View source for UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Xoid/2006

<big>
[[UDWiki:Administration|Administration]] &raquo;
[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct|Misconduct]] &raquo;
[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]] &raquo;
[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Xoid|Xoid]] &raquo;
[[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Xoid/2006|2006]]
</big>

===04:16, 6 October 2006 (BST)===
Permabanned Gold blade illegally. Although it was the right thing to do, is was done in the wrong means. You cannot ban someone because they have a vandalisim record. Otherwise, everyone would get permabanned as soon as they got a warning, because they have a vandal record. Also, he banned gold blade despite him doing nothing, as to since he was banned. Furthermore: he uses off wiki evidence, which has been used against Gold blade before, when they said there had to be on wiki evidence for it to not be vandalisim. That is completely screwed. Even more, if I started complimenting other users for proxy use, then that should be held with the same weight in other cases. And more: Considering that he was not currently doing vandalisim, Xoid did misconduct with a report warn, and This has been considered misconduct before. All this points to one thing: Gold blade was not baned for bad faith edits, but just to silence someone Xoid hates. --[[User:Stab at ye3|Stab at ye3]] 04:16, 6 October 2006 (BST)
:Also, this case must go through, and cannot be dismised. This has been determined before. --[[User:Stab at ye3|Stab at ye3]] 04:17, 6 October 2006 (BST)
::OH NOES THE WIKI HAETS ME. afaik misconduct cases brought by sockpuppets are void. Someone else on this wiki has to bring charges, and since nobody else on this wiki wants to bring you back after you promised to delete the UD database on Halloween, I don't think an unbanning is likely. In summary, go fuck yourself. [[User:Rheingold|Rheingold]] 05:28, 6 October 2006 (BST)
:::However I do suggest that the case stay up on the page so Gold Blade doesn't keep making more alts. [[User:Rheingold|Rheingold]] 05:29, 6 October 2006 (BST)
::::They stay up whoever makes them, until they are dealt with. The proper procedure is to email someone with wiki access first, instead of creating alts, but who does that nowdays? {{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:33, 6 October 2006 (BST)
:It han't been dismissed, It was reviewed by the Other Moderators and FIVE of us determined it was not misconduct.

"''Furthermore: he uses off wiki evidence, which has been used against Gold blade before, when they said there had to be on wiki evidence for it to not be vandalisim.''" — The reason off-wiki evidence is usually ignored is due to the fact that there is ''no way'' of verifying whether the person said it or they were impersonated. In this case, Gold Blade ''did'' own the account on the Scroll Wars wiki. Fruther, there is a difference between easily forged emails and a wiki with a history complete with dates and times.

3 Page said "Gold Blade didn't make that post" on the vandalism forum, and that it was a proxy user. I'd like people to note that 3 Page has a vested interest in keeping his buddies safe and has no way to know whether that is Gold Blade or not; Gold Blade used proxies on numerous occasions.

"''Even more, if I started complimenting other users for proxy use, then that should be held with the same weight in other cases.''" — It wasn't a compliment for proxy use, it was a compliment directly tied to his impersonation of Cyberbob. Unproven? Yes. The timing ''is'' coincidental but tell me, how many coincidences must there be before something is pretty much certain? One? Two? How about twenty? Go over Gold Blade's record, there are more than enough "coincidences" to have a circumstantial case strong enough to hold up in a court of law.

"''Considering that he was not currently doing vandalisim''" — hard to commit vandalism when he was banned for a week, aye? But we are talking about his constant vandalism before the most recent ban. Mangling pages with proxies, creating dozens of alternate accounts, 

"''All this points to one thing: Gold blade was not baned for bad faith edits, but just to silence someone Xoid hates.''" — Gold Blade is an idiot, but I don't hate him. You want names of people I hate? I can give you a long list, but he's not on it. I also did a ''marvelous'' job of silencing him, didn't I, especially knowing that he'd come back and start up a misconduct case and shit all over M/VB. Your accusation is illogical.
{{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:33, 6 October 2006 (BST)

See Ruling Below. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 06:13, 6 October 2006 (BST)

===03:59, 5 October 2006===
He perma-banned both Goldblade and Jedaz(bypassing many rules in the proccess) with no substantial evidence at all.  For one he reported both of them and banned them himself without letting another mod doing it, going against precedent.  2 He PERMA-BANNED BOTH USERS when they just deserved a ban of an eculating level if they were pronounced guilty.  

Gold Blade's case:  Xoid posted no proof at all and just claimed facts.  Even if the facts that he claimed were true each and every one of them could have been caused by the attempt of another user to ban him (maybe even him himself).  

