UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 04
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.
Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting
In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:
- A link to the pages in question.
- Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.
- The user name of the Vandal.
- This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.
- A signed datestamp.
- For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.
- Please report at the top.
- There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.
If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.
If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.
Before Submitting a Report
- This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
- Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
- As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
- Avoid submitting reports which are petty.
Vandalism Report Space
|
April 2009
User:Charlotte Billingam & User:Kasei & User:Boxer
Charlotte Billingam (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Kasei (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Boxer (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Starting at Boxer, he added the PH Extermination banner to the PH page, here, added the PH themselves to the list of people supporting the PH Extermination, here, they're also the only two edits by that account.
Kasei changed the PH page here, here and here to change it to STARS' favour.
Finally, Charlotte Billingam blanked half the PH page and replaced it with "We like it up the ass :) Because we're gay PKers hooray!", here and then removed the rest of the page here.
User:Asdxiao
Asdxiao (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Adbot |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permanban |
Spambot. Only contribution: South Korea issued a Korean strategy to let the world into five major Korean Cuisine. -- 
RoosterDragon 
13:28, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Permabanned under section two of When a user may be warned or banned. Linkthewindow Talk 13:35, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:Sgt Raiden
Sgt Raiden (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Blanking a community page. I reverted the vandalism and waited to see if he was attempting to add a news item and pressed a button in error, no report has been forthcoming.
It's not like I called this an age ago or anything.... -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:22, 7 April 2009 (BST)
Vandalism and warned. --ZsL 04:53, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:Iscariot
Iscariot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
For consistently breaching the guidelines for submitting vandal reports as shown here. The user's most recent report was in breach of at least 3 of these: 1) He made no attempt to assume good faith and contact me on my talk page in an effort to iron out the problem. 2) He has an ongoing personal dispute against me and as a result this belongs on Arbitration rather than here on Vandal Banning. 3) The report is rather petty in nature as the user could just simply reverted the edit in question and provided a coherent argument rather than dragging it to VB. And possibly 4) To my knowledge my edit was in no way a bad-faith and I am pretty sure there was precedent a while back for Keep votes to be taken as justified purely for being Keep votes. However I see that Axe Hack has restored the strike so I am willing to admit that I was wrong in this instance and will take this on board for future cases of this nature.
This user has repeatedly ignored these guidelines despite numerous requests from the administration team, showing that he believes himself above the rules that most other users follow quite happily. Being a dick may not be against the rules but filling admin pages with petty reports purely to advance his personal agendas is well within the realms of bad faith.
I would post on the user's talk page to try and sort this out with him, however due to his continued hostility towards administration team members it would more than likely be deleted and apparently a misconduct case would be brought against me. Either way, I believe Iscariot's edits to this page are disruptive and create drama where none need occur. -- Cheese 00:15, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Quoting Cheese on a below case: "There is no policy making that box law". --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:19, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- I see you aren't reading again. I was referring in that case to the box containing the request to keep extraneous chatter to the talk page. In this case I refer to the actual guidelines for submitting a report. That is an entirely different kettle of fish. A kettle of fish that you keep seeming to forget about. -- Cheese 00:21, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- There's no differences between those boxes, both are attempts to force into precedent something that has never been voted into policy by this community. If you believe that one is worthless, then all must be worthless. So either you vote vandalism on the below case or you already knew this case had no merit and you are bringing it in hope I get banned.
