Forum:Request to temp-ban user

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Request to temp-ban user
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 April 2009 by Bonziiznob.


I would like to draw your attention to User:Aaroncampf. While he in-general is a fairly good editor, recently he has been engaging in edit wars with several wikians because he either:

  1. Thinks that the content that he removes is junk and is not worthwhile (when often it is perfectly fine being there), or
  2. Thinks that his opinion is the only one that matters, and forces it into the article.

Not only that, but he blanked his talk page and did not have any intentions of archiving it, it seems. Now, while these are more minor issues, what I'm concerned about is his willingness to engage in edit wars at all. It seems to me that he does not care about the content of an article, and will do whatever he can to make it suitable to him. However, the only thing that I have seen suitable to him is HIS OPINIONS. Those of you who were here when he was first blocked for a week will remember the first fiasco...a very long IRC conversation with him and Christine yielded nothing, but frustration...all because he tried to force his opinion on her about how to use pyrefiends for Firemaking and Summoning training. This is certainly not how one should view the freedom they get on a wiki.

It doesn't stop on the wiki though...after blanking his talk page, I went to our CC in-game to discuss his behavior to the other wikians there. The second I mentioned his name, he came back into the CC and told me that I was "acting up", when all I did, in fact, was leave a message on his talk page to tell him to kindly stop with the edit warring. He blanked it and, in-game, told me I was "acting up". He made several ridiculous excuses as to why his opinion should be included in many of the articles he's edited (mostly training guides), then I finally left after being disgusted with his unwillingness to comply with my request.

As I am no longer a sysop, I cannot ban him. However, I thought it might be a good idea to post this here so I could hear EVERYONE'S opinion on whether or not to temp-ban him. This is ridiculous; the wiki is to have no opinions in articles, and yet, Aaroncampf does not seem to understand that, instead trying to mold the wiki to his liking.

PS: I don't have any screenshots of what he said in the CC, but I'm sure people who were there will verify what I told you all.7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Oppose Stinkowing and I talked a bit about this in IRC, and we agreed that what Aaron was doing wasn't within Wiki standards. I invited Aaron to a private IRC discussion. He had good intentions in his edits, but he didn't understand how the wiki functions. I explained it to him, and he's starting a Yew Grove discussion to clean up as I post this. Now he's working with the community, instead of against it. Supertech1 TCE 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - As per Supertech.

Oh and Stinko, is banning allowed without a community consensus? Statistics.png Lvl 3 skils3 Choice! Talk~ Holiday Signup ~Hiscores 03:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - He also seems to be constantly deleting useful content form training guides. Look at this. I told him on his talk, but hey, why stop if you are aaroncampf?Joe Click Here for Awesomeness18:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That is no reason to ban someone. firthermore i told you that if and only if you where a high ranking person here would i do what you ask. also i stated if you where such a person i would do what you asked. you can not order people around if your just a normal user. if you could then i can do the same to you or anyone else. your reason is void. finaly misrepresenting a bad idea as a good way to train, and haveing it junk up a page is not a content, what it is, is content we have to let be on the page because thats the kind of site we are (unless we vote on it).Aaroncampf 05:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Support I have looked at his talk page and it seems he is nothing much more than a menace. If he feels his oppininon is more important than others, he must be prety selfish. --Cabbage detail.png Dockywho Talk Cabbage detail.png 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment from the looks of this thread, Forum:Page clean up and maintenance he's trying to work with us. I for one would like to try and work with him first and RS:AGF. He may have strong opinions about what our articles should be saying but it sounds like he's trying to improve things in his own way. I'm not saying we tolerate edit wars or blanking sections of a page, those aren't tolerated from any editor. But lets see how this goes, it sounds like he's willing to follow consensus. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 20:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I am no genius, but would gaming the system be put here? I have no idea what does the policy really means, but I think it is similar to the cruser incident. Also, I don't really want him banned, he does seem like a nice editor, he also removes some information that does not be needed. However, I do remember him removing some information, such as quest rewards. Although they may be one time only, they still give experience, which is what our guide does. I am Neutral in this discussion. I only liked to point things out.=/ Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 11:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Lets save blocking for vandals and flamers, neither of which Aaroncampf is I believe. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. He has numerous said that he "attemts to make articles worse". That voids AGS policy. He undoes good edits that he does not agree with, like [[1]]. I consider that vandalism to undo edits to his rather bad grammar and lack of style. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

4000 you do realize i did EXACTLY what other people do to pages. i call it makeing the page worse because people wanted it like that so i poked fun at it. this seems to be totaly biast, they do it and i have to respect it. i do it and you undo the eddit asap while saying i am undoing eddits, whitch do the exact same thing. further more they are not good addits, as they contradicted the whole spirit of the page. i did my best to prevent these pages, for which we can all see was in vain, from becomeing little more then a glorified list of things that gain exp. lastly bad grammer does not equial a ban it equials more work! i undid that eddit because people did the EXACT same thing to my undos. if you want proof i will dig them up.Aaroncampf 05:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Need more information - I would like to see some evidence other than what is on this page (like a link to one of the pages in question) before I make my desision. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Comment Can anyone of you come up with a ligitiment reason to ban me. please use creditable proof. also it should be carrythe weight needed for a temp ban. please try and fine 1 good reasonto banme because if you try to use a good reason you will not find it. as a final note please remember while we was a sypt he temp baned me. this adds weight for him being biast and only subjective. please read what i said about him in the hurrasment section!Aaroncampf 05:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

firthermore [furthermore] i told you that if and only if you where a high ranking person here would i do what you ask. also i stated if you where such a person i would do what you asked. you can not order people around if your just a normal user. - Aaroncampf

All editors are equal. Not responding because he is not an admin/'crat is very rude. Being an admin/'crat is not a position of power, its more of a janitor job than anything.

i am of the opinion that we simpley delete this whole page and forget it ever happened.

We don't delete discussions (as Caleb stated below).
Both of the above convey a lack of knowledge of our policies to me.