Jedaz's case: The wikipedia definition of vandalism is this: Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.  
This basically means that someone has to actually vandalize to be charged for vandalism.  Helping vandals by giving them info through OTHER WEBSITES and EMAILS, planning attacks, and alluding to possible attacks are not a part of this definition.  He can do whatever the hell he wants on any other website.  EVEN IF THIS WAS SOMEHOW AGAINST THE RULES then Jedaz would just recieve a warn/ban in an esculating nature.  He would not be a persistant vandal because he was never warned for this before.  

As you can obviously see Xoid has finnally lost it, is no longer fit to be a mod, and deserves to be striped of not only his buearcat status but his mod status as well.  [[User:Honorary mem|Honorary mem]] 03:59, 5 October 2006 (BST)

'''''Ruling the first''''' <br> As Xoid perma-banned both accounts as presistant and absolute threats of Vandalism towards the wiki, he can and did bypass the Warning System as it is the onus of the Mod to prevent Vandalism before waiting for someone to do it more.  The Permaban in such cases is accepted practice by all Moderators, therefore: <br> '''NOT MISCONDUCT''' <br>'''''Ruling the second''''' <br> First, Wikipedia is not our rulebook.  Therefore Jedaz assisting Vandalism in the form of providing tools in which it would only be useful if ''for vandalism'' is in the same breath of Vandalizing with your own account while another proxy user is in the process of vandalism ON THIS WIKI.  This is not some kindergarden class where we have to appreciate every pedant with a bone to pick.  <br> '''NOT MISCONDUCT''' <br> '''''Ruling the Third''''' <br> Linking to a Vandal Banning forum is permaban material (using the same rules as above) and he admits he knew he was doing wrong.  As such it is MY ruling that is wrong and you can try to take me down a peg with a misconduct case, if there already wasn't a history of Moderators upping bans of vandals (such as [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal_Banning&diff=388180&oldid=388076 HERE]) when moderators disagree.  <br> '''NOT MISCONDUCT''' <br> Now Admitted-Sockee Poo, want to put me up for misconduct and try to show how both Xoid and I are wrong, citing actual precident where we have let someone plot to vandalize and only gave them a warning?  I'll just get the 3pwv logs and show how we banned him simply because he said he was going to Vandalize as counter-precident, if you want.  Hell, I could show you how we banned people with the name close to "3pwv" because it was known that that name was representative of a want to vandalize.  --[[User:Karlsbad|Karlsbad]] 06:10, 5 October 2006 (BST)
(''P.S. Does anyone else find it ironic that the "Pride of Scroll Wars" 3pwv provided the tool in which his friends were punished with?  It goes to show how stupid and unaccomplished vandals really are, especially when they are forced to think beyond pushing buttons on a keyboard.'')

:Look more closely at GB's cases before the permabannings of him and Jedaz.  Evidence is in those cases, but since 1 of the evidence was on a vandal forum that has been shuted down, we lost that evidence...now Jedaz's case, did you see his alt?  It was in an impersonation type of format!  What was it now?  Jeda with a small square at the end? --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack]] 04:04, 5 October 2006 (BST)
::what's your point.  Jedaz never actually vandalized.  And Gold Blade could have been impersinated/ DOES NOT MATTER because you can say that you are going to vandalize but thats not against the rules UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DO.  [[User:Honorary mem|Honorary mem]] 04:23, 5 October 2006 (BST)
:::GB has commited....what....4 or more vandalisms?  And please indent correctly. --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack]] 04:27, 5 October 2006 (BST)
::::My bad about the indenting.  Yes he has vandalized 4 more times (though he would say some were quite controversial, I would have to look back at them), but he has already served those bans and right now he should be serving a month ban not a perma-ban (even if he did somehow commit another fifth piece of vandalism that still equates to a year ban, not a perma-ban.)  [[User:Honorary mem|Honorary mem]] 04:31, 5 October 2006 (BST)
:::::Hmm.....what about that time he was hacked?  It wasn't his fault we know but it was still his account that did the vandalizing. --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack]] 04:33, 5 October 2006 (BST)
::::::From what I read hes pretty much got that under control but if it did happen again then (and I was a mod in the position to make a deal with him) I would tell him to find a good proxy or something and not post using him home ip address and then ban his home ip address (since I think that was what was hacked him computor not his account per se) and not his account.  Thus letting him keep his identity and still post while getting rid of the hacker problem.  But I doubt we have much to worry anymore, I think he said he got a bunch of firewalls now.  [[User:Honorary mem|Honorary mem]] 04:39, 5 October 2006 (BST)
:::::::However....how do you prove that GB was hacked?  You can't.  It could have been a small prank.  And a bunch of firewalls is not possible.  Only 1 firewall can be in use at 1 time.  Any other firewalls and that 1 firewall will cancel out the others. --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack]] 04:44, 5 October 2006 (BST)
::::::::And by that logic you could also be gold blade therefore you should be perma-banned as well (ok that argument was a little out there).  Also Gold Blade apears to be good at using proxys, he would have had to have been a compete and utter moron to do something like you are sugesting.  That just would not fit, while him being hacked, well, does, at least more than him trying to screw himself over.  [[User:Honorary mem|Honorary mem]] 04:50, 5 October 2006 (BST)
:::::::::I could also be GB?  That is by far the most stupidest thing I have every heard of this week!  For reals...the GB might have been pulling our legs part...how could I be impersonating him if I was online that day when GB started getting hacked...or so he says... --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack]] 04:54, 5 October 2006 (BST)
::::::::::Nah, what I was trying to say in an analagy that I majorly messed up with is that we are innocent until proven (or at least proven within reasonable doubt) guilty.  Yes it is possible(though unlikely I think) that he was playing a joke but there is a very reasonable doubt here that he is guilty (because it just does not fit that he or anyone for that matter would screw themselves over like that).  [[User:Honorary mem|Honorary mem]] 05:00, 5 October 2006 (BST)

