UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 12

Archives

Talk Archives

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

General Discussion Archives

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5
• Archive6
• Archive7

December 2010

Izumi of Lockettside

Really? It's been 3 years, leave me alone. I've been here the whole time under different names, and caused you no ill. Using an alias is confusing to new members who rely on my group's page for information and questions. Digging up and continuing to beat this long-dead horse will do you no good, but that said it won't do me any either. Just buzz off and leave me to my business. I won't bother you anyway. Izumi of Lockettside 06:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted to use the wiki in 2011, you shouldn't have repeatedly vandalized it in 2007 until the administration had to permanently ban you to stop the spread of vandalism, in accordance with agreed-upon policy, just like would have been done to any other user. Actions have consequences. Consequences which you were well aware would be permanent do not expire in a few years. This is textbook ban-avoidance and there's no way this IP isn't going to be banned like all the others. If you want to communicate with your groupies, use a forum. Not a wiki which you've been permanently banned from. --VVV ^RPMBG 07:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus, it hasn't been three years since the last incident. —Aichon— 07:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Too bad. I'm going to utilize and modify this wiki to my heart's content whether you like it or not, as I have been doing off and on since 2007. Don't like it? I suggest you blow up my computer. Otherwise, have fun witch hunting like idiots. I've checked the vandal data page, a good number of so-called "sock-puppet" accounts which had been linked to me and subsequently banned weren't even mine. I bet unwarranted bans leave a most wonderful impression on the community you claim to be protecting. I will wrap this up now before I start rambling. Imma do what I want. Feel entitled to do the same. Ciao. Izumi of Lockettside 09:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This attitide of "I do what I want anyway lalalala" is exactly why you're staying banned. Ciao. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is my favourite part of every time Izumi comes back: the bit where she admits that she is completely removed from the concept of compromise. -- LEMON #1 11:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

--> Watchlist: Lockettside Valkyries.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it a symptom that I've been using Facebook too much that I think I should "like" this comment? Linkthewindow  Talk  13:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To A/PT! -- LEMON #1 15:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Survivor 2.0 and User:Zombieman_11

The two cases are not similar in the least, Yonn. You were misconducted not for investigating Lois (which was perfectly fine to do), but for posting the results, despite the fact that Lois had done nothing wrong. In contrast, Ross not only did not investigate the user, but he did not post the results. In addition, he had a valid reason for requesting an inquiry into the matter since Zombieman 11 is an active vandal and he's creating alts for seemingly bad faith purposes (as evidenced by the false sense of consensus he was building with his Nexus alt and an attempt to avoid accountability as he did when he used the Survivor 2.0 account to disagree with his Zombieman 11 account). It's not unusual or unexpected that the sysops would take note of alts of active vandals and catalogue them in an appropriate manner so that later cases dealing with them are simpler to handle, which is why Mis' confirmation of the shared IP is also acceptable. This stands in sharp contrast to publicizing the alt of an innocent person who has not engaged in vandalism or bad faith edits. —Aichon— 21:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, Checkuser logs show Ross did know they were the same before he posted, but you wouldn't know that, as you don't have access to them. He also wasn't an active vandal, because all the cases against him were closed at the time. Considering false consensus was what happened in my case and that wasn't allowed then, that's a ridiculously bullshitish thing to say. I disagree completely with everythign you've all said. You're all hypocrits and can go to hell. In other news, merry christmas. :) --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

boxy told that he has used checkuser, so it didn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that that is what has happened. As for A/M, this time it was reasonable use of op permissions, as Zombieman was a serial vandal with a history of sockpuppet offenses. Lois on the other hand was completely innocent and hasn't done anything VB-worthy with either account of her at the time the connection was publicly revealed on A/VB. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Except his vandalism was dealt with. Are you saying it would be reasonable to check Iscariot's IP and reveal any alts he has at the moment?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reasonable impression that someone is going to use a sockpuppet in order to vandalise the wiki (this includes using two or more puppets in a vote or even a discussion in some cases), or to avoid A/VD escalations or bans affecting them, then it is fine to checkuser them, and draw the attention of sysops to it. Ross had every reason to believe Zombieman was going to do this, but you had no reason to believe Lois was misusing alt wiki accounts -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:04 25 December 2010 (BST)

