UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 03
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
March 2011
Bankwhatever
Hahaha, obvious Cornhole is obvious. Come on, Banky was never active. He was purported to originally be a friend of David.. who spent most of his NSU days lying in a ditch, stuck at level one. Never said a word. Then the NSU disappears, and he suddenly reemerges together with the WT with a bagful of skills, along with countless Cornhole zergs. Cornhole's every attempt to vandalize the wiki fails, and suddenly Banky appears on the wiki. It's pretty obvious, you know. And yes, I make no sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oidar (talk • contribs) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (BST).
- To those who doesn't follow my deranged logic, my point is that David took over the account from the incompetent(er) creator. Oidar 10:49, 30 March 2011 (BST)
Mistergame
I'm spending to much time on this place lately for the wrong reasons, so I'm taking a break for a while. 7 day ban
--
Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- (For the uninitiated, people can request self-bans here which will be applied accordingly.)--
Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- can't we make it a little longer?-- bitch 15:06 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Vote for escalation. --Ash | T | яя | 09:42, 29 March 2011 (BST)
- how do i go about doing that?-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 03:50 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Become a sysop -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 04:21, 30 March 2011 (BST)
- how do i go about doing that?-- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking bitch 03:50 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Vote for escalation. --Ash | T | яя | 09:42, 29 March 2011 (BST)
- can't we make it a little longer?-- bitch 15:06 27 March 2011 (UTC)
User:SA
Ban avoidance.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- SA ;_; --
TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also Lulz at DDR--TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- sigh @ drama filled op team now. Also probs going to pull the bid early. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- ;_; --TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- why is SA banned anyway? it must have happened when i was inactive.-- bitch 05:01 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Self-requested perma-ban in June 2010. Happened straight after he has gone bananas and deleted every single admin page to show us... Well, I don't know what it did show us, or what it was intended for to show us. But one has to admit, it really has showed us. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- so unlike amazing. whats the harm with him getting his editing rights back as a normal user?-- bitch 23:31 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Self-requested perma-ban in June 2010. Happened straight after he has gone bananas and deleted every single admin page to show us... Well, I don't know what it did show us, or what it was intended for to show us. But one has to admit, it really has showed us. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- why is SA banned anyway? it must have happened when i was inactive.-- bitch 05:01 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- ;_; --
- sigh @ drama filled op team now. Also probs going to pull the bid early. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also Lulz at DDR--
It wasn't to show anything. I just wanted a perma ban. :| Hell, I wouldn't have even bothered making a new account if it wasn't for Thad's fucktacious stupidity. >:( --SA 22:54, 28 March 2011 (BST)
Ashley Valentine
- Well, he did at least sign his edit. Since when was providing testimonials considered vandalism? I say wait and see how the contribution is appreciated by the user in question before rushing into anything. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
PROFESSOR DT TOLD ME TO SCREAM ABOUT MY BAN ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE IN OUR IRC CHANNEL irc.nexuswar.com/redrum AND MAYBE IT WILL ALL GO AWAY AND I WILL BE MADE A SYSOP SO I AM SCREAMING ABOUT IT IN HERE AND ON OUR IRC CHANNEL AT irc.nexuswar.com/redrum IN THE HOPES THAT IT WILL ALL GO AWAY AND I WILL BE MADE A SYSOP. --Ash | T | яя | 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Defamation of character your honor! Nobody can provide IRC logs that DT, Professor DT, or anyone resembling "DT" told Mr. Valentine anything of the sort! My client, DT, is innocent upon these accusations! I dare Mr. Valentine to prove otherwise! --DT
PK 23:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Au contraire! I can provide these logs… provided it's in my best interest to do so, of course.
 |
Gold in the Basket Supporter |
| Revenant believes that if DevilAsh or DT does in fact put the gold in the basket that this situation can be resolved. |
ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
DevilAsh is a filthy criminal
and quite the dashing gentleman too. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me. As for the escalation User:DevilAsh received for this case, I'm afraid you have it wrong. I ought to receive the escalation as I was pressuring him on IRC to do this. As he is an easily manipulated person, and isn't really accountable for his own actions when pressured by peers. Please consider lifting his escalation and applying it to User:DT.