''Ruling the Fifth'' Mmmmm, Short Awnser I see no Misconduct. Long awnser I see no misconduct because: Xoid is now more than a mod he is a '''Bureaucrat''' which means... I hate to say this... Xoid is second only to Kevan in authority, and due to Kevans hands off approach is more apt to actually be responsible for the "health and well being" of this Wiki. As such, both Banned users have shown a disregaurd of the basic principles of this wiki (i.e. Dont vandalize, and respect the functionality of this Wiki). Xoid presented evedence which I found to be both convincing and warranted the level of punishment that was delt out. There are a few issues that I could bring up that I might be able to make a case for, but this is not one of them. End of Story. '''NOT MISCONDUCT'''[[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 06:15, 5 October 2006 (BST)
:I wholeheartedly agree. Go back to SW, sockpuppet. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 07:34, 5 October 2006 (BST)
It would be nice if Moderators read, and understood their own rules:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Moderators may only ban users who consistently vandalise wiki pages. This is typically the alteration of a wiki page not in good faith. Impersonating another user via the use of misleading signature tags or any other method is also considered vandalism. A Moderator is expected to warn the user twice (in response to at least two different edits) on their talk page before administering a ban. Some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.</BLOCKQUOTE>
Jedaz committed no vandalism, and thus Xoid '''ignored''' the rules due to his own bias, and the bias of his fellow moderators. --[[User:Upsetting|Upsetting]] 18:49, 5 October 2006 (BST)

:: Read it again carefuly, Upsetting, read it VERY carefully and see where you went wrong in your quote. I'll give you a hint: Xoid is not ''just'' a moderator. If you don't like it go start your'' own'' wiki. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 19:33, 5 October 2006 (BST)
::: Perhaps if you feel the need to belittle my completely valid point, you could at least look at the '''[[UDWiki:Moderation/Guidelines|Guidelines]]''' page, where it blatantly states:
<Blockquote>As a wiki, each voice has equal weight, regardless of their abilities.</Blockquote>
::: And also, since there is no page dictating the rules specifically for bureaucrats, and since all the bureaucrats are moderators as well, the rest of that paragraph applies:
<Blockquote>Moderators are not to use their status as a badge of authority. Moderators are merely especially trusted wiki users, and are beholden to the community just as any other user is. A Moderator's word has no greater weight than any other user.</Blockquote>
::: Research is my friend. --{{User:Upsetting/sig}} 20:18, 5 October 2006 (BST)
:::: Then Perhaps you should reserach further... Including from the same page ''Banning of Users is restricted to Moderators due to '''security''' reasons - Moderators may only ban users who consistently vandalise wiki pages. This is typically the alteration of a wiki page not in good faith. Impersonating another user via the use of misleading signature tags or any other method is also considered vandalism. Some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.Due to the time-sensitive nature of Vandalism, it is not expected that the Moderator gain community approval before banning vandals. It is part of a Moderator's '''responsibility''' to ban any vandals they find on the wiki, subject to the guidelines above. '' Wher I'm sure you will respond with ''It is, however, expected that a Moderator ban those who clearly act against the community's wishes, and be prepared to reverse a ban should the community desire it.'' However I dare say the majority of the community is happy to see them go, so I dont expect the Ban to be reversed either. Regardless The Moderators other than Xoid have reviewed the Bans in question and found them appropriate. You may not like it, but you are going to have to accept it. This is over. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 22:01, 5 October 2006 (BST)

