Moderation:Vandal Banning

All right. Now I've got some real good stuff here. Cyberbob, has constantly shown that he is only here to piss us of and get the dirt. Well, the way I see it, he is commiting an act of vandalism. Heres why: He is delibrately inhibiting progress in an unconstructive manner and doing it with malicous intent, i.e., making us argue about it and in general, get us angry. When you come down to it, what is the difference between his subtle vandalism and, say, page blanking. They both fit: A) Inhibiting progress of the wiki in general, B) Are deconstructive, and C) Are both clearly done with a malicous intent in mind. Aren't those the base ideas of vandalism? Plus, he's here just to annoy us. Now, not only is there no real reason to let him stay, there's reason to kick him out the door. -- 17:47, 31 January 2007 (PST)
 * So he's trolling. Also, this isn't the UD wiki, the community is small enough that red tape is not an issue.  IE, what I'm saying is that if Mo wanted him gone then he would be gone.  Stale2000 T&bull;W.o.O 19:24, 31 January 2007 (PST)
 * There's little to no difference between this case and your other one. Kthxbai 22:11, 31 January 2007 (PST)
 * Not quite, you have done a significant amount more of trolling during the time that you have been here, hardly called good faith. Either way I'm not going to rule on this case for what should be obvious reasons. - JedazBeing tough but fair. 23:55, 31 January 2007 (PST)
 * Ah, but if trolling is considered vandal-grade anyway... why is there a policy languishing in the pits of M/PD on this very topic? Its very existence implies that trolling is not considered vandalism unless it is passed. 00:28, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * Just in case you couldn't find that policy (hey, I cater to all levels of intellect), it's here. 00:57, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * Correction, the policies very existance is to handle a specific case of vandalism and to allow for reforms of the user who participates in such acts. Unlike the UD wiki the Scroll Wars wiki is based on giving the user a chance acknowledge what they have done wrong and to try and correct their mistakes. The policy outlines that the user should be given this chance rather then immediately being warned/baned. A bad faith edit by any other name is still a bad faith edit, it's how we deal with these edits is at the core of the issue. If I'm not mistaken you were given a chance by Mo, you were specificaly told not to troll but you still have. That to me is bad faith and you obviously don't want to try to improve things. Thats all I'm going to say because any further discussion between us won't yeild any foreseeable benifit for either of us. - JedazBeing tough but fair. 01:14, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * Right... except the policy specifically states that when it is passed (implying not before), "In cases of trolling by users who are flaming, arguing, or otherwise behaving badly on a consistant basis, a moderator may warn said user against trolling." If Momazing was able to have me banned under the guidelines as they were (and still are), why would he have been inspired to make a redundant policy (I'm looking at the "warning" you linked to here)? 01:22, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * Mo can do whatever the fuck he likes here, so that's not the question. It wasn't him who started the policy.-- 02:31, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * I KNOW. That last bit there was aimed at the comment Jedaz linked to, not the policy. As I pointed out in the brackets, General. Jeez. 02:36, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * *sigh* I wasn't going to bite, but since other people are responding then I might as well set things strait. 1. Vandalism is defined as an edit not made in good faith. 2. Consistent tolling cannot be considered good faith. 3. Mo showed you mercy and decided to give you the chance to change. 4. The policy was created so rather then people getting a warning for behaving the way they would normally they would have a chance to change.
 * Now put these all together with my previous comment. This means that although you were 'vandalising' by being a troll, Mo decided to show you mercy and give you a chance to change your ways and become a productive user, or at least someone who is not as aggravating. However you obviously decided to continue down the same path as you were, which is consistently trolling, which has lead you here. So in answer to your questions, Mo could have had you banned and stayed within the guidelines but he decided to be nice. The policy was then created to not only inform users that trolling is unacceptable, but to also provide an opportunity for a reform of someone who does troll before they get banned. If you are so blind as not to see that, well then I pitty you. As to your comment just below, the reason you can't win is because you are not right at all. You have failed to bring up any valid points. Your whole argument is based on the fact that theres a policy under discussion. The simple fact is tolling is an edit made in bad faith, edits made in bad faith are vandalism. Capice? - JedazBeing tough but fair. 06:03, 1 February 2007 (PST)

Look, it's pretty obvious to me that you guys will look for any excuse - no matter how invalid - possible to get me banned. So by all means - go ahead. Might as well get it over and done with rather than putting me (and your English skills) through another argument which we all know I can't possibly win, no matter how right I am. Go ahead and become your vision of the UD sysops. See if I care. 02:43, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * "You guys" eh? Seems to me someone is living in a martyr's fantasy world. I'm almost willing to honor your ban request, but then again I'm not too hot on giving you what you want. You're after a moral victory here wherein you are persecuted and banned, only to become a folk hero on the UD Forum. (It's not a wiki, it's a forum.) Sorry, but I prefer to watch you become progressively more desperate. -- Mo Mo(d) on pot 10:14, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * Yeah, just like the "banned for frequent vandalism"? You know, that's kind of like saying "You commited a crime and did the time, but now you have to do it again" -- 15:47, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * Ah, I see you caught a 1 day banishment. Let me know how that works out. -- Mo Mo(d) on pot 10:18, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * He went on my talk page again, after i specifically told him he'd be banned if he did so again. Will someone second me for that? -- 14:33, 1 February 2007 (PST)
 * I already hit him with a 1 day ban for trolling. We'll see if he gets the message.-- 00:12, 2 February 2007 (PST)
 * If he does, I'll leave him alone. If not... -- 13:53, 2 February 2007 (PST)
 * Damn your threats are scary. Have no fear - I'll fade into obscurity like a good boy. 19:51, 2 February 2007 (PST)