This is, by the way, entirely serious.--DT
PK 20:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- DEVILASH IS A MAN?! 0.o -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
When two users are screwing with each other playfully and a third party reports and neither of them actually care it's call harassment vandal reporting. At the most either user should receive a "Please don't do this on admin pages or user pages, it can often be taken the wrong way by the watchful eyes in the shadows." and be done with it. It's obviously a running back and forth shenaniganery spilled over from IRC inter-group shenaniganery, not something sysops should be wasting their time with. --Karekmaps?! 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who are you talking about here? Nick messed with Red Rum, no indication it was playful, given his taking over of a group page in the past, claiming leadership. And there's no idication that Ash took it as playful, given that she said "while I'm fine talking to him on his talk (and user) page, I really can't account for crap he pulls on other people's pages". Given that, it's reasonable to assume bad faith if Ash then edits Nicks user page to call him a dee-dee head (or whatever). If you're talking about the Ash v Karloth situation... well, there was no third party involved. Ash brought it to A/VB, Ash escalated it by editing a signed comment on A/VB. They wanted to play on A/VB, at the mininum, it's shitting up admin pages -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:25 22 March 2011 (BST)
- This is the case I'm talking about mainly, never should have existed and you guys kinda threw away any claims to shitting up the admin pages when that was ruled vandalism in the first place against the established precedent shown in my links below to DDR. Good Faith != Vandalism. --Karekmaps?! 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- How is it good faith to edit another users User page, without permision? A user that ASh is calling a multiabuser, is only interacting with because they vandalised the red rum page, and has a problem with because they have been shown to have taken "leadership" of another group in dubious circumstances? We don't, and cant, just allow people to modify other people's user pages just on the off chance that they wont mind their insult (unless it's a case of clear wikifix stuff) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 22:56 22 March 2011 (BST)
- When it's not an undesired edit by the user who owns the page for starters. That single thing right there makes a world of difference. You guys have very good reason to believe that the victim is ok with the edit and went on anyway. That's not only against the spirit and purpose of A/VB it's borederline textbook group misconduct. Yes, to start there was good reason for the case, as more information came out it vanished into thin air. --Karekmaps?! 04:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- What evidence is there that Nick doesn't mind having his user page edited? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 06:49 23 March 2011 (BST)
- I might be wrong but I think Karek linked to the wrong Ashley Valentine case and meant the other one. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Given that Karek's last post specifically mentioned user pages, I think it's a fair bet that you are wrong (the other case being about "mock-impersonation" on admin pages -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:22 23 March 2011 (BST)
- Boxy is indeed right in the case I'm referring to. In that specific case there's good reason to assume that nick doesn't care and that it shouldn't have gone forward past research without getting his opinion on the edit(which at least one sysop had the sense to try and do before ruling). Redrum have a well established history of playfully editing eachother's user pages. As for the Karloth one, no, that's really not impersonation just a questionable edit and it's very blatant, not worth discussing, especially since he deserved an escalation for the report in the first place so end result is a punishment either way and a set of cases that aren't viable precedent to point to unless you're fucked in the head. --Karekmaps?! 05:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which exact good reason do we have to believe Nick doesn't mind? For one, he isn't actually a member of Red rum he just added himself. Second, it's all irrelevant when you consider DevilAsh edited his page without knowing himself whether or not Nick would have minded. The fact that he did it without consent in advance is for me bad-faith enough. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware sysops had become more educated about group membership than group leaders or users who added themselves. Is there some point where his adding of himself to the group was challenged by someone of known authority in the group that I'm not aware of? Because honestly the fact that they only seem to do this kind of thing to other group members historically seems to me to indicate that it's probably a correct edit on his part. Unless you have that it would have most definitely been best to revert, ask the user, and then wait more than two days for a response on what could have been a very simple drama free case had that basic step been taken.--Karekmaps?! 15:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Adding myself to a group doesn't give the group leader privileges to my userpage whichever group it is. We can discuss this forever, but at the end of the night, I'm pretty much against any form of "mock" vandalism, because I don't agree that it is in this instance the sysop's responsibility to go play detective in order to find out whether or not it was a "joke". Unless there's evidence of consent given in advance on this wiki (like a notice on the user page), I'm going by the assumption that a user editing another person's user-page in manner that is offensive or page-breaking is simply Vandalism. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's a shame really because that's exactly your job when ruling on A/VB, sysops are expected nay required to get all the information relevant to the case before ruling on it for the good of the user and the continued trust of the community in the sysop team. --Karekmaps?! 02:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Adding myself to a group doesn't give the group leader privileges to my userpage whichever group it is. We can discuss this forever, but at the end of the night, I'm pretty much against any form of "mock" vandalism, because I don't agree that it is in this instance the sysop's responsibility to go play detective in order to find out whether or not it was a "joke". Unless there's evidence of consent given in advance on this wiki (like a notice on the user page), I'm going by the assumption that a user editing another person's user-page in manner that is offensive or page-breaking is simply Vandalism. --
- I wasn't aware sysops had become more educated about group membership than group leaders or users who added themselves. Is there some point where his adding of himself to the group was challenged by someone of known authority in the group that I'm not aware of? Because honestly the fact that they only seem to do this kind of thing to other group members historically seems to me to indicate that it's probably a correct edit on his part. Unless you have that it would have most definitely been best to revert, ask the user, and then wait more than two days for a response on what could have been a very simple drama free case had that basic step been taken.--Karekmaps?! 15:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that Nick is a Red Rum member. This edit is Ash removing Nick's edit from the redrum page, this is Ash pulling him up for such edits (while making subtle references to him being a bullshit artist), down the page Ash also calls him an obvious multiaccount, and finally, he has just removed his claim to membership from his user page. Frankly, it was never a big deal, until it got made into one, but it was always vandalism in return for vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:04 25 March 2011 (BST)
- Which exact good reason do we have to believe Nick doesn't mind? For one, he isn't actually a member of Red rum he just added himself. Second, it's all irrelevant when you consider DevilAsh edited his page without knowing himself whether or not Nick would have minded. The fact that he did it without consent in advance is for me bad-faith enough. --
- Boxy is indeed right in the case I'm referring to. In that specific case there's good reason to assume that nick doesn't care and that it shouldn't have gone forward past research without getting his opinion on the edit(which at least one sysop had the sense to try and do before ruling). Redrum have a well established history of playfully editing eachother's user pages. As for the Karloth one, no, that's really not impersonation just a questionable edit and it's very blatant, not worth discussing, especially since he deserved an escalation for the report in the first place so end result is a punishment either way and a set of cases that aren't viable precedent to point to unless you're fucked in the head. --Karekmaps?! 05:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Given that Karek's last post specifically mentioned user pages, I think it's a fair bet that you are wrong (the other case being about "mock-impersonation" on admin pages -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:22 23 March 2011 (BST)
- I might be wrong but I think Karek linked to the wrong Ashley Valentine case and meant the other one. --
- What evidence is there that Nick doesn't mind having his user page edited? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 06:49 23 March 2011 (BST)
- When it's not an undesired edit by the user who owns the page for starters. That single thing right there makes a world of difference. You guys have very good reason to believe that the victim is ok with the edit and went on anyway. That's not only against the spirit and purpose of A/VB it's borederline textbook group misconduct. Yes, to start there was good reason for the case, as more information came out it vanished into thin air. --Karekmaps?! 04:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- How is it good faith to edit another users User page, without permision? A user that ASh is calling a multiabuser, is only interacting with because they vandalised the red rum page, and has a problem with because they have been shown to have taken "leadership" of another group in dubious circumstances? We don't, and cant, just allow people to modify other people's user pages just on the off chance that they wont mind their insult (unless it's a case of clear wikifix stuff) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 22:56 22 March 2011 (BST)
- This is the case I'm talking about mainly, never should have existed and you guys kinda threw away any claims to shitting up the admin pages when that was ruled vandalism in the first place against the established precedent shown in my links below to DDR. Good Faith != Vandalism. --Karekmaps?! 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who are you talking about here? Nick messed with Red Rum, no indication it was playful, given his taking over of a group page in the past, claiming leadership. And there's no idication that Ash took it as playful, given that she said "while I'm fine talking to him on his talk (and user) page, I really can't account for crap he pulls on other people's pages". Given that, it's reasonable to assume bad faith if Ash then edits Nicks user page to call him a dee-dee head (or whatever). If you're talking about the Ash v Karloth situation... well, there was no third party involved. Ash brought it to A/VB, Ash escalated it by editing a signed comment on A/VB. They wanted to play on A/VB, at the mininum, it's shitting up admin pages -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:25 22 March 2011 (BST)
- also
--TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- HEY LEAVE ME OUT THIS!-- bitch 21:48 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah. it happens every 8 months, same users, p sure we dealt with it the way you said a year ago. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I used to have a note at the top of my userpage saying "yo: I don't give a rat's arse if people edit this page" but apparently that's not enough :/ --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is it there now? -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Someone deleted it >:( --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is it there now? -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's not a reason to invent fake bad faith to justify abuse. It's almost like you want a misconduct case for warning/banning a user for something even the reporting user decided isn't vandalism when he had all the information. --Karekmaps?! 03:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's almost like you're threatening me with a misconduct case for being 1 of several ruling sysops who think this is not on from identical precedent! And if the user thought it wasn't vandalism they shouldn't have reported it. Not that it matters, vandalism is vandalism no matter who reports it. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 05:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not, although it is misconduct in sight of policy by most usable definitions. Pretty much see These long established examples of precedent opposite the very personality driven rulings here. Or simply a reminder that Assume Good Faith is actually a requirement for ruling on vandalism?--Karekmaps?! 05:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh... I'm getting tired of parroting my way through the same defences and arguments. Look at the precedents in the case, look at the precedents of precedents, blah blah more recent blah blah more adapted to this case blah blah -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 10:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- So...What you're saying is...You don't care about precedent and would rather make it up as you go along? :\ --DTPK 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, what he's saying is it only counts if he gets to do whatever he feels like because of it. --Karekmaps?! 21:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- *looks for the door dt came in from* You deliberately act dense when it is convenient for an argument? I just cited several precedents, more than karke and more recent, and more likened to the case at hand. holy shit i really do feel like a parrot today -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution
- You're going to have to point me to the places where you cited more precedents and more recent precedents. I looked at this page, and found you citing Karl+Devil Ash "doing this every 8 months" and on the project page you said they did it every year. You never linked to any of the cited cases and never actually said how many times the rulings had occurred. I count four by Karek, all with handy little links. You then complained that citing precedents is blah blah blah. Are the older precedents null because of a newer precedent, or do you just not like his links? I fully accept that I am wiki-incompetent, but you're not particularly specific with your evidence. --DTPK 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're pretending to have not read the cases and the precedents presented in them, or genuinely interested in reading the precedents and have missed them. Either way, look at the case. The cases, actually, both cases of Devilash and Karloth have the links in the posts that the original people wrote to bring the case forward? As for the 'blah blah', I was just summarising my past repeating of myself with blah blah. I didn't mean I was disregarding any precedents, sorry. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 02:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Look six indents lines up there are various links there of cases where users were let off for various things, including pretty much this, because the page owner or person who would be the victim of the vandalism actually condoned and approved of the actions. It's even mentioned that that is what is needed for an edit to be considered not vandalism by the sysop who took action here further down on the page you link here in the first paragraph of that case. In the very precedent you linked the consensus in that case, which actually isn't even close to this one, is that had you not been the one to bring the case or had you been ok with it it wouldn't have been a case as can be gleaned from the discussion. The real precedents to point to for a reason to rule the case the way it was would have been these partially linked in the original case description but here's the problem with those: They're laziness based rulings contrived from a noted and blatant lack of wanting to actually take the time to determine intent and purpose behind a particular edit and in both of them the primary claim was based on "Shitting up admin pages" something that was invented to prevent things like the Karloth Vois A/VB case in the current queue which is in-fact shitting up of admin pages, not those, thus the rulings are blatantly against the spirit and purpose behind the rule. On top of that you have cases like this which was ruled in a manner that if you applied the same rules used to judge that case softly, that it was humorous and not done bearing ill-will and thus not really vandalism, to this case you'd have to rule it the same way as that's the facts. Oh, btw, here's the best one, it's a perfect recent precedent from this year that shows approved edits in user namespaces are allowed, especially when all users involved in the report acknowledge that there is no case to continue. This is also a pretty good example that they do frequently do these type of things in-group and thus that it probably wasn't vandalism.
