UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 12
Archives
Talk Archives
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General Discussion Archives
General Discussion
JISOR/Halfdan and Mekhan/Tarpenz
Assuming these 4 are all ruled vandalism, are their votes in the election all struck? Would remove 2 additional votes from Stelar, leaving them at 23. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- We'd strike only the second (time-wise) of the votes for each candidate; e.g. JISOR's first two votes would remain, but any by Halfdan Pisket would be struck. Same with Mekhan/Tarpenz — Mekhan's votes remain, but Tarpenz's have been struck. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 12:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- I corrected the title for clarity. I have not been connected to the other two accounts. -- 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- JISOR’s final vote was made after both of Pisket’s. If a user has two votes, I believe it would make sense for all votes struck after the first two votes by a single user. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 14:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Sister Mary
moved from main page
Blanked User talk:Sniper4625 - normally I would give benefit of the doubt, but they seem quite hostile, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. Regards~ Sniper4625 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I won't need any benefit of doubt, thanks for considering my feelings though. After reading I wanted to have my talk page protected both Sniper and Dragontard came to write on my page - if you don't want any hostile behavior I suggest you fuck off and leave me alone :) I don't even know who the fuck you guys are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:37 June 3 2018.
- Oh right. Ban the fuck outta my account if you feel like it Mr. System-Operator-Boss. I have no problem editing some page to get my message across to people who have a hard time getting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC).
- -- LABIA on the INTERNET Dunell Hills Corpseman #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Now now, there's no need to be rude and start flinging insults. --Dragonshardz (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Might I inquire why you decided the best choice of action to a harmless greeting was a rule-breaking act of vandalism? Quite rude. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Given talk pages are a pretty important element of regulating user behavior without needing to ban anyone the instant they step out of line, I'm really not sure Sister Mary has any interest in learning or following any of the community norms of the wiki. Swissaboo (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per their talk page now they apparently have gotten many such pages deleted, which somewhat confuses me. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Adding onto this, in their protection request they clearly have no interest in bothering with the proper formatting for responding to other users and on their talk page they have placed the nominated for deleting template without any actual nomination for deletion having occurred. I don't know how much of this is actually against wiki RULES (except perhaps that last one?) but they're very clearly running roughshod over the expected standards of behavior. Swissaboo (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure you meant WIKI LAW when you said RULES. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This was exactly the point of having my talk page protected - the horde/jack/whateverzergs can't seem to leave me alone :) Sister Mary (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Jack got run out of town on a rail. Try again. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The reason is pretty simple, and I thought you got the message, but okay, I will clarify for you why = I don't like you :) I will eat my warning with pleasure, don't worry about it! But.. this isn't your first time harrassing people, correct? I like that you feel like you have the upperhand over a guy that made 200+ edits within the last 24 hours, and only vandalized a single page of a user that didn't really go about making "a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki" by trying to trigger me by invading my talk page. Im looking forward as to how this will play out. I will just make another account and keep on editing from there so I didn't lose anything catching myself a warning, other than shifting focus to you ugly bunch of motherfuckers :D Sister Mary (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (See, I use my template just like you want to!)
- Isn't sockpuppeting to avoid wikipunishments in itself a punishable offense? You just keep digging. Sniper4625 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)
- Are you back, Jack? Because you're making the same "alts!" argument he did, and he was similarly disproven. I'm not sure how I put words in your mouth when you said "I will just make another account and keep on editing from there," but well, I did appreciate your attempt to sic Aichon on my compatriot. Too bad it failed. Sniper4625 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)
- You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- AHHHHHHHH :D I was actually just waiting for someone to pull out the "you're a Yocum" card! Sure dude - let's say im a Jack. I must be a great Jack. I mean, I edited 2 suburbs completely and have been editing the EMRP for 6 months on another account - but sure! YOU GOT ME! :D Im getting the idea that your dick is all so im gonna leave you to play with that! I will be back with another account, to edit another 200+ locations. Meanwhile you guys will have to enjoy yourself being annoying towards someone else! :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2018.