- I see you aren't reading again. I was referring in that case to the box containing the request to keep extraneous chatter to the talk page. In this case I refer to the actual guidelines for submitting a report. That is an entirely different kettle of fish. A kettle of fish that you keep seeming to forget about. -- Cheese 00:21, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Also the irony, did you attempt to contact me on my talk page? Isn't this petty? And no, given your past continued reverts to pages involving me it was not a case of simply re-striking the vote as you have demonstrated previously that such leads to edit wars where you are involved. I was attempting to resolve the issue without needless drama, perhaps you have neglected to assume good faith? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:06, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Also the irony, did you attempt to contact me on my talk page? Isn't this petty? And no, given your past continued reverts to pages involving me it was not a case of simply re-striking the vote as you have demonstrated previously that such leads to edit wars where you are involved. I was attempting to resolve the issue without needless drama, perhaps you have neglected to assume good faith? --
Not vandalism. Your edit may not have been bad faith, nor really vandalism in it self, but those guidelines are rarely followed. Rarely. Sonny used to get away with getting users actually banned without having to do anything but be himself and post here. What would you have gotten, at most a warning? If you want Iscariot to follow it, or anyone for that matter, make sure it's enforced consistently.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:32, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:Krazy Monkey
Krazy Monkey (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Unstriking an unjustified vote. Claims in his edit summary "Unstriking, Keep votes have been shown to be justification in themselves", this is patently untrue as evidenced by the voting rules template. All votes require justification, although alternative voting standards have been discussed, nothing has reached a consensus. Accordingly this is an attempt to subvert the established process and prop up a suggestion by disregarding the community consensus about voting. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:33, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Iscariot has a point this time, either all votes should be justified, or none by the current guidelines. I'm thinking that if you don't pull something like this again we can just let this go with a warning, preferably soft. It's really not fair to let keep voters get away with not justifying their votes but not kill or spam voters. Are you agreeable as tho shit outcome Mr. Cheese?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:22, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Not Vandalism. I disagree on the justification guideline, a keep vote is a vote justified in its own merits. there is no need to vote keep:I like this. when Keep will do. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:25, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Then there is no need to have to justify a kill vote. Same idea, different outcome.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:27, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- I disagree. A Kill is going to have a reason behind it and if that reason can be handled in a latter revision then it should be discussed whereas a keep indicates an acceptance as is. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:36, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- A Keep would have to have a reason behind it too! Dear lord that I don't believe in, please tell me why there can be a straight acceptance when voting keep, but no straight nonacceptance when voting kill? There is no difference between just liking something and just hating something. Sure, you can ask for a reason why that person hates it, but you could also do the same for them liking it too!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:42, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Perhaps this is a regional/national perception difference. I understand where you are comming from, but I find there to be an inherent difference between a like and a dislike of something. In my area if one looks at a piece of Art (lets say a Pollack) And the observer likes it, its considered good enough that the observer likes it, however if the opposite is true and the observer doesn't care for the work they are expected to critique the work (i.e. explain why they don't like it.) I Understand that you seem to be more of the Movie Critic line...(I liked for the action et al) I simply disagree. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:56, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Not so much as a regional thing just opinions. I think that if someone who doesn't like it should have to justify that dislike, then someone who likes it should have to too considering that their justification would be just about the same length as a kill voters "I don't like it", at the least. I just really don't think it's fair that one day I can vote keep with a smiley face and then a few weeks later vote kill with a frowney face and then have the kill vote struck out because of lack of justification. Or with any kinds of votes. Justification should be a strongly asked for thing for the author, not a requirement. There's enough people here who would give their justification without being forced to that those of us who don't want to can be fine.