UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 05

May 2008

Several Users

Cyberbob240, WanYao, Iscariot, Funt Solo, Ioncannon11, Saromu... when not involved in a vandal case, comments should go on the talk page, mmkay ? You guys are pretty aware of this, and this is just a reminder. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:25, 27 May 2008 (BST)

A/VB is not the place for reminders, Haggy. lrn2talkpagekthxbai --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:32, 27 May 2008 (BST)

It is, however, the place for inflicting the much complained about Soft warnings of doom for prolonged violation. Im not saying all of the parties named deserve them, but you do Cyberbob. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:35, 27 May 2008 (BST)

zomg wat will I do!?!?!?!?!?!? surely not have any warning struck a la haggy every time he's found guilty of misconduct --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:37, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Everyone's luck runs out eventually.--– Nubis 16:47, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, not really. Avoiding bannage is ridiculously easy for someone who knows the system. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:38, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Wow, hypocrisy! Colour me stunned. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:29, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Why... am... I... *sniff* not... *sniff* up.... there....--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:12, 27 May 2008 (BST)

well, that's the main reason why i put this in here, and not in each of the involved users talk page, so that every users who comment on vandal cases are to be considered warned, not only those whose my memory could list. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:16, 27 May 2008 (BST)

I'm calling you on this one, Hagnat. First of all, it's not clear that commenting on this page is vandalism or not. Make it clear, through the usual policy channels, if you wish to report me (or anyone else) for vandalism, for commenting on this page. Secondly, your list of names is incomplete. Either report everyone who's done it, or don't report anyone: but to be selective about who your report is not on. For example, and this is the first name I came across in a quick scan: gardenator is not on this list, but is "guilty" of the same "crime". Thirdly, the last comment I made was of direct relevance to the case, in my opinion. Fourthly, don't group me together with a bunch of other people: if you want to report me for vandalism: report me, and provide a link. Fifthly: I've done this before and received no warning, or soft warning, or a word on my talk page, or anything. Be consistent with your regulations and rules, and I'll know to follow them. Sixthly: "case closed, for now" is not a ruling - what is that? A soft soft warning? You've heard of double secret probation, right? Seventhly: in the last place I did comment, I commented both here and on the talk page. My comment here was relevant to the case, and my comment there was not directly relevant: thus I was using best judgement (as any contributer must) in the placement of my edits, in good faith. Finally, I reject this case, for all the reasons given. Please be so good as to retract your accusations at your earliest opportunity and issue an apology to all the people you named. Also, if this is the most use you can do as a sysop, I suggest you examine your status and consider stepping down. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:23, 28 May 2008 (BST)

In response to the thing directed towards my comment, translated it means: Case is closed on this matter up to this point, Cyberbob got a soft warning for his quantity and quality of crap, everyone else walks free with no punishment as they fell short either due to lack of remaining evidence or because they simply didnt spam the place up to a disruptive degree and/or provided actually useful information to the discussions where they did intervene. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:39, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Soft warning = absolutely nothing, especially to someone like cyberbob who can see it for what it is. The mods know that if they try and a/vb someone for posting on this page (unless they're vandalising) in the current wiki political climate they'll get misconducted. Make it policy or stfu.--xoxo 12:42, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Soft warnings serve their purpose. If a soft warned users is found to be going against the guidelines, he can't complain about being officially warned for it. And dont think that only because your name wasnt on the list that this doesnt apoply to you, jed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 14:06, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Please explain to me the purpose of soft warning someone who doesn't give a shit - due to the fact that if they do manage to land themselves a real warning they'll simply make 250 edits and have it struck. Case in point: you. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:21, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Thanks Grim, for the explanation. I was worried that it was a hint at "once more, and it's an official warning". You've clarified, I think, that it was not. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:37, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Thank you, funt, for behaving like a tard. You do know that when a comment has RELEVANCE it is consired and mantained in the front page... but there has been several cases of users simply commenting on cases without adding anything to it, and in some occasions you also did that. The list of users is not complete, but whatehecks, i'm only human! Those are the name of the users which i could remember from memory for posting on the main page wihtout need, and are the most frequent ones. And wtf is that thing about not grouping you together with them ? HAH! Dont make me laugh. Why should i give you special treatment, specially in a case like this ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 14:06, 28 May 2008 (BST)

And thankyou, in return, for behaving like a tard. Now that we have the pointless insults out of the way: back to your "case", which isn't a case, unless you are reporting me to A/VB? Are you? Was that an A/VB report, or just a notice? As one of those involved, if it is a case, why am I not allowed to comment on it, and have had my comments moved here? Please, be clear. You say "and in some occasions you also did that": please provide a link, as is standard in an A/VB case, if that is what this is. If it isn't an A/VB case, then what's it doing placed in amongst A/VB reports? Again, please be clear about what you're doing, and about what the rules are. If it is the case that sometimes it is okay to post on the A/VB page if not involved, and sometimes it is not okay: please be clear about when it is okay and when it is not. In effect: stop just making shit up as you go along. For any user, you are behaving unfairly, on your own whims and moods, rather than consistently, according to easily understood rules that people can fairly abide by. Finally, you say that my name is "users which ... are the most frequent ones". I wonder if you could tell me, please, how many posts I've made on the A/VB page this month? Last month? The month before? What is your definition (having answered those questions) of "frequent"? Again, you're just making shit up and hoping nobody notices: well, I noticed. I'm calling you on it. Retract your false "case", please. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:35, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I count four posts by me on the current A/VB page. Two are on a case brought against me. A third is providing relevant case information to the sysop team, and the other (on the same case) is replying to a question directed at me. Is it one of those four edits you refer to? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:42, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I've gone back further: perhaps it was this comment? That was where you were trying to permaban someone by skipping past the vandal escalation procedure, and one of the sysops had specifically asked for precedent information, and I was attempting to provide it for them. Is that what this is about, perhaps? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:47, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Ditto Funt. I'd like to know exactly which of my comments didn't add anything to the case. Quoted with the timestamp if you please. I was in the process of moving to this point on A/M, but someone closed it and archived it before everything was answered. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:18, 28 May 2008 (BST)

As this is not an A/VB report, according to the rules of the A/VB page, and according to the reporter (who states above that he placed it there to avoid the work of contacting individuals) I've moved it here to the discussion section. Clearly, any A/VB report should contain evidence, and should then be ruled either as Vandalism or Not Vandalism. The A/VB report space is not the place for "having a chat", or "making reminders": it's for making A/VB reports. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:08, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Uhm, since a soft warning was given out, wouldn't that indeed make it a vandalism report?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:14, 28 May 2008 (BST)

You edit conflicted me as i was saying this exact same thing... which would explain why i reverted funt solo removal of the case --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:15, 28 May 2008 (BST)

That's not what the reporter stated, above. If it is a vandalism report, then I want a ruling about the accusation against me: it's either Vandalism or Not Vandalism, or it's not a case. I'm just asking for clarity, and any evidence (which Hagnat has so far refused to provide, despite several requests). --Funt Solo ^QT 22:19, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Just read Grim's comment under the report, that should explain it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:20, 28 May 2008 (BST)

It doesn't explain why I was included in the report at all. Where's the evidence against me? It's not exactly normal practise to make reports on people without any evidence, and then rule without any reference to any evidence. Fair enough, make a case against cyberbob, or any other user, or make a case against me, if you wish: but to make a case against a group, and to expand that group to include un-named people, and then to tell them all off. Well, it's like being judged without a jury or any evidence of a crime at all. I ask once again: remove my name from it, or move it from that section of the page, or make an actual case: anything but this kangaroo court bullshit that's being served up right now. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:24, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Wait, in his rapidly removed misconduct case wasn't it stated by several sysops that this wasn't a vandal report or case in anyway, even when I pointed out Grim's ruling? Now either it is, and should stay along with the comments of everyone involved, or it isn't and Hagnat's placing it there and subsequent revert is vandalism. The misconduct says it isn't a case, does anyone want to make a decision?