Money making stuff is for the money makign guide first off! - Aaroncampf

Things kind of blur together in this area. I want to train woodcutting, but make some decent profit too. Cutting solely willows gives me less than 2 million coins, whereas eucalyptus trees gives me a much, much larger profit. Why can a profitable training section not be included? A smaller one the the speedy training, sure, just make sure there's links to the relevant money-making guide page/section.

I would like to see some evidence other than what is on this page (like a link to one of the pages in question) before I make my desision. - Stelercus
Can anyone of you come up with a ligitiment [legitimate] reason to ban me. - Aaroncampf

1 - The 'well-known' one - removing a lot of useful information
2 - Removed useful infromation (i.e. what food?)
3 - Removed quests and explanations of what to do
4 - Removed quests again
5 - Removed quests a third time
6 and 7 - Removes an option, then {{Cleanup|This guide do not show cheaper options.}} is added (by another user), then he removes because we do! (when he removed a cheaper option in point 6)
8 - Changes back to a more poorly worded version for the sake of 63 bytes
9 - Removes quests, a lot of skills and other useful information
10 - Removes useful information and badly rewords
11 - Removes information from table when it wasn't needed to do so
12 - Removes a lot of information, creates sentance fragments - Bloodvelds: No longer fast xp?; Cave horrors: Do they not use magical melee anymore?
13 - More skills removed and condensed too much, removed alternatives table - Where did the safespot bit go? What if I can't kill armoured zombies?
14 - In my opinion, the most destructive edit yet. Removes a lot of explanations (what about potions and slayer gems?), the what-to-wear-against-what-attack table, and the "High Level Alchemy runes?" column in the main table (that was one of the best features of the page IMO). Excessive linking also.
15 - Why are those three things not relevant?
16 - What about slayer rings? That wasn't huge, it was only 103 bytes more.
And so on... there are more, but I think thats enough for now. Should more examples be wanted/needed, I shall provide.
Throughout there are grammer/spelling errors - I appriciate that your first language may not be english, but that doesn't stop you using things like a word processor or an online dictionary to check spellings and grammer. Also, I know Firefox has a built-in spellchecker, and Opera (my current browser) can have one downloaded.
However, this doesn't mean I want you banned. You have a good idea, you just take it too far. Removing surplus and/or useless information is good, but at the extent you're doing it, there's barely any information left. You are assuming people know a lot of things. However, if they indeed knew these things, they wouldn't really need to come to a fansite, which invalidates the entire point of the wiki. Also, when people come to a training article and find it has too little information, they get frustrated, and may well leave. And, if I'm honest, I don't blame them if they do. There are many many other fansites they could go to.

'comment good thats what i wanted. now there is no rule that states what i was inharrently wrong. also i did not know what i was doing was "wrong" and your turm of "usefull information" is biast. you cant ban someone because you, being biast, say that what i did was a bad eddit. thats breakling the rules right there. all you sited was what i felt was an improvement, you want to ban be for a difference of opinion. that makes your biast, possably invallade (im not sure on that but i might as well try).

Extra comment "14 - In my opinion, the most destructive edit yet. Removes a lot of explanations (what about potions and slayer gems?), the what-to-wear-against-what-attack table, and the "High Level Alchemy runes?" column in the main table (that was one of the best features of the page IMO). Excessive linking also." I felt that that extra information was so greevus that it was writen specificly with childeren in mind. do i need to tell you to bring food. do you really care if they drop nature runes and fire runes, what if you used lunar spells, what if your killing thoes destert beetels thingies? you make it sound as if they dropped nature runes in a amount so large you didnt need to bring any. i can cite a test where there drop rate was under 5 an hour makeing what you said a total missrepresentation. obes more who said you where right, who said my eddits where right. infact no one said anything, but the rules are favoring "more stuff" rather then less. you can not ban someone for a differing opinion!

1 more thing "16 - What about slayer rings? That wasn't huge, it was only 103 bytes more." even a 9 year old would know that after useing the item only 1 time, thus it is common common and easaly obtained information. wow it was 108 bytes but every 108 thing like that easaly turns into 108000 as it us repeated over and over in a page.Aaroncampf 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am neutral to your temp-banning, as I think that you can change and cut down on the controversial imformation removal, and also because you wish to help the wiki (as Supertech said; see here).
(new comment response) No one is using positional power over you (not that anyone has any). As far as I can tell, you are singled out because of the huge amount of controversy and edit wars you have caused. Removing masses of information from the wiki is bound to catch someone's attention. (P.S. sorry for the size of this comment.) Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Aaron, just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you can transform an entire article to suit your personal tastes. It doesn't matter if you don't like a certain training method; other players may find it useful and will want to try it out. We welcome any sort of factual information.  Tien  18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

oppose per supertech.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stelercus (talk).

Hurrassment

First off

  • Not only that, but he blanked his talk page and did not have any intentions of archiving it, it seems,.

I did know the rules at the time of this action (i did it 2 times but the first time nothing happend), due to the fact i posted somthign while i was on a new medication and i later realized that it wholy inaproperate for wiki.

  • while these are more minor issues, what I'm concerned about is his willingness to engage in edit wars at all.

These eddit wars where not such. i never considered any of my actions to be as such, more over if i did i would have stopped. i undid eddits did work time went on then they undid my unddo and 1-2 times of his action isnt a war its just a normal conflict. and please supply any credibal information as to any thing worth considering an eddit war. and BTW look at the new training pages, talk about avoiding problems

  • It seems to me that he does not care about the content of an article, and will do whatever he can to make it suitable to him. However, the only thing that I have seen suitable to him is HIS OPINIONS

First of all does he have any evidence to support this. the next thing is that yes its true. as i know things my interpitation will naturely corrupt my work just like any other human. the training pages have some lea way with this problem (this is the area he is talking about, but honestly i am not sure what he is citeing) i have to make a desicion on somthing, and as such i want o make a good guide but may get overly zealus.