Egg-fucking-sactly! And if that's the case (which it is now), the community are going to HAVE to find out sooner or later cause his A/VD will need to be amended to include the new account. -- LEMON #1 00:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Ross should be misconducted. I just think if the sysop team are going to decide something is misconduct, they should stick to it next time. I absolutely had reasonable suspicion to suspect a discussion was being manufactured in that incidence, and I fail to see any difference. The two cases should have been treated in exactly the same way, but evidently, none of you are willing to do that.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 01:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The two accounts in your case were never used in concert, you had no cause whatsoever to suspect arse all. 02:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Because Meatpuppetry was obviously in play, so it was reasonable to see if sockpuppetry was too.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie and you know it. The two accounts in your case were never used in concert, so there was no reason to post it - no socking, no meatpuppeting, just pure spite on your behalf, and that's why it went to A/M. 15:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You'd know better on the checkuser stuff, so I won't argue it. As Mis, however, I really have no idea what you're talking about, since none of what you're saying now even remotely matches what you said back then (seriously, go back and re-read what you actually told us in Lois' A/VB case you made). You never alleged wrongdoing on the part of Lois in the A/VB case (even going so far as to say that it wasn't "strictly a vandalism case") and told us that only one of the accounts was used in the A/BP election at that time, which rules out false consensus (or any other alt abuses, for that matter) being an issue. Despite that, you posted that the accounts were sharing an IP address so that we would have a note of it in case the other one was used. Sysops shouldn't post checkuser data for hypothetical vandalism, which is what you essentially did. Posting it in response to actual vandalism, however, is appropriate in some situations. I'm hoping that reminding you of the things you said then will clear up the "hypocrite" claims, since I don't see how this line of reasoning is hypocritical in the least.

As for being "active", Zombieman 11 had received a warning and a ban (on his alt) earlier that day. I shouldn't need to tell you that 13 hours is close enough to be considered "active", while many months or years is not. This is common sense and I'm sure you can recognize the difference. And, as boxy pointed out, there were valid reasons to suspect that he was going to be using his alts specifically for acts of bad faith, given that he had just had an alt banned for that exact reason and had already created a new one that was following in the banned one's footsteps, whereas I know of no such reason to suspect Iscariot or any other past vandal of doing so at the moment. —Aichon— 05:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I seem like an inexperienced user butting in, but may I just call attention to this? It appears that Zombieman is attempting to unsuccessfully throw you guys off (and I'm pretty sure that a user page shouldn't be in the mainspace). Also, this. Vapor's words caught my attention... I guess some of you would agree with him. (nvm, noticed that it's an old edit...) -- †  talk ? f.u. 14:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted up a request to have the page moved, since you're completely correct about it being in the mainspace. And yep. gotta love the kid since he does try. Never mind the fact that a roommate would, ya know, simply talk to the other guy, rather than posting to a wiki. Or that I'm guessing they still have a shared IP address during Christmas break, which might have otherwise explained why they couldn't talk to easily. —Aichon— 19:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Everyone. I'll explain my thought processes behind this, and If Yon or anyone thinks I've misused my powers, feel free to misconduct me.

Initially zombiemans question on User talk:Boxy got me interested in the case. As you can see from discussion there I pointed out the obvious grammatical similarities, editing times, and pages edited of the two accounts. When survivor 2.0 was editing in a similar style, and based on the previous nexus editing I used checkuser, and showing share IP activity, asked for a confirmation from another sysop. As noted on my own talk page User talk:Rosslessness several parts of these "roomates" story fail to add up. If as zombieman suggests survivor is an alt of NEXUS, it should probably be removed, as a banning workaround. But anyway. Unlike Lois, who has no history of vandalism, there was a clear and recent use of vandalism from the IP. Apart from the occasional PM with User:Karek I do all my wiki based discussion on the wiki. If someone can suggest a better way of flagging up potential vandals, be my guest. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Man 11(2)

