UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 10: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Protected "UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 10": Scheduled, admin archives [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) |
|||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==October 2008== | ==October 2008== | ||
===[[User:Jackspar]]=== | |||
What has this case got to do with drama?? I demand it be banished for the wiki forever!!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
===[[User:DanceDanceRevolution]]=== | |||
I'm afraid DDR never received an official warning, soft or otherwise. So nah, this falls under the other case.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 06:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_10&diff=prev&oldid=1301969 Didn't he?] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_10&diff=prev&oldid=1301960 Could have fooled me.] --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Not on his talk page he wasn't, and according to boxy, that's all that counts (see two headers down for a short explanation).--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 06:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::I never received a soft warning on my talk page and yet I received a warning (nearly a ban as well even) for the exact same thing. Boxy never said anything about this, either; he was talking about something similar but unrelated. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::''"Until someone is officially warned for something, then doing the same thing again gets taken into consideration in the original case"''. So either DDR goes free, or you both get escalated.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 07:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::I already ''got'' escalated. The whole multiple-identical-offences-equals-one-warning deal is completely separate from this one. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
===[[User:Nallan]]=== | |||
{{quote|Nallan|Well we'll see I guess. I'm sure they'll be shocked and appalled that I would dare change a header I created in an archive of my talk page over six months ago.}} | |||
I don't think you know the definition of impersonation. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:lolk.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 06:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Do you honestly think, cf, that making a heading of LOLZ and following it with 3 sysop warnings changes the tone of it at ''all''? Someone's hit pathetic lows =p {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 06:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
===[[User:Cyberbob240]]=== | ===[[User:Cyberbob240]]=== | ||
What? How can they be treated as one case? Different times, different pages. Just because you only just got around to his warning doesn't mean that he should get off whilst read cops a warning/ban combo. I really thought this would be open-shut...--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | What? How can they be treated as one case? Different times, different pages. Just because you only just got around to his warning doesn't mean that he should get off whilst read cops a warning/ban combo. I really thought this would be open-shut...--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 9: | Line 26: | ||
:::So you can wait to give him a warning if it suits you? Why not wait a year and let all his vandalism count as one case? Great system we have here.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 04:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | :::So you can wait to give him a warning if it suits you? Why not wait a year and let all his vandalism count as one case? Great system we have here.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 04:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
::::I did the reporting, so I didn't want to be the one to rule... so I waited for the others to have their say (I thought they would have applied the rulings themselves, but it didn't happen, and didn't look like happening anytime soon) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 04:12 26 October 2008 (BST)</small> | ::::I did the reporting, so I didn't want to be the one to rule... so I waited for the others to have their say (I thought they would have applied the rulings themselves, but it didn't happen, and didn't look like happening anytime soon) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 04:12 26 October 2008 (BST)</small> | ||
:::::Doesn't change the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong) at 10:05 24 October 2008 (BST) you put him up for a/vb, at 10:14, 24 October 2008 (BST) he replied to your case against him, at 18:36, 24 October 2008 (BST) Cheese ruled vandalism, then at 02:20, 25 October 2008 (BST), 8 hours after the ruling had been given, and over 16 hours since the case was brought against him, he committed the same act on a different page. Please tell me if there's something I missed.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::Cheese ruled vandalism, but didn't apply any warning (I assume he was waiting to be sure there was no dissent from other sysops). The same exact thing happened to read, his ban wasn't applied for the same period of time after Cheese's ruling in that case <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 04:27 26 October 2008 (BST)</small> | |||
:::::::Except that Bob acknowledged and knew that it was vandalism, 8 hours before he went and committed it again. Read didn't commit vandalism for the same thing, again, after he was already ruled a vandal. Is it policy that, until a sysop officially warns you on your page, you can do whatever you want, as long as it is related to the first case, and only suffer the punishment for the first case?--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 04:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Sorry? I didn't acknowledge dick. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 05:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Oh sorry, CF acknowledged that he had been accused and then acknowledged that he'd received some kind of punishment - ''"No it isn't, it's a second warning. I had a warning struck."'' <<< there. So he knew that the sysops saw it as vandalism. That's all I needed for my point.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 05:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Er, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the decision; only pointing out my actual level of VD escalation. I don't believe a final decision was actually made on that case until some time after I made that comment anyway; so while I knew that ''Krazy'' thought it vandalism (surprise!) I didn't know how others would rule on it. As it turned out Boxy supported Krazy's ruling, but I had no way of knowing that at the time. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Please re-read my last post, I didn't say you were - in fact it's irrelevant whether you did or not, seeing as you're not a sysop (for good reason). There only needs to be one ruling, and whether or not it ended up standing I doubt you could convince anyone that it's acceptable to continue the same type of vandalism after a sysop has ruled it to be vandalism eight hours prior. There's nothing else to it, bob.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 06:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::There's plenty else to it, but you're too caught up in your mockery of an attempt at self-righteousness to see any other side of a story than your twisted-beyond-all-belief version. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::Ah k, cool. Thanks for clearing that up for me.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 06:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::No worries. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:lol --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | :lol --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 09:20, 8 June 2010
Vandal Report Discussions
Old Content has been archived. See below.