  • a very long IRC conversation with him and Christine yielded nothing, but frustration...all because he tried to force his opinion on her about how to use pyrefiends for Firemaking and Summoning training. This is certainly not how one should view the freedom they get on a wiki.

what you are citeing has long sence passed, infact its been over a half a year (i think its been over 9 months) and i aws frusterated at how you where basicly recommending to people in a training guide ideas that would slow down there training, IE giveing bad advice. the point of the wiki isnt to give faluse/msleading information


  • If you did not allready know the two of us have had problems in the past. but reasontly he targeted me out for a reprisal uneddit (i cant remember on what page but i can dig it up if you want). so i am conunter attacking his claim with my own. i feel this is nothing more then hurrasment on his part.

i do not take this lightly, but i feel that i might as well get it over with. i requested in the clan chat that this be dealt with before i posted this. i am of the opinion that we simpley delete this whole page and forget it ever happened. if that is not the case i feel that this may get out of hand extreamly fast, as noted by this whoe post i am makeing.Aaroncampf 03:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We certainly will not be deleting this discussion, as per RS:DDD. When this discussion is over, we will simply archive it. Also why did you name this section "Hurrasment" (I assume you meant harrassment), nobody was harrassing you. It's the wrong term to use if you're rebutting somebody's points. As to the issue at hand, I am neutral to the temp-banning of Aaroncampf. Aaron can be a bit headstrong, rude and stubborn at times. He needs to avoid getting into edit wars with other users because of his tendencies to remove large amounts of relatively useful content to the page.

I think in terms of training guides, that Aaron needs to realise that while certain training methods are not the fastest ways to train, they are profitable and should be thus listed as a possible training alternative. He seems to have the mindset that some of our training guides are worthless ("what you are protecting is so bad it makes the page WORTHLESS" from his talkpage) just because we have information on various training methods. However, I do believe that he has good intentions. He just needs to refrain from making controversial edits that could start edit wars. Just my two cents on the matter, not meaning to offend anyone. C.ChiamTalk 13:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Money making stuff is for the money makign guide first off!

next is "He seems to have the mindset that some of our training guides are worthless" this is not true. I am saying that they will be worthless if you include every idea, even i could list them out in 5 min but thats no guide. heck why not rename them the training book or the link of thinks to do in a skill section. However, i had simpley advoided this all together by makeign a new and much better page.

Finaly, yes it is hurrasment. singling me out numberusly over time and useing positional power and give the...what is it called "chilly enviorment" somthing close to that. if you dont think that qualifies go wiki it up. Aaroncampf 21:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • He is not harassing you, nor is he singling you out. You are the sole offender here, and I support the move to block you again. The last time this happened, you sparked a nearly 6-hour long argument about one goddamn edit. You didn't even give us a good reason why you were right and why we were all wrong. And if I recall, YOU are also the same person who called Christine and Stinkowing, and if memory serves correct, myself, "communists", and you stated that you were leaving the site. I see absolutely no reason why you should NOT be blocked for at LEAST three weeks. Kevin-020 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any supporting information on the current events! I do not think you can brign up stuff 6+ months old. and yes i did leave for 5+ months. you can not ban a user with out just cause. you have shown 0 of that. your attempt to dug up old stuff to win your case isnt going to do anything. and yes it is hurrassment, if you dont think so pull out the wikia page and let me show you what im talking about. Aaroncampf 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I present Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O. All 16 examples brought up by Gaz Lloyd and several other comments are my "supporting information". And just because that argument happened over 6 months ago, it does not mean it didn't happen. From the behavior you are currently showing, it is clear to me you have not changed at all. Kevin-020 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC) you did not show 1 ounce of "bad behaveure". FWI the "problem" back then was that i was adding to much information, or rather my own pages. these pages where also deleted without any votes exept for summoning uses which was voted to stay up, yet deleted anyways. Aaroncampf 00:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem was you had a space before the asterisk. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue | Talk 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. Kevin-020 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Comment "Removing masses of information from the wiki is bound to catch someone's " your right, but i did not erally know that at the time. for about a month (i think) i had been doing this stuff with NO problem. i asked people what they where thinking, and many liked it. you cant say that NOW im in trouble for what WAS ok, if i had known i would have done it differentlyAaroncampf 13:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment- As the saying goes, a lepard can't changes its spots. Cabbage detail.png Dockywho Talk Cabbage detail.png 19:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Evidence

(Sorry for the new section, I could barely save either of the others.)

  • your turm [term] of "usefull information" is biast [biased] - Aaroncampf
  • that makes your biast [biased], possably [possibly] invallade [invalid] - Aaroncampf

Technically, its more of a personal opinion than a bias. Also, someone may be biased, but that doesn't mean their view is automatically invalidated - it should be analysed, their points may still stand.

  • you want to ban be for a difference of opinion - Aaroncampf
  • you can not ban someone for a differing opinion! - Aaroncampf

I don't want to ban you, and I know we cannot. However your editing style is destructive, and desructive editing can be interpretted as vandalism.

  • I felt that that extra information was so greevus that it was writen specificly with childeren in mind. do i need to tell you to bring food. do you really care if they drop nature runes and fire runes, what if you used lunar spells, - Aaroncampf

A high proportion of RS players are under 18. That counts as children to many. They come here to find out what to wear/use/train with/do/etc.
You removed any explanation of food at all, and replaced it with a solitary link with no explanation.
The High Level Alchemy runes column was not there to say whether the monster drops the required runes, but whether you (the player) should bring them to the task. Not bringing them would save inventory space, and reduce the amount lost on death a little.
If you are on the Lunar spellbook, obviously you cannot use high alchemy unless you have level 96 magic (for spellbook swap).

