UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2012 04
April
Krazy Monkey
clearly yet another cry for attention escalate the bitch. --User:Sexualharrison19:15, 9 April 2012
I Dunno - We Wulves have learned that our friends the Wascaly Wandoms have Trojan Bunnies capable of almost anything....I would suggest breaking out the holy potato masher of Antioch...
--Belisarius17 02:56, 11 April 2012 (BST)
Generaloberst 2
Moved from main
Actually it's about time this got addressed, with it being black-and-white against the TOU and all. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:11, 5 April 2012 (BST)
- Can't we just perma him under the 3 edit perma rule? I don't recall him ever making anything that could be deemed a "constructive" edit. -- Cheese 14:37, 5 April 2012 (BST)
Moved from main
Throw in the fact he ignored the soft warning Karek gave for continuing an already closed case. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:40, 5 April 2012 (BST)
- To be fair, Karek officially closed the case with the edit where he offered that warning. The case had been ruled on by several 'ops and was de facto closed, but had not yet been officially closed yet. —Aichon— 18:22, 5 April 2012 (BST)
- Moved from main
- Message says "Continued harassment of the ruling sysops or spamming of the case will result in escalation via the previously established notices (...) this is your first last and only soft warning on this matter." Says nothing about racism specific. All it says is 'continued harassment'. So I assume you mean I thereby have a soft warning for 'everything'. Don't you realise how stupid that sounds? I also have to mention that you closed the case with the soft warning, which also sounds kinda weak in my eyes. Like you are afraid of my response. That you now try to enforce the soft warning on this case too while it clearly has nothing to do with this case only makes that image stronger. Generaloberst 12:20, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- A soft warning is a way to say, "You're doing something wrong, but we're giving you one last pass on it before we respond." You were soft warned for spamming admin pages (i.e. as per the previously established notices). They told you not to continue posting on closed cases, and, ironically, that's exactly what you did when you responded to Karek in the last case, which is the edit boxy linked to and why you're being brought up in this case. Racism isn't at play here (other than that it's bothering people). The fact that you reacted by doing the exact thing they had just told you not to do or else you'd get a warning is what is at play here. —Aichon— 14:50, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- Then I didn't understand the soft warning. I thought he soft warned me for making new (similar) cases. My response also implies that that's what I thought, since I said I found it strange that Pownan's action was considered not bad faith and I get a threatened with a soft warning (if I'd make a new, similar case) while Corn gets warned for doing the same thing as Pownan did, and that I thought that is bias. So my appologies for replying, then. I didn't know. Though it's not like I expect you people to believe me anyway so I guess go ahead and vote it vandalism. I know that I'm speaking the truth so my conscience is clear. edit/ I find it also weird that he soft warns me "out of the blue" in steat of making a new case first and without debate with other sysops. That's how you get these kind of mistakes. Generaloberst 15:30, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- maybe because you have already been caught in so many lies nobody believes a word that you say. plus your reading comprehension sucks donkey dick.--User:Sexualharrison15:43, 6 April 2012
- Like I said go ahead and don't believe me. I know that I'm speaking the truth. Generaloberst 15:49, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- maybe because you have already been caught in so many lies nobody believes a word that you say. plus your reading comprehension sucks donkey dick.--User:Sexualharrison15:43, 6 April 2012
- Then I didn't understand the soft warning. I thought he soft warned me for making new (similar) cases. My response also implies that that's what I thought, since I said I found it strange that Pownan's action was considered not bad faith and I get a threatened with a soft warning (if I'd make a new, similar case) while Corn gets warned for doing the same thing as Pownan did, and that I thought that is bias. So my appologies for replying, then. I didn't know. Though it's not like I expect you people to believe me anyway so I guess go ahead and vote it vandalism. I know that I'm speaking the truth so my conscience is clear. edit/ I find it also weird that he soft warns me "out of the blue" in steat of making a new case first and without debate with other sysops. That's how you get these kind of mistakes. Generaloberst 15:30, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- A soft warning is a way to say, "You're doing something wrong, but we're giving you one last pass on it before we respond." You were soft warned for spamming admin pages (i.e. as per the previously established notices). They told you not to continue posting on closed cases, and, ironically, that's exactly what you did when you responded to Karek in the last case, which is the edit boxy linked to and why you're being brought up in this case. Racism isn't at play here (other than that it's bothering people). The fact that you reacted by doing the exact thing they had just told you not to do or else you'd get a warning is what is at play here. —Aichon— 14:50, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Moved from main