===22:29, 9 September 2006 (BST)===
He banned Gold Blade for one week with no proof of bad faith.  Gold Blade had edited a FREINDS talk page stating that he had permision to do so.  This comment was ingored and xoid banned gold blade with no proof of the edit being in bad faith, because why the heck would someone vandalize a FRIENDS user page? [[User:Waits|Waits]] 22:29, 9 September 2006 (BST)

'''Mod Ruling''': Gold Blade was not given EXPLICIT ON-WIKI PERMISSION to edit Axe Hack's Userpage.  As such, this is NOT MISCONDUCT, according to precident [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal_Banning&diff=306084&oldid=306034 HERE].  '''Thank You For Your Contribution, all.'''  --[[User:Karlsbad|Karlsbad]] 04:14, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Gold Blade vandalized another user's page, and later claimed that he had permission without giving any proof. Case dismissed, sockpuppet. {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 23:04, 9 September 2006 (BST)
:Actually, we could move into this discussion a little further. BOTH cyberbob and xoid were wrong to accuse GB of vandalism, since anyone who read Axe Hack's talk page (or any other page were Axe Hack posts) will clearly notice that Axe, Golden, Gage, Canyouhear, share some kind of friendship. Also, golden said in the edit summary that he was moving the discussion to his user page, where it clearly belong since it had nothing to do with Axe Hack and it was all Cyberbob arguing with Golden. Now, as much as i would like to see Golden punished by what he and his friends did to MrAushvits when he was banned, he didnt deserved to be punished now. So. I say that Xoid AND Cyberbob to be banned for the same time as Golden was, plus a day. Cyberbob for accusing Golden of vandalism, acting for his own personal gain, and Xoid, for banning golden whitout taking into consideration his friendship with Axe Hack. While we are not psychik, we are able to read and notice when one is friend of another in our daily wiki use. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 23:45, 9 September 2006 (BST)
::No, Hagnat, I completely disagree. First, MrAushvitz has nothing to do with this discussion, so please don't bring him into it. Second, although Axe Hack later said that he didn't mind what Gold Blade did, at the time we had no evidence to support Gold Blade's claims. Should we accept any vandal's claims that they were authorized to make suspicious looking edits? The Moderation guidelines say that we should enforce bans on edits that appear to be vandalism, and later reverse them if need be. Xoid was following the guidelines, and I would have done the same thing that he did. Third, there is absolutely '''''no''''' precedent for banning someone who files a vandalism report. I will take any moderator who bans Cyberbob for reporting Gold Blade to misconduct, and I will ensure that '''''they''''' are justifiably punished. Fourth, There is absolutely no reason why Xoid should be banned. At the time, he was enforcing the rules of the wiki, as he is required to do. Last, haven't you looked at the user who filed this report in the first place? Two edits, one here and one on Vandal Banning, using an open proxy. Can you say "sockpuppet"? {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 00:23, 10 September 2006 (BST)
::I think a rather large problem we have here would be Moderators treating V/B too much like Speedy Deletions.  This case certainly could have benefitted from discussion ''before'' a ruling was made. {{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:31, 10 September 2006 (BST)
:::True. Of course, when there has been disagreement in the past, "rulings" have been overthrown, either by persuasion or by outright voting. The main problem, I think, is there is no specified process for how the Misconduct process is to be carried out. {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 00:33, 10 September 2006 (BST)
:::Who cares who filed the misconduct case ? It could have been my grandma, who never used a computer, less write a thing in english. Point is, Xoid was wrong to ban Golden without first ask Axe if he agreed on it since it was not CLEAR vandalism. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 01:00, 10 September 2006 (BST)
::::You completely ignored everything else I wrote. {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 01:04, 10 September 2006 (BST)
::::We could let cyberbob go, since there is no policy to punish someone who abuse the Vandal Banning page to solve personal vendetas, but xoid is guilty on this --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 01:03, 10 September 2006 (BST)
:::::No. Once again, I completely disagree. {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 01:04, 10 September 2006 (BST)
:::::Fuck off!? It was plainly vandalism! This has happened before, hagnat. A user edited another's page and said that they had permission to do so - ''but the permission was given off the wiki''. Even when after-the-fact permission was given, the warning stayed (I wasn't involved at all). Personal vendettas don't have anything to do with it. In fact, if I ''hadn't'' reported him, and Xoid ''hadn't'' banned him, that would be Misconduct for being biased against the original offender! {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 03:50, 10 September 2006 (BST)

