UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 06

June 2009

User:J3D

Trolling comments will not be dealt with. Signed--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:43, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Moved from main

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

But this is the first time he has ever posted Nigger... oh, wait... He does this all the time. Wasn't that what he posted when he got demoted, too? Huh. I bet they vote Not Vandalism.-- #99 ^DCC 20:46, 7 June 2009 (BST)

This is the first time I've caught it in time for the case to be relevant, and I'm going to keep making these cases until he either stops or finds a way to use the word in a funnier way than simply "NIGGER *teehee i sed a nauty werd". --Cyberbob 20:49, 7 June 2009 (BST)

"Retard. Fuck off"; Quoting you there Bob. What's the difference between a "retard" and a "nigger"? Both are rather vulgar terms, one is rather touchy for people born with a mental or physical disability, the other one is for people with a different ethical background. Besides, I thought there was no civility policy. --Thadeous Oakley 21:50, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Indeed. --Janus ^talk 22:22, 7 June 2009 (BST)

^Another great example, this time homosexuality. This case can only end in not vandalism. Any other outcome, and we might aswell drag half the community to vandal banning.--Thadeous Oakley 22:29, 7 June 2009 (BST)

A different "ethical background", Thadeous? Wow, that's actually pretty damn racist. Hang your head in shame. --Cyberbob 05:39, 8 June 2009 (BST)

That was not meant as racism and you know that. --Thadeous Oakley 09:55, 8 June 2009 (BST)

It was definitely a telling slip. You might not have "meant" it but it's pretty obvious that deep down you wanna lynch a black man. --Cyberbob 10:28, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You are a very, very sad guy. So I don't agree with you so I must be racist? Your ignorance is pitiful.--Thadeous Oakley 12:52, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Come on he's a fob, give him the b of the d. --xoxo 08:17, 8 June 2009 (BST)

This wiki never ceases to amaze me, really just wow. I'm allowed to call someone a "retard" but not a "nigger"? You know, that's real discrimination right there, at the favor of skin color and at the cost of disabled people.--Thadeous Oakley 22:42, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I know. This place sucks sometimes doesn't it? But all in all, Nigra tends to be more offensive than returrrd. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:43, 7 June 2009 (BST)

I hope your not serious in that last bit. Otherwise feel free to explain that to a black guy in a wheelchair.--Thadeous Oakley 22:51, 7 June 2009 (BST)

"Hey buddy, you're not retarded are you?" SA

"No, sure not, dick. Assuming because I'm in a wheel chair that I'm retarded? I should run your white ass over!" Nigra-man in a whellchair

"Nah man, you got it all wrong. That guy over there told me to explain how calling someone a nigger in front of you would be more offensive than calling him a retard. Because, you know, apparently in his view all people who are mentally disabled are automatically too fucked up to walk, amirite Nigra?" SA

"Hells yeah! Lets smoke his ass for bitching about inequality in offensiveness, yet being a fucktard and a biased bigot on accident!" Whellchair Nigra-man.

Yeah. That's why.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:04, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Obviously the wheelchair was an example. I can't remember where I said mentally disabled can't walk. Link? You haven't explain anything. Can you explain it or not? Because you still haven't explained why "nigger" is somehow less worse then "retard". You only drew a silly story. --Thadeous Oakley 23:12, 7 June 2009 (BST)

And in case you didn't know, not be able to walk is physical disability not a mental one.--Thadeous Oakley 23:16, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Ahh forget it. I probably messed up due english not being mother language. Retardism is only mental disability not a physical. My mistake.--Thadeous Oakley 23:21, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Still doesn't explain why "nigger" is somehow less worse then "retard" though. Alright SA, a black guy with down's syndrome. What do you say?--Thadeous Oakley 23:23, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Lesse, you refer to me explaining that to a black man in a wheelchair, which is clearly inferring that said black man is not only retarded, that way both of the words are offensive to him. Which would also mean that you're using the wheel chair as an identifier for being retarded. Using a wheel chair specifically as your leading example of mental disability would imply that you believe many MD people cannot walk. I made up the story to let you know you should have picked a different example.