October 2008
User:Jackspar
What has this case got to do with drama?? I demand it be banished for the wiki forever!!--xoxo 05:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
User:DanceDanceRevolution
I'm afraid DDR never received an official warning, soft or otherwise. So nah, this falls under the other case.--Nallan (Talk) 06:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't he? Could have fooled me. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not on his talk page he wasn't, and according to boxy, that's all that counts (see two headers down for a short explanation).--Nallan (Talk) 06:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I never received a soft warning on my talk page and yet I received a warning (nearly a ban as well even) for the exact same thing. Boxy never said anything about this, either; he was talking about something similar but unrelated. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Until someone is officially warned for something, then doing the same thing again gets taken into consideration in the original case". So either DDR goes free, or you both get escalated.--Nallan (Talk) 07:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I already got escalated. The whole multiple-identical-offences-equals-one-warning deal is completely separate from this one. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Until someone is officially warned for something, then doing the same thing again gets taken into consideration in the original case". So either DDR goes free, or you both get escalated.--Nallan (Talk) 07:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I never received a soft warning on my talk page and yet I received a warning (nearly a ban as well even) for the exact same thing. Boxy never said anything about this, either; he was talking about something similar but unrelated. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not on his talk page he wasn't, and according to boxy, that's all that counts (see two headers down for a short explanation).--Nallan (Talk) 06:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Nallan
| Nallan said: |
| Well we'll see I guess. I'm sure they'll be shocked and appalled that I would dare change a header I created in an archive of my talk page over six months ago. |
I don't think you know the definition of impersonation. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you honestly think, cf, that making a heading of LOLZ and following it with 3 sysop warnings changes the tone of it at all? Someone's hit pathetic lows =p DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Cyberbob240
What? How can they be treated as one case? Different times, different pages. Just because you only just got around to his warning doesn't mean that he should get off whilst read cops a warning/ban combo. I really thought this would be open-shut...--Nallan (Talk) 03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- They're for the same thing. Until someone is officially warned for something, then doing the same thing again gets taken into consideration in the original case. Read was done for 2 different things, and the first warning had already been applied -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:01 26 October 2008 (BST)
- So you can wait to give him a warning if it suits you? Why not wait a year and let all his vandalism count as one case? Great system we have here.--Nallan (Talk) 04:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I did the reporting, so I didn't want to be the one to rule... so I waited for the others to have their say (I thought they would have applied the rulings themselves, but it didn't happen, and didn't look like happening anytime soon) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:12 26 October 2008 (BST)
- Doesn't change the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong) at 10:05 24 October 2008 (BST) you put him up for a/vb, at 10:14, 24 October 2008 (BST) he replied to your case against him, at 18:36, 24 October 2008 (BST) Cheese ruled vandalism, then at 02:20, 25 October 2008 (BST), 8 hours after the ruling had been given, and over 16 hours since the case was brought against him, he committed the same act on a different page. Please tell me if there's something I missed.--Nallan (Talk) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cheese ruled vandalism, but didn't apply any warning (I assume he was waiting to be sure there was no dissent from other sysops). The same exact thing happened to read, his ban wasn't applied for the same period of time after Cheese's ruling in that case -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:27 26 October 2008 (BST)
