UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 06

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

June 2009

User:SirArgo

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Moving a kill vote to the keep section. While the user did label it a keep vote, traditionally votes have been counted by the section they are placed in rather than the label as many users intentionally place the opposing label or even random labels that are not specified voting options. These votes have always been counted as a vote under the heading they are placed.

Further more the description in the vote lists several areas of the suggestion that the user does not agree with creating ambiguity as to where the vote was intended to me, all we can really assume is that it is a kill vote as that is the heading it is under. Midianian did the right thing by drawing the users attention to the vote on his talk page, Argo just moved in and vandalised. --xoxo 17:10, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - J3D, being critical of people jumping the gun and going straight to A/VB instead of talking to the people involved first? Wow. That's a new low. Still, this is practically the same thing as with the Zagert thing below except without the newbie factor involved. --Cyberbob 17:15, 29 June 2009 (BST)

I guess good faith goes out the window nowadays. Whatever. I probably shouldn't have done it, but I bet someone else would have, so go ahead and vote that I have vandalized the wiki.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:18, 29 June 2009 (BST)

I guess the events of the past few days haven't quite driven the lesson home that good faith is not a guaranteed cureall. Stupidity and abject ignorance is no excuse. --Cyberbob 17:24, 29 June 2009 (BST)

I admit, I fucked up. It's all I can do and all I will do.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:28, 29 June 2009 (BST)

You'd be surprised at how many people have tried apologising in an effort to try and get out of being escalated. The number of times it's worked can probably be counted on one hand. --Cyberbob 17:31, 29 June 2009 (BST)

(it only ever worked when the user in question was a newbie because they're the only ones who have a valid excuse for not knowing what's up) --Cyberbob 17:32, 29 June 2009 (BST)

You are a predictable and paranoid little shit, know that? Unlike most people I trust the sysops in their decisions. You will all make the call, I will accept it.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:34, 29 June 2009 (BST)

I'm predictable? You're the one trying to play the "oh yes I'm so fatalistic and mature you can totally see how I've already learned my lesson no point in warning me really" card. --Cyberbob 17:35, 29 June 2009 (BST)

I like how you are sitting here trying to make me look bad, because that's what it all comes down to at this point. I have said my piece, and I am done.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:38, 29 June 2009 (BST)

You're a persistent little bugger, I'll give you that. --Cyberbob 17:39, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Bob's cited Zagert case was not vandalism, and he was put here for physically changing someones comment/vote, not just moving it. The vote in question was ambiguous but he specifically agreed with the core mechanism of the suggestion. I read the vote as being Keep, he labelled it as Keep and I am not going to vote Vandalism because a user was bold enough to move it without being so scared of VB he had to contact the user first. Yeah, SirArgo didn't contact the user, which was poor form, but that isn't vandalism either. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:40, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - the voter labeled the vote keep, and gave a justification that was supportive, it's not unreasonable to assume that they stuffed up by putting it in the wrong section by mistake. It's not bad faith to move it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:27 29 June 2009 (BST)

It appears as though it was meant to be keep, making my earlier move even more legitimate.--SirArgo ^Talk 16:33, 30 June 2009 (BST)

You know there's something in the way that you word comments that says to me that you're really a pretty damn immature child. It's one of those things you can't quite put your finger on, y'know? --Cyberbob 22:01, 30 June 2009 (BST)

User:Anata wo Yurusanai

Anata wo Yurusanai (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Willfully edited an Image link as to not allow an image to be shown. This was done on one of our group subpage/pages and by and large can be considered vandalism. I would like to ask that appropriate action be taken against user:Anata wo Yurasanai

[Image Sabotage] --Captain Rickety 20:21, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Right. Sorted out your formatting, and reverted the edit. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:34, 25 June 2009 (BST)

And warned for Vandalism--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:41, 25 June 2009 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240 (2)

Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Horribly spamming up admin pages with nonsense. Clearly an attempt to stir up as much drama as possible. See below.--Thadeous Oakley 13:41, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Sorry, when did bringing valid vandalism cases count as spam? I must have missed that particular memo. --Cyberbob 13:42, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I mean, I could sorta-kinda see your point if the cases I've brought were in any way subjective but the thing is they're not. --Cyberbob 13:44, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Also, someone do an IP check. I doubt this is a coincidence, User:Cyberbob240 and User:Bonghit420.--Thadeous Oakley 13:47, 24 June 2009 (BST)

FUCKING LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL --Cyberbob 13:48, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Congratulations. Prior to that comment I had you pegged as being about as smart as Dog Deever, maybe getting towards Matthew Fahrenheit. Now you've gone right to Mattiator/Gold Blade levels. --Cyberbob 13:50, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Mistergame, Bonghit was already been IP checked multiple times 2 weeks ago after he claimed he was an alt of another user, and nothing came up. I am using that evidence to falsify your claim, which I say is incredibly far-fetched. Not Vandalism, there is nothing to say those two cases below have to be merged, lest it be counted as spam. They were two separate actions. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:26, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - You've been doing your share as well, Thad. As you sow, so shall you reap -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:55 24 June 2009 (BST)

User:MisterGame (2)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

MisterGame (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Outright deletion of another user's comment rather than moving it to the talk page (which would have also been wrong but it wouldn't have been vandalism). --Cyberbob 13:39, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Troll posts like this can get deleted, Karke did it relentlessly back in the glory days and Bonghit shouldn't have been posting that anywhere near Arbitration. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:40, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - A totally irrelevant comment to an arbitration page was removed, why anyone would think it was an appropriate place to ask such a question is beyond me -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:51 24 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - See above. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:45, 25 June 2009 (BST)

User:MisterGame

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Editing a comment after it had already been replied to. This used to be counted as impersonation; let us see the degree to which the pussification of the admin staff has spread. --Cyberbob 13:30, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Of course. I did that because the comment where I placed that first was moved to talk. And impersonating myself? Lulz--Thadeous Oakley 13:33, 24 June 2009 (BST)