Think it goes without saying but definitely Vandalism. I haven't seen a freak out like this on UDWiki before so whatever punishment sysops decide to dole out is fine with me. The longer the better in my opinion. ~ 03:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Now why'd you have to go and do that, Vapor, right after I said I'd vote for you in a heartbeat? You can't rule on cases. Only sysops can. It'll definitely be a longer heartbeat now. —Aichon— 06:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it was more of a voting thing. Still green to wiki policy. Oh well. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Won't take me long to stop being such a policy greenhorn. ~ 01:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I say just slap down a perma. We've cut this guy enough slack and he just went on a wild blanking rampage. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 05:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say three-edit rule his ass. Has a single one of his "contributions" been left unreverted? I think we've had to revert every single one that wasn't in his userspace, and now he's gone on a vandalism spree. —Aichon— 06:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you don't 3ER him, I'd definitely go with Mis' thinking on the matter, and handle each page separately. —Aichon— 06:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I say ban for a week, to get his attention and show that we mean business, as well as escalate him to the point that we can have a permaban-vote him next time. He's made a good amount of textbook vandalism; BUT he has made a handful of helpful edits, and if we beat him hard enough, he just might become a regular contributor. That's not to say we should trust him enough to not permaban him the moment he refuses to embrace a last chance, just that we shouldn't toss our hopes after a handful of vandalism. In fact, excluding the recent page blanking, most of his edit were just incompetant, not malicious. --VVV ^RPMBG 07:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Without escalating him 5 times in a row, they can't just ban him for a week, since the administrative guidelines explicitly prohibit jumping ahead like that ("A user must be warned at least twice...before a system operator may administer the first ban"). And to escalate him again, it sounds like you're suggesting they apply an additional one-month ban on him as well, but then not enforce it. You just can't do that. There's procedure to follow. Also, he hasn't made a single helpful edit. Every single edit was reverted, except for those to his own talk page. They may not have been malicious, but none were helpful. —Aichon— 07:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

He tried to update a danger report, and voted four times on humourous suggestions. But you make a good point on the whole procedure front, and I'd prefer to just ignore those and permaban him now, rather than wait for seven more acts of vandalism. --VVV ^RPMBG 07:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought this guy was just new to the wiki and honestly didn't know where to post suggestions. The fact that he repeatedly ignored direction was annoying but didn't really think he should be banned. After I witnessed his bout of vandalism today though, I actually think it was a regular wiki user. Specifically because someone that clueless would likely not have been bale to find their own vandal case. This is pretty telling as well. What kind of newbie knows to edit inclusion pages when vandal fucking the wiki? It seemed deliberate and premeditated. I'd take a good look at the IP data and mete out punishment accordingly. ~ 07:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I linked him to the vandal case on his talk page yesterday. And he just clicked the edit link for that section. Since the section is an inclusion, it took him to the included page. He seems to have done that with most of his edits, in fact, since it looks like he didn't discover the edit link at the top until a little bit into his vandalism spree. —Aichon— 07:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that ZM11 is an irredeemable douche and serial vandal who should better go now than later. That being said, 3ER doesn't apply, as there were a few constructive edits among his contributions (see Trip's pointers). Probably wouldn't take someone to A/M if they invoke the rule looking at the concrete case, but it still isn't something that should be done. Personally, I'd go with Mis' initial proposal and throw multiple VB cases on him to escalate him multiple times in one straight flush (potentially up to 2nd month ban and thus perma vote). -- Spiderzed▋ 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You guys turned him into a vandal by failing to clearly communicate with the dude. I've read the comments on his talk page, and while some of you were at least being polite, no one was really being all that helpful. With new users you really have to spell things out in black and white. Assume they know nothing about the wiki and clearly explain how to make the correct edit in a certain situation. No one did that. Mostly it was a lot of "your edit was wrong, stop it", or "here's a link to a bunch of stuff you won't read". Then you drop a vandalism case on him and he freaks out and goes on a vandal spree. Not justifiable on his part, but certainly understandable. Newbs need to actually be welcomed to the wiki and shown the ropes. Dropping a WN template on their page and doing fuck all to show them around ensures that they will continue to mess up and that will create more work for everyone down the road. If you're going to welcome people to this wiki take the time to do it right or gtfo of their talk pages. My opinion anyway.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Clearly multiple points in the same (right) direction are what cause people to go on racist page-wiping sprees. You can't just judge new members by a different set of rules to established members - if they do something that's clearly wrong, that's that, there's no point in pandering to them. And if they can post useless bollocks multiple times then they clearly have enough of a grasp on the language to read a page of repeated aid. 02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fuckin' A. I can't believe Giles was capable of speaking so authoritatively over something he was so wrong about. -- LEMON #1 07:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking authoritatively about how I felt this user was welcomed to the community and I haven't changed my opinion on the matter. That's not wrong, it's just coming from a different perspective than yours.