  • even a 9 year old would know that after useing [using] the item only 1 time, thus it is common common and easaly [easily] obtained information. wow it was 108 [103] bytes but every 108 [103] thing like that easaly [easily] turns into 108000 as it us [is] repeated over and over in a page. - Aaroncampf

Repeating an explanation of slayer rings 1000 times would be a bit much. But what bothers me is that you reverted a perfectly good edit because you thought it was so large and stupid, but now there's no explanation so I don't know what slayer rings are used for, which, incedentally, is the entire point of a guide. 103,000 bytes (103KB, 0.1MB, and so on) still isn't a huge amount, considering modern computers' memories.

  • i asked people what they where thinking, and many liked it. - Aaroncampf

Just as I have provided you (and everyone else) with some evidence, I would like you to provide some for us. (If the responses were in-game, then if they are users of the wiki they can back you up.)

  • I do not think you can brign up stuff 6+ months old. - Aaroncampf

Sure we can. It goes against your case and is appropriate to the discussion.

  • if i had known i would have done it differently - Aaroncampf

Now you know, so you can do it differently. There's also nothing stopping you having a go at re-adding information to pages that now need it.

I think that Tien sums up my comments better than I: Aaron, just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you can transform an entire article to suit your personal tastes. It doesn't matter if you don't like a certain training method; other players may find it useful and will want to try it out. We welcome any sort of factual information.

I'm assuming good faith with your thread on page cleanup (since you want to help the community and change), so I'm still neutral. (Again, sorry for the huge post.) Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


"The High Level Alchemy runes column was not there to say whether the monster drops the required runes, but whether you (the player) should bring them to the task" This is not true as monsters that drop 1-3 runes an hour and yet would have you needed 10+ is faluse infomation. this means that infact it was writen to state if the monster did drop any nature or fire runes. Aaroncampf 23:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


"Aaroncampf Now you know, so you can do it differently. There's also nothing stopping you having a go at re-adding information to pages that now need it." doing that wouldnt change/remove/end this page. so no point. plus who who said the eddits i made where bad. if they had "added" information then you would have had to keep then. nome the less i cant undo them even if i wanted to due to eddits on top of them. finaly i can prove that people hate the grossly over weight pages by making more shorter page versions and haveing there view count beaten!! Aaroncampf 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


I think that Tien sums up my comments better than I: Aaron, just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you can transform an entire article to suit your personal tastes. It doesn't matter if you don't like a certain training method; other players may find it useful and will want to try it out. We welcome any sort of factual information. as i have asked, it was long ago, how can i make a valid test to prove that i am right. i can site a website that has done these tests but that might be copy right infringement. Some of the thingd i deleted stated that they where worse, if they say that they are worse how much more do i need! sadly you would even let them stay in with no other forseeable reason.Aaroncampf 23:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest! Dont try to change what people say about you, because they have the evidence!Cabbage detail.png Dockywho Talk Cabbage detail.png 09:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  • ...this means that infact it was writen to state if the monster did drop any nature or fire runes - Aaroncampf

No, Aaron, it was not. It was for whether you should bring them with you. Here's an example to counter your point: the version of the table with the column in (link) lists warped tortoises as Yes. Looking at the tortoise's article shows that they do not drop nature or fire runes. Conversely, Blue dragons are listed as No, however they do drop both fire and nature runes. Therefore the column is not for whether the monster drops nature and fire runes, but for whether the player should nature and fire runes (or a fire rune supplying staff) to the task.

  • doing that wouldnt change/remove/end this page. so no point. - Aaroncampf

Thats not a good view to have. And yes, I think it would affect this discussion, as it would show that you've learnt from your actions and wish to help the wiki.

  • nome [none] the less i cant undo them even if i wanted to due to eddits on top of them - Aaroncampf

Thats not what I meant. Rather than simply undoing, you could just re-add information to the current version of the page.

  • finaly i can prove that people hate the grossly over weight pages by making more shorter page versions and haveing there view count beaten!! - Aaroncampf

View count (or use count), much like edit counts in RFAs, doesn't really matter. Sure, a higher-viewed article is often better than a less-viewed one, but that's not always the case. View count is a rough guideline of how good an article (or even any website page anywhere) is, but is often innaccurate.

  • as i have asked, it was long ago, how can i make a valid test to prove that i am right. - Aaroncampf

Right about what?

  • i can site [cite] a website that has done these tests but that might be copy right infringement. - Aaroncampf

Nope, go for it. If you copy/paste the information without permission, then that could be copyright infringement, depending on if their site if copyrighted. Just giving a link is not copyright infringement.

  • Some of the thingd i deleted stated that they where worse, if they say that they are worse how much more do i need! sadly you would even let them stay in with no other forseeable reason. - Aaroncampf

Can I have a few examples please? I'm not sure, but I think you mean "What other reason do I need to remove something that's described as 'bad'?" (correct me if I'm wrong). Well, there are more than one thing to think about when training - experience rate, profit rate, enjoyability, sustainability (i.e. you can get great profit and experience rates making battlestaves (preferably air) when buying them from Zaff - this is all well and good but you can only make a maximum of 64 per day in this way, so its not sustainable for long periods), etc. I'd also leave notes about 'bad' things as they are still part of the guide - as I have said before, players come to look at guides to see what not to do just as much as what to do. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


"Can I have a few examples please? I'm not sure, but I think you mean "What other reason do I need to remove something that's described as 'bad'?" "

nope i deleted it. i think it was from the melee training. i deleted a monster because it was bad, but it put back with a note saying bad exp. yes i redeleted it!

Buying battlestaffs from Zaff isa not how you look at training. Due to the fact that you buy and sell them in the GE makes there real cost unproftable! this is a fact and theres no way around it. opertunity cost is the term (if misspelt) for this. if what you say is true. then i could take a set and say, every 10min i could give you a 10k exp lamp and 1 gold thats proftable exp! now if you wanted i could give you a 1million exp lamp for a cost of 10gold, you would say one methiod is slower ansd proftable while one is faster and costs you money! gross misrepresentation of the facts. BTW yes thats a legitiment argument, who cares if it couldnt happen! you cant go near the speed of light but thats how Enstine describes time the effects of dialation! Aaroncampf 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  • nope i deleted it.