It's impersonating me; it changes the meaning of my comment and makes it look like I haven't fully answered yours. If you wanted to have something else to say you should have put it in a new post. --Cyberbob 13:36, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - Users have been warned (1^case) before about this and regardless of severity, it is a practice which we shouldn't allow. The addition was unnecessary and it could have been added with a further argument. I am wondering though, Bob, why you didn't revert it? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:42, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I considered it but I figured Thadeous would start an edit war over that as well (likely also bringing another A/VB case). It can wait until this case is resolved. --Cyberbob 15:45, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I didn't know. Was certainly not meant to impersonate, or otherwise causing harm.--Thadeous Oakley 15:49, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Too bad. It's your responsibiity to know what's kosher and what isn't, especially considering that you're a reasonably experienced user. --Cyberbob 15:52, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Still isn't bad-faith. And expecting me to know this, is nonsense. I have never heard of this before, and expecting me to know the complete rulebook is unfair.--Thadeous Oakley 16:13, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Bad faith is not a complete prerequisite for vandalism (fuck I hate how that guideline got changed), and expecting you to know what is kosher and what isn't is most certainly not unfair. --Cyberbob 16:16, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Could you give me the date the last time somebody got warned for this? Would that be in 08, you think?--Thadeous Oakley 16:22, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I have no idea when the last time someone got warned for it was. The precedent link DDR gave is the most recent example I could find because it's the last one to explicitly talk about editing replied-to comments (comments on VB are all we have to go by with the diffs wiped) but I'm certain it's happened multiple times since then. --Cyberbob 16:27, 24 June 2009 (BST)

The date of that case was 12:12, 16 December 2006. And you seriously expect me to know that's wrong? And no, your certainty won't cut it here. I'm sure certain this hasn't happened for atleast 9 months.--Thadeous Oakley 16:31, 24 June 2009 (BST)

You are an idiot. Grim/Tselita UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_06#User:Tselita_2 had that same problem and that was in '08. You must not have looked very hard. (and I can't be arsed to fix that link so it looks nice. Fuck off.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:01, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Oh look here! You Mister Game have a VB case on that same month. UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_06#User:MisterGame. So, now how do you explain your ignorance? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:04, 25 June 2009 (BST)

I don't need to explain my actions, I have experienced that this is a futile attempt around here. Goodday sir.--Thadeous Oakley 14:22, 25 June 2009 (BST)

little baby --Cyberbob 14:28, 25 June 2009 (BST)

I'm sure you'll be a great father one day Bob. --Thadeous Oakley 14:34, 25 June 2009 (BST)

You're a bit young to be talking about fatherhood, aren't you? --Cyberbob 14:41, 25 June 2009 (BST)

I don't care. Ignorance is never an excuse. --Cyberbob 16:32, 24 June 2009 (BST)

This isn't ignorance. It would be ignorance if there was clear rule for this, or if I had past experience. I have never heard of this. I'm suppose to look up VB cases from 06?--Thadeous Oakley 16:36, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Sure, why not? I don't recall laziness being an excuse either. --Cyberbob 16:37, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I think we need a newbie policy. Every mistake they make is automatically bad-faith because they were too lazy and ignorant to read all old VB and Arb cases. Sounds good? --Thadeous Oakley 16:45, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Nice strawman. I think I've been pretty clear in only applying this stance to people who have been around for a while. --Cyberbob 16:47, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Its still a bullshit argument, but then again, your full of it along with yourself. Do you know all VB and Arb cases since wiki's dawn?--Thadeous Oakley 16:49, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I have a good sense of what is and isn't allowed via precedence, yes. As for specific cases of course not. --Cyberbob 16:54, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Your lazy and ignorant according to your very own logic. It's all making sense now.--Thadeous Oakley 16:58, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Please point out specifically where I said people needed to have a knowledge of every single case? All I remember saying is that they should know what is and what is not allowed. You're really bad at these strawmen. --Cyberbob 22:43, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Adding extra arguments into comments throws the context of the existing replies out of context, which is what makes this sort of thing technical impersonation, and it can't be done in good faith. If someone has already replied to you, reply to them in turn, not back up the page. Vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:47 24 June 2009 (BST)

That was a pleasant surprise. --Cyberbob 16:49, 24 June 2009 (BST)

What'd you expect with these great standards? Probably because they are doubled.--Thadeous Oakley 16:55, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I think that before you attempt clever wordplay in English you should clear it with someone who knows the language a bit better. --Cyberbob 16:59, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism simples. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:42, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Warned. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:37, 26 June 2009 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

For continuing to place this piece of art on an arbitration case he's clearly not involved in. He refuses to take his comment to the arbitration talk page and instead goes into an undo edit war with me. --Thadeous Oakley 13:09, 24 June 2009 (BST)

(edit wars are solved by arbitration n00b) --Cyberbob 13:09, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Not when your breaking regulations. Non-involved users are asked to use the talk page. "Users are asked to refrain from further commenting on the case unless they are directly involved on it or asked a question". Not to mention Bob's comment is clearly bad faith.--Thadeous Oakley 13:13, 24 June 2009 (BST)

See talk page

The case is over. Boxy will ignore SA's complaints and the whole thing will be archived as has happened pretty much every time one party or the other has had a problem with one of his rulings. The only reason you're bringing it here is because you think you stand a better chance of succeeding with an A/VB case than an Arbitration one - rules be damned. You don't want me to comment on a finished case? Take me to Arbitration. A/VB is not for resolving edit wars. --Cyberbob 13:25, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Before I rule on this case, I would like to see any sort of precedence where users get warned for this behaviour (leaving useless comments) on unrelated Arbitration cases. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:43, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Look at A/VB. Comments, useless or not, get moved to the talk all the time. Threats of getting marked as vandal if you continue to post on the main page are also made regularly.--Thadeous Oakley 15:55, 24 June 2009 (BST)

A/VB is not Arbitration. The wording of the semi-rules covering this sort of thing on those pages are different. --Cyberbob 15:57, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Here, just take a look at this. How hypocritical, seeing as he telling me this is for arbies while there he's telling it's vandalism. And I think you should take a look at Arb Guidelines. Its follows the same non-related goes to talk policy.--Thadeous Oakley 16:02, 24 June 2009 (BST)

You know, I actually had a look at everything I could find related to Arbitration and I couldn't find the guideline you've been citing (I've been operating under the preconception that it existed in the form you've been asserting so I just went with that). Could you point it out for me? --Cyberbob 16:12, 24 June 2009 (BST)

"Users are asked to refrain from further commenting on the case unless they are directly involved on it or asked a question"--Thadeous Oakley 16:32, 24 June 2009 (BST)

A link, Thadeous. A link. I know what you're saying it is but I can't actually find it anywhere in the Arbitration pages. --Cyberbob 16:33, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - although I'm going to move both of your comments to the talk page. The case is finished, don't go trying to stir it back up again -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:38 24 June 2009 (BST)

(I nearly said it wasn't finished until Boxy said it was but then I realised who I was replying to) --Cyberbob 16:36, 24 June 2009 (BST)