I felt then and I still do that people did a crap job of showing zombieman how to properly edit the wiki, and then after the 1st vandalism case was brought against him he flipped out and went on a spree. No, it isn't justifiable, and I don't put up with racism and you won't see me defending his actions.

But I know when I started editing this wiki at times people went out of their way to try to piss me off/unwelcome me and I've seen it happen to plenty of other users as well. Some people take their licks and move on. But if someone is immature, it might not take much to put them over the edge and turn them from newbs into dedicated vandals who think they're raging against the machine. Which is exactly what I think happened here.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 09:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Back flipping on your initial summary isn't a good way to prove your point. I am against the fact you say he was turned into a vandal. You replied by implying that he was a 'close to the edge' vandal waiting to happen, via personality traits such as immaturity. Those two descriptions of him aren't exactly the same, are they? You use yourself as an example of someone who suffered the same treatment and didn't end up trying to fuck up the wiki. I mean, what the fuck would you have done to welcome him exactly? Do you even understand what happened here? Are you saying that you empathise with him feeling isolated by the community? If so, why didn't you try and vandalise a hundred pages with the word "nigger"?

It's simple. He made an edit in the suggestions system fucking things up in a typical "super fail noob" way. We explained that it was wrong and pointed him in the right direction. He completely ignored it and did it repeatedly, the exact same thing, twice a day, daily. Fuck it, the only thing I regret about the way people treated him was the fact people were nice enough to tell him we were gonna paste a vandalism tag on his account, his subsequent response of which only proved he was capable of reading what we said on his talk page the whole time. we AREN'T robots, we AREN'T idiots and we DO communicate with users in vandalism circumstances and we'd shown that by giving him so many fucking hints on his talk page that it was obvious we were a communicative bunch about the wellbeing of the wiki. Going on a MASSIVE racist vandalism spree is not and was never going to solve ANYTHING, and if you think he was somehow hard done by and 'turned into a vandal' even though you admit it had to do with his ignorant and immature personality, then I don't think you have a proper idea of what's going on. -- LEMON #1 03:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mmmkay. I didn't do any back flipping. I'll let you off the hook for calling me a 'tard but I'm not going to argue with you anymore because I feel like you're just going to ignore whatever I say and keep going off on random rants like you always do. Let's just say you win this one and move on. =P --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 02:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Im saying vandalism its almost like he or she is trying to break wiki i just started and saw some extremely racist comments on the Suburb map--Nexus 02:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing you managed to see it in the less than one minute that it was like that. It's also amazing that you're going to the exact same pages that he does and editing in the exact same way that he does. But surely that's a coincidence? —Aichon— 08:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't he banned yet?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 02:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you banning / bringup up AVBs on alts as vandal alts when they (the alt account) haven't actually committed vandalism nor ban evasion (as the main has only been warned twice)? Am I missing something? -MHSstaff 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

u peaple are funny--Zombieman 11 23:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Zombieman 11

Vandalism - since he just vandalized this page by deleting the vandal case against him. ~ 02:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism he deleted a suberb map and other inportant data a removal of hisaccount would justify it--Nexus 01:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Poodle of doom

I agree more with Mis on this one, but Yonn says a lot of stuff that's correct too. Whether or not Poodle committed vandalism is absolutely something that is to be determined on A/VB, not A/A. That said, A/VB is limited to escalating him, and cannot prevent him from posting on Kevan's talk in the future. Clearly Mis does not think that Poodle's spammish actions constitute vandalism, but the case still falls into A/VB territory if it's approached this way, since it's dealing with his past (mis)deeds.