It cannot be permanently deleted except by wikia staff, and even then it can be brought back (again by wikia staff only). Look through the page history/histories. I did for 16 examples above, so you can for one example now.

  • Due to the fact that you buy and sell them in the GE makes there real cost unproftable! ... opertunity cost is the term (if misspelt) for this.

I understand the concept of opertunity cost (see point below). Buying from Zaff then selling on GE gives about 100k profit (~70k from the staves, estimating ~30k from runes/materials not used). Making air battlestaves (blank ones bought from Zaff) and alching them gives a little less, but gives a fairly large amount of crafting experience for a little bit of time. Buying battlestaves in the GE is limited to 100 every 4 hours. That many can be done within about an hour (including charging the orbs), so the exp rate is still hindered.

  • if what you say is true. then i could take a set and say, every 10min i could give you a 10k exp lamp and 1 gold thats proftable exp! now if you wanted i could give you a 1million exp lamp for a cost of 10gold, you would say one methiod is slower ansd proftable while one is faster and costs you money! gross misrepresentation of the facts.

I think thats a fairly good model of RS, and is often the case (e.g. magic - ice burst vs. high alchemy; ranged - red chinchompas vs. black dragons; etc). But it is still flawed - you didn't consider enjoyment (which of course is a personal opinion) and you didn't tell me the money-making method and its rate.

Here is a model based on yours: You have three things you could do, called a, b and c. a gives 100 experience and 1 coin every minute, b gives 1000 experience at a cost of 10 coins every minute, and c gives 2.3 coins every minute with no experience (i.e. 23 coins every 10 mins). Say you wanted 100,000 experience. It would take 1000 minutes with a, with a profit of 1000 coins. With b it'd take 100 minutes and cost 1000 coins, however in the time saved you could make 2070 coins, therefore a profit of 1070 coins. That's what you're trying to say, I guess? (The main thing I see wrong with this type of analogy is that I wouldn't stand constantly doing the moneymaking method for such a long time. Regardless, its good at putting things into perspective.) Incedentally, Tien gave a great RS example in this month's RSWNP.

  • BTW yes thats a legitiment [legitimet] argument, who cares if it couldnt happen! you cant go near the speed of light but thats how Enstine [Einstein] describes time the effects of dialation!

I'm not saying it isn't, I just think that its a bit too simplifyed, but whatever. I'm well aware of Einstein's theories. Theoretically if you go faster than the speed of light you travel back in time. But practically it cannot be done (at the present moment in time). (Going off-topic here.) Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I Support a temporary ban. Aaroncampf seems to have little knowledge of policy, deletes useful info and badly rewords things just to save a few bytes. He doesn't seem to know what he's doing, uses excuses and we have 16 pieces of evidence (see above ^^^) to show. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  00:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You can not ban someone for a difference of opinion YOU CAN NOT! Aaroncampf 03:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

BTw i countered that evidence yet you wholey ignore it, and i didnt save a few bytes i saved thousands, while deleteing information almost all players know, or could easaly find, or was other wise not needed!Aaroncampf 03:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about banning you because of your opinion. I think you need a warning ban for being disruptive, ignoring policy and deleting useful information (it may be common but if it's relevant it should stay). ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  11:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"I think you need a warning ban for being disruptive, ignoring policy and deleting useful information" All of that is opinion and what you consider usefull information is outright 100% biast!Aaroncampf 18:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's have a look at the facts.

  1. You don't seem to understand the rules and I don't think you've read our policies.
  2. You tend to delete lots of information because you think it's useless. You've been warned about this but you continue to do it.
  3. You think this is all opinion, but it is fact (try checking 'fact' and 'opinion' in the dictionary).
  4. I think you need a warning ban to cool off. This is MY opinion.
  5. We have 16 pieces of evidence to show how you delete things. They are somewhere close to the top.

~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

First off at the time did not know nor had i read them.

Next no it seems i dont "clearly" understand the rules.

3rd I was only warned 1 time in a matter i deemed worth takeing searusly and at the point i make the (short) pages.

I have no proof i can link, i am sure there is some on the site that i cant find. i never talked to other players from here at any time exept 1s, as i allways used the clanchat. due to that i have no record of them saying both yes and no to my eddits. i assumed if anyone was haveing a problem they could come at me in a big overly done fasion and say somthing. if i told you to stop somthing you had been doing on here for a month+ would you really even think about it twice.

lastly! Due to my high standings in the game i am considered an expert in the feild (for whatever that is worth) so that should give weight to my "opinion" which was mainly based on personal experince and information provided by the runescape masters such as Ali Bzz and Zarfot (i have been on there clanchats and other media outlets). so you can take almost all of the biast right out. if any of you think you can come close to my knowlage of the tactical asspects of the game please prove it. That aside there are 2 final problems. First is that the minigames and quests you said where so good, are horrable training whrn you take into account the time spent doing them. and last is that all the other problems like my rewording and shortening and deleting are hardly that bad when you consider how good they are even if you think they are bad you can still rework them in the page in a much better way.

whatever il think of a better name later

it seems to me that you all havea lready desided to ban me because you either hate me or my eddits, not on real problems like breaking the rules. i had been doing the same thign for over a month yet you take almost no note unwill stinko does this.

This proves how inconstitent the management of this wikia seems to be. You just add more and more, while you say anythign i do is wrong. if i add more its wrong, if i take away its wrong, if i try to defende my self im wrong, i dont want slander of my user page im wrong.

Please point out the rules i have broken. please supply me with a nonbiast jury. please stop this horrable joke.