(fixed my sig now, so you know who it is, even if the time is out ;P) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:39 24 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Precedence wasn't brought and as such there is no reason why a user can't comment on an unrelated A/A case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:38, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Fat Momma

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Edited someone else's userpage. --Cyberbob 17:56, 23 June 2009 (BST)

I'll be assuming good faith here - from his own edits (Flatman Stan,) it appears they are friends, and this could just be a edit to his user page, with Fat Momma being ignorant of policy. Not Vandalism and I'll soft warn him if no one has any objections. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:10, 23 June 2009 (BST)

No need for even a soft warning. They're almost certainly friends/team-mates, and Fat Momma was just removing the link to her group page after she wiped the page. Take a chill pill, bob ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:22 24 June 2009 (BST)

Boxy... at the risk of sounding petulant I can do without being told what to do. --Cyberbob 12:25, 24 June 2009 (BST)

OK, I'll make it plainer. Why the fuck are you wasting our time with this? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:28 24 June 2009 (BST)

Oh dear, I wasted the 30 seconds of your time it took to type a ruling! I'm overwrought with grief. --Cyberbob 16:30, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Horseplay at best, Not Vandalism--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:31, 24 June 2009 (BST)

User:Zagert

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

omg this took me like half an hour to make. vandalisms.

[1]--xoxo 17:20, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Ehh, it looks to me like he got yours and his votes mixed up. Somehow. Normally this would be too farfetched for me to believe but his piece of text looks more likely to be a Keep vote rather than a Kill one. I'll also wager that you haven't actually tried asking him what he was about, so a tentative Not Vandalism. --Cyberbob 17:44, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Scratch that, looking at his next edit (which would have been nice of you to include) it appears as though he thought you had your vote in the wrong spot. Vandalism I guess - I don't know whether I'd call it "bad faith" but he needs to learn that stuffing around with people's votes and comments and whatnot is not on. --Cyberbob 17:48, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Well, I'll say not vandalism because it was done in good faith. Saying kill with a justification of "really great" is giving mixed messages (if you don't know how to read sarcasm). It's a new user, who should probably just get a little note on their talk page, about not moving people's votes, this time -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:30 24 June 2009 (BST)

He didn't approach me or bother putting anything in the summary. I just happened to notice my vote had been moved and edited...surely a warning is completely appropriate here as it warns him not to do it again? No? Fuck it's not like i'm suggesting a permaban...you people need to accept warnings are a good way to warn someone.--xoxo 07:09, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I think two warnings are a little better at warning them, eh? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I agree with J3D. We need to stop pussyfooting around with warnings. "oooh but a verbal warning will work just as wel squeeeeeeee" is not how the system is supposed to work. --Cyberbob 12:29, 24 June 2009 (BST)

The system insists that we assume good faith (at least where newbies, who don't know better are concerned). In cases like this, where it is conceivable that the user was moving the vote because they truly thought that the voter had misplaced a supporting vote in the kill section, it can be considered a good faith edit to help J3D out -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:27 24 June 2009 (BST)

Like I said I agree with you as far as faith goes. I disagree with the tendency these days to rely so heavily on verbal/soft warnings to get the job done. --Cyberbob 16:29, 24 June 2009 (BST)

In cases of pretty clear honest mistakes by newbies, telling people that what they did was unwise is what we should all be doing, before even bringing it here. An vandal escalation for trying to help out, even if the user missed the vital subtext, is more likely to inflame the situation, than to help prevent further occurrences -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 17:23 24 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - I agree with using a warning as a legitimate way of warning users about what is wrong, but this guy is way too new. I am not going to help cement the line at a user who made 3 edits prior to this, and had been around for a week and a half. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:48, 25 June 2009 (BST)

So instead let him make mistakes then once he's made <insert number of edits here> and been around for <insert length of time DDR thinks is sufficient here> we suddenly say, "btw the way you've been doing things is all wrong, change it overnight or you will face warnings and possibly bannings". If he's warned now he can learn the ways of the wiki rather than continue bumbling on moving people's votes around the place. --xoxo 08:25, 25 June 2009 (BST)

What you are suggesting is nothing more than a lesson on how the wiki works. Maybe instead of pushing for a warning you could simply just ask this user to read the rules. He's made 3 edits before this case, and I'm not warning him because it isn't vandalism. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:36, 25 June 2009 (BST)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

vandalisms--xoxo 10:34, 21 June 2009 (BST)

I'm going to go ahead and assume you've been drinking. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:41, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Not tonight. last night. this morning actually. shit was so fucked up i woke up with no idea how i got there...--xoxo 10:43, 21 June 2009 (BST)

I've had a few nights like that. So what explains all this then? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:45, 21 June 2009 (BST)

yeah it was just that big. I'm still a bit tipsay. Is that a fucking crime now you cunt?--xoxo 10:54, 21 June 2009 (BST)

I forgot how much we argue when we're drunk. Makes me want to hold you again. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:57, 21 June 2009 (BST)

I love y ou man--xoxo 11:01, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism and I'm | | close to bringing a case against you jed for drunkposting on A/VB. You've been escalated for shitty cases in the past, I believe. --Cyberbob 12:45, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Not drunk. Epically hungover.--xoxo 12:46, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Close enough? Either way it's shitty shit. --Cyberbob 12:48, 21 June 2009 (BST)

you're telling me man i feel awful....hence this sundaynight will be spent here and not elsewhere.--xoxo 12:50, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism and Bob, if drunk posting on VB is vandalism I'm guilty of that on at least 2 occasions I think. =p -- Cheese 15:33, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Did your drunkposting involve the posting of entire cases? --Cyberbob 15:58, 21 June 2009 (BST)

No but I think there was a couple of rulings and a ban. =p -- Cheese 16:03, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Ah, I think I remember that now. Still nothing as spammy as an obviously bad case (rulings can always be reversed when you sober up). --Cyberbob 16:07, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Not a bad case.--xoxo 17:13, 21 June 2009 (BST)

I'd ask you to stop lying to yourself but I don't think you're even trying to. --Cyberbob 17:24, 21 June 2009 (BST)

User:THEDUDE19286

THEDUDE19286 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

This edit. Warned. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:37, 21 June 2009 (BST)

User:Mouse45

Mouse45 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Page wiping, and then continuing to do so, even after a warning. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:55, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Still messing with the page after more reverts. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:56, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Already Warned. Just double checking his three current edits with view to a perma. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:57, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Warned by a fellow user, Warned by me, and the third edit was again changing the page. Perma.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:06, 19 June 2009 (BST)