The reason why Nigra is more offensive is because of one big reason. RETARDS WERE NOT AND ARE NOT KEPT IN SUBMISSION FOR MANY GENERATIONS. Nigger was created as a derogatory term to label slaves. Retard was not created as a label to simply offend the MD peoples. Sure, it's used to call another member of the human race stupid, but it's still not insulting the people who actually are MD. Unlike Nigger. Which is still used like that. Good enough explanation?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:24, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Excuse me? How's using the word retard not insulting towards MD? Because that's what a retard is, mentally disabled. And when people refer negatively towards a MD they generally call him a retard. Sure, calling a non-mentally disabled person retarded, means he's stupid but its still insulting towards MD's.--Thadeous Oakley 23:35, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Because when you call a black man a nigger, chances are you think their entire race is like that. Where as if you call a man a retard, you don't think every single person is also retard. It's not offensive to call them a retard in general, as that was the actual way a lot of scientists referred to the MD. Until the general public started using the word. But Nigger was always a derogatory term. Unlike retard.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:43, 7 June 2009 (BST)

If you remove add the tiering in my comments, it looks like I'm not saying it all. GAH!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:29, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Because retard(ed) is still a clinical definition. Both having a special needs child, and being an advocate for special-needs children both in and outside the classroom as a teacher, I'm a little more sensitive to the use of the term and I have to say although I don't like it (the term Retard)being thrown around I find it a HELL of a lot less offensive than nigger. Regardless the use of Nigger is a violation of the TOU. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:45, 7 June 2009 (BST)

The main reason his use of the word nigger is vandalism is because it is spamming the admin pages with that word, of which J3D is a chronic perpetrator. If he used it anywhere else it probably wouldn't be vandalism but doing it on a page where his comment is supposed to represent input or some sort of opinion is spamming the admin pages and in using the word nigger he is doing it offensively also. There is no merit in crying vandalism when someone uses the word 'retard' in the same context as Bob did, because it was his way of expressing his opinion on the candidates on that page, albeit offensively. Same goes for Read (though more borderline). D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:32, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You guys are telling me is that "retard" and "fagot" are socially acceptable here while "nigger" is not. The logic behind it is breath-taking but I'll drop the subject since I'm in the minority again and because this isn't going anywhere. --Thadeous Oakley 10:06, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Thank god. --Cyberbob 10:27, 8 June 2009 (BST)

It violates the Terms of Usage, as Conn said. That should be enough. --WanYao 12:33, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Wow, there are two cases now... There may be no civility policy, but there may be community standards... Not to mention the TOU.

Consider my request to have J3D's ass banned -- twice -- one voice in the community expressing its standards. --WanYao 12:46, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Iscariot

What a retarded case. "durr he HAS to know better! obv bad faith, obv harassment!!" If this is ruled vandalism, every time Honestmistake brings a case against someone I'm going to do the same for him because "he MUST know better" even though he plainly doesn't. This is punishing stupidity which is a really really shitty straw to be grasping at even by straw standards. --Cyberbob 14:51, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I think cases like that brought up by people that should know better should result in bans. Next time you and J3D get into your little slap fights we should kick both of you for a while. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:57, 3 June 2009 (BST)

That is a really retarded reason to skip warnings, I have to say. Here's a thought; rather than just ignore warnings' existence why doesn't someone just come up with a modification to the escalation reduction policy to make them stick for a longer period of time? --Cyberbob 05:26, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Well, this is a new level of retardation. Let's make it harder for good users to reform to punish bad users that we should just fucking ban and get rid of. That's golden! I can't wait to see you use that logic as an OP. The lowering of warnings through edits shouldn't be a get out of jail free card for career trolls. That's exactly what he does. Fucks with users and builds up his post count. The only good thing about the system is that he has alienated most of the sysops so none of them are that eager to reduce his warnings because he will make a misconduct case against them (and none of them will do it without being asked directly by him) and he has too much pride to ask for them. -- #99 ^DCC 20:35, 7 June 2009 (BST)

if they're really such good users I'm sure they won't have any problems with getting their warnings taken off no matter how long the period is set to smugdog.jpeg --Cyberbob 20:39, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Sadly for you Bob I don't think I have ever brought a case against anyone.... unlike you and some of the shit you pull which would certainly be worth a case if I could be bothered to make one. --Honestmistake 19:56, 2 June 2009 (BST)