Also, still waiting for the answer to the above question, I'll repost it incase you've missed it - "I'd like to know exactly which of my comments didn't add anything to the case. Quoted with the timestamp if you please. I was in the process of moving to this point on A/M, but someone closed it and archived it before everything was answered."

I await Hagnat to dodge this question again.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:35, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I don't know how prudent it would be to have the users were listed in this case to post on the A/VB for a case that resulted in a soft warning over the very act of posting on the A/VB in the first place. I can understand why you would want to talk about this, but wouldn't it be better to at least discuss it on the talk page to avoid the possibility of being considered to be spamming the A/VB and thus force sysops to take actual action instead of wrist-slapping action? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:14, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I see your point, Akule, but if you check the history you'll see that we were told to discuss it here, did so, and were then completely ignored. As we were directly involved in the case, we are specifically allowed to post under it, according to the regulations as given, and also it seemed the only way to get a response from my accuser as to what exactly I was accused of. It worked, as well: he finally provided what he should have in the first place. --Funt Solo ^QT 01:13, 29 May 2008 (BST)

The bloody diffs

Iscariot

1. evidence 1

   You managed to involved yourself into this vandal case. Your initial explanation should have been made in the talk page, as your further treat to change what others write in the same case

2. evidence 2

   You being an asshole and threatning to correct the spelling of other users comments.

3. evidence 3

   you are in any way involved in this case. use the TALK PAGE... this or the user whom you were replying to, if you were so bloody in need to look important

Funt Solo

1. evidence 1

   Are you ioncannon ? are you a sysop ? are you the reporting user ? are you involved in the case in any other way ? dun think so.

2. evidence 2

   my internal babelfish also appears to be broken, as i am reading you say Woo, i am not involved in the case, but i'll take the opporutniy to be an asshole and flame hagnat a little here.

3. evidence 3
4. evidence 4

   You are neither Tselita, nor a user with which she had any discussions with. You dont even used her talk page for any other stuff (be them related or not to the case in question). Your involvment in this case can mostly be seen in this talk page, where you attempt to flame both grim and karek.

Is this enough ? And, btw, even if i couldnt find any of these evidences... i wouldnt be able to remove your name from the list, because that comment was already replied to, and editing it would be considered vandalism... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 00:58, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Can Superfunt and his lovable sidekick Iscariot stop the evil Hagnat in time before he causes a wiki wide meltdown of flaming? Tune in after the line break to find out the exciting conclusion to Hagnat vs. the General Wiki Population 19! -- Cheese 01:06, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Those are exactly the links I talked about, above all of this. In the case of the first two, which are both on the same case, I'm helping a sysop out with a link to the precedent that you cited but failed to provide. As this was a case of you abusing your role as sysop, you're directly involved, and it's a conflict of interests for you to call me on involvement. In the case of the second two, I explained above, and it's self-evident, that I'm adding something relevant to the case, and then replying to a direct question. Thankyou for at last doing your job and providing links alongside an A/VB case, Hagnat. --Funt Solo ^QT 01:09, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Perhaps i couldnt earlier cuz i was at work... and it takes a little effort to dig these diff. If i have to wait TWO BLOODY WEEKS to get a misconduct ruled (BY ME, BECAUSE NO ONE RULES ON THEM) you can easily wait half a day to get your fricking diffs. And BAH! you havint interest on me bloody abusing my powers SHOULD NOT GO ON A/VB, BUT A/M. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 01:14, 29 May 2008 (BST)

And, btw, your first comment on ioncannon's permaban request was rubbish... you just said i remember hagnat doing this before, and no link as you said you provided.... and the link you provided, BAH HUMBUG, i had provided myself less than an hour earlier. You didnt had any more reasons to remain posting there, specially with flaming. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 01:41, 29 May 2008 (BST)

As I've said: it was information relevant to the specific case. As it involved you abusing your sysop powers (again), you should recuse yourself from that part of this case. At the time, I felt I should post quickly, before I found a link, because you were trying to get away with ignoring the vandal escalation system and claiming that (because you'd done it once before) that there was precedent. As for posting the link: I recall at the time I didn't notice that you'd posted, because your post was placed in the wrong place (chronologically). Really, Hagnat, when you get caught with your fingers in the cookie jar, trying to ban people just because you feel that you're above the regulations, you shouldn't try to blame someone else for your bad behaviour! How many people are going to tell you this before you start to believe it? --Funt Solo ^QT 10:15, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Like i said, if you are concern about me abusing my sysop powers, file a misconduct case, or write in your bloody blog how i am mean guy. You getting interest in a case does not turn you an involved user, therefore it doesnt give you special rights to comment on a case when the guidelines ask you not to. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 12:40, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I've considered your request to carry out discussion on the talk page, but I'm getting no response, despite several requests, from Hagnat, who brought this case against me, thus giving me the right (as stated at the top of this page) to respond here. I'm asking for evidence to be provided of whatever case of vandalism I am being accused of. Further, I am asking for a ruling (if this is an A/VB case) of either Vandalism or Not Vandalism. If it is not an A/VB case (as some have argued on the discussion page), then it does not belong on this page, and I ask that it be moved to the discussion page. If no evidence is forthcoming, then I want my name removed from the list of people given above, and would appreciate (although I do not expect) an apology. If evidence is forthcoming, I think it only fair that evidence also be provided for all the other people in the given list, and that it be expanded to include whoever is referred to by the ellipses, and that rulings be made for all of us. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:39, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Again, ditto Funt. I wish these instances where my responses did not contribute to the discussion to be quoted. Hagnat has ignored repeated attempts to speak to the users involved, but found time to revert when Funt removed this section.

As far as this being a case goes, on Hagnat's now restored (by another sysop) misconduct case the following opinions appear to be expressed:

1. Toejam implies it doesn't belong here "Hagnat wasn't creating a vandalism case (or ruling on one)"
2. Cheese also implies that it doesn't belong here "There is no ruling, or even an accusation of vandalism"
3. Grim implies that his ruling makes it case, therefore allowing those involved to comment "It doesnt matter if hagnat wanted a warning issued or not, theres one there now"
4. Nubis then goes against Grim and says his message wasn't a ruling (I think the sysop that made it might know...) and comments that this being here is poor form "It was meant as a note on a page where all of the involved parties will see it. And it seems to have worked. It was poor form, but not misconduct. Just because Grim bolds something in his comment does not mean it is a ruling."
5. Grim then responds confirming that this is a case (and according to those wonderful boxes at the top should mean we were allowed to comment) "I placed emphasis on the "soft warning" to demonstrate that the case was a legitimate case."