- Except that Bob acknowledged and knew that it was vandalism, 8 hours before he went and committed it again. Read didn't commit vandalism for the same thing, again, after he was already ruled a vandal. Is it policy that, until a sysop officially warns you on your page, you can do whatever you want, as long as it is related to the first case, and only suffer the punishment for the first case?--Nallan (Talk) 04:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry? I didn't acknowledge dick. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, CF acknowledged that he had been accused and then acknowledged that he'd received some kind of punishment - "No it isn't, it's a second warning. I had a warning struck." <<< there. So he knew that the sysops saw it as vandalism. That's all I needed for my point.--Nallan (Talk) 05:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Er, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the decision; only pointing out my actual level of VD escalation. I don't believe a final decision was actually made on that case until some time after I made that comment anyway; so while I knew that Krazy thought it vandalism (surprise!) I didn't know how others would rule on it. As it turned out Boxy supported Krazy's ruling, but I had no way of knowing that at the time. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please re-read my last post, I didn't say you were - in fact it's irrelevant whether you did or not, seeing as you're not a sysop (for good reason). There only needs to be one ruling, and whether or not it ended up standing I doubt you could convince anyone that it's acceptable to continue the same type of vandalism after a sysop has ruled it to be vandalism eight hours prior. There's nothing else to it, bob.--Nallan (Talk) 06:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's plenty else to it, but you're too caught up in your mockery of an attempt at self-righteousness to see any other side of a story than your twisted-beyond-all-belief version. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah k, cool. Thanks for clearing that up for me.--Nallan (Talk) 06:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah k, cool. Thanks for clearing that up for me.--Nallan (Talk) 06:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's plenty else to it, but you're too caught up in your mockery of an attempt at self-righteousness to see any other side of a story than your twisted-beyond-all-belief version. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please re-read my last post, I didn't say you were - in fact it's irrelevant whether you did or not, seeing as you're not a sysop (for good reason). There only needs to be one ruling, and whether or not it ended up standing I doubt you could convince anyone that it's acceptable to continue the same type of vandalism after a sysop has ruled it to be vandalism eight hours prior. There's nothing else to it, bob.--Nallan (Talk) 06:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Er, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the decision; only pointing out my actual level of VD escalation. I don't believe a final decision was actually made on that case until some time after I made that comment anyway; so while I knew that Krazy thought it vandalism (surprise!) I didn't know how others would rule on it. As it turned out Boxy supported Krazy's ruling, but I had no way of knowing that at the time. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, CF acknowledged that he had been accused and then acknowledged that he'd received some kind of punishment - "No it isn't, it's a second warning. I had a warning struck." <<< there. So he knew that the sysops saw it as vandalism. That's all I needed for my point.--Nallan (Talk) 05:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry? I didn't acknowledge dick. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Except that Bob acknowledged and knew that it was vandalism, 8 hours before he went and committed it again. Read didn't commit vandalism for the same thing, again, after he was already ruled a vandal. Is it policy that, until a sysop officially warns you on your page, you can do whatever you want, as long as it is related to the first case, and only suffer the punishment for the first case?--Nallan (Talk) 04:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cheese ruled vandalism, but didn't apply any warning (I assume he was waiting to be sure there was no dissent from other sysops). The same exact thing happened to read, his ban wasn't applied for the same period of time after Cheese's ruling in that case -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:27 26 October 2008 (BST)
- Doesn't change the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong) at 10:05 24 October 2008 (BST) you put him up for a/vb, at 10:14, 24 October 2008 (BST) he replied to your case against him, at 18:36, 24 October 2008 (BST) Cheese ruled vandalism, then at 02:20, 25 October 2008 (BST), 8 hours after the ruling had been given, and over 16 hours since the case was brought against him, he committed the same act on a different page. Please tell me if there's something I missed.--Nallan (Talk) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I did the reporting, so I didn't want to be the one to rule... so I waited for the others to have their say (I thought they would have applied the rulings themselves, but it didn't happen, and didn't look like happening anytime soon) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:12 26 October 2008 (BST)