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha --Cyberbob 19:57, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I agree at this point... I was there when the the edits to Iscariots pages were happening, and the subsequent cases made... And at no point did I think these cases were illegitimate. Regardless of how I voted. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:07, 2 June 2009 (BST)

There's a vast difference between Honest and Iscariot. Don't play stupid. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:56, 2 June 2009 (BST)

ohshi better stop playing stupid dont wanna get a slash vee bee'd --Cyberbob 19:36, 2 June 2009 (BST)

yer so kewl! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:38, 2 June 2009 (BST)

too kool for skool --Cyberbob 19:51, 2 June 2009 (BST)

aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh SA did you not read a single word of what we talked about --Cyberbob 15:34, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Are you referring to something that I may also have talked to him about? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Probably. --Cyberbob 15:48, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Then I can probably assume that I said the same thing. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Hopefully. ;p --Cyberbob 15:50, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Actually, yes, I talked to you both about the same thing. I was going to hold off on this as DDR knows, but sometimes shit happens (Like karke making a case out of the blue. ><), and, well, I decided now might be a better time to play my hand. It may have been a bit earlier than originally planned, but still no less valid. And right now the spotlight is on him. Sure, we can ignore him, settle all the wiki lawyering cases he could make as soon as their started, ruling against him and saving everyone from his el terrible. But that's not the way to go about this here. I doubt he's going to get bored and leave, because there is no way every single user on this wiki will know to just ignore Izzy. It's just not possible. He'll still be able to be a dick on suggestions, and the admin pages. And we can't just go around denying everything he asks for and brings up because some of it may be legit, and we'd be no better than him if we denied those cases. He'll do nothing but still bring up needless bad faith cases against us, and anyone who may disagree with him until the day he leaves this place. We should just end it now. It is the sysops perogative(sp?) to judge cases that have no policy to govern them, we should do something about it. Something effective. Iscariot isn't going to learn from a small warning, it will only make him angrier and more hostile. The only real solution I see here is to remove him entirely for a period of time that will teach him shit will not be dealt with anymore.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:12, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Regular users weren't the ones I was thinking of when I suggested ignoring him. Sysops are really the only people he goes after because you can't claim "bias" or "abuse of position" against a normal user. If you can get the sysops to ignore him he will eventually give up. --Cyberbob 20:18, 2 June 2009 (BST)

But he will harass normal users like hell when he feels like it. And we don't need that shit around here. Not to mention that the Ops team probably won't be able to ignore him long enough for him to leave without one or two of them losing it and going berserk. You know how some of us get.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:23, 2 June 2009 (BST)

If he starts harassing normal users take him to Arbitration. As for the sysops... fuck 'em. If they can't do such a simple little thing as not feed a troll then they don't deserve their positions. --Cyberbob 05:23, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Oh my, did we send SA the same email? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:48, 3 June 2009 (BST)

No, the fundamentals on why this "should not happen" were different. Bob's was "ignore him altogether, no matter what, stuff stuff stuff", yours was "let him stay until he breaks something. A potentially LARGE something". :P --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:54, 3 June 2009 (BST)

He frequently makes very good points... just a shame he can't make them without being abusive, arrogant and obnoxious! I think a popular vote would be a bad idea as there is every possibility that he would meat puppet it his way. My preference would be for a Sysop/Crat vote with 100% needed to pull any serious rules swerve such as an instant 3 month ban.... 1 month on the other hand might serve as a reasonable warning that he needs to stop being such a dick! --Honestmistake 19:54, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Honestmistake said:

I would like to think we have about as little in common as is possible for two UD players who Bob dislikes!

Honestmistake said:

He frequently makes very good points...