Sorry if I missed something but I can only seem to find a single precedent link from you DDR but, the most relevant one here is the Dhavid Grohl link that's been bolded, it's also the most recent relevant ruling posted on these pages that I've seen(haven't been through Akule's links). --Karekmaps?! 04:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)- You can actually apply a lot of those to both of his cases even. Although he should have gotten an escalation for making the Karloth case so you can probably slide the second one with a note that it's mostly due to shitting up admin pages with fake cases, at least you could have if you(the admin team) had actually ruled that one in accordance with it's precedent and not cases that were largely done in a Grim/Iscariot overuse rules and oft incorrectly attempt to punish mindset.--Karekmaps?! 04:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not going to address every single aspect of your post because unfortunately I don't have the time, nor should I really be wanting to since all we ever seem to do it butt heads for days until I join the rest of the sysop team in ignoring you. Okay. First link is about an arbies case, the case at hand was whether he was guilty of breaking an arbies case not actual userpage guidelines, fucked if Thad didn't get put forward for the edit itself, some things happen like that whatever. second link of comment editing has nothing to do with this discussion of the cases. don't see how hagnat's shitting up admin pages has anything to do with this. And you (as in, you, not me, i can) can't even see the dif from Grohl, he was asked to come there and comment and he did, someone else mistook the 'invitation' for something that it wasnt and reported him.
- Again, I only skimmed through your link because I'm tired and I am also very busy but I'm also not sure we're staying on the relevant track here. We can argue about precedents all day, even when writing this I found even more supporting either your or my argument that I might dig up in future just to demonstrate that there are precedents up the arse for either side, sysops have the choice to pick up some and ignore others. Because of that, sometimes it's just best for ops to just cases on their merits on faith. crapping about crap which can and should go on talk page is not something we look at favourably anymore, least of all when it's self reported for lols and we know it'll be responded to (in a threat if you will) of fucking shitloads of drama as a result. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 05:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- DDR, if you don't feel it's worth your time to defend an iffy ruling don't rule, don't complain when someone who has done the job takes the time to calmly discuss why it should have gone the other way. If that's how you feel step down and do everyone some good instead of weighing in on cases in the first place. Ignore me all you want, I'm not going away and I do have a point, this ruling is iffy at best and borderline powers abuse at worst and all you're doing by stating that you're not willing to even take the time to consider how the case was treated is emboldening that point. I'm trying to have a civil discussion on the case here, I'd suggest you step back and try to do the same.
Grohl's case parallels this one in that both users were asked to comment on the case with the exception that you were all smart enough to take the time to wait for that affirmation in Grohl's case, here you didn't because of who it was editing.
Hagnat's case is relevant because of these quotes:
- DDR, if you don't feel it's worth your time to defend an iffy ruling don't rule, don't complain when someone who has done the job takes the time to calmly discuss why it should have gone the other way. If that's how you feel step down and do everyone some good instead of weighing in on cases in the first place. Ignore me all you want, I'm not going away and I do have a point, this ruling is iffy at best and borderline powers abuse at worst and all you're doing by stating that you're not willing to even take the time to consider how the case was treated is emboldening that point. I'm trying to have a civil discussion on the case here, I'd suggest you step back and try to do the same.