Hagnat....trusted user.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:01, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Evidence posted on the talk page... now go suck each other dick for a while... i am sick of both of you. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 01:00, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Some evidence has been provided (which I've discussed on the talk page) for Iscariot and myself, but none for WanYao, Saromu, Ioncannon or Cyberbob. Further, the users indicated by the ellipses have not been confirmed. Once those missing parts have been added, I'll await a ruling on this case (unless it isn't a case, in which case I ask again that it be moved out of this section). --Funt Solo ^QT 10:21, 29 May 2008 (BST)

A ruling on this case was already reached: grim soft warned cyberbob and the rest of you guys were let free of any charges. Does this fricking needs to be spelled out ? english isnt my freaking first language and even i easily manage to understand that... and no evidence on the other users was presented because, unlike you two dickheads, they didnt run in here yelling how unfair i am and demanding evidence... but, if they do, evidence will be posted --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 12:40, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I go away for a few days and nothing is advanced, shock me, shock me, shock me with that consistent behaviour!

Let's respond to your 'evidence'

1. I pointed out something that was missed by ruling sysops with the appropriate explanation. You'll notice that the sysops in question responded to this attempt to add to the case and achieve clarity. The edit was in good faith.

1. I resent your implication. At no point did I 'threaten' anything. You are attempting to create an image of bad faith. I, again, advised based on my own knowledge. You'd think with English not being your first language that you'd welcome some assistance on the minutiae, apparently not. The point was valid and again made in good faith.

1. Advising of precedent. You yourself stated that one does not have to be a sysop to advise on what could and could not get a user banned. I was responding to the query as I was active and it would have cleared up the matter immediately, rather than waiting hours for the next sysop to be online and wasting their time to respond. If you can find anyone else that would rule bad faith on that I'll be amazed, you're clutching at straws now.

And now everything else. "A ruling on this case was already reached: grim soft warned cyberbob and the rest of you guys were let free of any charges. Does this fricking needs to be spelled out ?" - So now this is a case? You seem to have changed your tune. If this is a case, why isn't the ruling on the page with it. Also if it is a case I expect you to go and put all my commentary back on the main page as is my right to comment on a case involving me due to the page guidelines. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:54, 31 May 2008 (BST)

Funt, you are stretching things a bit far here. Hagnats Vandal report was in the form of a polite notice in a place that all involved would be sure to see it. There was never a chance of a real case being made and it looks like it was (very sensibly) put there to save the effort of multiple page postings. Some of your comments were little more than attacks while others did have valid input, my opinion on the whole "use the talk page" thing is probably known by all involved here but seriously this was not a big deal until you made it one. Re-read your comments with a calm head and i think you will see that they were a bit borderline and probably did (mostly) belong in the talk section, even so I doubt they would have been moved if it were not for the crap that some of the others were posting meaning that Hagnat probably included you (& Iscariot) only to reduce the chance of the more serious culprits claiming bias. As for his trying to ban people??? He said in that case that he was tempted to issue a perma ban and asked for peoples opinion. He got that opinion and dropped the matter when it was clear it had no support, how is that bad behaviour? He saw a case where he thought an exception to the normal rules might be in order and asked if others agreed rather than jumping in and creating a load of drama.--Honestmistake 12:39, 29 May 2008 (BST)

It shocks me greatly that Hagnat can find the time to remove his misconduct case from the public view but doesn't have the time to respond the the points here, even when they have been reiterated.

Waiting until the page is archived at the end of the month to dodge the questions....yeah, trusted user.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:03, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Wtf you talking about mate ? ye bloody questions have already been answered. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 11:46, 2 June 2008 (BST)

User:Tselita

I would like to take this opportunity to request a temporary demotion for Grim. Although an excellent sysop with great judgment, let there be no doubt about this, but he consistently insults his peers. He believes that insults and taunts go unnoticed and that is he impervious to comebacks. He is not quite at Hagnat's level, as he values the wiki over his own wants, but this verbal abuse must end. I don't think wiki users appreciate logging on every day to see an insult or demeaning statement on their talk page or the vandal banning for that matter. Hell, you post this trash practically everywhere! I think that an apology should be issued for your continued disrespect towards your fellow users, or a short demotion should be issued. This is definitely not my place, but I feel it needs to get out there. Who's with me? Ioncannon11 02:11, 23 May 2008 (BST)

This has nothing to do with administration, and in any case, Tselita started this confrontation when she overreacted to her suggestions removal, assuming malice to be the motive, and then ignoring all my explainations to the contrary. The simple fact of the matter was i checked post order, not post date when removing it, as post date is irrelevant. Ever since then she has been escalating in animosity, and i recently followed suit in response to hers. Until the discussion on her talk page, any and all "offense" on my part towards her was purely unintentional, and a direct result of forcing communication into a purely written medium stripping it of a large portion of its genuine emotive content. If i finally ever commit an act of misconduct, you might have grounds for calling for my removal, but even then, id have to do more misconduct than hagnat, which i personally dont think is possible unless someone removes half my brain. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:23, 23 May 2008 (BST)

This is not about this case. You see, you did it again, but that was to hagnat so it's fine lol. :P Just try being nice to people, I think it'll really pay off. I was a bit hotheaded when I wrote, but you always write something aggravating to the recipient of your message. Should I provide examples? Ioncannon11 02:27, 23 May 2008 (BST)

If its not about this case, then why are you posting here? I dont do nice. I make arguments (In the logical sense i should add), not friends. If someone is stubborn and repeats debunked conjecture without responding to the rebuttal in any meaningful way, then they deserve neither my respect, nor my courtesy. If people do respond properly, and, heavens forfend, actually make something i cannot rebut, i will actually respect them for it. Sadly, that doesnt seem to be the modus operandi here on this wiki, with only a handful of people understanding this seemingly fundamental part of constructive argument, creating a situation where attempting logical argument is like beating your head against a wall of solid ignorance. Tselita is just the latest in a long long long line of people who have done the same, though in this case she seems to act as though having a vagina gives her an excuse to jump to ludicrous conclusions and publish them as unequivocal fact. PMT? Check out my talk page for how this entire confrontation began rather clearly. Its at the bottom under Gardenators heading. Most of the early discussion there happened while i was out of the house, my response in there indicates when i got home. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:37, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Sexism much? You are an ignorant, disrespectful, annoying scumbag. This is not you world, and do not behave as such. If you don't want friends, that is not of my concern. What is of everyone's concern, though, is your attitude. And that is horrible. Ioncannon11 03:15, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Congrats, you just made it onto my list! --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:56, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Babelfish translation service: "I'm always right and women that disagree with me must have a hormonal imbalance." Thankyou, babelfish. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:13, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Babelfish translation service: "I'm too much of a douchebag to argue against your points so instead I'm gonna drum up similar charges to the wimmenz who thinks all men are oppressing her all the time" Thank you, come back when you have something constructive to add instead of white knighting and trolling, making him out to be sexist because he's arguing with a woman is about as bottom of the barrel as you can get.--Karek^maps?! 14:36, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Jebus - read what he said, please. The suggestion of PMT to explain away a woman's anger over some issue is sexist. Plain and simple. It's also, in this context, horrible trolling. So please, Mr Pot, check your surfaces for stubborn stains before waving your scouring pad in my direction. As for any other points: it's the same tired old rhetoric of "I'm Mr. Logic and nobody can defeat my uber-brain", which has become frankly ridiculous. If he's that fucking intelligent, he wouldn't spend half his life arguing stupid points on an Internet wiki. Yes, I appreciate the irony. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:02, 23 May 2008 (BST)