User:Janus Abernathy

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

Verdict	Requested by user
Action taken	2 Week Ban

Requesting a 2 weeks ban. Grazie. --Janus ^talk 21:38, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Prego --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:09, 19 June 2009 (BST)

User:WOOT

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	48 hour ban

Shitting up promotions again with a bid that is pretty much copied from Bob's bid. -- Cheese 09:16, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism Just like last time. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:19, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism Just like last time. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:02, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Banned for 48 hours. -- Cheese 09:30, 20 June 2009 (BST)

User:Mr. Cunt

Mr. Cunt (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

He's asking for it. :P --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:01, 18 June 2009 (BST)

His profile asks for the same. How strange. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:11, 18 June 2009 (BST)

Mr. C: lol please for the love of god just get rid of my account! :p Aw come on!!! You can see we are one and the same... Other than swearing like mad, really, I just want the damn thing got rid of! The lack of options to delete or contact anyone on UrbanDead made me resort to this drunken tactic.-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Cunt (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I'll take that as a request. Permabanned. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:25, 18 June 2009 (BST)

And as for getting his actual urban dead account deleted, well, maybe he should be a little less compulsive and just walk away from the game and go outside. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:20, 18 June 2009 (BST)

User:AnimeSucks

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Bad faith vouch on Blake Firedancer's promotion bid for the sole reason of drawing it out. --Cyberbob 11:06, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - This is not on. The input offered nothing for the Crats to review in relation to the bid. The worst part in my opinion is if this is counted as a legitimate vote, it will put Blake through the stress of 2 more weeks of waiting for his bid to end, which I think is unfair to him. He has every right, as a candidate, to wait his bid out to the end without withdrawing it from fear of being used as a symbol of humour from other users, which was Anime's only purpose in voting. The bid is already 4 days overdue, and there is no reason why it should be extended. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (BST)

lol what a retarded vandalism. my "vouch which is not a vote" is considered vandalism, when cyberbob's "Retard. Fuck off." is a non-case. Give me a break with your double standards.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 14:29, 16 June 2009 (BST)

If you don't see the difference between the motivations behind your "vote" and mine then I don't know what to tell you. I can't even see Honest making that kind of a fuckup; are you sure you're not just grasping at straws? --Cyberbob 15:28, 16 June 2009 (BST)

You really do have no idea. It isn't about the content of the vouch that matters, nearly as much as the motivation behind it. You honestly think this relates in the slightest to Bob's 'retard, fuck off'? Because they are two totally separate issues. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:46, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism Although I do question the motives of the vouch in this case, I have done the same thing to bring a candidates vote up so that it could go through the process and be archived under failed bids...Hopefully when Blake has some more time in and if he still wants a shot at it he can look back on the bid and address some of the concerns raised there. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 14:41, 16 June 2009 (BST)

A bid is still filed in the archives even if it doesn't get three vouches, you know. You're being incredibly naive if you don't see anything but a meanspirited attempt to prolong the bid's life so him and his buddies can get more laughs out of it here. --Cyberbob 15:25, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Whether he had the three vouches or not, his two weeks were up, and the overwhelming lack of support made it clear the bid would not continue. Not Vandalism on the grounds that he's entitled to give a vouch while the bid is still technically open, no matter what his reasoning behind it is. And if we want, we can always say that his vouch shows that AS believes Blake can do well enough to at least warrant a third vouch.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:28, 16 June 2009 (BST)

I don't think you've made enough excuses for him. Two or three more should do it though. --Cyberbob 15:31, 16 June 2009 (BST)

But I don't have anymore. :( --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:39, 16 June 2009 (BST)

See, this is interesting. This isn't a "newbie mistake". So, you can't chalk it up to that. And he knows how promotions work. So, what motivation is there to add a vouch after 2 weeks? He also posted on Bob's on June 9th so why not post on Blake's then, too? Other people posted on Blake's around the 9th. Anime's one post his SOLO CONTRIBUTION on the 9th was to bitch on Bob's promo bid. This really smells like a bad faith edit. Vandalism when you consider the whole picture.--– Nubis ^NWO 00:41, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - joke vouches are all to common (all 3 on this bid), and just something that the 'crats ignore. Blake can withdraw the bid at any time, and really already should have. I think I remember Vista giving a token vouch in order to push a bid into community discussion in the past, actually -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:33 17 June 2009 (BST)

Is that any reason to permit it now? Joke vouches may be "common" but usually the joke is genuinely lighthearted. AS' "joke" was just meanspiritedness. --Cyberbob 06:47, 17 June 2009 (BST)

This is also coming from someone that gets pissy at people shitting up admin pages, Bob. Doesn't that strike you as ...hypocritical? -- #99 ^DCC 14:09, 17 June 2009 (BST)

He made the case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (BST)

I'm pretty sure DCC knows that but I still don't quite understand what is being said. --Cyberbob 14:38, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Most probably your comments, replying and input in the discussion in this case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:40, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Don't worry. *sigh* --Cyberbob 14:42, 17 June 2009 (BST)

I was talking about boxy and his decision. I hoped that adding "Bob" would show that I was talking TO bob but not about BOB. Didn't realize that indents ruled over content.-- #99 ^DCC 23:17, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism 'cause I don't mind. Really. I accepted that it wouldn't pass a few days ago, given the trend of the first few votes. It's OK, I don't mind. Besides, most of what's there basically says 'not yet'. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:34, 17 June 2009 (BST)

whelp, might want to unbold that if you don't want someone vee-beeing you for impersonating a sysop --Cyberbob 09:40, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Oh, right. Sorry. Italicerising! --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:42, 17 June 2009 (BST)

I'm going to finish this case as Not Vandalism, as per the above vote. I can't imagine any of the other sysops feeling the need to add their input (without being prodded), so I think that's all we'll need on this case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:22, 17 June 2009 (BST)

User:J3D

J3D (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Trying to worm his way around the previous case by continuing with the LOL RACISM line of thought, except just not actually saying nigger. --Cyberbob 08:22, 8 June 2009 (BST)

The funny part is, I'm not even American, let alone African American. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:25, 8 June 2009 (BST)

He doesn't care cos unironic racism is relly funnay --Cyberbob 08:27, 8 June 2009 (BST)

lol yeah, it's really funnah and Vandalism - see below and here. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:43, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Seriously, promotions pages (as well as admin pages in general) aren't to be spammed up with pointless racist comments. It could possibly be against the terms of use (first point,) too. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:52, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You do realise the vital differences between this case and the two you cited, right? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:59, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Struck the first one - Grim's comment "Such pages are not the places to be making such slurs against other groups and users, especially such crude and revolting ones," made me think that J3D was making a similar comment. However, you know better (not being sarcastic here,) and the purge has removed the actual edit. Thanks for pointing that out.