0wn3d --Cyberbob 20:09, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I say he frequently makes good points but then give enough monkeys typewriters and one might be be able to sign itself "Cyberbob" and I wouldn't want to be compared to that either. Now do us all a favour and stop trying to goad me into a fight... --Honestmistake 20:20, 2 June 2009 (BST)

You (as always) don't understand what my joke is. It's funny because on the one hand you said you have as little in common with each other as is possible to be and on the other you said he frequently makes very good points. So what does that make you? --Cyberbob 05:28, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I got your joke bob, I just didn't think it very funny that you took my quote out of context. Yes I said we have very little in common and yes i said he made good points... HoHoHo, that must mean that i don't make good points! Sorry bob but anyone with brains enough to read the full quote would have picked up on my full meaning while you just cherry picked things so you can continue to harass me. Grow the fuck up boy, the jokes wearing thin. --Honestmistake 08:13, 3 June 2009 (BST)

honestmistake talking about 'anyone with brains' and telling someone to 'grow the fuck up'

heh --Cyberbob 08:24, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I normally respect your judgment, Angel, but you can't get rid of someone just because they're rude/abrasive/arrogant/et cetera. Once you do that, where do you stop? Banning Iscariot over this will set a bad precedent, namely that the sysop team can get rid of anyone they don't like. I vouched for (most of) you guys because I trusted you not to abuse your power, and banning someone over their attitude towards people is simply an abuse of power. --Pestolence^(talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Already been done with Grim (partially, if the coup didn't happen), in a way. Except the difference here is that with Grim he was an asshole (and less of a one, at that) but also a very good contributer while Iscariot is an asshole to anything that disagrees with him and contributes nothing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when your sole purpose is to disturb shit, people might want to boot you out.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:29, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Grim's being kicked out should never have happened, IMNSHO (although I realize I'm probably in the minority here), since it started with people voting him out based on his attitude, but nevertheless, it never would have happened if he hadn't gone all psychotic and tried to seize absolute power. Iscariot, while you may not like his rudeness, has broken no rules of the community and should be dealt with as any other user - that is, not banned until he has exhausted all of these. --Pestolence^(talk) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (BST)

You don't really know the half of the Grim case. Thank you for your input.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:19, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I've tried to keep this polite, but whatever. Did you talk to other users through some kind of super sekrit mind meld during the Grim case? Because I've read through the archives and I'm pretty sure I know enough of what went on to make the statement I just did. Thank you for your input, but kindly ditch the arrogance. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:32, 2 June 2009 (BST)

The wiki isn't the only place on the internet you know. I don't have to have a "super sekrit mind meld" to be able to send Grim an email, or a PM at a forum, or any number of other ways to contact him.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:13, 2 June 2009 (BST)

But the information on the wiki is the only official information considered in the case. Whatever, congratulations, you're better informed than me - I still know enough about it to make the statement about it that I did. The arrogant "Thank you for your input", when I'm trying to help out with a VB case (isn't that what users are supposed to do, contribute?) really pissed me off. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:22, 3 June 2009 (BST)

god forbid anyone pisses you off on the internet!! --Cyberbob 05:29, 3 June 2009 (BST)

He's broken this one, actually: an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki. Cyberbob may say it's punishing stupidity, but no one can be that retarded and not be from Conserapedia (pardon my generalization). The only fault in this route (and Grim's) is that it's quite possiblely the more sloppy, messy and drama filled one. I can guarantee the same result if we tried A/PD. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:51, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Meh. I'm not going to get sucked into the drama this will cause, especially since I can't make much difference to the outcome of this case. If this goes to a vote, I'll vote against a ban, but that's all I'm going to do involving this case. --Pestolence^(talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (BST)

This won't be a community vote because the community has proven time and time again that the people who are harassed don't count because the people who aren't feel that the harassed just need to suck it up and "ignore the harassers". Which in Iscariots case is pretty damn hard.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:19, 2 June 2009 (BST)

It is not hard, did you seriously just ignore everything I said in that email? They're words on a screen, christ. It's not like he's coming around to your house and pounding on your front door or anything. --Cyberbob 20:21, 2 June 2009 (BST)