If the Pot is black it doesn't make the Kettle any less so. The fact that Tselita has a history with relying on accusations of sexism to back up her points and to troll the people responding to her more than opens her up to actual sexist remarks as a response, a justified response in regards to her own discriminatory accusations. The fact that Grim used the letters PMT with a question mark is hardly the same as putting it to PMT or PMS or whatever the hell you want to call it. If he's doing it in such a manner shut up and let him, instead of being as much or more of a trolling shit by provoking a response and drama fest, he'll get what's coming to him without you poking the bear.--Karek^maps?! 22:03, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Okay. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:09, 24 May 2008 (BST)

How typical, funty coming in and decising that im in the wrong without even attempting to understand the cause of our little dispute. Ive been wondering when you would get back to your "OMG GRIM IS RUINING TEH WIKIZ!!!" stance funty boy. As karek said, she has been accusing people of being sexist to her since her first nailgun suggestion, and falsely accusing of discrimination is just as much discrimination as actually being sexist. For the record, Tselita is the first woman i have ever confronted with that kind of attitude and earned trhat response, ive gone up against dozens of others in friendly and unfriendly confrontations in the past, though never because of such a huge leap of idiocy on their part before Assuming that what i did with her suggestion was malicious, with nothing out there to back it up, and absolutely no history regarding it, then before i got back getting progressively more worked up with the assumption and ignoring every single response to the contrary where i explained how it wasnt malicious. Of course, i doubt you'll believe me either as that conflicts with your aforementioned position of me ruining the wiki, and with your bias on this issue and others like it. How long until you go back to your personal soapbox and post another hate filled rant about this? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:20, 24 May 2008 (BST)

That just enforces the idea that your disagreement belonged in Arbies, not in A/VB. You can't vandal ban people you dislike. Frankly, I could care less about the cause of your dispute, that's why I stated quite clearly "over some issue", because the issue is neither here nor there. As for the PMT comment, I've already indicated to Karek that I pretty much agree with his argument on that. I can admit when I'm in the wrong. Let's see you give that a try. (My Mod Conspiracy articles aren't hate-filled, by the way: I usually laugh quite a lot whilst writing them because of the utterly ridiculous things that happen on this wiki when people with a Napolean complex try to wield power. Many of them do feature you, but then there was a time when you kept doing ridiculous things, pretty much on a daily basis. It's not my fault you're the most active nutjob in the sysop team, and the most open to ridicule via satire.) --Funt Solo ^QT 11:21, 24 May 2008 (BST)

This could have been avoided in oooh so many ways. 1) Teslita previewing her suggestion and ensuring it was complete before creating the page, 2)Gnome giving the suggester more than a minute or two to check over her suggestion before he voted 3)Grim enforcing the spirit of the rule against editing after voting had started, instead of the letter of the law (either removing Gnomes single vote, he wouldn't take it A/VB, or telling him to re-review his vote), there is precedence for this, btw 4)not getting into multi-page arguments about the smallest of slights -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:48 23 May 2008 (BST)

I gave it a 4 minute read... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:50, 23 May 2008 (BST)

You read one of Teslita's suggestions in under 4 minutes? Speed reader! :p -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:59 23 May 2008 (BST)

Naw, it was a pretty simple suggestion. Only one line was required for explanation.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:01, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Or it was version 293 of a suggestion that was peer rejected on the Talk page but submitted for a vote anyway. "Malibu Stacy has a NEW HAT" - It's a whole new doll!--– Nubis 01:42, 24 May 2008 (BST)

But it goes so well with Beach House Ken.--Karek^maps?! 01:47, 24 May 2008 (BST)

This is a case of straight forward impersonation - i can't see how some of you can justify not vandalism, if a precedent is set that this kind of thing is okay we will end up with disjointed structures on talk pages. Yes hagnat you do have a lot of free reign on your own talk page but impersonation someone else (whether directly or indirectly) is not allowed anywhere on the wiki. Also, Tselita has no record so it will simply count as a warning and discourage continuing that style of replying.--xoxo 07:33, 23 May 2008 (BST)

I think it is amazing that Tselita hasn't posted anything regarding this. AMAZING. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 11:08, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Why? Taken to vb, majority of commenting sysops rules its not vandalism, she reads their comments, and moves on. As funny as your sig is, its not always true. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:08, 23 May 2008 (BST)

It's probably so Tselita can pretend that she didn't read the VB and will continue to do inlining style replies. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 00:19, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Various commenting customs exist and they all have their pros and cons. This includes the inlining style used here by Tselita, which gives clearer separation of topics. Here's a page about the relative advantages of three different styles of commenting. Reply to the whole post is putting one comment after another as is the typical way on this wiki, inlining is where you put your response to a point raised right under that point (and typically use some means of distinguishing what you've said from what the original poster said, such as indenting or using brackets and italics). Inline commenting means the points on the same issue are well collected, but it can come off as aggressive. --Toejam 23:00, 23 May 2008 (BST)

I read my own talk page, no worries. It's pretty obvious that she's in a conflict with some other users, but I don't think it is necessary to warn her for a bad editing habit. A last resort... it may take a few tries for her to stop. I don't believe she is specifically doing this just to piss Grim off (it could be a contributing factor, I don't read motives). Her justification was It's my page, and with your insanely long posts, the easiest way for me to respond to each of the thousand things you post is to take it one-by-one. My page - my rules, just like your page - your rules. , page ownership is not good justification though, but I can't say her reasoning for responding in that manor is bad faith. This is just incredibly petty, it's just annoying. Vista, Dux, boxy etc put up with me and others for be annoying tards, but we certainly shaped up fine. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:29, 24 May 2008 (BST)

No you didn't. You're still annoying tards. The only difference is that you aren't quite as co-ordinated in your idiocy. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 00:59, 24 May 2008 (BST)

The majority seems to think otherwise. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:02, 24 May 2008 (BST)

What you refer to as the "majority" is really a vocal minority. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:09, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Apparently I'm not that terrible. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:12, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Tell me, do you know what the term "vocal" means? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:14, 24 May 2008 (BST)

I don't see how people who don't voice up makes me an annoying tard. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:15, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Because I've spoken to many people who completely agree. They haven't put anything on the page because they're pretty much fed up with all the retarded shit clogging the wiki's tubes. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:19, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Then maybe you should get "many people" to voice themselves. Otherwise, I have no way of knowing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:22, 24 May 2008 (BST)

I tried. They refused. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:24, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Then I'm left in the dark, and have your comments to run on only. If you want to elaborate on that open discussion, by all means, go ahead. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:27, 24 May 2008 (BST)

And so it begins, using that sysops vote thing to show you have community support. If anything that page demonstrates that you are supported by a vocal minority as most wiki users (the less vocal ones anyway) haven't voted on that.--xoxo 01:17, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Oh goody. Does that work the other way too? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:28 25 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah. And i guess you could even say the vocal minority is split over you. Although it seems a large portion of your no's come from members of the dead...or grim.--xoxo 01:48, 25 May 2008 (BST)