- So you can wait to give him a warning if it suits you? Why not wait a year and let all his vandalism count as one case? Great system we have here.--Nallan (Talk) 04:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- They're for the same thing. Until someone is officially warned for something, then doing the same thing again gets taken into consideration in the original case. Read was done for 2 different things, and the first warning had already been applied -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:01 26 October 2008 (BST)
- lol --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Cyberbob240
"Unfortunately, in this wiki, you cannot plead your case, as it is considered to be taboo to find any sort of loophole, or misstep of a sysop. Plain and simple, he should have posted on our talk paged if he wanted to give us a soft warning. It can't be official, tucked away in someones Vandal Banning report. Agree? (also, take this to my talk page if you think it should be there)--MichaelReadTalk BBK! ALiM 14:35, 24 October 2008 (BST)
- Please save your spam for your own section. You are barking up the wrong tree if you're thinking I'm going to suddenly buddy up to you just because we're being accused of similar things. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:57, 24 October 2008 (BST)"
I love how he completely disregarded all points of arguement and chose to insult you instead. Brilliant.--Scurley7 15:01, 24 October 2008 (BST)
- I disregarded his points of argument because frankly, I've heard it all before - both from the standpoint of a sysop and of a user. Sometimes I agree with it, others I don't. This time I don't, and I don't feel like writing a response to sentiments I've had to deal with for years. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:08, 24 October 2008 (BST)
- It isnt an attempt to insult me, it is an attempt to look like he cares enough, pretend he is level headed and mature, so that the Sysops will look at his case and think he is being constructive, when in fact, he is tickling the inside of their anus with his tongue. --CyberRead240 15:11, 24 October 2008 (BST)
User:DCC
- And again here.here I know it's hard for you to understand, as a person who has been banned a number of times, but spewing your bile on the top of a persons user page is out of bounds. --Stephen Colbert DFA 06:20, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- It's not too late. You can cancel this case before a sysop sees it. Your hero, Grim, has done a lot worse on talk pages. I don't want my new best friend to be mocked by the sysops. I can tell you that they will call this case "petty" , Nubis will ask if you left a msg on my talk page to sort this out.--
#99 DCC 06:31, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- I'll let the sysops speak for themselves. --Stephen Colbert DFA 06:35, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- Fixed. It was on his user page and that was clearly an accident that once he posted about it on my talk page I fixed and apologized for. It's nice when users can work out their problems like rational intelligent adults without running to tattle like crybabies.... oh wai- -- #99 DCC 06:38, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- "An accident" that happened three times? In his haste to be a wiki jackass, DCC went off the rails. Him and his buddies are in full lynch mode for Grimch for what was at best, a minor infraction... a mistake, if you will. Well, I also believe people should be accountable for their mistakes. --Stephen Colbert DFA 06:45, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- Well, riddle me this, Batman. What do you want? I fixed it, I apologized, and I am staying off your talk page (and user page now). So, what now? The irony would be if you asked for my ban for such a "minor" offense when you yourself are railing against that very same thing. So, how can you reconcile demanding my blood, yet being pissed that people are doing the same to Grim? Interesting.... PS - I don't have any buddies but the goons and they aren't involved in the Grim thing. -- #99 DCC 07:28, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- Well, riddle me this, Batman. What do you want? I fixed it, I apologized, and I am staying off your talk page (and user page now). So, what now? The irony would be if you asked for my ban for such a "minor" offense when you yourself are railing against that very same thing. So, how can you reconcile demanding my blood, yet being pissed that people are doing the same to Grim? Interesting.... PS - I don't have any buddies but the goons and they aren't involved in the Grim thing. --