If you keep this up i will have to prepose new wikia rules so consistency in rule inforcement it held out, such as statue of limitations, orsomthign to deal with all of the conflicting messages i get from you all.Aaroncampf 07:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What reason have we got to hate you or your edits? We are trying to help. Read the content on this page. You are ignoring evidence, while repeatedly demanding for more. Point out what is wrong with those 16 examples presented somewhere upward. --Suise 08:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet you can not ban someone because you hate how they eddit. thats a fact.Aaroncampf 13:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are leaning more and more towards vandalism. That is fact. Along with the fact that we ban vandals. Add your complete disregard for the style guides, and your "My edits are good and I don't care" attitude, and now you give us a good reason not to block you. Hint: Anything but a gargantuan change in attitude will not suffice. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good point! The fact is i havent ever seen the style guides before, iv only heard them mentioned 1 time. the problem is this. i did not know what i did was wrogn assuming it was and you did nothing about it tell well after the fact. i cant read your minds nor are the rules enforced consistently. due to that i had no idea a single thing i did was wrong!

That argument is a very good 1 no one bothered to bring up. if i had known about this then the problem would not have gotten to the point of where we are right now. Further more many people liked my eddits (i can not prove it or at least i think i cant but i can ask) adding further misdirection.

You cant just say everythign i did was bad, we all know what i was tring to do was correct even if the end result was less then exeptable. I had been waiting for people to resist my change so that the content would move towards the middle of the edditing ideals, and become longterm. it seems that rather then hack out a good page you try to attack me.

All of this just supports my new argument for new/changed rules, but thats for another day.

and why is it 4000 is the only one even trying to use good reasoning in this matter everyone else just seems totaly biast. Aaroncampf 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a very different definition of 'good reasoning' then the rest of us. Also, when you say the style guides mentioned, why didn't you look them up so things like this wouldn't happen in the first place? Kevin-020 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Would that require me to know what they are where they are and why i should care about them!Aaroncampf 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance about the rules/policies/guidelines is no excuse for violating them. But, here's a link anyhow: RS:STYLE. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 18:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

First. the rules are not enforced equialy so why is it my job to figure out what you will decide breaks them. also you cant say you kept breaking them when i didnt know anything was wrong. more over people where saying that they where good eddits. what you are suggesting is very biast and unfair! Aaroncampf 18:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment- Why don't we just let the man state his entire argument in one nice, little section of his own, with no questions asked, let the community point out where he is incorrect, and then take a vote? The page is 41 kilobytes long.

who are you talking about 4000 or me? and i cant let them say whatever they wantas it will mislead people into baning me but i think thats what they want!Aaroncampf 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about you. --http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 21:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not break any rules!

after finaly finding the rules for the site (took forever) it turns out i didnt break any rules!

http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/RuneScape:Ignore_all_rules

and after looking at the style guide the only thign i did wrong was infact bad grammer!


so thats that! i followed the Ignore all rules rule to the letter it seems like! so your attempt to ban me is unvallidAaroncampf 20:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignore all rules does not apply here. You clearly do not understand that it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Here's an example of when you would invoke Ignore all rules (this actually happened to me):

  • I wanted to participate in the RuneScape Wiki Post. However, it was decided a user had to have 100 mainspace edits to do an editorial. This was to filter out people who did not understand that it was not for merely complaining about the trade limit and the Wilderness changes. Because I was very clear on this and had lots of experience on other wikis, I invoked RuneScape:Ignore all rules and I was allowed to do an editorial.

You cannot simply use Ignore all rules as a 'get out of jail free' card. Thus, our proposal to ban you is still valid and you still may be banned. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact is i havent ever seen the style guides before, iv only heard them mentioned 1 time - Aaroncampf

You were welcomed by Dr5ag2on1 on your talk - it included a link to the style guide, and a link to Help:Contents, which has links to all rules/policies and guidelines. You cannot say nobody told you - it was provided to you, but it was your responsibility to click the links and read the policies.

That argument is a very good 1 no one bothered to bring up. - Aaroncampf

I stated something along those lines above (However your editing style is destructive, and desructive editing can be interpretted as vandalism.).

i had been doing the same thign for over a month yet you take almost no note unwill stinko does this. - Aaroncampf

We don't have a dedicated team reveiwing every single edit. Sure, we have recent changes patrollers, but they're not on all of the time. Plus a lot of your edits are marked minor, which hides them from recent changes by default. So no one really noticed you.
Also, the YG is partly for things like this - to bring attention to places that have been overlooked.

please supply me with a nonbiast jury. - Aaroncampf

I think there's a good few non-biased people commenting here. What do you want? Them to support you (oppose your banning)? There's a few opposes and a neutral (me) above. Also, we are not a federal court.

i will have to prepose new wikia rules - Aaroncampf

Go for it. I don't know what you want, so a good explanation would be useful.

after finaly finding the rules for the site (took forever) it turns out i didnt break any rules! [link to RS:IAR here]

Much as Telos has said, IAR is not a 'get out of jail free card'. IAR is used in special circumstances, not as a way of editing.

only thign i did wrong was infact bad grammer! - Aaroncampf

What about:
  • RS:G - removing valid information from an article without a good reason to do so ('its too big' is not a reason to removed, but to split a page) goes against this rule.
  • RS:3RR - examples 3, 4 and 5 go against this rule (it doesn't matter that it was over a few days - you still broke th spirit of the rule (which is to prevent edit/wheel wars)).
  • RS:NPOV - your opinion that one monster or training method is bad is opinion, so RS:NPOV you should discuss whether it should be included or not.

i can not prove it or at least i think i cant - Aaroncampf

As I have said before, look at the page histories (click the link saying history at the top of the page).
You still have not provided us with the evidence I have asked for, neither the link to the website you promised us. Don't make claims unless you can back them up.

and i didnt save a few bytes i saved thousands, while deleteing information almost all players know, or could easaly find, or was other wise not needed! - Aaroncampf

'Almost all players' - so not all. If that information helps one player, then it is worth keeping there. People are lazy - if the information is on the page they are looking at they're more inclined to stay at this site not any other. 'Not needed' is an opinion. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Still like i said i didnt know i was breaking the rules untill way after the fact so much later that by the time i am imformed you all want to ban me. also seems that everyone that wants to bad me either hates me or my edits disreguarding the rule breaking. Aaroncampf 00:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


I did not break any of the 3 rules you stated above! three-revert rule was never broke as it was over 24 hours dont say spirit of the rule of thats true then i can use the "break all rules rule" as i was just doing what i assumed was best.