I would like to let this drop. Its done and over, so se should move on. --[[User:Gold Blade|Gold Blade]] 00:25, 10 September 2006 (BST)
:Great! Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You see, after you created a sockpuppet account and tried to get Xoid banned, the process was started, and it will be ended by a moderator, not you. {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 00:29, 10 September 2006 (BST)
::Not my sockpuppet. I'd take a year ban before a said "wait a cotton pickin' minute" or have spelling like that. PLus, proxies dont work with my pc. Damn isp. --[[User:Gold Blade|Gold Blade]] 00:32, 10 September 2006 (BST) 
:::Actually, id also rather saw off my arm than use cotton pickin like that. --[[User:Gold Blade|Gold Blade]] 00:47, 10 September 2006 (BST)

I'd just like to say that if I were to take every vandal on their word that "but I had permission", we'd be here all year. All I need to do is vandalise a page, say "I had permission", and choose a user who I know has left, but no one else does. We wait for infinity, and nothing ever comes of it. I'm sorry, hagnat, if that is the way you want to run the show here, but I won't stand for it. It is the way I'd want the case handled if ''I'' was the one going to suffer from it. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 13:11, 10 September 2006 (BST)

===02:13, 14 August 2006 (BST)===
I have decided to challenge the initial warning for spamming pages of [[User:Reptileus|Reptileus]] (this occured on August 5th). I understand that he did continue to do this after the warning, which was wrong, but even Brizth [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AModeration%2FVandal_Banning&diff=356965&oldid=356942 admitted] that his actions didn't warrant a warning the first time. Nobody asked him to stop that day (check his history), they simply warned him. I think that either an unofficial warning should have been issued or someone should have told him that his actions could be construed as vandalism before he was actually warned. I am aware of the precedent set by Codename V, but my position is that it does not apply as he placed only snippets or far less pages than that of Codename V. Did he really do any harm? I have nothing against Xoid, and don't intend this as a personal attack, but as he performed the mod action, his name has to be on it.--''[[User:Gage|Gage]]'' 02:13, 14 August 2006 (BST)
:'''Note''' - this is intended more as a way of challenging a precedent than anything else. Is this the right place for it? Would arbitration be more appropriate?--''[[User:Gage|Gage]]'' 04:00, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I'm not going to rule on this case because I can't stand the page long discussions that this will cause. But I will say that I see no wrongdoing here.--{{User:The General/sig}} 04:12, 14 August 2006 (BST)

'''Not Misconduct''' - Just because you enjoy ratting on people when you don't agree with a decision they make, doesn't mean they are automatically found guilty. Case closed, and I'm moving this to the Archives. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 04:15, 14 August 2006 (BST)

===06:31, 4 August 2006 (BST)===
Xoid banned my account called 3pwvu, which as you can see by my name right now stands for 3 pillowy white Vulpixs (long story).  I am new to this wiki and as you can see I had not commited "anything close to vandalism" (xoid's own words).  He banned me because he said that I was either a vandle alt or an impersonator of some user called the 3pwv.  As you can see I am neither because I have commited no vandlism and I have been using the abriviation 3pwvu for many years.  Xoid also failed to try and contact me via my discussion page to find out if who I really was.  Xoid failed in his moderation duties because he banned me without evidence and did not even make much of an effort to try and aquire evidence.  He just jumped the ban gun and banned me. [[User:3pillowywhitevulpixes|3pillowywhitevulpixes]] 06:31, 4 August 2006 (BST)
:Huh. Well, welcome to the wiki. I'm sorry your intro had to be so rough. We have had a long standing vandal who uses an acronym very similar to yours, so Xoid's reaction is completely understandable and justified, since he was mistaken in thinking that the vandal was back yet again. Case dismissed. {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 06:40, 4 August 2006 (BST)
:: What about my other account that was banned though?  Should it not be unbanned? [[User:3pillowywhitevulpixes|3pillowywhitevulpixes]] 06:44, 4 August 2006 (BST)
:::Definitely. I'll unban it now. {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 06:49, 4 August 2006 (BST)
:::Although you can use that acount if you want, it's probably a good idea to just abandon it. Odds are you'll end up getting mistakenly banned again. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 06:52, 4 August 2006 (BST)