- "An accident" that happened three times? In his haste to be a wiki jackass, DCC went off the rails. Him and his buddies are in full lynch mode for Grimch for what was at best, a minor infraction... a mistake, if you will. Well, I also believe people should be accountable for their mistakes. --Stephen Colbert DFA 06:45, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- Fixed. It was on his user page and that was clearly an accident that once he posted about it on my talk page I fixed and apologized for. It's nice when users can work out their problems like rational intelligent adults without running to tattle like crybabies.... oh wai- --
- I'll let the sysops speak for themselves. --Stephen Colbert DFA 06:35, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- It's not too late. You can cancel this case before a sysop sees it. Your hero, Grim, has done a lot worse on talk pages. I don't want my new best friend to be mocked by the sysops. I can tell you that they will call this case "petty" , Nubis will ask if you left a msg on my talk page to sort this out.--
- And again here.here I know it's hard for you to understand, as a person who has been banned a number of times, but spewing your bile on the top of a persons user page is out of bounds. --Stephen Colbert DFA 06:20, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- Here we go.--– Nubis NWO 07:31, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- Since you moved the links to 2 of the 3 examples of vandalism, I am requesting that you return that post to the main page. It is germane to the argument. --Stephen Colbert DFA 07:38, 9 October 2008 (BST)
- Nevermind, I edited it. --Stephen Colbert DFA 07:40, 9 October 2008 (BST)
User:Cyberbob240
So we ban people that express opinions aggressively and don't agree with you, Grim? Why that doesn't sound like abuse of authority at all! Are you going to warn everyone that isn't the original poster or a sysop about shitting up the page or is it just bob because he's special? --– Nubis 01:40, 8 October 2008 (BST)
- I can't believe I missed this little gem: Trolling is exclusively bad faith, FYI. --The Grimch You heard it here first, folks! NOW trolling is bad faith because GRIM decided it is. --– Nubis 03:37, 8 October 2008 (BST)
- Would you care to explain how trolling would be done in good faith? Especially cyberbobs particular trolling on that page. --The Grimch U! E! 11:04, 8 October 2008 (BST)
- You have been trolling around the wiki for months, and in your mind it appears to be in good faith towards the community. Just because your trolling has words with more than 2 syllables and could be printed in several A4 sheets of paper, doesnt mean it's not trolling. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk 14:01, 8 October 2008 (BST)
- Would you care to explain how trolling would be done in good faith? Especially cyberbobs particular trolling on that page. --The Grimch U! E! 11:04, 8 October 2008 (BST)
Trolling is a subjective view. A sysop deciding that any act is bad faith and forwarding that opinion in a vandal report is an attempt at moderation, plain and simple. Also all comments must be placed on the main page of a misconduct case, not the talk page. You cannot prevent someone from participating in a community matter on a community page. This ruling of vandalism is invalid. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 14:14, 8 October 2008 (BST)
- Iscariot, while sometimes I may get "miffed" at you, you really do impress me. This is exactly how I feel about the issue and very well said. --– Nubis NWO 14:21, 8 October 2008 (BST)
- People get "miffed" at me, as you so daintily put it, because I prefer a system of enforceable statutes (the policies). Although I don't believe this to be the best way of running a community system such as this, the only efficient replacement would be a forum style empowered moderator system, which this community has shown time and again to be against. My major point of contention with the sysop team is their lack of proactive effort to resolve any grey areas that are brought up. Once a situation is ruled on, that should become a statutory precedent to allow other users to see how the community operates through reading the archives. Not doing this creates major differences between the enforcement of policies against different users and creates drama and discontent within the community. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 14:32, 8 October 2008 (BST)
- People get "miffed" at me, as you so daintily put it, because I prefer a system of enforceable statutes (the policies). Although I don't believe this to be the best way of running a community system such as this, the only efficient replacement would be a forum style empowered moderator system, which this community has shown time and again to be against. My major point of contention with the sysop team is their lack of proactive effort to resolve any grey areas that are brought up. Once a situation is ruled on, that should become a statutory precedent to allow other users to see how the community operates through reading the archives. Not doing this creates major differences between the enforcement of policies against different users and creates drama and discontent within the community. --
Monthly Archives
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