Neutral point of view i took out many of these in pages. further more as i played the game I used facts I gathered to make my choices. if you dont like that then thats different, but i have been asking for a way to do vaild tests.

Granularity they still had there own page and no where in that rule did it state over explaining or making somthign longer then it needed to be. you can say i broke the spirit of the rule. but then whats the point of a rule if i cant ubnderstand it. as for really breaking it NPV i didnt break unless you dont think my years of player knowlage and the fact that i have done almost everything should make me an expert in the field! even if i did break NPOV then i only did it a few times and the errior was in the page before i eddited it in the first place, and HELLO its a training guide. i was told that NPOV did not really apply to it when i made my first guide you wrongfully deleted months ago. i just eddited for a month+ and way after the fact do you deside to punish me! if you had done it in a timely matter this never would have happend. your banning me for just edditing and because of your personal dislikes. Aaroncampf 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

and FYI you gys are not assumeign good faith. i WAS never warned. well i was told to stop some 2+2 but i told him/her i will do what you say if your an admin. finaly where the eddits so bad, guides have lea way in all of the rules. just how much of the informatio that i deleted would you personaly use. plaese think about that 1Aaroncampf 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really want strip down the guides to show only the best methods of training, perhaps it would be better to create your own guides on a subpage of your userpage? For example, "User:Aaroncampf/Fishing training guide." And to answer your last question, I would have at least read the information that you deleted and maybe even tried them out. Who knows, one of them might appeal to me. The best method isn't necessarily the most enjoyable, and many people play for enjoyment, not for the competition.  Tien  13:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You were warned/told about your editing, Aaron - by Stinkowing (multiple times), Juliusc01, Calebchiam, Peckham33, Leevclarke, 2+2=4. Probably (aka Joe), Waterkunai1, and Smart28. All of them addressed something that is now being discussed here. By refusing to listen to Joe (even though he left you a polite note) because he isn't an admin is extremely unprofessional, rude and ignorant of policies. Adminship is not a big deal.

Though you didn't break the letter of the 3RR, you broke the spirit of it by removing the exact same thing three times on one article, and similarly to other articles (recently, you did the exact same thing to yet another guide). To be honest, after an edit was reverted twice I would question my motives, any take it to the article's talk or the reverter's talk - I certainly wouldn't do similar things to other articles - especially since I brought it up earlier. Similar with granularity - its purpose is to ensure a fully comprehensive site, but by removing information you reduce the articles comprehensiveness. Playing rules off against each other is a kind of gaming the system, and is also a bannable offence (see examples 3 and 4, possibly 7 as you still haven't provided us with the evidnece of links I've asked for) .

If you don't understand the rules then feel free to ask anyone here or any administrator/bureaucrat and they'll be happy to explain it to you (a list of admins/'crats is here).

The fact that this is happening now does not matter. It is happening now as that is when a user noticed your controversial edits (many, of course, were minor so hard to spot, as I stated before) and decided to act upon it by bringing it to the community's attention. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe his words were "I tried to make it as useless as possible", which I believe was to spite someone who told him not to remove any information. Leave that kind of thing to talk pages, articles are not the place to carry out fights. † Bladeofwar8 #† 16:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a joke. and just to let you know when i told people about it in the clanchat people said they liked the eddits! not only that but i was adding back alot of the information i had deleted, i added the part about hunting bunnies as the joke to see what would happen to that part ofthe page. that is the thing i was talking about when i said i made the page worse. i did these eddits to prove the point that i was right in takeing them out! but people liked them so i just left them, so you cant say thats a good reason to ban me. undoing my "bad eddits" its what you seem to want so that should make yuou happy not vote me down. Aaroncampf 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Maybe "misguided" could be better, but "menace" makes him sound like a common vandal. Also, I have read further into the discussion, and it horrifies me that he has used RS:IAR as a method of saving himself. --Stinkowing(WHAT'S IN IT?) 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I used that as after the fact justification. i was reading the rules (you supprized). Saying i didnt follow the style guide, which i think could only happen if i used bad grammer (i did but thats not ban worthy) so i figured i had more justification in saying the break all rules rule. its just as well defined as all of the other rules! its clearly stated yet you seem to have different opinions about how the rules even apply. I followed that rule in both spirit and letter. lets not forget it mentions guides in the rule.Aaroncampf 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


You were warned/told about your editing, Aaron - by Stinkowing (multiple times), Juliusc01, Calebchiam, Peckham33, Leevclarke, 2+2=4. Probably (aka Joe), Waterkunai1, and Smart28.

Stinkowing (multiple times). does not count sence why would i even read the message as we dont like eachother.

Juliusc01, Calebchiam, Peckham33, Leevclarke, Probably (aka Joe), Waterkunai1, and Smart28 i dont think i have ever seen these names so you sure they did tell me, in a fasion that i would think it was inportent.

2+2=4 told me to stop, and i left a messege in the next edit if your an admin i will. because i just assumed he did just not like the eddit and he just undid it for no real reason. Aaroncampf 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

When i was told by...someone in the IRC chat to stop i did, and promptly made the training guide (shorter) pages.

Finaly 3 eddit repeating rule first i assumed that rule the worked like this (you undo I undo) 3 times lwith in forever, not 24 hours. if you consider an eddit war undoign an undo then i did not even think it was a big problem. Aaroncampf 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


As to your complaint about why i deleted the quests from the Pay-to-play Crafting training i did it because quests are not repeatable meaning you cannot "train" with them. If what i think you are sayign is true you should also add every methiod of gaining crafting exp, from all minigames, all random, events, all things like tears of gunxth, or anything else. i know i am right on this one its a matter of fact guides are not glorifyied listsAaroncampf 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape:Gaming the system In each case, individual knowledge of each policy is important. The misuse of policy, guidelines, or practice is not gaming if it is based upon a genuine mistake.