===11:38, 5 June 2006 (BST)===
Banned [[User:Amaz'ing|Amaz'ing]] infinitely without any warning. It was his first edit... while I morally agree with the ban, it is against the rules of Moderator Conduct. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 11:38, 5 June 2006 (BST)
:Oh come on, there are '''dozens''' of accounts made by that guy, everyone of them involved in vandalism. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 11:39, 5 June 2006 (BST)
::For whatever it's worth, I strongly support Xoid. In fact, I was the one who reverted the vandalism and reported it to Vandal Banning. That user vandalized the main page. {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 11:41, 5 June 2006 (BST)
:::There have been countless acts of vandalism to the main page. Only a select few were banned if it was their first act of vandalism (PQN alts making up the vast bulk of these). Sorry Xoid, but you know better than most not to shoot first and ask questions later. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 11:45, 5 June 2006 (BST)
:::'''Note''' - Due to the nature of the banned user and his vandalism being his first (and to this point, only) edit, a slap on the wrist would be all that is neccessary, in my opinion. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 11:47, 5 June 2006 (BST)
::::This is fucking bullshit. Amaz'ing/Amazingrules/Amazing3/Amazįng/Amazing Rando/Amazinng - how many does there need to be before he is treated in the same fashion as PQN? {{User:Xoid/sig}} 11:51, 5 June 2006 (BST)
:::::Look at the user on the '''''Warning''''' list just underneath Amazing. He is obviously an alt of Amazing; just like [[User:Amaz'ing|Amaz'ing]]. He got a warning too, '''''not''''' a permaban. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 11:54, 5 June 2006 (BST)
::::::Bullshit! Amazinġ vandalised the real Amazing's userpage repeatedly while they proceeded to call each other names in the edit summary, same sort of thing with Amazįng, Amazinng, Amazingrules, etc. with Amazing2 being the exception, as he :was the real Amazing's blatant alt used to voice his vehement disagreement with a ban a while back. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 12:01, 5 June 2006 (BST)
:::::::What point are you trying to make there? --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 12:22, 5 June 2006 (BST)
::::::::He's a frequent vandal with a hardon for ruining Amazing's name. Don't tell me you ''honestly'' believe that they are not the same guy. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 12:24, 5 June 2006 (BST)
:::::::::As Odd Starter put it, a belief is not the same as proof. Anyone can make an account; I could make "XoId" and go on a vandal spree, if I so wished. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 12:28, 5 June 2006 (BST)
::::::::::We all believe PQN is run by the same person, and we have no proof of that either. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 12:30, 5 June 2006 (BST)
:::::::::::Except that PQN actually boasts about it. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 12:31, 5 June 2006 (BST)
::::::::::::So? I can brag about being Kevan, that doesn't mean it's true. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 12:34, 5 June 2006 (BST)
:::::::::::::You know that's different. PQN is in his own category. He threatened to come back with other IP addresses, so all PQN accounts have been permabanned. How do we know that the future ones are PQN? Look at their edits. They're all in the same tone. Amazing look-a-likes' edits have been anonymous. We can't know ''for sure'' (but we sure as hell can suspect) that they're alts of Amazing. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 12:46, 5 June 2006 (BST)
::::::::::::::No I don't know it's different, I contend that there is no difference: we can <u>'''''never'''''</u> be certain that each and every PQN was the same person. Does that mean that we wait until a new PQN proves themselves a douche 3 times before they get banned? FUCK NO. Look at all of the various Amazing-look-alikes edits; they've all been in the same tone. They are '''''not''''' alts of Amazing! Why the fuck would he continually vandalise his own page? Because he has lost all sanity? Do you really contend that Amazing is insane or suffers from multiple personality disorder? And we are obligated to allow every single alt to vandalise three times before banning that personality? Or do you infer that every single impersonator be allowed to impersonate and try to ruin someone's name 3 times before stopping them? '''What a crock of shit.''' {{User:Xoid/sig}} 12:57, 5 June 2006 (BST)

:Looking at this case, it seems that ''someone'' has it out for Xoid.  The Amazing named Vandals have been around long enough to justify outright banning, even if it's not always the same person, the ''intent'' is the same, to make Amazing's name look bad, '''and''' vandalize the Wiki.  As such, I'm ruling that Xoid did the proper thing and was well within his rights to ban Amaz'ing, and re-banning Amaz'ing for a week. {{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:04, 5 June 2006 (BST)
::Agreed. The definate trend in these warrants instabanning of all the copycat vandals under the name. It was obviously created for the express purpose of vandalism. I hereby support this ruling. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 13:53, 5 June 2006 (BST)
:: Likewise Agreed. Drama incarnate should be put down as soon as it becomes apperant. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 14:30, 5 June 2006 (BST)
::This is a simple case of impersonation. We warn the users who made the account if we know who they are. And if that impersonation accounts makes edits we ban the account so there is no confusion who edited what. This has been consistantly enacted, (or should have been). Examples include the A bothan spy account made by mattior. I am quite surpised seeing this report here Cyberbob, seeing you have personal knowledge of the correct procedure and that this follwed that procedure.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 16:08, 5 June 2006 (BST)