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:48, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Perhaps this is a regional/national perception difference. I understand where you are comming from, but I find there to be an inherent difference between a like and a dislike of something. In my area if one looks at a piece of Art (lets say a Pollack) And the observer likes it, its considered good enough that the observer likes it, however if the opposite is true and the observer doesn't care for the work they are expected to critique the work (i.e. explain why they don't like it.) I Understand that you seem to be more of the Movie Critic line...(I liked for the action et al) I simply disagree. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:56, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- A Keep would have to have a reason behind it too! Dear lord that I don't believe in, please tell me why there can be a straight acceptance when voting keep, but no straight nonacceptance when voting kill? There is no difference between just liking something and just hating something. Sure, you can ask for a reason why that person hates it, but you could also do the same for them liking it too!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:42, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- I disagree. A Kill is going to have a reason behind it and if that reason can be handled in a latter revision then it should be discussed whereas a keep indicates an acceptance as is. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:36, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Then there is no need to have to justify a kill vote. Same idea, different outcome.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:27, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Not Vandalism. I disagree on the justification guideline, a keep vote is a vote justified in its own merits. there is no need to vote keep:I like this. when Keep will do. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:25, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:MisterGame
MisterGame (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
I am hearby creating a petty case against myself. The empty beer bottle told me so. AnD BeCauSe iTs a SilEnt pROtest agaiNts bORedom.--Thadeous Oakley 20:35, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Spamming up admin pages Vandalism Cheese WTF!RandomSysOp? - Vandalism struck, actually posted by User:MisterGame -- Cheese 20:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)
You forget impersonation. --Thadeous Oakley 20:35, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Self admitting right there >.> Cheese WTF!RandomSysOp?- Vandalism struck, actually posted by User:MisterGame -- Cheese 20:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)- Irony.--Thadeous Oakley 20:37, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Blatant Vandalism. Also impersonated a sysop by ruling on this page combined with regular impersonation by pretending to be me. I think it's a 2nd warning because he's due a de-escalation but I gave him a temp ban of 20 minutes to give me a chance to fix the page up without him popping in and messing it up. -- Cheese 20:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- In actual fact he's very lucky as he's back to a single warning now. Warned -- Cheese 20:57, 6 April 2009 (BST)
User:Cyberbob240
Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Creating petty cases to harass users he has a history of constant disagreements with.--xoxo 14:30, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Cyberbob 14:35, 6 April 2009 (BST) - good job fagmeister you seem to have missed the part where I gave both those chucklefucks their due warning on their talk pages before bringing it to A/VB Cyberbob 14:36, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- First the guideline suggests "discussing the edit" and second, your warning means squat as you were wrong to remove the comments in the first place.--Honestmistake 14:43, 6 April 2009 (BST)
I don't remember any really conflicting history between Bob and Mid. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:18, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Oh yeah, neither. Sorry my mistake. And i can't think of any ill feelings between bob and honest either! Sorry for wasting your time!! --xoxo 01:30, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- No, really, if there has been any conflict between Mid and Bob, then please tell me as I missed it. No need for sass mister, as I didn't rule or anything. I know there is animosity between Honest and Bob, I just don't remember any between Mid and him. Is there?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:39, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- thanks for edit conflicting me ;
- I was going to suggest looking at any edit I made to any admin page in the last month or so, you will almost always find Bob making an insulting remark aimed at me. Before he jumps in here i will freely admit to responding to most of them, what can I say in my defense... he is an effective troll!--Honestmistake 01:35, 7 April 2009 (BST)
Interesting that Suicidal would actually consider this being vandalism when I tried to not have to bring Honest and Midianian to A/VB by warning them on their talk pages that if they did it again I would report them. Obviously my interpretation of the box was wrong (I must have missed the memo on that one as no sysop has ever had a problem with me moving comments to the talk page) but to call the cases "petty" is fucking stupid. J3D is going fishing here, nothing more. 