- You can actually apply a lot of those to both of his cases even. Although he should have gotten an escalation for making the Karloth case so you can probably slide the second one with a note that it's mostly due to shitting up admin pages with fake cases, at least you could have if you(the admin team) had actually ruled that one in accordance with it's precedent and not cases that were largely done in a Grim/Iscariot overuse rules and oft incorrectly attempt to punish mindset.--Karekmaps?! 04:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Look six indents lines up there are various links there of cases where users were let off for various things, including pretty much this, because the page owner or person who would be the victim of the vandalism actually condoned and approved of the actions. It's even mentioned that that is what is needed for an edit to be considered not vandalism by the sysop who took action here further down on the page you link here in the first paragraph of that case. In the very precedent you linked the consensus in that case, which actually isn't even close to this one, is that had you not been the one to bring the case or had you been ok with it it wouldn't have been a case as can be gleaned from the discussion. The real precedents to point to for a reason to rule the case the way it was would have been these partially linked in the original case description but here's the problem with those: They're laziness based rulings contrived from a noted and blatant lack of wanting to actually take the time to determine intent and purpose behind a particular edit and in both of them the primary claim was based on "Shitting up admin pages" something that was invented to prevent things like the Karloth Vois A/VB case in the current queue which is in-fact shitting up of admin pages, not those, thus the rulings are blatantly against the spirit and purpose behind the rule. On top of that you have cases like this which was ruled in a manner that if you applied the same rules used to judge that case softly, that it was humorous and not done bearing ill-will and thus not really vandalism, to this case you'd have to rule it the same way as that's the facts. Oh, btw, here's the best one, it's a perfect recent precedent from this year that shows approved edits in user namespaces are allowed, especially when all users involved in the report acknowledge that there is no case to continue. This is also a pretty good example that they do frequently do these type of things in-group and thus that it probably wasn't vandalism.
- I'm not sure if you're pretending to have not read the cases and the precedents presented in them, or genuinely interested in reading the precedents and have missed them. Either way, look at the case. The cases, actually, both cases of Devilash and Karloth have the links in the posts that the original people wrote to bring the case forward? As for the 'blah blah', I was just summarising my past repeating of myself with blah blah. I didn't mean I was disregarding any precedents, sorry. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 02:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're going to have to point me to the places where you cited more precedents and more recent precedents. I looked at this page, and found you citing Karl+Devil Ash "doing this every 8 months" and on the project page you said they did it every year. You never linked to any of the cited cases and never actually said how many times the rulings had occurred. I count four by Karek, all with handy little links. You then complained that citing precedents is blah blah blah. Are the older precedents null because of a newer precedent, or do you just not like his links? I fully accept that I am wiki-incompetent, but you're not particularly specific with your evidence. --DT
- So...What you're saying is...You don't care about precedent and would rather make it up as you go along? :\ --DT
- Ugh... I'm getting tired of parroting my way through the same defences and arguments. Look at the precedents in the case, look at the precedents of precedents, blah blah more recent blah blah more adapted to this case blah blah -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 10:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not, although it is misconduct in sight of policy by most usable definitions. Pretty much see These long established examples of precedent opposite the very personality driven rulings here. Or simply a reminder that Assume Good Faith is actually a requirement for ruling on vandalism?--Karekmaps?! 05:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's almost like you're threatening me with a misconduct case for being 1 of several ruling sysops who think this is not on from identical precedent! And if the user thought it wasn't vandalism they shouldn't have reported it. Not that it matters, vandalism is vandalism no matter who reports it. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 05:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I used to have a note at the top of my userpage saying "yo: I don't give a rat's arse if people edit this page" but apparently that's not enough :/ --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
| Spiderzed said: |
| Soft. Once in a while a joke on an admin page is fine, but with a second joke so quickly after the first it gains the potential to get out of hand. |
| Misanthropy said: |
| Whatever is softer than soft - Neither of these were genuinely disruptive and neither was intended to cause any ill effect |
- Which show the general consensus of the ruling that it's not even worth a punishment to edit humorously in a non-harmful manner. This is, without a comment from nick to the contrary, most likely a intergroup joke and one that we know said group has done before on many different occasions, not vandalism.