===06:53, 2 June 2006 (BST)===
Banned Amazing for making a vandalism report. [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Moderation/Vandal_Banning&curid=12894&diff=273221&oldid=273215 Diff Comparision]. Before you ask yes he told me to post this if I didn't mind helping him out. --[[User:ChickenJones|ChickenJones]] 06:53, 2 June 2006 (BST)
:How, exactly, does this help him out? --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 08:13, 2 June 2006 (BST)
::I asked, then PMed him the first line to post. Helped me out because I figured I'd strike while the iron was hot. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 21:23, 3 June 2006 (BST)
:::Cyber was actually under the mistaken impression that I had asked ChickenJones to file a misconduct case. Ask him yourself if you don't believe me. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:03, 4 June 2006 (BST)
::::"''Ask him yourself if you don't believe me.''" ... Wow. This is getting pretty weird. Paranoia? -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 05:33, 4 June 2006 (BST)
:::::No, just acting pre-emptively based on past experience. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 09:07, 4 June 2006 (BST)
::::::Aren't you cute? It's funny how you guys form a massive foaming chain and respond to messages that aren't ''to'' you. Pack mentality. Go fig. <span title="Does anyone love the smell of a smart ass moderator? I tend to think not.">--</span> [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 18:09, 4 June 2006 (BST)

This is blatant misconduct. I have unblocked Amazing and I am going to block Xoid for 2 hours as punishment.--{{User:The General/sig}} 08:25, 2 June 2006 (BST)
:Reconsidering, I have decided that this does not, after all, warrant a banning, merely a stern warning to Xoid not to do it again.--{{User:The General/sig}} 10:06, 2 June 2006 (BST)
:The General, I'm going to have to ask you a question: Why did you unblock Amazing, but not Scinfaxi?  If one was banned wrongly, the other must have also been. --[[User:Lucero Capell|Lucero]] <sup> [[User_talk:Lucero Capell|Talk]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 02:31, 3 June 2006 (BST)
::Probably becuase Sci didn't have someone file a case/alert about the ban. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 23:00, 3 June 2006 (BST)


I still find it more than amusing that in an email from The General he says that I was in the right to ban both Scinfaxi and Amazing, yet he says stern warning here. Despite informing him of the lack of a warning, no warning has yet been given. Inconsistency. Choose one or the other; do I get my stern warning, or do I get let off?