Cyberbob 05:03, 7 April 2009 (BST)
Oh and I don't have enough contact with Midianian to comment on whether or not there was a pre-existing animosity there. There might be some on his side, I don't know. Cyberbob 05:03, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:Honestmistake
Honestmistake (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
As Midianian. Again requesting a soft warning. Cyberbob 13:51, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- and as I keep posting below:
- "If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 13:53, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Not Vandalism - There is no policy making that box law and, similar to below, I personally have found Honest's comments to be relevant to the cases being discussed. -- Cheese 20:31, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- thank you cheese but could i ask you (or someone else)to restore my comments? I no longer feel like disputing with Bob as it does nothing but feed his ego while , frankly, making me look a bit stupid for even trying!--Honestmistake 00:46, 7 April 2009 (BST)
Not Vandalism, as Cheese.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:18, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:Midianian
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Midianian (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Constantly posting comments on the main A/VB page despite not being in any of the three groups described in the box as being allowed to. He hasn't done it enough to warrant a case normally but in this case he has rather explicitly acknowledged that he is going against the box's message. Requesting a soft warning. Cyberbob 11:59, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- First, I wasn't "constantly posting comments", merely reverting your removal of one of mine. Second, as I've explained to Bob, the comment is pretty short, relevant to the case and a direct reply to a comment on this page. Third, nowhere did I say I'm going against the box's message, I even said to Bob that the purpose of the notice is not a blanket banisment of all not directly related commentary (the notice was even changed to reflect this, I'll dig up the discussion about it in a bit). --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 12:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- cool story bro Cyberbob 12:16, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- The edit, made by Karek (with related discussion here), has been eaten by the history purge, but you can see the original text of the box on this policy (compare with current text). The text was specifically changed from "strongly asks" to just "asks". I considered the request to post it on the talk page, but decided it was relevant enough to put on the main page. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 13:59, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- that was over a year ago brah. get with the times Cyberbob 14:01, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- that was over a year ago brah. get with the times
- The edit, made by Karek (with related discussion here), has been eaten by the history purge, but you can see the original text of the box on this policy (compare with current text). The text was specifically changed from "strongly asks" to just "asks". I considered the request to post it on the talk page, but decided it was relevant enough to put on the main page. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 13:59, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- cool story bro
Not Vandalism - There is no policy making that box law and I personally have found Mid's comments to be relevant to the cases being discussed. Any ruling of vandalism resulting from spamming admin pages is exactly for that. Contributing usefully to a discussion is not vandalism to my knowledge. -- Cheese 20:31, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Not Vandalism ^ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:17, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:Ricci Bobby
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Ricci Bobby (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
A really odd case. Appears to be an alt of User:Alex1guy, judging by these changes, filling out the original's userpage, signing as (possible) original user, and again, but then does dumb stuff like this and this as if he is a total noob. Maybe someone should go on a IP check and see whats going on here? I don't know if this guy knows how confusing it is for us to sign under his alt. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 08:09, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- And THIS. Like what is this guy thinking? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 08:11, 6 April 2009 (BST)
All IP's are falling into a very similar range, so it's probably fair to assume that Ricci Bobby is an alt of Alex1guy. I'll run them through a geolocater and see if that provides any hints. Linkthewindow Talk 08:16, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- Same ISP, same location. Looks like it's an alt. Linkthewindow Talk 08:18, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- I would also like to add, for the possibility of a future case, that the user is modifying others' danger reports one month after he was user-warned for it. I'm explaining it all to the user now. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 08:29, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- Thanks. Here's the prior vandalism case. It was over page blanking and removing comments. Linkthewindow Talk 08:39, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- I would also like to add, for the possibility of a future case, that the user is modifying others' danger reports one month after he was user-warned for it. I'm explaining it all to the user now. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 08:29, 6 April 2009 (BST)
User:Rosslessness
Rosslessness (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | 1 week ban (requested) |
Requesting a 1 week Self ban. I have work I should be doing. I hope you can cope. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:17, 5 April 2009 (BST)