Compared to the one below, however, he's still being offensive (even if he's not specifically mentioning the word "nigger",) trying to avoid the below ruling, and doing it on an admin page.

But, of course, I could be wrong, and that's why it's a vote for more ambiguous cases. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:18, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - There are a few main differences with this case... I'm not trying to save J3D from winning two escalations in 24 hours, I just think this case lacks the reasons I voted vandalism in the previous case:

1. J3D actually specifies that he is against whereas he failed to do so before, so now his post actually has a meaning behind it other than just spouting profanities pointlessly.
2. He doesn't vulgarly say something like the word 'nigger'. because of this and #1, his explanation now is similar to the controversial 'retard; fuck off' phrase, J3D says being an African American makes Blake inferior, Bob implies it by suggesting being retarded is an undesirable trait... etc. Blake is neither an african american or a retard, so both insults now have the same impact.
3. In relation to the 2008 case, J3D is not trying to pass pass off crude racism (ie. [[retards|dutch]]) as neutral information on a locations page. He is saying this of his own opinion, and whilst in the last case I ruled on the crude language J3D used (and the fact there was nothing else in the edit to save it from being bad-faith), there is no specifically crude language here, the vote on A/PM quite obviously a joke (albeit not funny).

If shit humour was vandalism, I would have warned him by now. But... I'm going to vote not vandalism. Mostly based on the fact that I don't believe the edit in question to be bad faith because it's main function is to be an against vote for Blake Firedancer. I could be swayed otherwise, I'm fence-sitting on this one. But in the meantime, I can't rule vandalism on this case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:34, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Ruling Not Vandalism isn't fencesitting. If you want to fencesit the way to do it is to not rule at all. The primary reason for this case being vandalism (racism notwithstanding), DDR, is the fact that he's clearly trying to make the exact same joke as he did initially while "cunningly" not directly violating the first ruling. He's following it to the letter, but he's taking advantage of all the little "I wouldn't have voted vandalism if" statements people made and trying to hide behind them. Look at his most recent edit to your talk page. --Cyberbob 09:37, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Yes, the one of the reasons I voted vandalism was that - he's clearly trying to get around the previous ruling by saying the same thing, but without using the word "nigger". As Conn said below, it's both racist, and can hardly be called good faith. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:53, 8 June 2009 (BST)

The first edit was not the product of J3D deciding he was going to insult a race and vandalise A/PM. He made the edit to add unnecessary input to a promotions bid that was failing (as many people do). His use of the word 'niggers' was just the same as WTFcentaurs, but in an idiotic style. His second attempt, to me, was a way of legitimising the vote, but the extra comment was not a way of working around the ruling, he is just having a joke at the concept. I am assuming good faith because J3D has absolutely nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, from trying to work around the previous ruling in this way- I think his attempting a joke about the affair is just so much more likely. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:09, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You'll learn. --Cyberbob 11:13, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism States very clearly that those of African descent are inferior. This is obviously a racist statement and is a bad faith edit/statement against an entire sub-population of the wiki. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:50, 8 June 2009 (BST)

I see the term Afro-merican as biased in itself because you are assuming they are of an African and American descent. And also, while he technically was using his racism as his against vote, him restating it all in a "less derogatory manner" is still going against the spirit of our previous ruling. Which is to remove the blatant trolling racism. Vanderlisms--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:32, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Lol i just noticed this gem! So you're saying he's not an african american but he is a retarded faggot? Man i should a/vb you for that shit.--xoxo 17:55, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Keep on movin' those goal posts. The edit in question is just as innaproriate as reads and bobs comments, both went through unchecked and i can't see why this shouldn't either. So nigger isn't appropriate for an admin page, fair enough, but as both read and bob expressed an opinion of a user based on a fictional trait i don't see why i shouldn't be allowed to.--xoxo 15:58, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:30 9 June 2009 (BST)

User:J3D

J3D (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

hahaha thats so funnyoh wait it isn't. Racism as sohock humour is Not Good. --Cyberbob 20:32, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Discussion moved to talk page

lolvandalism.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:50, 7 June 2009 (BST)

J3D has been warned about racism in the past, so vandalism for shouting out (tourettes like) offensive words instead of actually contributing to the page with something that the crats can actually use to make a decision, and like it or not, "retard, fuck off" does indeed get the contributors opinion across quite effectively -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:36 7 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism Despite the evidence of a connection to 4chan...uncalled for. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:47, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - I considered it different when it was on ALiM, or my talk page... But uncalled for on a promotions page, serves no purpose as a A/PM 'vote', and straight off a page linked from the main page... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:10, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:53 8 June 2009 (BST)

He's doing it again... --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:20, 8 June 2009 (BST)

User:Nubis

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

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

As Midianian's Nubis A/M case, only it's vandalism not misconduct. See here and here. --xoxo 06:53, 5 June 2009 (BST)

And it's been judged misconduct. Those edits are still the basis of a misconduct case, going to multiple admin sections with what amounts to pretty much the same thing is forum shopping. Sure, we don't have a guideline against forum shopping, that doesn't mean you have to take your vendetta to every page you know. ;) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:47, 5 June 2009 (BST)

What vendetta? And it hasn't been taken to demotions, yet ;) --xoxo 07:28, 6 June 2009 (BST)

The vendetta that you to have against each other that is more obvious then the fact that Cyberbob is a troll.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:51, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - The real case lies on A/M. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:15, 8 June 2009 (BST)

User:Iamlegend

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Stuff. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:49, 3 June 2009 (BST)

IP check request. Seems to be an alt of Beelzebub. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:06, 3 June 2009 (BST)

It does not match, because he's been using proxies for a while now. It's still safe to say he's an alt, and gets the perma.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:09, 3 June 2009 (BST)

User:Iscariot

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Week Ban

At this point UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct#User:Suicidalangel and #User:Suicidalangel can pretty much be guaranteed to qualify as harassment, even if you ignore the aside comments outside of these areas. Iscariot knows enough to know neither one is the case and he made them simply for the sake of disrupting the wiki; Bad Faith. Enjoy. --Karek^maps?! 14:25, 2 June 2009 (BST)

So. Whats up fellow sysops team?