For the record; I've given my reasons for the light ban elsewhere, repeatedly. Even ''if'' it was misconduct, at the very least it has postponed the inevitable flamewar between those two. I'll state this though: Amazing has a history of abusing the system by making frivulous claims to vandal banning, arbitration and misconduct. He still claims he was de-sysoped "without breaking a single guideline". He has rarely, if ever, looked at anything objectively. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:03, 4 June 2006 (BST)
:Own your actions. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 05:10, 4 June 2006 (BST)
::It would be very easy to say the same to you. However, to answer your grammatically incorrect question: "''Own to my actions? [sic]''" &mdash; I banned you for 2 hours. You deserved worse for your actions, and still do. What of it? {{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:16, 4 June 2006 (BST)
:::.... What question? I think what we have here is a failure to understand. I didn't ask you a question there. I told you to own your actions. And no, I didn't deserve worse. You're a terrible, horrible, shitty moderator who can't ''understand'' things beyond his little view. Won't be long until you're out if you don't change your tune. Well, take it to the talk page. I'd move this mounting arguement there - but you'd just ban me for it. Heck, you might ban me for replying to you, since you already banned me for replying to Scinfaxi! Seems like people had better watch themselves around you, since anything you dislike is a bannable offense now. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 05:28, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Hum... Ok. Xoid, the problem here with the wiki is that you can't ban a person based on their behaviour on the wiki without going trough the propper channels. You should have filled a case against both amazing and scinfaxi based on their bad faith edits, and wait for another moderator to ban them. That is how things work around here. We are not ''forum moderators'', even though some of us think we are, and others think we should be. We are merely people the community believed as fair and impartial to do the dirty work of following community requests. You want a page erased ? ask for it, we might remove it if we deem it as fair. Someone is being a vandal ? report it and we might ban him. We can't take justice on our hands whitout people filling the request on their own. This is where you failed as ''wiki mod'' and were banned for 2h. Strange? Yeah, i think so too. But it is how things work around here. --[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]] <sup>[[Moderation|mod]]</sup> 07:55, 4 June 2006 (BST)
:[[Moderation/Guidelines]] says bans do not have to be reported '''before''' they are enacted &mdash; "''Due to the time-sensitive nature of Vandalism, it is not expected that the Moderator gain community approval before banning vandals. It is, however, expected that a Moderator ban those who clearly act against the community's wishes, and be prepared to reverse a ban should the community desire it. It is part of a Moderator's responsibility to ban any vandals they find on the wiki, subject to the guidelines above.''" &mdash; I was under the impression that I actually ''could'' do something to keep those two from spamming the page with their continuous rhetoric. Both already had been warned twice for previous acts of vandalism.
:'''Regardless''', I'm ''still'' waiting for the <u>stern</u> warning, or to be left off. I want closure on this. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 08:23, 4 June 2006 (BST)
::You sound pretty sure that you haven't violated any wiki Guidelines. Sounds familiar. Well, I guess I've said all that I need to here. Hopefully this is a learning experience and not an experience that will only embitter and influence future work... though you've said (on my talk page) that's what it'll do. Maybe you'll change your mind on that. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 18:11, 4 June 2006 (BST)
:::It's a bit late for fatherly advice, Amazing. If Xoid turns into a cold, unfeeling machine over this, it'll be your own fault for spamming the Vandal Banning page in the first place, and turning a simple discussion into another of your famous arguments. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 18:15, 4 June 2006 (BST)
::::It's a shame you're as full of shit as the rest of them, now. Text you don't like is vandalism by default. You have been assimilated. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 18:21, 4 June 2006 (BST)
:::::Actually, I'm not. I still don't believe you deserved ''all'' that flaming before. Some, but by no means all of it. Now, though, it's just gotten really old. Everyone's over it, including me. I don't *not like you*, Amazing, it's just that your defensive attitude has no more use. No-one is going to start any arguments, or flame you. Any more drama involving you will be started by you, because everyone else has moved on. That's not to say that people won't continue it... just that they won't start anything with you. Can't you just stop? Please? --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 18:28, 4 June 2006 (BST)
::::::Startling revelation: If I didn't get banned for reporting someone calling me a child molester and replying to them two or three times in the case, this wouldn't be discussed right now. Gosh, see how it works? Maybe people need to stop being complete and utter bitches. To say all people have moved on and are no longer starting shit with me - ''when they obviously have not'' - is an utter lie and you know this. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 18:31, 4 June 2006 (BST)
:::::::It was on a talk page, Amazing. It's not vandalism on a talk page. Although, neither would it be if he put it on his user page, or even his group's page. That kind of thing is simply trolling. Not vandalism. There is a difference, you know. And in any case, no-one is forcing you to read it. He is allowed to say (almost) anything he wants on someone's talk page. And OK, I'll concede that...certain people aren't over the drama either. Scinfaxi is one of those '''''few'''''. Although I'm sure if you just started contributing productive things to the wiki even those few would stop harassing you. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 18:37, 4 June 2006 (BST)
::::::::My understanding was that "Bad Faith" trumped all. Is impersonation allowed on user or group talk pages? Is posting the home addresses of various Wiki users on user or group talk pages allowed? It seems that this is highly subjective, and I had every right to file a case given the questionable standing of "Anything Goes" user/group page standards. And no, you're wrong - People can't just put anything they want on a group page. That's been proven wrong in previous arb/vandal cases. As for contributing to the Wiki, I guess you haven't been paying attention. I'm doing what I can given the Getting-Attacked-Continuously-And-Banned-For-No-Reason nature of my current wiki usage. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 18:43, 4 June 2006 (BST)
:::::::::Whatever. I sense that nothing I or anyone can say will convince you out of your defensiveness, so I hereby withdraw from the conversation. Good day. --<span title="I love the smell of banned vandal in the morning!">[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]] <sup>[[Moderation|Mod]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup></span> 18:45, 4 June 2006 (BST)

We are big on due process on this wiki. You done wrong. That to which you refer is with respects to people such as PQN and the adbots, where the actions are clearly highly destructive vandalism and banning is the only solution to the rampage. In cases such as this, due process must be followed as laid out on the vandal banning page. As such, since im here, i award you with your stern warning: Do it again and ill cut your balls off with a rusty spoon. Stern enough for you? Now to mark it on Vandal Data, if it hasnt already been done. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 08:30, 4 June 2006 (BST)