- Done. Linkthewindow Talk 11:37, 5 April 2009 (BST)
User:Famke
Famke (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Perma |
Possible spambot. Only contribution is creating this: Dig Site, The which is about Runescape. External links to some 3rd party site related to it too. -- RoosterDragon 15:41, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- Permabanned and page deleted. =) -- Cheese 18:08, 4 April 2009 (BST)
User:Allies_against_DK13
Allies_against_DK13 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Sockpuppet |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Main Warned |
Vandalized DK13's recruitment ad, alternate account of User:The shoemaker.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 05:35, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- link and link. It's worth noting that SA has temporarily blocked Shoemaker until another sysop comes and rules. Anyone got any more links to add? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 07:45, 4 April 2009 (BST)
Main (The shoemaker) warned. I'll leave the alt non-banned for now, as I guess this edit could be seen as non-vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 10:03, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- Actually, being that it consisted of the same stuff that he was saying while vandalizing, and according to this case where he left the same spammy warning on his userpage and it was deleted as a vandal page then Allies against DK13's edit to his talk page could be considered a continuation of his vandalism, thus negating the whole non-vandalism call. But I'm fine with the ruling. :) . Also, thanks for taking care of this guys. I was too tired.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 13:44, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- Yeah. I'll see if he keeps vandalizing once he sees the warning. He hasn't even made three edits yet, but it's still a vandal alt, I guess. Linkthewindow Talk 13:49, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- And he appears to have taken it in. Let's hope he stops naw. Linkthewindow Talk 13:19, 5 April 2009 (BST)
User:ANGUSMCSUCKSUCK
ANGUSMCSUCKSUCK (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
Warned for editing a group page and fucking about with an image upload which I've deleted and reuploaded because it went screwy on the revert. I did originally permaban him but I've decided to just issue a warning instead. -- Cheese 19:40, 3 April 2009 (BST)
User:J3D
J3D (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | {{{1}}} |
|---|---|
| Action taken | {{{2}}} |
For making 2 petty cases against me on A/M that involved me acting within my rights (deleting a scheduled deletion and banning MYSELF). Clearly this is a personal vendetta. This is harassment and violates this guideline from A/M Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops. --– Nubis NWO 11:40, 1 April 2009 (BST)
Is there a half-vandalism half-not-vandalism option?
Alright, here's the deal. I personally think that what you did with the image was the right thing to do and well within your rights and is actually part of your job. Jed probably shouldn't have brought the image case up as it was. But I don't agree with a sysop going and punishing themselves over a misconduct case. An actual decision should have happened. Now I know there was a bunch of talking and blathering going on, but all the same a punishment needs to be met out and decided by the rest of the team, not by the one under the scope.
That said, any other sysop plan to say anything on this case? I don't want to rule until I hear other view points.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 18:59, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- Seriously though, can we get some input here? It's been long enough for at least one other 'op to say anything about this case, and I know you buggers have seen it!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:17, 5 April 2009 (BST)
- Are you saying that I am not allowed to ban myself under any circumstances? Are you saying that I somehow have more authority over everyone else on A/M and that when I decide a course of action it is the final decision? You can't have it both ways. Either I have some kind of ungranted authority and can decide (but not vote on) my own Misconduct cases or whatever the hell I do has nothing to do with the actual case. You can't bitch at me for finally getting off my ass and making a fucking decision. There were only 2 questions in that case: Who is responsible for de-escalations and what is the penalty for screwing up a ban time? And what was stopping anyone from saying, "Nice ban, now here's your punishment." ?
- Why did we add the clause about harassment if we aren't going to use it to protect sysops? Why would it even ever be considered misconduct to ban myself? Seriously. And why would instantly going to Misconduct over a scheduled deletion ever be correct? Don't make policies that you are going to get in trouble for upholding. --– Nubis NWO 08:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- "And why would instantly going to Misconduct over a scheduled deletion ever be correct?" When the deleted page/image doesn't fit the description of the scheduled deletion. If you deleted, say, this image claiming it was porn, naturally you'd be brought to misconduct as soon as someone noticed it. J3D simply thought the image wasn't porn and acted accordingly. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 09:46, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- I'm saying you shouldn't try to preemptively try and decide your own punishment. It doesn't matter if it's override-able, you still shouldn't try and say "Hey, I'm just gonna punish my self like this, and because I'm the only one that's decided on what my punishment should be it's should probably be right. But go ahead and rule otherwise if you feel you should, but my punishment is probably the best course of action!"
- 'Cause you know, that's exactly what you did'. Sure, no one overrode it, but the fact of the matter is is that you shouldn't have done it from the start.
