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:Iscariot

Oh Lord! Here comes the noise! *Braces for Iscariot's hate/swear filled multiple timed italicized "defense"*--SirArgo ^Talk 05:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This one's going to be messy...--Super Nweb 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Get your hard hats and flak jackets out, people. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 06:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Always wanted to use this qoute, and now I can, "This is going to be one wild night" --Super Nweb 07:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Always act in good faith, never bad faith." I don't think bashing religion on a wiki about a zombie GAME is in good faith.--Super Nweb 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant when you're talking about a crucifix suggestion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:56 5 March 2009 (BST)

The suggestion was to use it as a melee weapon for 1dmg and 25% accuracy..... how is that religion? That is using a block of wood (or metal) to hit someone! It had nothing to do with "Divine or magic" it was completely normal. There was no reason to make personal insults to someone because they suggested something you didn't like, and there was no reason to mention molesting minors. Or insulting someone's beliefs for no good reason " torture, murder and discrimination perpetrated by a group of ignorant zealots for the last 2000 years" hitting someone with a crucifix has nothing to to with discrimination.... This is an ongoing trend with him and it is hurting the wiki as a whole.--Super Nweb 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably the "while shouting religious phrases" part. --Janus ^talk 22:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is in flavor since it is useless to shout them but people still do it isn't "You call upon god to smite these zombies for OAP doing 100DMG"... It is just flavor text and even if you don't agree with it I don't bash you for what you think.--Super Nweb 23:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It may just be my limited experience with the sysop process talking here, but I don't think this is about the "facts" of your statements, Iscariot, it's about the statements themselves. You can say "six million jews were killed by Hitler" and you'd be correct. Your statement would be factual, if not relevant. But if you then added "and good riddance" there'd be a problem. No one here is trying to debate you on the facts or what you're saying, they're trying to make you stop using said facts (true or otherwise) to harass people. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He's not insulting the suggestions, he's insulting the people bringing the suggestions, and even people discussing them. Anyone he sees who has a different set of beliefs than he does gets it. Quote: "Awww. Argo, are you one of these delusional fuckwits who believes that some omnipresent father figure will spank those who are mean to you after you die?" That has nothing to do with the suggestion, the entire statement is meant to belittle other users simply because they don't agree. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 08:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what you need to take into account is these are personal attacks. He wants to make these people feel bad. Just because it is a crucifix suggestion, that has ZERO to do with suddenly going lol priests but raep kids. Anyone who believes in a Gawd is a dumfuk. In fact, if he had posted it like that, this case would be ruled vandalism in a snap of the fingers. He uses the good grammar as a shield, as I have said in the past. This is not commenting on the suggestion or even what it's about, but rather a post to hurt people. It is a personal attack and it's blatant trolling.--SirArgo ^Talk 08:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, even your "worst case" pseudo-quote would be unlikey to have been even brought here, and even if it had, ===> arbies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:58 5 March 2009 (BST)

And as Nubis said above, that Iscariot tried to quickly dismiss as bias, is that this isn't an isolated incident. This is an ongoing thing.--SirArgo ^Talk 08:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no civility policy, and many people have made much worse comments on crucifix suggestions before today. Just my 2 cents. --Pestolence^(talk) 12:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no formal civility policy but a 'Crat was demoted (and ultimately banned) for constant harassment of users and others have been banned for death threats. There is a clear pattern of abuse here. The bias here is that one user can make a comment construed as a death threat once and get banned but another user can constantly torment and bully users and get less than a slap on the wrist sometimes when the attending sysops have the balls to stand up to his whining about being persecuted. The pattern and history is clear.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe he was in fact demoted for removing a nomination, which ended in a farcical demotion, and then one pissed off 'crat deciding to leave.-- Adward  20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The case started from the nomination thing, but quickly evolved into a case about his behaviour. The only punishment for his bad behaviour was demotion from crat to sysop. That's right, he wasn't even demoted to a regular user. He was banned and demoted because of the coup. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Its obvious that Iscariot is in fact the reincarnation of Jezus, spreading (read:harrasing) the true word (read:drama) of God (read: Grim). And now he is being crucified on the same crucifix he denied power. Irony? --Thadeous Oakley 16:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw mention of the host TOS being brought up in the case. I can't be 100% sure, but if no acknowledgment of the TOS's existence was made at our signup, I don't think that we're bound by it. You can't just be arbitrarily forced into accepting a contract without being made aware of it's existence. --Johnny Bass 22:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We as users may not be bound to it, but Kevan (and anyone who pays for the host's services) is. There's precedent for things being removed or edited on the basis that Kevan would be liable for their existance. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 22:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. You are bound by it because the site is bound by it and as a user of the site you are bound by the rules of the administration. We enforce ToS violations, that's Kevan's edict, you're not forced into a contract in any manner, you're simply required to behave reasonably. Also, a note, stop listening to Iscariot, you know the type of shit he does, you should know better than to trust his version of things by this point and it sounds very much like you're commenting here because he whined about admin abuse in a channel you share. --Karek^maps?! 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot can be pretty much of an arsehole, but, much like Boxy, I'm not seeing the cause for a vandalism case here and the two voters who have gone for Vandalism in their votes have such an obvious agenda that it borders on the hysterical. Citing a four-day-old TOS page (which is still a work-in-progress) in a case such as this just reeks of desperation in the same way as some of Iscariot's own cases have in the past. Fight fire with water, not more fire. --Papa Moloch 23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Should probably clarify. The ToS isn't a work in progress, the wiki page regarding it is but the ToS has been around for a while and has always been binding. Users have been permabanned in the past for ToS violations but it's rare because of the extreme behavior required to actually put the wiki itself at risk. It's a perfectly valid thing to cite just not particularly relevant here. --Karek^maps?! 04:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Um, the above post was on the main page, and was more a reply to SA than Thadeous Oakley, but meh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:20 4 March 2009 (BST)

Let me do the math here. The sysops are biased against Iscariot. Iscariot is biased against new users (like Sgt. Raiden, this guy, and others) But it is the sysops' fault that the "metagaming community avoids this resource". Makes perfect sense SYSOPS!!!!! --– Nubis ^NWO 15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The main reason that the metagaming community avoids the wiki probably has more to do with the basic nature of the wiki itself. It's designed to be used as an information source that is easily accessed and updated by everybody. That's basically incompatible with the interests of metagaming groups, given their need to plan in private. It's also an unwieldy for use as a "chat" forum -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:20 4 March 2009 (BST)

Considering he has begun to post every day, I think he would take even a short ban as a bucket of cold water to the face. It might be enough of a wake-up call to get him to straighten up and fly right. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 10:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This case is closed. Making a new case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)