First things first. This isn't spur of the moment-based-upon-me-getting-A/VBd-and-A/Md so much, but rather the culmination of many months of seeing this shit go on.

Iscariot is a blight upon our community.

Any good he does or has done is outweighed by far by the bad he contributes to our fair (well, somewhat fair) community. Just about every post is degrading towards the sysops team, and many more of his posts are degrading towards newbies and veteran users too. He causes trouble and disrupts normal wiki process, and is unwilling to fix problems he sees in the wiki infrastructure simply because he doesn't have to and it will give him a chance to cause trouble with said problem until it is fixed.

Simply look through his contributions. I literally closed my eyes and scrolled down the list with my scroll nub on my mouse picking out 20 random edits. You know how many of them didn't have to do with harassing the sysops team? 3. Do you know how many of those three didn't harass another user in any way? 1. That edit was on his user page, changing the colours of something.

One single edit. On his user page. 19 edits that were harrassive (this needs to be a word). Why do we let this continue?

When Iscariot first came to the wiki, his behavior was pretty decent, and I actually liked a lot of his contributions from his early days. But soon after he came here, he developed this severe paranoia complex, coupled with a hate mission against the sysops team. Since then, his edits have mostly been shit. That's all you can say really.

This page contains quite bit of evidence of his bullshit, but honestly, just look through his contributions. There is no use keeping him around if this is the way things are going to be.

I move that we take a vote to remove Iscariot for 3 or more months, or a perma-ban. His behavior and actions more than justify this. If he doesn't want to act even semi-civil (hell, that Zombie Lord guy that every one is complaining about? Look how he acts when he's not insulting Pesatyel. Rather good and decent. Whats izzy's problem?), then why should he be allowed to stay?

I don't care so much about the harassment against me specifically, I've dealt with bigger trolls elsewhere, but it's more than just me.

3 or higher. That seems like the only course of action he's going to leave us. Most of the sysops team has agreed that Iscariot is a problem in one way or another, in one place or another. Some don't think that he has done explicit enough vandalism to punish him, fine. But what we all need to realize is that we don't have a civility policy. And by the guidelines "System operators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, system operators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it" we have the power to make this decision. There is no policy, and until then, we have to make a choice on a case by case basis. All of the sysop team needs to come out here, think about it and make a decision based on whats the best for the community, not whats the best for our images. Not whats best to end the drama quickly. If this turns in to a massive shit storm, whatever. It'll happen eventually, we should fix the problem now. Iscariot needs to be removed. He needs to learn a lesson. He's not untouchable, he's not the voice of the community, he's not a martyr for a good cause. He's a problem, and he can be taken care of. The entire community needs to see that just because their isn't a civility policy, doesn't mean we aren't going to step in if it's required. Something should have been done ages ago, so we need to do something now.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:16, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Ban He has been given way too many chances. He has not been hounded by the sysop team in any way yet he still attacks them on many (often pointless matters) and he by his own admission contributes nothing. He clearly seems unhappy here and there is no reason he should remain. I submit everything documented on here which should be more than enough to show a history of abuse.

If the sysop team can not remove the biggest blight in the community then A/VB might as well be deleted. Pissant little page edits that are reported as vandalism are nothing compared to a career hostile troll. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:44, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Against - A user shouldn't be forced out of the UDWiki against his will, unless through the vandal escalation system. Iscariot is no doubt a pest to the community, he is a parasite that does nothing except irritate the sysops where he can, when not just editing his own userpages. But that is exactly what Iscariot is- nothing.

I have always refused to believe that a normal user cannot make it by on the wiki without being bullied by him. In my recent experiences, I have gotten by with him on a non-aggressive level by simply ignoring him when possible- and engaging with him on a professional level, when he bites. He accepts it, and moves on. Of course, there will always be users like SirArgo who justify his antagonism and fuel him further, but that is exactly what we are doing now.

Every user deserves the right to reform, and we all know 3 months isn't enough (nor would it make him reform, it would only bring him back more bitter than usual) but a perma is out of the question, for someone who isn't permabannable through VandalData. See here where we don't even respond to his idiotic rants, and we vote Not Misconduct/Vandalism on almost every piece of trash he throws at us (and usually the legit cases to, or so he would say). And how long could he go for? If we hate a user, we have the responsibility as members of the community, not sysops, to ignore him when possible and not fuel more drama. It is not to wait until we are sick of conforming and ban him. It's our responsibility and promise to the community.

He has minimal contributions and minimal influence on the wiki - let's keep it that way, not make him a real martyr.

I, however, am aware at one point the Sysops would have tried the technique of ignoring him in the past... As such, I'm not sure if the sysops can expect anything from me at this point, except to be the new sysop who is uncultured with the op's past with said user. But regardless of any justification I may try to use, my position is simple: unless I have a very large problem with a user, I will never vote to remove them from the community under these circumstances. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:36, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Thank you for your input. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:32, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism 1 week ban and voting for a perma-ban starting. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:45, 3 June 2009 (BST)

What in god's name? Couldn't you have at leased waited for the sysops (and Iscariot) to have a chance to offer some discussion on this page before forcing sysops into the vote? Was a few days' wait just too much for you? We have time on our side, but you still dived into banning Iscariot so he could be denied the chance of defending this all-important case (regardless of the shit he will say given the chance). I am ruling Vandalism on this case, but I am unbanning Iscariot and subsequently considering this case open until the other sysops get their chance to offer input into this case. Regardless of the ruling and your rights as a ruling Sysop, If you ban Iscariot again, I will send you to A/M for pre-emptively banning a user solely to prohibit them from defending their own perma-ban case. There is no other reason why you should be rushing for the end of this VB case so hastily. Please, Nubis, I am not doing this because of my stance on the vote, I merely beg you to wait for some more input and discussion before we throw ourselves into the act of voting. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I agree, this is being far too rushed. I'm not decided about the permaban myself, but the whole thing is ridiculous. Iscariot has not commented on this case a single time as of yet, and is now being denied the chance to defend himself like any other user. Iscariot, during his psychobabble, often talks of "Not being given a fair chance". You'll only be proving him right if he isn't given a chance to speak. As I said, I'm not sure on the permaban, I don't really like Iscariot's wiki actions, but give the man a chance to defend himself like anyone else.-- Adward  15:31, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - if I messed with anyone's sig template, let alone Iscariot's, I'd be expecting a vandalism/misconduct case, even though I would be fairly confident that they wouldn't be successful -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:25 3 June 2009 (BST)

