be kidding me. I should do the same with every other user that has done the non-author REs. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Can't we just stop this here before everything gets clogged up? Let's just clarify the rules for making RE comments (personaly I think non-author RE's should be allowed, providing they're useful, but that's not for here). That way any more of this sort of thing in future is definatley vandalism, no questions. It's a pretty minor offence, if it's even an offence at all. It'd be a bit daft to create a whole load of drama about something that is relitively minor, concerning a user who has been here a long time and hasn't ever (as far as I know) done anything malicious or in bad faith before on the wiki. So I guess what I'm asking for is that either Hagnat and Karek drop it, or Axe Hack drops it, and Axe hack either gets a soft "don't do it agian" warning or an official "don't do it again" warning, then someone goes and calrifies the rules to cover this potenital loophole and it's all sorted, with no drama! Sound good?--SeventythreeTalk 01:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically, I've gotten a warning before, but it was struck for good behavior...And...Why are you here? Your not a sysops yet... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Meh. I could just see some very dumb drama kicking off over this, maybe.--SeventythreeTalk 01:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned enough times, I feel I now count as an interested party to comment here rather than the talk page. I'd like our mods to recognise that the users mentioned have not actually committed breach of the rules. If the rules require altering then A/VB is not the place for this. I'd also point out that because the users in question are aware of the rules is the reason they are striking the replies. Bad faith would be to add a RE without striking it. Striking the RE in the same edit means no further work is caused for other users and other voters don't have to see it. Accordingly I'd forward that the edits are made with good faith, to address an issue whilst reducing work load. -- Iscariot 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with that. This shouldn't be on A/VB. If it is a problem, why not just start an Arby's case against me? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you know you shouldnt reply, and if you did your reply would have been struck. Strucking your own RE as you post it is actually WORSE than replying without strucking the darn thing. Anyway... i am going to follow 73 suggestion and end this sillyness with a silly unofficial warning: DONT DO IT AGAIN, Next time == official warning. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I worded it incorrectly, when I say users aware of rules, I should have said aware of form. I can see no rule that any user has breached. If someone can point otherwise I'd happily accept any punishment. This however seems to be a policy issue, not a vandalism issue. -- Iscariot 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you not see what Hagnat said? Case close, alright? Let's never talk about this thing again. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The rule you all broke is clearly stated on each and every suggestion page, "only the original author and the person being REd can comment". You knowingly commented on a vote, striking it at the same time only highlights your obvious disregard for the rule. GTFO with your loophole bullshite, and think yourself lucky to have gotten away with it for so long. A good faith way to comment is to use the talk page and leave a "discussion on talk page" comment only under the vote you wish to comment on -- boxy talk • i 11:45 11 March 2008 (BST)