It could be the easiest thing in the world, but that doesn't mean it still has to happen .It's also easy to remove him from the wiki when he doesn't deserve to edit here anymore. Anyone should be able to come to this wiki whenever they want and not have to deal with his shit, which if we ignore him as evidenced by this case, he'll throw a fit and harass other users in different arts of the wiki. What did he want? Sysops action to keep a user form doing something he didn't want that user to do. When we said no, he just took the case somewhere else. That's what will keep happening. Ban his ass now, we don't have to deal with him anymore, we won't even have to ignore him, because he'll be gone. Let him stay and his shit keeps piling up no matter what we do.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:35, 2 June 2009 (BST)

haha yase ignore every single rule in the book and ban him... because its easier --Cyberbob 05:23, 3 June 2009 (BST)

K. :D I don't think think a popularity vote would be wise, I meant more like that harassment/arby/mediation policy floating around earlier. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:00, 2 June 2009

Well, I can at least vouch that Izzy's been really helpful to me with wiki stuff. This includes bringing things to my attention on the wiki that are relevant to my groups or characters, teaching me things, answering questions, helping with coding, etc. A lot of this is done in IRC. --Fiffy ^{404 ♥ OBR ♥ RRF} 21:27, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Indeed he is helpful to newbies. But the moment you do anything, ANYTHING, that he doesn't like you are on his shit list until the end of time. This case is again an example of his subtle harassment and trolling. He is a discreet bastard, but he will get his eventually. Maybe now is finally that golden day. And his new signature is the icing on this cake of retardity. Anyone who has that much time on their hands to hate the sysop team, should probably go out and see the sun for once.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:59, 3 June 2009 (BST)

You need to crawl back into your hole. You are not intelligent enough to try taking that grizzled-veteran tone. --Cyberbob 05:23, 3 June 2009 (BST)

....From the main page ....

Why the fuck are you bringing my name into this? About the only time I even have dealings with Iscariot is on developing suggestions where his threats to dupe everything are really annoying and his attitude sucks... not even once; that I remember; have we had enough interaction to possibly describe as my "fueling his antagonism" Apart from bob attacking me on the talk page I was going to mostly step back and leave this for the sysops to sort out, its what we don't pay them for. --Honestmistake 08:24, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I was moreso describing the attitude of justifying user's pester-tactics through retaliation. I mistakenly added your name in the context of Iscariot, when I was really specifying your relationship with Cyberbob. I apoligize. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:41, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Apology accepted... and your right about my responding to Cyberbob, but I am trying to give up that habit. --Honestmistake 09:53, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Trying and failing --Cyberbob 10:13, 3 June 2009 (BST)

PERMA-BAN VOTE (Sysops only)

Setting aside whether a Perma-Ban is OTT, exactly what percentage of the Sysops are you looking for in order to enforce a Perma? --Honestmistake 14:07, 3 June 2009 (BST)

According to policy:

the policy said:

If at least three sysops, and at least a two thirds majority of all those voting, vote For, the user is permanently banned.

Linkthewindow  Talk  14:12, 3 June 2009 (BST)

hmmm so you guys are willing to stick to the rules outlined for the vote itself even if you're happy to ignore the part that says the vote may only be called after a monthly ban. congrats, you're only partly special --Cyberbob 14:20, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah but that's for a normal vandal with plenty of escalations while this is what might be termed "Special Circumstances" At the very least I would think it reasonable to push that requirement to include the support of both Crats and possibly an overall majority of all active Sysops.--Honestmistake 14:25, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Ug, just use policy, lazy bums. Less icky. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:31, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Elitism

Doesn't the elitism we're promoting, by making it a sysops only vote, bother anyone?--Imthatguy 06:42, 6 June 2009 (BST)

No, because it isn't elitism. --Cyberbob 06:49, 6 June 2009 (BST)

The permaban vote is a sysops-only ability, and always has been. What bothers me is that you think it should be otherwise. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:51, 6 June 2009 (BST)