*sigh* - All righty, I didn't really want to do this but the rules are the rules. The General has been warned about his signature and has had one week to change it as can be seen here. The General is currently breaking the rule of that you cannot have Signatures which link to PHP scripts and other such technologies. It is stongly advised that the General removes the PHP script disguised as an image from his signature. - JedazBeing tough but fair. 16:37, 16 January 2007 (PST)
 * Gee. You can't be any more of a vandal than The General. Tisk. Tisk. -- LordTunnel  of the UPkers  17:26, 16 January 2007 (PST)
 * Please refrain from making comments unrelated to the case.-- 06:24, 17 January 2007 (PST)
 * Warned. -- Mo Mo(d) on pot 17:55, 16 January 2007 (PST)
 * Hehe, I was actually intending to remove it before the week was up, but I forgot :P.-- 06:24, 17 January 2007 (PST)

We really don't need his UD ass here. Can someone please ban him? -- 14:49, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
 * As much as I want to, I don't know if we should really start banning people for the sake of banning them. We don't want to be the UrbanDead wiki's twin. -- 15:07, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Despite the fact that he only came here to try to prove that he can make us look like vandals? -- 15:17, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I agree with Draaj, anyway Cyberbob hasn't made any contributions for a while. However if he continues his trolling then I would suggest for him to be banned on the basis that he hasn't made one constructive edit since visiting this wiki and that obviously his account was created just to stir up drama. But for now we'll just leave him alone, I don't want to deal with him really. - 15:22, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Fair enough. We just bide our time now. -- 15:23, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Anyone notice that a VB here is something that really draws attention, but on UD it's basically a daily thing? Well, check the Promotions. I rewrote my statement.-- 15:27, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Yeah, Scroll Wars is a different animal than Urban Dead. Hopefully as the community grows, helpfulness and productivity will be rewarded instead of UD's system of rewards of ongoing attention for drama and vandalism. -- &spades; Mo mod 17:25, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Too bad that the mods on UD stir up drama then ban others for it. -- 20:27, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I agree 100%. The reward I spoke of for drama and vandalism was based on the Mods getting to do it and recieving nothing but pats on the back. Well... Mods who stay in step with the ruling party, that is. <_< -- &spades; Mo mod 20:36, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I say that anyone who comes over from UD after their boat sinks requires someone to vouch for them to get on here. It says soething when I am unanimously loved everywhere else, but they hate me, so we realy don't need trash here. -- 10:50, 6 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Unh, excuse me Gold Blade, but everyone has a right to be here. If the Devil wasn't given a chance then he probably would be vandalising this wiki as well. If people attack you just take it to arbitration and get them to be forced to stop interacting with you. Anyway I'm thinking of stealing a few simple policies from wikipedia that I think would do this wiki good. Most noticable are assume good faith and ignore all rules. - 01:30, 9 October 2006 (PDT)
 * true, but how long is it before we get more people who are just here to get dit? Also, lets take down the Humerus Suggestions=vandalism thing. Instead, it should just be that it gets moved and said so. Continued posting of humorous suggestions does = vandalism. Also, at UD, I'm sure its become Assume Bad Faith and Enforce All Rules and Enforce Some Stuff That Aren't Rules. seriously, one single day has not gone by since i joined up till now that there hasn't been at least one new Vandalism case. That makes billions of cases. In the entire history of this wiki, there have been what, 4 cases? That really says something. -- 15:30, 10 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Take a step back ok? If people are here to get dirt they will be able to do that with or without an account so we might as well let them try and be constructive in some way. Considering that you have brought two seeming unrelated points together your argument doesn't make sense to me. If you want to talk about the humorous suggestions page do so through my talk page. Now back to the UD wiki, it doesn't matter how many cases they have because we are NOT the UD wiki. - 16:25, 10 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I've confused myself too. -- 08:05, 15 October 2006 (PDT)

Heh. It's been just over two months and this still makes me chuckle. Good ol' Gold Blade. His hypocrisy is so charming. 21:51, 22 January 2007 (PST)
 * Why thank you. -- 14:22, 29 January 2007 (PST)


 * Group:Fist of Gulgorn

Vandal: LordTunnel

He has deleted section of my page. It currently is restored, but who knows for how long. -- Gulroth 20:14, 23 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Warned.-- 23:43, 23 June 2006 (PDT)