User:DCC

So three mods say they won't touch it, one says it isn't vandalism, and somehow it's still a ban. Outstanding. Soon we'll be needing waterwings to swim in all the shit. --Laughing Man 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually three mods said it was vandalism, but decided not enforce a punishment because they felt they were not the better sysops to rule on the case because they were somehow involved in the case --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So wait, it's "my opinion shouldn't count on this but count it if you feel like"? I don't see any consensus for how this wiki is enforced in a lot of cases, it just looks like whichever sysop decides to take the e-power initiative. --Riseabove 16:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
3 mods decided it was vandalism because DCC isn't one of their own. Plus they seem to be ignoring the fact that DCC has contributed quite a few things to the wiki. But are only focusing on when he calls them out on their hypocrisy. I don't agree with the foul mouthed antics of that guy, but you can't ignore that what he is saying is true. Karek, Hagnat, and Cheeseman seem to be persecuting DCC for expressing an opinion that doesn't mesh with theirs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meana Godzilla (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
Allow me to point you guys to this very fine article. See rule #14. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So basically you're admitting you're perfectly willing to abuse your power over perceived personal insults. Way to fucking go chief. Now the only question is why on earth players of UD from so many communities think this wiki is run like shit? --Riseabove 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think i just failed rule #2,,, LOL... but no, that was not what i was trying to say :P --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
DCC created a page with the only intent being to insult someone. That's certainly bad faitf, if not direct vandalism in the strictest sense. Now, the actual punishment might not have been justified, but I realy hope no-one is suggesting that somehow DCC is some innocent user cruely opressed by some shady sysop conspiracy.--SeventythreeTalk 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sysop conspiracy? Time to summon Funt for an update. --Akule School's in session. 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If you read whats there, you'll see that I wasn't going to rule because I was personally involved (the page being about me) and Karek and Hagnat didn't rule as it would be seen as bias against him. -- Cheese 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha - no, sorry - there's no story here for the local rag. All the sysops are bending over backwards not to ban the guy, and he keeps pushing it. Hopefully, he'll use the 48 hours to chill out, and think before he types any more personal abuse. (I'm very verbal when I think anyone here, especially sysops, over-reach their remit, but nothing like that's happening here.) DCC can easily climb down from this. Easily. Just climb down, dude. I'm sure there's a dusty policy somewhere down in the archives that says "edit positively, for the good of the wiki, or fuck off". Or did I dream that? Sysop conspiracy - Jebus H Unlikely. They'd all have to agree on one thing for more than two seconds, for a start. That never happens, so... --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and a note to Laughing Man, the aptly named Riseabove (hurr), DCC, and any other interested parties. If you don't like the way this wiki is run, enact new policies. It's not that difficult to do. I altered the entire vandal escalation tree recently. Shouting about injustice (perceived or real) only gets you so far. For real change, use the democratic process. It takes longer, and is perhaps less fun than shouting, and you have to get into some frankly ridiculous debates with intransigent stick-in-the-muds who'd rather debate the process of debate over the matter in hand, but the results are ... change. The change you wanted, or a close compromise. The sysops can only work with what they're given, and the current system is that one sysop rules on each vandalism case, either by following a policy, or by following precedence, or by following their own judgement. What else can they do? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm just asking how they made the decision because it doesn't seem to be very clear to me. If I was a mod of a wiki and took pride in the job and somebody questioning my competence was on the chopping block like this I'd make damn sure the decision was a consensus and not in the fashion of "well who wants to take this ban" and explain my rationale for the decision in a clear fashion. That didn't happen here so I'm just asking for some clarification on it. Would it really hurt someone to give a clearer answer here than "well why don't you change the wiki policies" (which btw seems pointless because there are so many sycophants on here, like Cheesewhothefuckcaresaboutthisfag who it appears got that page made about him because he was getting ass brownie all over his nose so he could be made a sysop too). I might make a policy proposal or two just for the comedy of watching how quickly it gets killed by the same people here who are posting links that basically say "well you pissed the people in power off so now we're just gonna screw you however, fear our wikicop faggotry". --Riseabove 13:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding? You want a clear explanation for why someone was banned, who recreated a page named "Cheeseman is a bloody cum filled fuck pocket that needs a Ginsu enema", and that they knew was deleted because it was considered vandalism just days before. This is just disingenuous drama mongering now -- boxy talk • i 13:43 4 March 2008 (BST)
The only thing TRULY offensive on that page was the name. Which hardly warrants a banning. And if you are going to crow on about recreating a page that was deleted then where is the Warning/Ban for Conndraka for recreating a page that was deleted through speedy deletion? If you want I can paste the comment where he himself talks about getting it speedy deleted. There was no difference in what we did except for the fact that I am not a mod and have a very colorful vocabulary.--DCC 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Riseabove, your open hostility towards me, when I've never done anything to harm you, demonstrates your character far better than anything I or anyone else can say about you, and your horrendous, rampant homophobia is also particularly unwelcome. In this case, I hope that the sysops do overstep their bounds (although they clearly haven't so far): you're not a nice character to have around, and are behaving like a spoilt child. But then, maybe that's exactly what you are - I certainly don't know many adults who run around shouting "fag" like it's going out of fashion, once they stop being irritating, zit-faced little wankers that don't even know what sexuality is. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there's quite a few people getting more than a bit pissed off with you shouting fag at everyone, or somehow managing to include a reference to sodomy somewhere in every insult you make. I've got to say I agree with Funt on this. It's childish and makes you sound like a steryotypical acne-scarred teenager with something to prove. DCC messed up and got banned, that's all. No conspiracy, no mistreatment.--SeventythreeTalk 17:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That for the most part wasn't directed as a personal insult towards anyone but the general attitude of the sysops around here but since I said a magic non-pc word you evidently took it that way. It's just frustrating as hell that every time someone asks "why and how are you making these decisions given the circumstances, can you justify this" 10,000 people pop up and talk about taking it to wiki procedures or arbitration. I don't trust arbitration at all and supposedly all this hot A/VB action is to enforce the wiki procedures so it shouldn't be too hard to say how the decision was made. If you need me I'll be off using pejoratives elsewhere since this whole page is evidently a massive fucking waste of time and text. --Riseabove 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say go ahead and give arbys a chance, as you can't come out worse than when you started, but seeing cases like this, I'd stay away unless you're positive you can find someone unbiased. I'd arbitrate for you, should you actually decide to go there, but I don't know the next time I'll have time to actually come here. If you do though, drop me a line.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you people stop telling the goons to go to arbitration ? They don't want it, are you deaf ? (actually, blind, as you are reading this... never mind) If they do change their mind about the subject they will go there, since they are already tired of hearing you tell them about it. Do not be a diplomat, no one like's em!!!
Anyway, let me try to answer the goons question about why DCC was banned... DCC was banned for re-creating a page that was a) recently deleted b) re-creating a page that was deleted because it was considered an act of vandalism to be created in the first place. Re-creating a page (any page) that has been recently deleted is considered vandalism. Creating a page with an offensive name towards another user or group is also considered vandalism. DCC actions were ruled as in bad faith towards the whole community, therefore he was punished for his actions. Now... why conndraka got away with the whole dead of the dunel hills page re-creation... he created the page (the one that is a subpage of the DHPD group page) before the original one was deleted... and deleted becase he agreed to delete the page and respect the goons wish to have no page. Then another user decided to re-create the page... and the sysops (me included) decided it was better pointing out to a page with info about the group rather than having the nonsense you goons were trying to have that page saying... this page lead to a lot of drama and edit conflicts, but the most important fact is that conn never re-created any page. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was asking for from the start. Sounds like Conn was using a loophole but that's not your fault. I'm not happy about all of this but I'll accept it as stuff that's in the past, hopefully this ends my involvement in A/VB or A/VB talk. --Riseabove 16:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Telenti and Riseabove

Vandalism is "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". (UDWiki:Vandalism)
In both these cases, these editors were doing what they thought was best (that is, they were acting in good faith). Telenti was trying to stop griefing and Riseabove was trying to improve his group's page.
So, the warnings they received were not in accordance with our rules.
Those warnings should be removed. I would ask that people don't jump in here with hostilities, or try to widen this discussion to more than what it needs to be, since either of those would be unhelpful. Also, try to focus on the decision, not the people. --Toejam 13:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_03&oldid=1091725"