UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 03

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

2009, March Discussion

User:Abcvirus

What the fuck? If there's ever proof of bias in the sysop team against certain users, this is fucking it! 13 edits, ALL vandalism and a slap on the wrist from Boxy. Well thank fuck for you!

Let's look at his edits that you deem 'constructive' shall we:
Removal of factual information
Impersonation of an admin
NPOV tactical planning
Wiki-fying earlier vandalism
Blanking of a community page
An alteration to earlier vandalism

That's not to mention the systematic blanking of every page belonging to the largest event in the game. So you fucking tell me which of these edits was constructive you biased twat. If you had any fucking pride you'd take yourself over to Demotions for such incompetence.

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

These four edits to the Shackleville page] were an attempt to be constructive by a total newbie (possibly a n00b, we'll see if he has the ability to learn from mistakes), even though they totally stuffed up the page and violated the NPOV conventions of suburb pages. As I said on the main page, it was a close call, and perhaps one that other sysops may want to over-rule. Hell, any more trouble from him without clear contributive edits, and I'll over-rule myself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:23 1 March 2009 (BST)

Yeah, go ahead and try and justify it any way you choose. Edit like that to suburb pages have been ruled vandalism in the past, people who have committed such blatant vandalism have been perma-ed in the past. Your unrepentant bias is the reason the metagame avoids this resource. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Iscariot on this. Maybe the Shackleville edits were "constructive," but the wiping of the other pages is clearly destructive. That, and he basically insulted (vaguely) whoever created the page of being an idiot. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The disagreement isn't about whether this was vandalism or not, he got a warning for it, it's whether it should have been an instant permban or not. There is no provisions for anything in between, it's either an A/VD escalation or a permanent ban if there is no indication of positive contribution -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:58 1 March 2009 (BST)

I realize, I was saying I lean towards the insta-perma. More harm done that good, and showed some actual harmful intent. :P --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Boxy knows full well he's showing bias, if someone did the same thing except did The Dead's page, The Random's or The DHPD's it would have been an instant perma ban. One rule for sysops and their chosen causes, one for everyone else.

A single warning compounds that, I count six acts of vandalism:
Blanking a category page
Blanking a user sub page
Blanking another user sub page
Blanking a user's personal page
Re-blanking a category page after his vandalism was reverted
Re-blanking a user's personal page after his vandalism was reverted

According to this policy, six individual acts gives a one month ban. Is it ruled that way? Oh, no. Remember people going on a vandalism spree is now fine, just update a location danger report before you do and attack a group the sysops don't like. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A vandalism spree (regardless of how many individual edits is contained in it) has counted as a single escalation as long as I've been here. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A vandal spree from a new user with little to no contributory edits generally results in a perma ban though.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 14:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is a strictly defined exception. And it isn't "little to no constructive edits", it's "no constructive edits". --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Which the content of his edits can be contested. Boxy says his edits were "trying" to be constructive. I don't think they can be really classified as that.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 15:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... me neither. My point was just that if one of the edits was found to be constructive, he should only get a warning, not a one month ban. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So now he doesn't know how VB works anymore. It's like Iscariot gets dumber every day.--Karek^maps?! 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether he deserves a perma or not, I do agree that this is outright unconstructive.--Thadeous Oakley 15:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it's right on the borderline for me. The page blanking is obvious, bad faith vandalism, but some of the suburb page stuff seems to be the usual misunderstanding that suburb pages are survivor territory, and shouldn't be giving away "super secret survivor intel". Just rule for a permban yourself and let a third party decide, if you think he deserves it. I really am ambivalent about the outcome -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:47 2 March 2009 (BST)