The point is that you can not ignore precedent when it is so clear cut, you ignore questionable rulings and you certainly don't base a ruling on how it has been ruled in the past with the exception of things like the shitting on admin pages rule. Cases should be ruled based on specific user history, they should be taken individually from past unrelated cases, and should all be treated to the same very specific sets of questions. 1 Was it in Bad Faith? If no, then it's probably not vandalism. 2 Did it break anything functionally? If no then it's probably not vandalism. 3 Is it in violation of the spirit of an arbitration ruling? If no then it's probably not vandalism. and 4 Has it been attempted to be resolved before bringing it to A/VB? If no then it's definitely not vandalism. It seems quite clear that none of that was done here, first it was reported then the user was asked it it was just redrum shenanigannery, then the reporter admitted he probably shouldn't have reported it and asked for the case to be ignore, then the "vandal" admitted it was in good faith and just screwing around in group, nothing was harmed by the action, and there was no previous ruling showing that the users didn't get along. All of that points to a case that was ruled in a manner in contradiction to why Sysops are given the power to decide if violations of the letter of the accepted editing guidelines(read OWNERSHIP IS NOT A POLICY ISSUE) are or are not vandalism.--Karekmaps?! 05:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)- I read the first sentence and then walked away. Thanks for the advice about ignoring. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Take a second and read the rest of it, it's actually addressing your point/s beyond the first bit which was meant to address the mini-fit of "you never have a point" you threw my way. I honestly am wondering why the case was ruled this way because to me it reads like a misunderstanding of the purposes of certain rules and how they're enforced based on a claim of past precedent.--Karekmaps?! 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just did. And while I again think you are, on the whole, completely wrong on most of your points, my will to argue has faded since nothing's going to be done about it (trust me) and all I get in response are more 2000+ character text walls to deal with. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 23:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I find it funny that a sysop, more importantly a crat is all "la la la -fingers in ears-" doesn't want/care/have time for doing the legwork involved in the position he applied for/got elected to.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS
LOE ZHU | Яezzens 02:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- strange you find that funny, cause I'd be pretty concerned. Luckily this isn't a case of that, it's more a case of Karek and I having, as usual, different opinions on how to deal with this case. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know where you get the idea that we usually have differing opinions on this stuff however it's not even really that in this case. I could understand considering it vandalism and why. I just don't agree with the speed the case was treated with nor the particular justifications certain rulings used, like the claim of precedent in a user interaction driven case. My only point with all of this is that there was a better way for you guys to approach it that would have had less drama and would have been more authoritative, unified, and better for both the sysop team and the community as a whole as it would have shown that the sysop team has faith in the editors to be a force for positive interaction and contribution and not the automatic assumption that they're screwing people that the current case rulings seem to show. I don't care about the ruling I care about the process, I myself would probably have gone the way Spiderzed did with a probable vandalism with lack of input from nick by about tomorrow. --Karekmaps?! 09:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, fair enough. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 13:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know where you get the idea that we usually have differing opinions on this stuff however it's not even really that in this case. I could understand considering it vandalism and why. I just don't agree with the speed the case was treated with nor the particular justifications certain rulings used, like the claim of precedent in a user interaction driven case. My only point with all of this is that there was a better way for you guys to approach it that would have had less drama and would have been more authoritative, unified, and better for both the sysop team and the community as a whole as it would have shown that the sysop team has faith in the editors to be a force for positive interaction and contribution and not the automatic assumption that they're screwing people that the current case rulings seem to show. I don't care about the ruling I care about the process, I myself would probably have gone the way Spiderzed did with a probable vandalism with lack of input from nick by about tomorrow. --Karekmaps?! 09:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- strange you find that funny, cause I'd be pretty concerned. Luckily this isn't a case of that, it's more a case of Karek and I having, as usual, different opinions on how to deal with this case. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I find it funny that a sysop, more importantly a crat is all "la la la -fingers in ears-" doesn't want/care/have time for doing the legwork involved in the position he applied for/got elected to.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS
- I just did. And while I again think you are, on the whole, completely wrong on most of your points, my will to argue has faded since nothing's going to be done about it (trust me) and all I get in response are more 2000+ character text walls to deal with. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 23:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Take a second and read the rest of it, it's actually addressing your point/s beyond the first bit which was meant to address the mini-fit of "you never have a point" you threw my way. I honestly am wondering why the case was ruled this way because to me it reads like a misunderstanding of the purposes of certain rules and how they're enforced based on a claim of past precedent.--Karekmaps?! 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I read the first sentence and then walked away. Thanks for the advice about ignoring. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which show the general consensus of the ruling that it's not even worth a punishment to edit humorously in a non-harmful manner. This is, without a comment from nick to the contrary, most likely a intergroup joke and one that we know said group has done before on many different occasions, not vandalism.