- No one said you shouldn't be allowed to ban yourself, but when you're trying to decide on your own punishment for your own case, then it's a problem. There's plenty of us to decide that for you, learn some fucking patience because the case wasn't even there for 3 days. But please do go on how we're all persecuting you because one user thought you fucked up. 'Cause it's not possible to think a sysops messed up without it being harassment amirite?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Why did we add the clause about harassment if we aren't going to use it to protect sysops? Why would it even ever be considered misconduct to ban myself? Seriously. And why would instantly going to Misconduct over a scheduled deletion ever be correct? Don't make policies that you are going to get in trouble for upholding. --– Nubis NWO 08:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)
My problem is that I believe that the cases border (if not cross the line) on Harassment. However I also abhor the idea of dong anything that might prevent regular users from bringing legitimate cases against sysops. The fact the cases themselves were brought is understandable (although also just as obviously not misconduct imho.) Where J3d crosses the line is the language in presenting the case regarding the image edit. No we don't have a civility policy, but the statement "Can the lady reupload so we can finally get the buttons taken off the control freak?"indicates a specific intent when combined with the statements made in this case and the other indicate a bias against, and in this situation harassment of, Nubis. ergo Vandalism. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 19:56, 5 April 2009 (BST)
- Do you even understand what you're saying? You're trying to say that because he thinks Nubis should be in trouble for something it's automatically harassment? So, the next time you or I or any other op fucks up, and someone brings a case against us saying "Can someone please demote them for this serious fuck up", I can call it harassment and bring them down with me? Oh, of course as long as it's at least two cases amirite?
- You said it yourself, we don't have a civility policy, the statement wasn't over the line. Don't try to use that call this vandalism. Also, of course he's going to have a specific intent of bringing a misconduct case. The fixing of a perceived mistake on a syops along with a punishment, if needed.
- If Jed's getting a punishment for asking for a sysops to be demoted in the case, then how come no one else has ever gotten one for asking for a specific punishment?
- Jeez Conn, if you're going to try and get a user that you don't like punished, could you use a thicker veil?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:12, 5 April 2009 (BST)
- You are the one that asked for input. 1st I don't have anything against J3d, and I think some of the things that has been done in effigy are juvenile at best, however... By Specific intent I mean not calling out a mistake by a sysop but rather calling out a specific sysop to be demoted and not entirely on the merits of this case alone but rather previous incidents as well which are clearly defined within the verbage of J3ds complaint. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 08:02, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- Oh.. and by the way... Demote him because of this serious fuck up is a whole lot different than demote him because HE is a serious fuck up. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 08:04, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- The end of your first comment doesn't make much sense. If you care to elaborate or retry to explain that it's be cool. Your second part on the other hand, yes there is a difference. But right here that does not matter. Whether Nubis is a bad sysops or not, the fact that Jed asked for his demotion in his request does not mean it's harassment. It's a punishment he thought fitting seeing some of said sysops past behavior.
- Please try to find another way to punish a user for trying to do what he thought was right. Whether I agree with what said user was thinking or not, he did what he thought was right and I respect his rights given to him as a member of this wiki and I will not infringe upon them.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Oh.. and by the way... Demote him because of this serious fuck up is a whole lot different than demote him because HE is a serious fuck up. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 08:04, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- You are the one that asked for input. 1st I don't have anything against J3d, and I think some of the things that has been done in effigy are juvenile at best, however... By Specific intent I mean not calling out a mistake by a sysop but rather calling out a specific sysop to be demoted and not entirely on the merits of this case alone but rather previous incidents as well which are clearly defined within the verbage of J3ds complaint. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 08:02, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Not Vandalism on the grounds that there is no clear pattern of harassment or abuse in the data provided by the 'op who feels harassed, and there is no way to really call them petty when it's a difference of opinion in one case; which is why we review these cases. And in the other case, it's simply something accused user thought was wrong. He's apparently not the only one that thinks handling your own punishment in a misconduct case is wrong, and I'm sure others feel the same.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)