Thanks for your input -- Boxy 15:25, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Yet, you supported Hagnut when he banned and edited the fuck out of SLRs sig because he didn't like it. Interesting.-- #99 ^DCC 20:43, 7 June 2009 (BST)

What's your point? Exactly like that case, I also supported the editing of this sig, it's just that I don't think that Iscariot (or anyone) should be vandal banned for appealing such a contentious decision of SA editing his sig, by taking it to the rest of the sysop team on A/VB and A/M, and calling that harassment, which is basically what happened here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:20 8 June 2009 (BST)

VANDALISM

(Sysops Only)

VANDALISM

1. – Nubis ^NWO
2. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (BST)
3. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 08:45, 4 June 2009 (BST)

NOT VANDALISM

1. -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:25 3 June 2009 (BST)

See Misconduct

Perma-Ban Vote

(Sysops Only)

FOR

1. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:45, 3 June 2009 (BST)
2. --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:46, 3 June 2009 (BST)
3. But only because he shows no sign or desire to really work with the sysops, within the established system. He continually claims he has some sort of community consensus to turn and burn on the sysops who have to spend more time dealing with complaints about sysop behavior and guidelines from him than other responsibilities to maintaining the wiki. He has used the pages of the wiki to harass and cause harm (even if that harm is considered annoyance by some) And whereas Harassment is against the established T.O.U. He needs to be gone unless he can indicate some type of willingness to adjust the offensive rhetoric. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 08:52, 4 June 2009 (BST)

AGAINST

1. --D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:49, 3 June 2009 (BST)
2. Permban votes come after the month ban, not at the one week stage -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:25 3 June 2009 (BST)

   That only applies in general vandalism cases. Here we don't have policy to back up and dictate what we do. His harassment is vandalism over a long period of time, and being that we have no civility policy we must decide what to do on a case by case basis. Don't cite policy or processes when there is nothing citable (should also be a word).--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:06, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   We don't have a policy on civility because the community has rejected them fairly convincingly in the past, so it's not exactly a policy vacuum. This wiki has a long history of tolerating people being asses on pages like suggestions, because it is a place where people's opinions need to be heard, even if it dents a few fragile egos. The only reason Iscariot is being considered for a permban is because of his admin page bullshit annoying sysops, and given that he's been escalated for that in the past, and no doubt will again in the future, there is no need to bypass any escalations just because a few sysops feel put upon. It's laughable that you should consider his cases against you to be harassment when it was you that initiated the whole thing by editing his sig page. You were within your rights to do it, but so should it be that Iscariot has the right to appeal against such treatment -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:26 4 June 2009 (BST)

   It's not just civility that's the problem, boxy. Those policies, the few there were, didn't make it because they were bad, not because people are perfectly fine with abusive and uncivil behaviour. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:38, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   Perhaps so. But it's not in any way a green light to ignore vandal banning escalation policy when uncivil behaviour is deemed vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:47 4 June 2009 (BST)

   The mere fact that there have been many attempts at a policy clearly shows that the users WANT one, but can't agree on much more than harassment is never right.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   It's laughable because when you actually read, I say I'm basing this more off of his shit with everyone else than with me. And even then not just these cases. Karek is the one that brought the case, calling them harassment, along with other users. Not me. Hell, I can't even make a ruling on the actual case because of how involved I am. If it was only me being harassed I wouldn't even consider this. I'd pursue arbitration, and then end up failing because no one would force him to participate in it, and I'd just have to deal with his shit. This case, Arbies is not an option, nor is it only about me. This isn't a normal case, this isn't one person having to deal with it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:51, 4 June 2009 (BST)

3. As much as I want Iscariot gone, we follow process and a perma-ban vote is called after a month ban.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:36, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   That only applies in general vandalism cases. Here we don't have policy to back up and dictate what we do. His harassment is vandalism over a long period of time, and being that we have no civility policy we must decide what to do on a case by case basis. Don't cite policy or processes when there is nothing citable (should also be a word).--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:06, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   The General isn't really a sysop. This is like his what 3rd time ever on A/VB? Don't expect him to know policy. Also, don't expect him to have a clue about the history of Iscariot. General and I went round and round about the move page ability because he didn't realize that Iscariot decided that every group tied in with DEM needed to be under DEM. (that being one of the many shit storms Izzy stirred up for no good reason other than to support his own wiki lawyering bitching). --– Nubis ^NWO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   I used to fairly active on A/VB, not sure if you remember that, but I've been inactive for a while now to to bring incredible busy in RL. I am familiar with policy, considering that I had a hand in writing large parts of it. The "best judgement" clause has been around for along time but rarely used because Sysops always seemed to get lynched for using any power that wasn't specifically voted in as a policy. I don't know Iscariot's complete history in intricate detail but I have dealt with him enough and read through his past misconduct cases to be able to judge his character. I'm not sure quite what point you are making about the page move policy except for showing that I wasn't prepared to throw a whole policy out of the window because one user likes to cause drama and to demonstrate the pointless drama Iscariot causes.

   Now, onto the actual issue at hand: Firstly, while there is no policy covering harassment it is my belief that the perma-ban vote is covered under the current vandal escalation policy. Once we have made the "best judgement" decision to make a ruling of vandalism we then move on to following the existing rules for dealing with vandals. Secondly, even if we assume that none of the existing policies apply I am still of the opinion that we should wait for a month ban before starting a permaban vote.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:52, 6 June 2009 (BST)

4. I very much dislike Iscariot and think the wiki would be better off without the drama he causes, however if we want to get rid of him we do it the right way, or not at all. -- Cheese 17:37, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   The right way is to say this is fucking enough and ban him. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   1. That only applies in general vandalism cases. Here we don't have policy to back up and dictate what we do. His harassment is vandalism over a long period of time, and being that we have no civility policy we must decide what to do on a case by case basis. Don't cite policy or processes when there is nothing citable (should also be a word). So technically, this is the right way, not the only way, because as I've said there is no policy for incivility or harassment, so we do what we have to.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:06, 3 June 2009 (BST)