That said, it also falls into A/A territory, since if someone (e.g. Ross) is seeking to block future edits, that's something that A/A is used for, not A/VB, since sysops are not granted that authority on A/VB. Basically, depending on how the case is pursued, it could go to either page. If you want to try and punish Poodle for what he's already done, use A/VB. If you want to prevent him from doing more, use A/A. Whether or not either one will be effective towards those ends is an entirely different matter, and I wouldn't hazard a guess there. There's also the question of which is more appropriate, but I think that that's a matter of opinion. If you think he committed vandalism, clearly you'd think A/VB is more appropriate. If you think he didn't, you'd say A/A is better. Simple as that, and both stances are valid, I think.

Personally, I agree with Mis in thinking that this isn't vandalism, since I recall no precedent regarding people being escalated for commenting on a user's talk page when that user hasn't specifically asked the commenter to stop. For those of you that think otherwise, how do you reconcile it with the malicious posting that quite a few people (including current sysops) have aimed at the talk pages of various trolls in the past? They repeatedly posted on those talk pages, sometimes even despite the requests of the user to stop. That seems far more egregious to me than this case, yet is considered permissible.

Others are welcome to disagree with my assessment of whether or not what he did should be escalated or which page is more appropriate for hearing out the case, but most of the A/VB vs. A/A stuff seems pretty straightforward to me, since it's just a matter of what the pages are meant to be used for. —Aichon— 22:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgot the most important part: y'all are idiots. —Aichon— 22:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to chirp in with a non-sysop/non-former sysop opinion here. I happen to agree that this kind of spamming of Kevan's talk page should be discouraged by vandal escalations or warnings if necessary, simply because it's the only public avenue of communicating with the game's creator. It's a blurry area because we shouldn't discourage commentary on his page, and we also don't know the wishes of the user in question (Kevan). But senseless spamming of this nature could certainly be considered in bad faith.

From this perspective poodle should have known better and he probably deserves at least a warning. However, I wanted to make an important distinction in that I disagree with the line of reasoning that poodle should have stopped and should be escalated because he was TOLD to stop. A sysop is a janitor, not an admin, and has no "badge of authority" to tell other users what to do. Failure to comply with what a sysop wants should never be used as an argument for vandal escalating any user. Ever. Two cents.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Personally, I don't like to think of it as a matter of "I warned him unnoficially in my capacity as a sysop so therefore it's insta vandalism", I just like to think of it as a hint to him that he was going too far and if he continues it would by my personal definition, fit into the realms of vandalism (whether I were a sysop or not). You're right though, the idea that my warning to him has been treated as evidence of some sort of official soft warning isn't an act we should encourage. -- LEMON #1 23:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, am I allowed to say anthing in these things? -Estacado^Talk 23:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah totally. Main page though, not talk, because you're involved.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, he's allowed to talk here. There's nothing restricting him from saying anything on the talk page to a non-involved party. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I presume he wants to defend his case, in which case it should be on the main where the sysops are more likely to see it. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just in case it comes up. I find it better if Aichon talks anyway. -Estacado^Talk 03:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I think I'm done saying anything else. As a user, I think you should be punished for what you did, since the other's have an INCREDIBLY valid point. Cluttering up the game developer's talk page like you did was a douche move, massively immature, and really just stupid. Kevan is essentially a precious resource to the community, and you were squandering it. If you do get escalated, you had it coming. —Aichon— 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Doodles has been annoying the heck out of me with his spam, and I think he's a massive twat. That being said, without arbies there are no teeth to this case. See the precedence of when Bungholio tried to get Imthatguy, The Colonel and me escalated for spamming his talk page. (Look especially at Aichon's arguments in the Colonel case.) Granted, Kevan's talk page might be widely watch-listed - but so has been Bungholio's talk at the heyday of the NSU drama (at least among the active users who are likely to use admin pages). And the spam on Bungholes page has probably been even worse as far as quantity goes. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

^^^This. I was actually going to cite those cases as well, but decided not to since my comment was already too long. —Aichon— 23:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a HUUUUUUUUUGE difference between Kevan and Cornholioo, as many people have already said (giles did it well). Besides, the reason people, say, I, didn't get considered for escalation was because when it got into the exessive spamming (and note, it was for swearing not spamming that he got cut at most. me anyway) I only came and confronted him with actual messages of importance regarding the wiki or his group or something. Poodle, did not.