I wasn't talking about me, that's obviously split... but this bullshite arguement that positive feedback means nothing because it's just the "vocal minority" speaking up. Well it applies just as well to, say Hagnat... you may as well say it's just the vocal minority against him. You're basically saying that the whole exercise was meaningless, other than for entertainment value... hmmmm, come to think of it... -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:59 25 May 2008 (BST)

I would agree with that conclusion. Stunts like that are decent at providing a general look at how a sysop is travelling but unless you can get a majority of the wiki's population involved then it doesn't really count for anything. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:09, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Lets not forget who created that whole page/discussion... Grim has always been against the sysop position being a popularity contest so i think we can safely dismiss any thought that he would create this as anything more than an informal "snapshot" of peoples opinions! The fact that he chose to do this at a time when he has been absent for a fair amount of time and has returned to the popular acclaim of certain large but relatively new groups is purely co-incidental!--Honestmistake 02:44, 25 May 2008 (BST)

It was a random thought that popped into my head after hagnat was waving his alleged trusted userr status around as an excuse for doing pretty much everything he does. Nice to see that the truth hasnt stopped the rumour mill from popping up crap like this. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:33, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Doesn't change his point, if you are wrong people liking you doesn't make you any less wrong and has no place in this type of discussion.--Karek^maps?! 02:50, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Couldn't we move this to the talkpage?--Seventythree^Talk 01:18, 24 May 2008 (BST)

User:RevivalOfTheFittest

Wow. Boxy, I can't believe you remembered that. I'm actually impressed! So, I guess there's no fooling you guys this time. The Black Knights have seemingly given up playing Urban Dead, and I wanted to carry on the name of my long time rivals. What I typed on their page wasn't what I would call vandalism. Did you read it? I actually thought it was pretty cool. I bet the Knights would've appreciated it anyway. With that being said, I would request ownership for the page. It would be much appreciated. Sorry I had to go the crooked way around things. I guess it just seemed more fun at the time.--RevivalOfTheFittest 06:59, 20 May 2008 (BST)

No, you don't get ownership of that page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:26 21 May 2008 (BST)

Well, last time I improved their page, they liked it. I fail to see what's bad faith about my previous edit. It's ok, I know you're being closed minded since you were the one I probably fooled a long time ago. It's hard for me to fight this when you're being biased, but I just want you and everyone else to know that just because I edit their page doesn't always default to vandalism. Plus, the Black Knights aren't even playing anymore. Boxy, maybe you've been a moderator too long. Experience the real world for a while. How about a compromise, eh? If I make an edit in bad faith, you can write me up for vandalism again and take away my privileges for editing that page. Sound harmless? --RevivalOfTheFittest 04:21, 21 May 2008 (BST)

You changed them from a survivor group to a PKer group, you removed yourself from their kill on sight list and made yourself a member. If you get one of them to make you a member, then you're welcome to the group. But given your history of griefing them, both in game and on the wiki, kindly piss off -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:58 21 May 2008 (BST)

How am I supposed to keep alive the Black Knights group if I don't lead it? That's why I took myself off their KOS list and made me the leader. Look at their page. They don't even care; they don't even use it; and they don't play the game. So that makes it a little hard for them to make me a member. So, then, what's the purpose of the page? We might as well put it up for speedy deletion. At least I gave the page a sense of purpose as opposed to just sitting there. --RevivalOfTheFittest 17:43, 21 May 2008 (BST)

The straight answer is: you don't get to lead the group. We've been through all this before with McZeds. Some 'tard decided to take over the group even though it wasn't his to play around with and got horribly horribly shot down in a huge drama fest across two wikis. The purpose of the page is to preserve a record of the group as they were. We don't have Crit 12 any more, so all group pages (except crappy one liners) are for keeps. By changing the group to a PK'er group, you've basically destroyed the original intention of the group, which to me, is bad faith. Impersonation of a member of that group in order to install yourself as a puppet leader is quite frankly childish. You've been in trouble for it before, for this exact reason. As Boxy said earlier: kindly piss off. You've not been around on the wiki for about a year. We don't take editing of another group's page lightly. Particularly in this manner. If you want the name so much, go and make a new page called Black Knights (PKer Group). Do not steal their page. -- Cheese 21:49, 21 May 2008 (BST)

If you didn't just jump in here, you would've recognized I didn't "childishly" induct myself as a puppet leader. I was actually going to lead the group. And yes, I did change it to a PKer group because I don't want to lead a survivor group. Simple as that. No need to be a grumpy Greg about this whole thing. I'm trying to solve this problem peacefully, so don't use language that will entice me. Just be cool, it's just Urban frickin' Dead, a little computer game. So let me propose a new compromise. If you change the name of their page to "The Black Knights (Survivor Group)," then I will be satisfied. --RevivalOfTheFittest 00:39, 22 May 2008 (BST)

I didn't just jump in here. If you look up there ^ you'll see that I was the sysop who ruled on the matter. The main beef over this is the fact that you impersonated a member of the group in order to give the impression that you legitimately took over. That is vandalism. Why is the name "The Black Knights" so important to you? You could name a Pker group anything. -- Cheese 00:49, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, that is why I apologized that impersonation was the wrong way to go about this whole thing, and I accept my punishment as fair. I guess I figured that would be the only way to really reestablish their group. The issue now is the control over the page. The exact name is important to me because I wanted to be named after the original Black Knights, my long time rivals. The name can't have anything additional to tarnish its true name. Also, I wanted my group to be related specifically to theirs in a fashion, to show that I didn't name my group The Black Knights for the heck of it. I thought the best way to show this was to restore their now defunct page into one for an active group. That's how I feel. It needs to say The Black Knights at the top. Perfectionist, obsessive compulsive, whatever, I've been called it before. --RevivalOfTheFittest 02:00, 22 May 2008 (BST)

They don't want you vandalising their page, they've made that clear. If you want to take over the page, get one of them to agree to it, otherwise I'm putting it up for protection. It has a long history of vandalism, probably all you, seeing as no one else would likely be bothered with a group that got up to 4 members at it's height -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:54 22 May 2008 (BST)

I've edited their page as a gift, and they liked it. Funny how you were the one in that case that accused me of vandalism that happened to be wrong again. They even put their picture back that you took away. Since that's more recent information from them, that makes yours outdated. So there's proof that we weren't sworn enemies but rather friends yet still enemies in the game. Chill...out... boxy. Be cool like Krazy Monkey; he's dealing with this a lot better. And like I said before, it's kind of hard for them to make me a member when they aren't around anymore. And no, that wasn't all me that vandalized their page long looong ago. --RevivalOfTheFittest 04:23, 22 May 2008 (BST)

User:Jorm

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

Basically for this policy where he's stating that should it fail no other policy can be made, period. I don't recall there being any humorous policy page section of the administrations pages. Do you? --Amanu Jaku 03:04, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - No, he's been silly. There isn't any humorous policy vandalism thing either, and he isn't being all the disruptive of administration process. The policy is a paradox, it ignores itself, thus it won't do anything if it passes... or fails. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:18, 20 May 2008 (BST)

So any user can make any "silly" policy for fun? Why is the suggestions pages stricter than the administration policy pages? --Amanu Jaku 03:20, 20 May 2008 (BST)

If they start abusing it to the point of absurdity, then no they cannot. There's a rule on the suggestion page and not on the administration page, just how it is, I guess. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:40, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Properly developed, such a policy would not be stupid. Id like to leave it and see what happens. For example, a policy banning stupid policies like ones mandating the wiki be green or upside down or forcing the whole thing to be rewritten in russian would be more than welcome. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:42, 20 May 2008 (BST)