5. Banning people we don't like? No thank you. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   It's not banning people we don't like, it's banning disruptive users. Banning people we don't like is like getting rid of Izumi. She was also disruptive at first with Grim breathing down her neck, but she could easily have stayed on if Grim hadn't been a hardass. Now, we ban her simply because "we don't like her". Iscariot is a vandal, not in any policy defined way though.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:06, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   He's a vandal in the his edits are not good faith way. Which is the core of vandalism. Don't say that his acts are anything close to good faith. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   And here I was thinking we banned Izumi for the constant attempts to circumvent the original ban. What do I know eh? Judging from the case above Iscariot is a vandal, as defined by the policy. The policy has a permaban option after a months ban. Not a week. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:59, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   And here I was thinking you'd look further than her vandal data. If you look past that and read up on the data, he first few edits were based upon sheer ignorance of our policies. She had no idea that she wasn't allowed to edit groups at first. And by then time someone explained it to her, it was after being warned in a completely unprofessional manner "If you don't care about editting the wiki, then don't. Since you obviously DO care about UD enough to be upset that your suburb got wrecked (AHAHAHA), I doubt that you will enjoy being banned. And if you do enjoy a nice 24hr (if only that), please come back and crow about it, as its entertaining to watch you scream at the top of your lungs how much you DON'T CARE LALALALA. --Karlsbad 04:19, 11 April 2007 (BST)".

   Izumi wasn't just a vandal on her own merit, some of the community and the sysops team helped her become that way. Sometimes due process isn't needed to be followed, some times mistakes can be forgiven without banning someone for a month. Grim was just a black-white rules sort of guy. Same thing happened with Nalikill. He ended up getting banned by grim for "shitting up the admin cases" when it was really more of a case of Grim disliking Nali. And then he ended up getting banned by boxy for changing a user log out falsie. Good faith, but still technically against the rules. Yet, he wasn't liked by a few members of the Ops team, so he ended up getting a month, and then leaving because of the shit Grim kept pulling. Grim probably would have found a way to get Nali banned permanently eventually. Two users well disliked by members of the ops team, yet were still in pretty good faith over all. Nali was a pretty good editor, if not prone to some problems every once in a while. But to be fair, it's not all his fault.

   Iscariot is an entirely different matter though. We have done nothing to give him reason to hate us and treat us and our community the way he does, yet we still let him go and do just about whatever he wants. He's a troll. He's harassive. He makews frequent edits in bad faith. Why should we make ten separate cases to try and convict him when we only need one? Due process has been thrown out the window when it comes to the punishment ladder, if the situation was bad enough. Why are we hiding behind policies that don't exist for this situation and letting him go? We are well within policy to make a decision over this, why are you guys being cowardly and letting it continue? Do you think the community will look at you guys with more esteem and respect if you don't ban him? What happens later when the issue comes up again? Are we just going to let him go again because he hasn't done anything explicitly wrong? Other than, you know, making hundreds of harassive (srsly, I'm adding this to my dictionary) bad faith edits. Which is what our vandalism policy is mostly about, even if it doesn't have something covering civility or harassment. When his shit keeps up, later we're just going to look back and wish we removed him earlier.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:54, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   I particularly liked the bit where you said. "Why are we hiding behind policies that don't exist for this situation and letting him go? We are well within policy to make a decision over this, why are you guys being cowardly and letting it continue?" That made me chuckle. For the record I didn't ban Izumi, and neither did you. Grim Did it. If you don't agree with it, you're a sysop, raise that issue. In the meantime, if as you say "He makews frequent edits in bad faith." Do you really think its really going to be hard to find 2 more cases to put through vandal banning?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:55, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   Are you that dense? Have you ever noticed how even trolling edits count as edits? So if I went to your talk page and posted Ross is an asshole 250 times over the course of a month I would still earn my VD de-escalation. That's what his pattern is. Of course, even though he doesn't ask for a de-escalation his minions still raise the issue that he "deserved" one. Or did you not read any of the A?M case you couldn't be arsed to rule on when you were a sysop last time ? --– Nubis ^NWO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   Im not that dense. Because, bizzarrely I read the admins guidelines. Spamming my talk page in such a way could in no way be considered good-faith edits. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:41, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   No shit? I mean the fact that we both weren't ops at the time never even crossed my mind. I never said that grim took care of the ban in my previous posts either. No, wait, I did. I also have tried to do something about Izumi's case. I even requested time to work with the user through the wiki where the only time she could comment was directly on my talk page and nothing else. You know what I got? "STFU we dun liek her", and then her subsequent banning. Would it have been hard to try and let me reform this user? No. And with our "assume good faith" policy, and "encourage vandals to reform" policy, letting a potential reformer in shouldn't be much of a problem right? Apparently it is. Would you support letting Izumi back in on the basis of good faith assumption? Especially if I was the one responsible for her actions?

   Also, I chuckled back when you put my comments out of context. "The policy has a permaban option after a months ban. Not a week.". The policy you refer to is the standard vandalism policy, which in itself does not cover harassment. Bad faith edits, yes, but as people have argued before, paraphrase-quote Harshness is allowed because people should be allowed to express their viewpoints /para-quote. Which would mean that if I were to bring a case up on harassment, we'd have to judge it on a case by case basis, and distribute a punishment if decided based upon our thoughts. We don't have a Harassment policy saying that if we find someones behavior unacceptable that we follow the vandal ladder. If we did, then I'd be all for it. And you know what? At any time if I bring up cases about his bad faith harassment in the future, half of them will be shot down on the basis that "NOES, he did nots commits actual vanderlism!", and the other half shot down because I'm "being petty". And should they by some chance be considered vandalism, why is ruling on those cases any different? Due process? Precedent's been set to give a person a harsher punishment than is actual required due to the severity of their actions. Whatever guys. The community isn't going to hate you for something you're well within your rights to do.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:25, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   I'm glad we're entertaining each other.:-) I must admit i'm curious about the whole "Sponsoring" of a formally banned user. Challenging Isc and being called petty? That in itself would be bizzarre. Want an escalation? By all means. I'd fully support a months ban. But I still think its not the right approach. Want a harrasment policy, go for it. Having a policy only applying to Developing Suggestions alone, would cut down on a lot and would apply to all. Of course if Isc was banned for a month he couldn't vote against it. Which would be sad. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:09, 4 June 2009 (BST)

6. As Cheese, General, Boxy, and to a lesser extent, Ross. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:13, 4 June 2009 (BST)

ruling

Well, the voted haven't changed in days so I'll just confirm Nubis' ruling of Vandalism, and no change to the ban is necessary. As for the permaban vote, er... I guess however illegitimate some may have seen it as, I'll still rule no perma based on the above vote. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:19, 8 June 2009 (BST)

User:Beelzebub

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

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Vandal alt of Foxtrot et al.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:50, 2 June 2009 (BST)