Therefor i did not game the system because i did not know the rules nore mean to break any of them. You knew about IAR and 3RR when you said this I did not break any of the 3 rules you stated above! three-revert rule was never broke as it was over 24 hours dont say spirit of the rule of thats true then i can use the "break all rules rule" as i was just doing what i assumed was best.. Thats playing polices off against each other - GTS. The fact that you undid it 3 times to one article what bothers me.

The fact that you wouldn't because he's not an admin is unnacceptable. Looking at the hunter training guide history, at no point did you comment that in an edit summary. Incedentally, a few edits earlier Soldier 1033 undid your edits, and he is an admin, yet you still reverted his revert too. I don't know what you want, wikia staff to tell you to stop reverting? What?

Stinkowing (multiple times). does not count sence why would i even read the message as we dont like eachother. - Aaroncampf

Invalid reason. Just because you don't like someone is not a reason to not to at least read and understand what they're saying.

Juliusc01, Calebchiam, Peckham33, Leevclarke, Probably (aka Joe), Waterkunai1, and Smart28 i dont think i have ever seen these names so you sure they did tell me, in a fasion that i would think it was inportent.

Look at your talk page. I copied and pasted them straight from there.

because quests are not repeatable meaning you cannot "train" with them. If what i think you are sayign is true you should also add every methiod of gaining crafting exp, from all minigames, all random, events, all things like tears of gunxth, or anything else.

So? I've gained many levels from quests, and they are my primary crafting/herblore/thieving/agility training now. My only hunter/construction training comes from Tears of Guthix. A lot of my summoning training is due to penguins. I relied on that 4×100k experience from While Guthix Sleeps to train farming, smithing and prayer a few levels for various diaries. Just because they are once only doesn't mean you can't use them for training (besides, ToG, penguins, etc are repeatable).

It's getting ever harder to assume good faith here. Although you want to help the wiki (per here and here), but your disregard for users trying to contact you on your talk page shocks me. That's the main way for them to contact you, but your response that you don't know their names suggests that you don't bother looking at it. Plus the fact thet you haven't looked through page histories, nor asked whoever liked you edits to come here and confirm it, nor even given the link you promised, shows you aren't wanting to find evidnece for your defence, you'd rather argue it out. I'm going to go out on a limb and remain neutral, but I'm on the verge here. I don't want you banned, you're a good editor at heart. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Say Support/Oppose/Comment/Neutral below this line. Keep discussion above.

Support - As per myself above. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Can't be bothered to look at policy and edits for the sake of making his opinion the only option--Quest point hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest point cape.png 20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - as per all I said before, unless he drastically changes his attitude. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 21:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Per my reason(s) above, and per Muzzy's reasons below. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Originally I would have opposed as Supertech said he spoke to Aaron (see the very top comment). But after seeing him in the clan amongst other things, I will support. Statistics.png Lvl 3 skils3 Choice! Talk~ Holiday Signup ~Hiscores 21:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I think we should give him a chance, I don't think just because he's made mistakes he diserves to be banned temporaly, but I also think actions need reactions, so I can't decide..-- Woodcutting Talk! Quest! Timchoff Sign! Edit #Hunter 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - This user is trying to improve articles in some cases, by splitting them up into smaller pages. That would make many computers that don't have the best speed easier to read on a skill or a page. Also, I am assuming good faith in their edits, as they, once again, are trying to improve the many articles on here. As stated in the three revert rule, if the edits were made in good faith, the user should only get a warning. I also remember reading somewhere, whether it was on this Wiki or not, that if you do not agree with an edit, but the editor wants the edit, you should make a poll to ask which edit does the community think is better. I feel that Aaron should just get a warning, and we keep close eye on future edits. ~MuzTalk 01:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - As per Don't be a dick. Joking! But unless a change of attitude is shown, I believe a temp ban would be the best course of action. User:Suise forgot to sign this comment.

Neutral leaning towards Support - Mostly per Muzzy, but I still feel that his editing, as Gaz said, is destructive.  Tien  12:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - When Supertech told us that he had talked to Aaroncampf, I decided to drop it and let him improve. However, the evidence shows that Aaron still does not really care whether or not his edits are helping or hindering the wiki, and seems to be molding and shaping it to his liking, as per the examples somewhere above. The one about reverting a bunch of good quality information to a poorly-worded version for the "sake of 63 bytes" especially shocked me. I believe Aaroncampf CAN improve, but he has yet to prove that to us. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 15:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Slight support - His intent may have been to do good which is why I don't fully support. I think he needs to learn that this is a community site and not his personal site. In the CC the other day I heard him talking about making bad faith edits to a Mainspace article just to prove a point to someone. I believe his words were "I tried to make it as useless as possible", which I believe was to spite someone who told him not to remove any information. Leave that kind of thing to talk pages, articles are not the place to carry out fights. Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 16:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong support - I have been watching this case for a short while now and I still think that he is a menace to society.Cabbage detail.png Dockywho Talk Cabbage detail.png 16:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - While I still solidly stand by my support of a temp-ban, I would like to point out that "menace" is not the correct term at all to be using. Maybe "misguided" could be better, but "menace" makes him sound like a common vandal. Also, I have read further into the discussion, and it horrifies me that he has used RS:IAR as a method of saving himself. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - How long of a temp ban is the community requesting?

Bonziiznob Talk

19:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Aaron isn't really a vandal or anything so nothing too harsh, a couple weeks maybe, a month at the most. Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - As said above, he really wasn't a vandal. I would rather have him get a warning and have him watched, but I say a one or two week ban at the most would be fine. ~MuzTalk 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I think three weeks. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  21:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed - I have issued a two week temporary ban. As Arroncampf is blocked from editing here, please focus attention to their talk page here if interested is continuing to discuss this topic.

Bonziiznob Talk

04:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)