See, that makes sense to me, but not one that states that if it fails no other policy may ever be made. Can we just revert the edit or just suggest to make a serious one? --Amanu Jaku 03:44, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - the same way silly suggestions are treated as vandalism, silly policies are also treated as vandalism. Silly vandalism reports are also vandalism per se, the same wat silly deletion requests are also called as vandalism... you are NOT supposed to joke in administration pages, as it's a waste of time and jorm knows this well... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:45, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Since I've even said as much in the policy - that people making stupid policies should be punished - I am more than willing to take a bullet for this. I shall be the martyr of the stupids. However, I believe I shall only be required take punishment if the policy passes.--Jorm 04:01, 20 May 2008 (BST)

If you made it a serious policy preventing those policies along the lines of what Grim was talking about, it'd make sense. It's just that recent change shoved it firmly into the realm of a waste of time. --Amanu Jaku 04:07, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Jorm wrote the new reactionary policy because of the recent reactionary policies written by Hagnat and others [1] [2]. I find it ironic that Hagnat chose to rule vandalism when he has done the very same. Also note the definition of vandalism is "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki."[[3]] -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:32, 20 May 2008 (BST)

This is vandalism, however amusing and accurate it may be. Although IMHO any policy created with no intention to have pass should be vandalism as we seem to have a lot atm. Also Gardenator learn to make internal links, like so.--xoxo 09:49, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism It's a discussion. It doesn't violate anything on [here]. You can't seriously be suggesting punishing him for a rough draft of a policy that he has 3 days to change and discuss? Seriously? Are you trying to punish him because he suggested something you don't like? --– Nubis 10:02, 20 May 2008 (BST)

I seem to remember users getting into serious trouble over putting the deletions page up for deletion, some of them just for voting on the request... How can that be Vandalism and this not? Not that I think a ban is needed, just that such pranks are usually met with a lot more resistance from the admin team--Honestmistake 10:14, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Because they put it back after it was removed. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:17, 21 May 2008 (BST)

But "they" put it back because (at least some of them) were making a serious point about drama and not because they were acting in Bad Faith, indeed if i remember rightly it was only one person who put it back but about 5 got warnings and /or bans. I think the point is that the deletions thing should have been left alone and no punishments were warranted and that this should be left alone and no punishments dished out either. Unfortunately by treating to similar issues in very different ways some of the sysop team are showing bias. If humorous stuff on an admin page to make a point once is vandalism then precedent says it is vandalism next time too. I understand why some of the newer sysops are not coming down on this like a ton of bricks but I am a little confused how others are either staying away or coming to the conclusion that its not vandalism (seemingly because it is Jorm doing it!) Jorm himself even admits that it probably is vandalism and is willing to take the hit for the team in having it ruled thus. I have no doubt that his intent was to make a point and i also think this was a very good way to do it, just seems wrong that this case is showing the bias and cliquiness that Grim keeps mentioning in dealing with 2 fundementally similar cases in such very different ways--Honestmistake 09:18, 21 May 2008 (BST)

It's a good job nobody really cares what you think, then, because this is in no way similar to the case you're referring to. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:40, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Is it not similar? Sorry but I thought that deletions was a humorous use of an admin page to make a serious point about a real issue; namely the drama caused on and by that pages use. This current case is of course a serious use of an admin page to make a humorous point about the drama caused on and by the use of such pages. No similarity there at all then Bob, I bow to your superior insight and will take up no more of your valuable "Troll-time". YOU FUCKWIT!--Honestmistake 09:58, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Wow.... swearing on teh internet is is fun.--Honestmistake 10:00, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Jorm is being deadly serious, and IIRC is actually considering modifying the policy to be more of a viable piece of work. There's some very genuine discussion on its talk page, in any case - can you say the same for that Deletions case? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:40, 21 May 2008 (BST)

If he puts up a serious proposal, I am fine with that, but you can't tell me that the current one is serious. That's the problem that I have presented, and what the sysops should rule upon. --Amanu Jaku 10:06, 21 May 2008 (BST)

See, here's the thing you aren't getting - they already have. You and Honest seem to be the only people (I mean that in the broadest sense possible) not able to comprehend this fairly basic fact. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:09, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Unless Conn is getting the final word then there is still some disagreement between the sysops who have made comment, personally I am waiting to see what the others have to say and/or for a Final Ruling to be presented rather than just let it all die down because you shouted the loudest--Honestmistake 10:22, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Me? Shouting the loudest? Surely you jest. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:51, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Actually, it looks like some sysops were watching the case until someone brought it up to them. Although, I believe that you are supposed to comment on the talk page as you fully know well that your opinion doesn't mean much on this case. --Amanu Jaku 09:52, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Was that supposed to be a burn? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:55, 21 May 2008 (BST)

I'm just pointing out that you aren't a sysop anymore, so you can stop pretending to be one and let the actual sysops handle things. They make the decisions now, you don't. So keep the snarky comments to the discussion page. K?--Amanu Jaku 09:58, 21 May 2008 (BST)

In that case, I expect a similarly worded post directed at Honestmistake, Illusionist and J3D within 10 minutes. Owait - they're agreeing with your case, aren't they? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:04, 21 May 2008 (BST)

No Bob, i am drawing attention to a valid precedent... you are being a prick! its a subtle distinction but I am sure you will work it out in time.--Honestmistake 10:10, 21 May 2008 (BST)

I am drawing attention to a valid flaw in your precedent... you are being a retard! It's a subtle distinction but I am sure you will work it out in time. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:14, 21 May 2008 (BST)

He doesn't have any warnings anyway, so it's not like I am asking for a ban. I was just looking for someone to basically say: "Could you be serious about it, or if you don't want to, take it to the open discussion section of the wiki instead of making your point to the people of the wiki on a fake policy? We don't want policy pages used for such things and don't want to condone such behavior." --Amanu Jaku 09:44, 21 May 2008 (BST)

People were doing that before you brought this case up. Try again. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:45, 21 May 2008 (BST)

this is not a discussion in the open discussion section, it's a policy discussion, therefore anything there should be taken seriously, and if we had to define this policy, serious it wouldn't... stupid policies are already forbidden, therefore his should be considered an act of vandalism... please, use some good ol'common sense... i have spoken with jorm and he agreed to be punished... and how can i dislike this policy ? it's a fricking joke! I would have took part of it if i wasnt so busy here at work :( and the fact that i enjoyed it doesnt change the fact that i must do my job once it had been reported for vandalism --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:39, 20 May 2008 (BST)

I know I'm not a sysops or anything... but I feel this is Vandalism.... it's Vandalism if someone makes a humorous suggestion in the real suggestion's spot... so why isn't this?--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 16:47, 20 May 2008 (BST)