Vandalism and a Warning. Don't blank other's pages. I'll serve the warning officially over at the Sister Mary page, but I assume you'll see it here as well. And yes, warnings carry over between accounts. —Aichon— 02:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- So...how does the wiki handle a user rage-reverting their own edits? --Dragonshardz (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Rage reverting? I edited 3 locations due to them being wrong :D Aichon you said something about the parties in question should talk, the rest should shut up. If this doesnt qualify as harrassment I don't know what will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC).
Sounds to me like someone is finally bored of this game and is getting one last laugh out of the community by being as much as a cunt as possible on his way out. Either that or it's his time of month and he's out of pads.---- FoD PK Praise Rando!06:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah" A ZOMBIE ANT 00:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
User: Revenant
Now think about it, I have a very distant memory of a user who used to remove all signatures of everyone else on their talk page as a kind of norm, but I can't remember who it was, or if it actually happened. Might have been Iscariot, maybe even Finis. Does this sound right to anybody? A ZOMBIE ANT 22:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was somebody, but fuck if I remember who it was. I think the logic was that if there was no signature, they could do whatever they wanted to the content and it didn’t count as impersonation? ЯЭV€NΛИ† ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
User:The Goth Store Owner
*snif* *snif* I smell drama. Is there drama ? OH MA GOSH IS DRAMA!!! --hagnat 21:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The sooner they learn that 90% of this dispute should be on A/Arbitration the sooner I can sleep at night. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a minimum time cases need to stay on the main VB page? Can't this shit just be moved to archives and locked? --KCLZA 21:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- A/VB is now archived on an annual basis, so it'll be cycled in January 2016. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
So quiet
* shuffles around looking for drama to feed on, finds none *
What happened to this place ? --hagnat 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me to drop the DramaLevel. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hagnat spamming an administrative talk page was the excuse I needed to fulfill our VB case quota required by Kevan. To the wikicourt with him at once! -- Spiderzed▋ 21:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you can update the DramaLevel to the lesser level of drama. This place is so quiet. --hagnat 16:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Bots Discussion
Return of old, already banned, bots
Over the past couple of days, bots who were previous banned have been spamming again. Has the recent update of the wiki somehow unbanned them? -- boxy 10:35, 27 December 2014 (BST)
Hmm
It's been a few years, but we're getting a wave of bots again. Thoughts? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think the captcha needs to be updated? If so I can try to get in touch with Kev. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Bots Discussion
Return of old, already banned, bots
Over the past couple of days, bots who were previous banned have been spamming again. Has the recent update of the wiki somehow unbanned them? -- boxy 10:35, 27 December 2014 (BST)
Hmm
It's been a few years, but we're getting a wave of bots again. Thoughts? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think the captcha needs to be updated? If so I can try to get in touch with Kev. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
December 2009
User:Joshuamonkey
Potatoes - Cheese 15:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- This was a genuine ruling. =p I decided that the accused was potatoes of vandalism. -- Cheese 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Suicidalangel
Moved from main page.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- hurr sa is so bad, at least he isn't bullying people with his 'cratship.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 02:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm calling it like I see it. Tell me I'm wrong about you. And if I was a bully with my position I wouldn't have promoted him and then waited for him to stuff up to start bullying him. -- 02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- "a real folly by the community in allowing you to become a sysop cause you're a 'great guy' and 'headstrong'" And actually, it was your folly. You let him in, along with box. Dumbass.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 02:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Tell me a crat is anything but an elected tool of the community, you fool. --
- Show me a 'crat who wouldn't promote someone if they actually wanted said user to be an 'op. You've already shown how biased you are as a 'crat.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The next fucking time you bring up your cratship in an argument I'm taking you straight to Misconduct. You tried it on me a few weeks ago and now you're trying it with SA. Enough. Cyberbob Talk 06:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ha. Unfortunately, as SA and I were discussing in IRC just after the event, you don't understand the context of which I was saying it, which is why you would have pitifully taken it the way you did. Take me to misconduct at will, idiot. Which brings me to; are you blind? When in this argument did I even try and use my status to bully people in an argument? Even if I needed to in order to win this fight, I obviously couldn't, nor would I, nor did I. --
- Practically no one knows that you plan to retire after you drop being 'crat soon. Because you haven't said it publicly as far as I know. Well, except what you've just alluded to. Anyway, the fact of the matter is, to anyone who didn't know about it, it looked like you were threatening CB about his re-evaluation. I told you that didn't I?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- oh sorry I forgot that you weaseled your way out of it by saying "the community" instead of "me". whoops, my bad! by the way you're not particularly good at the Angry Wall of Text (too many awkward adjectives), maybe steer clear of that next time :) Cyberbob Talk 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. You really are a fucking idiot (perhaps look at Misanthropy's bid and examine what I said at the very start followed by the community's involvement, then you'll understand properly the words I said, TIA). And why would I stop, they work on you so effectively. --