The issue I have with this is not the hate speech itself but rather how something this pathetic can be shittily justified as 'tou violations therefore its ok to permaban someone even when its outside guidelines' when this guy fills the wiki with racist stuff and you take it. WTH sysop team? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:46, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- Easy, harassment has a higher legal liability ramification than possibly pretend hate speech. The issue here, for me, is less that there's racism and more that he's continuing a soft-warned behavior as a response to said warning. The racism is incidental, ignorant, and annoying but, as an American I personally don't think it's ban-able in this venue until it bridges the divide from localized to trying to change the message of the platform in question(the wiki). If this were a forum with rules against it then that would be different. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 03:38, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- Yis because you americans are just so damn good at taking other opinions ;) DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:20, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- Oh, you are American. That explains a lot. I will ask this question one more time to you: where did I get soft warned for racism? Links please. Generaloberst 10:22, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- Biggest case joke in UDwiki history and that's saying something.--
Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:40, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Moved from main
Permaban. Give him the gass. ~
03:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- giggles --User:Sexualharrison07:18, 6 April 2012
- Yes, why bother being consistent or act in according with the rules when you can abuse your powers? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:40, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- He's going to be demoted in a couple of days, so, as you said, why bother? Generaloberst 10:26, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Moved from main
Rules lawyer + pretending to be a Nazi = just ban him, not worth the effort. Edit: wow, that's a lot of effort he puts into fairly crap trolling. Definitely not worth the time! --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:41, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- And this is what baiting is. Generaloberst 15:21, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- and yet you always fall for it.--User:Sexualharrison15:35, 6 April 2012
- Yeah, I just totally did. Generaloberst 15:47, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- and yet you always fall for it.--User:Sexualharrison15:35, 6 April 2012
Moved from main
Not vandalism. In the case of admin page spam, the first thing to do is to move it on the talk page, not to invoke A/VB. If you move it and Generalobest can't take a clue, then you might have a VB case. Not earlier. -- Spiderzed█ 16:14, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- Wrong. This case is about racist comments, talk pages don't have anything to do with it.- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:46, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- Seems this case is about two things. Aichon says it's about the response. Boxy says it's about racism. Spider says it's about the response. Oakley says it's about racism. Learn to make seperate cases of things guys. Might even give you the chance to warn me twice, which is what you guys want anyway. Generaloberst 16:53, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- I'm going by Boxy's case creation, which was about the racism. Somewhere along the way the fact that you commented/spammed on a closed case got thrown in as well.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:19, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- which is why we should never ban him and un ban cornhole. think of the lulz.--User:Sexualharrison18:02, 6 April 2012
- I've been known to be wrong before. :) Also, an edit can be considered vandalism for various reasons, but it's only considered once in terms of how many times you get escalated. —Aichon— 18:21, 6 April 2012 (BST)
- I'm going by Boxy's case creation, which was about the racism. Somewhere along the way the fact that you commented/spammed on a closed case got thrown in as well.--
- Seems this case is about two things. Aichon says it's about the response. Boxy says it's about racism. Spider says it's about the response. Oakley says it's about racism. Learn to make seperate cases of things guys. Might even give you the chance to warn me twice, which is what you guys want anyway. Generaloberst 16:53, 6 April 2012 (BST)
Generaloberst
This page is for reporting vandals. Vandalism is, by definition, a bad faith edit. If someone is reporting themselves then they are effectively admitting that they believe they engaged in a bad faith edit, so there's no need for debate. It's an obvious escalation. Glad to see it worked out that way. —Aichon— 18:09, 2 April 2012 (BST)