Oh, and Corn brought people after breaching his "asking them not to" after they did one edit. Poodle did three, one of them being a 3 paragraph monologue of complete shit. There is no way you can reliably compare these cases... -- LEMON #1 00:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

For all three of the linked cases, they posted quite a few times (mostly before being told to stop) before being brought to A/VB, just as Poodle posted quite a few times before being brought to A/VB. Since both Corn's warning and yours carried no official authority, they had and have no bearing on the cases. Essentially, the cases just boil down into a situation where people posted trash repeatedly to someone else's talk page and were brought to A/VB later. Since, as you said, none of us have the authority to officially warn someone to stay off someone else's talk page, the only official way we have to handle this is if Kevan himself makes an A/A case against Poodle, wins a restraining order, and Poodle later breaks it.

That said, this is Kevan we're talking about, as you said. Basically, were this anyone but Kevan, I'd see no issue at all. Open and shut in Poodle's favor. No doubt in my mind at all. But because it is Kevan, I can definitely see some room for wiggling with the rules a bit. Kevan does have some special rules applied to him already. That said, this is not one of them, so, at least for now, I'd still go with NV, but would likely try to get some more policies in place to protect Kevan officially. —Aichon— 00:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No one was warning him to stay off Kevan's talk page. It's a warning to not spam and unnecessarily take up the time and effort of the developer of the game, and therefore risk jeopardising his willingness to communicate with us as a community in the future. That's what I was always concerned about and was working towards protecting. -- LEMON #1 04:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Cornholioo cases were quite clearly about harassment, where users were personally attacking another. It was most definitely a personal grievance. But, in this case, there is no such personal grievance. I'd wager Kevan doesn't even know who Poodle is. It's far more suited to spamming, which is what should be dealt with here. And while we're at the point of 'Kevan should defend himself as a regular user', he shouldn't, as you pointed out, because he's never here. He should have somebody who he can rely on to deal with page spammers as they arise. Kevan's talk page has gone beyond being just a talk page, and it's more of an Official Requests and Questions page. Now, imagine if there were two pages in the UDWiki namespace: UDWiki:Official Requests and UDWiki:Official Questions. The purpose would be that people would post and Kevan would check the posts for meaningful comments and queries. If Poodle had gone to one of these pages and performed the exact same conduct, he would be without-a-doubt guilty of vandalism. Quite possibly as soon as he had posted the long paragraph comment, but more likely by the time he had posted the third snow comment. That's how we should look at it, because Kevan's talk page isn't just a talk page, it's the only way to get official requests and questions to the game designer.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you that that's how it should be done, we have no rules in place right now to enforce it as such. You're essentially suggesting ad hoc rules for policing his page since we didn't have any already. I'd suggest that we get something similar to what you just wrote up put into policy. As for Cornholioo's cases, while the overriding idea may have been harassment, had they been cases of spamming, they clearly would have been escalated as such. Since I see no significant differences between the quantity or nature of posts that were made back then and the ones made now (and ignoring the Kevan factor in all of this), the only logical conclusions are that we either entirely forgot about escalating for spam back then (we didn't), or that they simply weren't spam cases (they weren't), and thus the current case isn't either. If you want to legislate from the bench to make new precedents that dictate how people can behave on Kevan's page, that's one thing, but I see no way that this would otherwise be considered spamming by any definition of the word that we've ever used up to now or according to any precedents that have ever been set. —Aichon— 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

^This. I agree that special rules should apply to Kevan's page. Sadly, there aren't yet any policies covering that. While I can understand on some level how and why ops come up with ad-hoc rulings to treat Kevan's page differently (see especially DDR's excellent reasoning), it makes me feel a bit queasy, as that could widely open the doors for rulings that aren't grounded in policy. -- Spiderzed▋ 16:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

All of these potential cases under this precedent would all be ruled on by sysops anyway, so like all precedents it's hard to think the sysop team will manage to come up with an unfair ruling. Seriously, this case is probably going to be not vandalism, how hard would it be for the precedent to be used unfairly in the future? At the moment it seems someone would have to do a pretty shocking job on Kevan's talk page to get any sort of warning at all. -- LEMON #1 00:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, and I apologize since I did misstate that a bit. What you just said is what I agree with and understood to be the case here. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that what said to him, as far as anything official goes, was a non-factor. Had you said it or not, it would have made no material impact on the case. That's all I was getting at. —Aichon— 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)