- No, and no. If this is what you call "working so effectively" then lol@what you call "working badly". Cyberbob Talk 07:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Anything close to the way you work in this wiki, chump. Now , given I just interpreted your above ruling correctly, shut the fuck up and actually read the above case properly pls -- 07:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
07:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, and no. If this is what you call "working so effectively" then lol@what you call "working badly". Cyberbob Talk 07:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. You really are a fucking idiot (perhaps look at Misanthropy's bid and examine what I said at the very start followed by the community's involvement, then you'll understand properly the words I said, TIA). And why would I stop, they work on you so effectively. --
07:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ha. Unfortunately, as SA and I were discussing in IRC just after the event, you don't understand the context of which I was saying it, which is why you would have pitifully taken it the way you did. Take me to misconduct at will, idiot. Which brings me to; are you blind? When in this argument did I even try and use my status to bully people in an argument? Even if I needed to in order to win this fight, I obviously couldn't, nor would I, nor did I. --
02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Tell me a crat is anything but an elected tool of the community, you fool. --
- hurr sa is so bad, at least he isn't bullying people with his 'cratship.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 02:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
As a point, SA wants all this putting back on the main page as he says it forms part of his defence as an involved party. As I've been threatened once today with an unwarranted escalation, I'm not doing it, and DDR has already refused to put it back and allow SA to defend himself. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- logs. pls. oh man, they are forged!!!1 --
- I moved it because this doesn't involve the case. It's mainly about DDR being a crat, and if he's abusing his power as a badge. Frankly, that doesn'taffect whether SA changing the text penis in to a smilie was vandalism or not.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I told SA in IRC. He thinks it somehow related to libellous claims I made against him in the post where I abused Misanthropy and gave a rant about impersonation, which I don't particularly agree with, imo. There wasn't anything particularly important which was moved and incase there is, there's a link to here for when the sysops review the case. -- 11:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I moved it because this doesn't involve the case. It's mainly about DDR being a crat, and if he's abusing his power as a badge. Frankly, that doesn'taffect whether SA changing the text penis in to a smilie was vandalism or not.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
This case isn't vandalism. SA is merely contesting the size of Charlie's e-penis. A dispute, therefore, take it to arbitration.--Thadeous Oakley 10:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- For someone who was warned around July for the exact same thing, you seem to be pretty poor at establishing knowledge of the rule. --
- lulz, laern to taek a joke, k?--Thadeous Oakley 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't even pretend to try and tell me you meant that post as a joke. Although it would make sense since like 95% of your other stupid admin posts, it's entirely wrong. --
- SA is merely contesting the size of Charlie's e-penis that sentence alone should be an enormous indication that I'm in fact, get ready for it, not serious. Don't take everything so heavy, you of all persons should know with Bob as best friend. And of course its wrong, it's a joke, jeez. --Thadeous Oakley 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- So what's your excuse for every other post regarding admin issues that you've made in the last 4 months? --
- I need an excuse? I'm sorry, where in the rulebook is mentioned normal members can't participate in admin issues? Nice, that sysops only elitism you have there. Sure, you may disagree with my edits, and they might not all be right, but I was unaware making mistakes is forbidden as well. --Thadeous Oakley 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
20:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- So what's your excuse for every other post regarding admin issues that you've made in the last 4 months? --
20:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- SA is merely contesting the size of Charlie's e-penis that sentence alone should be an enormous indication that I'm in fact, get ready for it, not serious. Don't take everything so heavy, you of all persons should know with Bob as best friend. And of course its wrong, it's a joke, jeez. --Thadeous Oakley 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't even pretend to try and tell me you meant that post as a joke. Although it would make sense since like 95% of your other stupid admin posts, it's entirely wrong. --
13:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- lulz, laern to taek a joke, k?--Thadeous Oakley 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't Ban SA - I loled at the edit. --Haliman - Talk 14:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it isn't about whether we lold. It is, as Bob said, a well established rule and he knowingly broke it. -- 20:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
User:MisterGame
You lot should all be serving bans for ruling vandalism on that case. Don't any of you dare try and use the "spirit of the rules" line again when you've used the most petty and incorrect piece of rules lawyering to remove a user you don't like one last time before that ruling expires.