Nickizdaboss
just curious what did he have to do with the MMA's?--
bitch 19:24 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since he isn't mentioned anywhere on the MMA's awards, he probably just slapped the template on for kicks. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- the nerve!-- bitch 19:33 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Rosslessness
You guys are all just ripping me off. And after I stopped using these, even. Tsk. No imagination. 
ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
How was this a soft warning/not vandalism but mine is? :( --Ash | T | яя | 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- No idea why you would compare the two... -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 10:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't it obvious? Pick only sysop reported... shout conspiracy... duh -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:28 21 March 2011 (BST)
- Oh Boxy, I thought you'd hold me in a higher regard than that. No, I am surprised at it because he faked a timestamp on a very important page (and the precedent he has been reported for says vandalism) whilst I'm reported for saying (and signing accurately) that an obvious multiacccount is a dee dee head. --Ash | T | яя | 10:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, he faked a timestamp on a public page, where there are clear rules to deal with such douchebaggery (ie. the ad gets wiped), you edited a page with clear ownership rules to insult the page owner (multiabuser or no) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:46 21 March 2011 (BST)
- You said the other guy was vandalism, and Ross wasn't... O.o --Ash | T | яя | 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the deal with that was that UUU reported himself and Boxy took that to be a bad faith drama mongering act in itself, rather than the act of vandalism. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 23:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- You said the other guy was vandalism, and Ross wasn't... O.o --Ash | T | яя | 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, he faked a timestamp on a public page, where there are clear rules to deal with such douchebaggery (ie. the ad gets wiped), you edited a page with clear ownership rules to insult the page owner (multiabuser or no) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:46 21 March 2011 (BST)
- Oh Boxy, I thought you'd hold me in a higher regard than that. No, I am surprised at it because he faked a timestamp on a very important page (and the precedent he has been reported for says vandalism) whilst I'm reported for saying (and signing accurately) that an obvious multiacccount is a dee dee head. --Ash | T | яя | 10:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't it obvious? Pick only sysop reported... shout conspiracy... duh -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:28 21 March 2011 (BST)
Uhhhm
I wasn't aware impersonating no one was a vandal offense. Trying to trick a group on a talk page while probably not the coolest thing to do really doesn't have anything to do with bad faith editing. If anything it's probably more inline with the debate over alt-abuse in-game than anything the wiki administration should care about. --Karekmaps?! 01:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- All that checkuser confirms is that lawliet impersonated a different user with the same IP. I won't name the other user but will say that Lawiet has not claimed they are one in the same so my ruling was based on the fact that they were different users. ~
01:43, 8 March 2011
- Understandable but all you really have to go on for true identity is the IP in this circumstance. Neither has particularly large edit histories and they obviously wouldn't publicly acknowledge it in light of what they were doing unless they absolutely had to. Not to mention it seems pretty clear cut to me, without checkuser, that they're likely the same people simply from how ridiculous the comments are and the questions they raised. Odds are that the third involved user is also them considering the group page but that's for you guys to know. --Karekmaps?! 01:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
What if, though the chance is very slim indeed, the user in question is actually trying to play both sides of the coin, so to speak? I mean, he's pretty new, so he might be trying to get his alts to fight without really understanding the anti-zerg countermeasures... But, if he is trying to one-up the RRF using his new group, he's in for one helluva surprise... -- † talk ? f.u. 12:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm really hoping this is the case because I've been trying to help him for a while now... -- † talk ? f.u. 13:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Even if this is deemed Vandalism, that doesn't mean that you have to stop to help. A/VB exists to undo damage and prevent future damage, not to pillory users and call in the riffraff to throw rotten tomatoes. Heck, I even helped Cornlolio on wiki matters, and boy did he work on getting escalated...
As for the case, at least to me it seems unlikely that this is a good faith attempt to fight her own alts. But then again, the whole linked discussion is weird. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Even if this is deemed Vandalism, that doesn't mean that you have to stop to help. A/VB exists to undo damage and prevent future damage, not to pillory users and call in the riffraff to throw rotten tomatoes. Heck, I even helped Cornlolio on wiki matters, and boy did he work on getting escalated...
DER FUHRER
Haha, oh boy. This guy is seriously making me laugh now. I mean, yeesh, it's just.. so.. pointless. And obvious. And easily reverted. And stuff. Oidar 20:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