A rule exists for the suggestions pages, not on polices. Just how it is. And it can be argued that there is a semblance of seriousness in that policy, if some effort was applied it might actually turn into something. And besides, policy discussion is a bit like suggestion discussion and nobody is warned for doing humorous things there. ;) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:17, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism on the following grounds. IF properly refined it could actually form the framework of a policy that could (if used properly) prevent future policies from being suggested that are either over the top bad, or simply as a matter of fact out of the ballpark for this particular wiki even if the proposed "stupid" policy is accepted protocol on other wiki's. I know that wasn't Jorm's intent, but we live in a post modern world now. Go figure. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 06:51, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Disturbingly, that is my intent. However, I enjoy leaving the details of such things to other people. I just want everyone to use common sense.--Jorm 07:23, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Live and let live. The simple fact of the matter is that the policy suggestion did not harm, tease, inconvenience, or otherwise disturb Amanu or anyone else for that matter in any way, so the mere fact that he even reported it makes it clear that he just wanted to stir up trouble. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, honestly, who cares? Just my opinion. Illusionist 07:48, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Would you mind then reverting the current edit and work toward making a serious anti-stupidity policy? Mainly I would hate to have people start seriously creating policies that would add stipulations should they fail. --Amanu Jaku 08:47, 21 May 2008 (BST)

I have no intention of bowing to your Stupidity, Mr. Jaku. And yes: I just called you stupid. Bringing up a vandal banning case over this is the *height* of stupidity and exactly the type of thing I'm talking about.--Jorm 18:45, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Ioncannon

With the amount of damage ioncannon has done with his alt account (see above report), i'm inclined to ask for his perma. All in favor ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:12, 12 May 2008 (BST)

No! He has previously acted as a responsible member of the wiki, surely this is exactly why the vandalism escaliations exist - if he gets back from the ban and is still a fuckwit by all means perma him but i think you should at least give him the benefit of the doubt that this was a one off...his other 2 acts of vandalism (excluding all this stuff) were very minor.--xoxo 13:05, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Second that no... He is a dick and probably will end up with that perma but once you start making exceptions on something as important as perma bans its an easy step towards making the next and the one after etc... --Honestmistake 17:47, 12 May 2008 (BST)

I'm going to side with Hagnat. He wiped over 100 pages in total. He knew exactly what he was doing when he did it as well. -- Cheese 20:29, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Permban votes are only available after a month ban, not a week -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:31 13 May 2008 (BST)

Precedent for earlier votings were already created, and cases such as this show how allowing to call for a perma before the user reaches the month-ban is a needed feature of the system. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:38, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Link me to the precedent please? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:09 13 May 2008 (BST)

Most recent precedent. It was voted and no misconduct case was open. Yet, since most users have asked for another chance, i'll drop my request for a vote. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:00, 13 May 2008 (BST)

I remember Hagnat doing this before, yes - I think you were less active at the time, boxy. I felt an urge to take Hagnat to Misconduct at the time, for openly going against a clearly worded policy and just making shit up as he goes along, but I didn't have the energy. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:16, 13 May 2008 (BST)

I think this Jjames case is the precedent [4], under the heading 'Hagnat'. --Toejam 13:32, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Different from that one I was thinking about, from the archives, where Hagnat declares "fuck the vandal escalation. I am asking for Rudiger_Jones permanent ban." My internal babelfish translates that as "fuck the wishes of the community who voted for the vandal escalation policy, I feel like doing whatever I want". Naughty babelfish. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:50, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Let the guy have his 1 more chance.--Karek^maps?! 03:05, 13 May 2008 (BST)

One more chance? for what? to raise yet another dumb vandal report? The report made on whitehouse shows that the only reason he is on this wiki is to cause drama. If he truly had good contributing intentions for this wiki he could have simply added his group back or in the very least ask whitehouse why his group was removed. Seriously, permaban this cunt, the only person who was ever worse than this guy was Izumi. The man 18:18, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, because Izumi was so fething bad. Oh and if you didn't catch it, /sarcasm.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:39, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Delta33

Removing a few lines of content hardly counts as blanking. He removed some content that he found offensive, which can hardly be called bad faith. Furthermore, he requested that you quote him fully. Taking only part of what he said and posting it is almost the same as going to a comment he made and editing out part of his comment. This hardly fits any criterion for vandalism, and is pretty clearly just an edit conflict. There's a way to handle those: talk it out with the other user first, and bring it to arbitration if you can't figure it out amongst yourselves. Did you leave any comments on his talk page? Did you discuss your issue with his edit with him in any way? No. You took a new user straight to A/VB after a vaguely questionable edit. Harassing new users for their mistakes the moment they get here is a pretty good way to drive them off. --Pdeq^Talk* 09:07, 13 May 2008 (BST)

That's the 3rd vandal edit to the page. Excuse fucking me if I'm not in the mood to deal with them anymore. And of the two lines blanked one of them was confirmed by the person. The quote was quoted fully. It was once sentence. I'm not going to quote an entire paragraph of run on sentences. That's why it's called a quote, to use a brief excerpt from. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 20:49, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - 3 edits. None constructive. Account created purely for vandalism. Therefore Permaban. -- Cheese 21:56, 13 May 2008 (BST)

The second two edits were exactly the same as the first, and no one even bothered to leave him any sort of message after the first edit. And removing something he said that he believes was quoted out of context hardly seems nonconstructive. Could someone just have warned him not to touch other people's group pages and pointed him to arbitration if he has a problem with a group page? I hate to see a new user get permabanned for a common mistake. --Pdeq^Talk* 22:05, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Cry. Should we ask nicely first to people who just sign up and blank random pages? No. He came on, made 3 edits in a row of vandalism, he loses the internets. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 22:07, 13 May 2008 (BST)

He didn't blank any pages. He removed a couples lines of content from a page, which people do all the time. And you know it wasn't a random page, it was a page containing a quote you were attributing to him. And he didn't just come on here and make 3 edits in a row. No, he made one edit, then came on the next day and made the edit again when he saw it was reverted. Hardly a vandalism spree. --Pdeq^Talk* 22:20, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Because we stopped him before he could. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 22:25, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Before he could what? Get into an edit war with you over one edit? --Pdeq^Talk* 22:29, 13 May 2008 (BST)

I received this email from Delta33 about 5 minutes ago. I've decided a perma was a bit harsh and have lowered it to a warning: sorry i didn't realise that there was a feature for reporting text that i find offensive or wrong as in which case i would have used it, the two things i edited were -1, i removed a quote i belive was taken out of context as they took something i posted on the imperium forums and edited them the actual quote was - I agree the way to win is gurilla warfare. dissolve into the suburbs and when they turn up strike at em from everywhere as we can't afford to be caught and massacred. they only took the first part which i belived was wrong. the second edit was offenive towards max890 and gavrial loken personal friends of mine were thet accused them of being gay amongst other things. i apologise for my actions which were guided by how i was offended leading to me creating this account to ask them to stop, which i did first time i edited when i asked them to quote me fully or not quote me as it represented me poorly.if i had realised i could report it iw ould have as i only just found the function that allowed me to e-mail you as i don't realy understand how the wiki opperates.i appolagise for my actions which i did without realisng the consequences and mainly as the alliance in question has been cyber bullying some of my group such as gavrial loken by saying he can delete his account or they'll ruin his game life.even if i dont get my account back i ask that my quote be removed and the offensive material towards max890 be removed.sorry, delta 33 -- Cheese 23:26, 13 May 2008 (BST)

--Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 01:15, 14 May 2008 (BST)

after speaking to admin i now know i simply can't remove offensive material and that quote, instead i'll ask you to remove them and if not i will simply have to go through arbitration to have them removed as im sure you wouldn't like to be insulted all over the net and be quoted out of context as im sure you'd hate to have your views changed and used against you.--Delta33 18:46, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Quoted out of context? Don't make me laugh. I quoted a brief excerpt of your post, that's what a quote is. Take me to Arby's. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 20:59, 14 May 2008 (BST)

i suppose i will just have to post the full quote on the imperiums page so people see what it actualy said, i at least ask you remove your offensive material towards max890 as although i don't mind banter its a bit extreme and offensive what your calling him --Delta33 22:28, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Post it on your Imperium wiki page, no one can read it anyway with its small font. And I'm not removing the thing about Max, he came on the wiki and acknowledged it as truth. So...eat shit and die. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 23:14, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Do yourself and everyone else a service and get the fuck off the Internet. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:53, 14 May 2008 (BST)

nope that would be giving up--Delta33 23:01, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Just a little advice, Sonny and Cyberbob are our resident trolls, you might wish to cease feeding them. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:09, 14 May 2008 (BST)

I'm not trolling. I genuinely desire him to get off the wiki and possibly even the tubes altogether. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:18, 15 May 2008 (BST)

I belive you said the same to loken however i intend to fight my case as like sonny said every one likes free speach until some one you don't like uses that right.--Delta33 17:32, 15 May 2008 (BST)

I've also said that everyone has the right to speak, as long as it's intelligent. If it isn't, fuck off my internets. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 21:04, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Who the hell is "loken"? No, don't answer that question - just leave. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:43, 15 May 2008 (BST)

then im suprised you post here so far all you've done is throw insults when i tried to have a nice conversation.--Delta33 23:22, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Surprised? There are two types of people who here. Those that don't know who Garviel is, because he's very unimportant. And then there are those who know him and think he's retarded as shit. So don't act all surprised. Garviel isn't some great Warhammer god that everyone knows about. He's an idiot that most people do not know and if they did they'd hate him. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 22:11, 16 May 2008 (BST)

no he isn't a warhammer god, however this is a game and just like you pretend to be a member of the sicilian mafia or a mandalorian from KoTOR so you can be who you want online and your hate posts are becoming boring.--Delta33 00:09, 17 May 2008 (BST)

I don't pretend to be shit. Those are just names I picked. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 02:39, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Yes names on stuff you like like the god father and star wars so while you use names like that i can't see why loken can't use names from subjects he likes warhammer so get of your high horse and leave him alone.--Delta33 22:49, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Because I don't pretend to be a 1940's mobster or a Mandalorian mercenary. I don't pretend to be shit. I picked names, then played the game. I don't roleplay, I don't make groups based off of games and movies. There's a difference between playing pretend and not playing pretend. If you cannot understand this then I believe you should've been aborted. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 01:30, 18 May 2008 (BST)

So your also saying you have something against the colonial marines and other groups that are based of films, once again i see your brilliant oratator skills of swearing and being abusive are coming to the for again, their is nothing wrong with role playing as it allows people to alter the game to make it more intreasting to them, also its a game just like loken pretends to be a space marine zombies arn't real your never going to see your home town engulfed by the undead. so stop being so damn stupid about how people play the game, you play as a pyker loken plays in his own way and as you don't rule the internet your in no position to dictate what people can and can't do.--Delta33 11:36, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Do you mind if I ask how old you are? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:12, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Delta they're just trolling so i'd give up, its highly unlikely you're going to get anything out of this...--xoxo 12:30, 18 May 2008 (BST)

TerminalFailure

I don't get why people are nay voting. He already promised to continue vandalizing. His whole point was to get banned but do as much damage as possible. (he just doesn't know there is an "undo" button") It should be pretty cut and dry. He's a vandal that will not stop. His one month ban was up and he comes right back and vandalizes. It's like handing a criminal a gun everytime he walks out of jail and wondering why he is sitll able to kill people everytime he's out. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 03:56, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Cheeseman

I take offense you consider me and others, a 'mindless meatpuppet'. I'm not the one clinging to a bureaucratic toilet of a small group's interests. Instead of shielding your cognitive functions with poor terminology realize that we are users of the wiki too. Maybe if you somehow proved that our system of votes were automated you might have a case. Right now your views are similar to that of an 'internet racist'--ScoobyDooDoobie 21:39, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I have not called anynoe a mindless meatpuppet. Automated? Botting doesn't have anything to do with meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is grabbing a bunch people from an outside source and getting them to express the views of one person. A single edit account, to be exact. If they don't want to be suspected as such, they can make some edits to prove otherwise. It's not very hard. At all. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:46, 8 May 2008 (BST)

The Dead is listed still at over 1000 members. Why do you find it so 'OMG MEAT MEAT MUST HAVE MEAT' when we suddenly decided to take part in this wiki community? Don't get scared that Urban Dead is becoming more popular. --ScoobyDooDoobie 21:50, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I have no problems with people attempting to express an opnion, unless told by some person to vote their opinion. Don't take me for an idiot, it's pretty obvious what's going on. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:59, 8 May 2008 (BST)

It's too bad that only 10 dollars is what's keeping you from knowing that we're just interested in this wiki community. Plight of the peasant all that I guess. Assumptions and misguided 'gut feelings' pass for truth nowadays .--ScoobyDooDoobie 22:08, 8 May 2008 (BST)

That's all I can assume. If you want me to assume otherwise, go tell them to edit some grammar or something. If you want to convince me, show me a screenshot if possible. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:11, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Edit grammar? That's a great idea! All we have to do is follow Mensa applicants like Hagnut around and we will have our 1,000 edits in no time! What a fucking stupid suggestion. Wait until policies on voting out sysops come up.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 00:05, 9 May 2008 (BST)

You took that a little bit literally, heh. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:10, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Outside source? They play as part of the same Urban Dead group in game. How far is outside? --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 21:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Couldn't even be bothered to look in the profile database could you AHLG, certainly not living up to your name.

1. http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=74380
2. http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1143086
3. http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1240217

Are the poeple in the wrong going to apolagise for calling these players, "Mindless puppets". Really I have half a mind to take the whole bloody Sysop Team to Misconduct.--Thekooks 21:56, 8 May 2008 (BST)

The last says The Dead. The second says nothing. The first says unaffiliated. What are you trying to get at? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:02, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Well, if they all say something different then that blows your fucking "meat puppet" argument out of the water doesn't it?-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 00:07, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Just because it doesn't say "The Dead" doesn't mean they aren't a part of the Dead or something awful. I bashed with the Big Bash 2, but didn't put anything in my profile, does that make me not a part of it? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:10, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Few people realize but... Urban Dead - The Game, Urban Dead - The Wiki, not the same thing! You can be a demigod übber powered zombie/survivor in the game, and your opinion weight for shit in the wiki. The opposite applies more often, though. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:06, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Not really, because if you play Urban Dead you obviously have an interest in it and the wiki, and can't be called a Meat Puppet, surely a puppet is someone with no interest in Urban Dead. Also, theres nothing wrong with meat puppetry, the problem is Cheeseman made up a rule and then enforced it. Now Cheeseman has made up a rule and enforced it, and not been punsished is this setting a precedent that I can make up and enforce any rule I want?--Thekooks 22:11, 8 May 2008 (BST)

wow i've never seen the team so split....maybe we need MOAR SYSOPS!--xoxo 09:41, 9 May 2008 (BST)