The relevant section from MG's arbitration ruling states:
- "MisterGame is not to contribute to admin pages that don't ask for community input unless he is an involved party (the talk pages are still open to comment though). Admin pages such as A/D ask for community input (votes), while A/VB is discussed by sysops and involved parties only (reporting an A/VB case counts as being involved)."
Emphasis mine.
The relevant section of the A/M guidelines states:
- "All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, not the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered."
All he's done by putting his comment directly on the main page is to save someone the trouble of moving it. It's not like you've even chosen to make this example on a real misconduct case either. Rak's been escalated before for his promotion bids, and given his contributions the case itself is a case of spamming admin pages with no real reason, but none of you are interested in dealing with that.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- First time you've gone for the 'ashamed' route, is it because you have no way of actually having us 'punished' for this outrage? --
- I believe I summed up everything in my original post. Thanks for taking the time to explain everything to anyone who might read instead of making another petty point... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
06:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- He had an arbitration ruling which said that he shouldn't contribute to admin pages unless they are ones that "ask for community input", and it was made clear that vote pages were the ones that asked for community input. Misconduct is decided by sysops, his input wasn't required, so he is in violation of arbies ruling.
But I'm sure he'll appreciate your unyielding support -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:15 18 December 2009 (BST)
User:Karloth vois (2)
Karloth vois (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Verdict | {{{1}}} |
---|---|
Action taken | {{{2}}} |
Wrongfully banned me from the #party channel in IRC. He would not accept the teachings of the One True god. Perma-ban requested.-- SA 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would also support a perma-ban. Don't worry SA, he can't hurt you anymore :( -- Adward 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't put joke reports on the main page, essay -- boxy talk • teh rulz 23:59 10 December 2009 (BST)
- It was not a joke! Can you not see the others that have suffered at the hands of Vois?-- SA 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- He gave me ops afterwards. It was glorious. I was like a god amongst ants. --DTPK 15:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I also support a perma-ban, but only for the "giving DT ops" part. That was a silly idea. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- He gave me ops afterwards. It was glorious. I was like a god amongst ants. --DTPK 15:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was not a joke! Can you not see the others that have suffered at the hands of Vois?-- SA 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Karloth vois
I again love how Iscariot gets to post all over uninvolved A/VB like he's a sysop. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Involved party idiot. And even if I wasn't providing the precedent that is applicable to the necessary escalation, I am one of the standard representatives of the Order on this wiki and it was our page that was vandalised. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- *checks* PK stands for Philosophe Knights. Doooooy. That was idiotic of me. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If i may
In relation to this [1] I do believe I made a very valid point on his discussion page in relations to this "impersonation." His talk page can be found here [2]. Its a pretty valid point that Guy is a member of Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service and given Umbrella's history of signatures, he is just going with the everyone else. Last time i checked, being Umbrella wasn't a valid reason to ban someone, despite what im pretty sure is several users wanting it as a reason. Also I wasn't sure if this should be put on the front page or the discussion, feel free to move it up front if it should be there. --