UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2006 06

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2020


Rueful

Was warned for vandalism when he should have been banned, just wanted to get a second opinion on this before I drop the ban hammer on him.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:20, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Although I am not a mod, I agree with your assessment. See here for my response to his case for not vandalizing. His vandal data shows that he should receive a 48 hour ban. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:31, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Vandalized again. I have reverted part of the vandalism (the applicable arbitration case allows bold text, but not links). –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:39, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Rueful did not acted in bad faith. I myself wished to get rid of this "amazingiswatching" crap, but i cant because of Vista's ruling on my case against Amazing. This just shows how stupid this thing is, and that it should be forbidden in this wiki (i guess it is in other wikis). In the second case, bob, Rueful did not vandalized TheGeneralIsWatching page, since he removed the link which was not following Vista's ruling, as noted in the summary. --hagnat mod 23:29, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Case dismissed.--hagnat mod 23:29, 30 June 2006 (BST)
My mistake, and apologies. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 23:34, 30 June 2006 (BST)
Well, my ruling hasn't the status of official policy, It is just a stopgap measure untill an official policy is developed. The views and rulings of a single person shouldn't dictate this wiki, and certianly not from such an easily gained, and unvetted, position as arbitrator. Ideally somebody whould open a policy discussion about this, but in my opinion a normal discussion whould have as much say, if not more, as my ruling in that arbitration case.--Vista 00:05, 1 July 2006 (BST)

Ralphwiggum

Adjusted the diary of a Black orchard member in the discussion section (impersonation). Evidence here [1] and here [2]--Black_Orchard 14:18, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  17:35, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Mickey Six

Added offensive language to the The Jerk List. Evidence here [3] --Technerd 14:18, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:53, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Rockasaurus_Radberry

Vandalized and impersonation on Suburb page HERE --Karlsbad 01:04, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Just did it again. here Sonny Corleone WTF 03:18, 30 June 2006 (BST)
Warned - Jedaz 03:33, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Did it again. here Sonny Corleone WTF 03:34, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  03:41, 30 June 2006 (BST)
Sorry I didn't say this earlier but I was a bit busy. You probably should retract your warning Cyberbob considering if you have a look at the time stamps ect that I issued my warning after he went and vandalized the page again. So (unless if I'm mistaken) the second warning doesn't count. I would have said earlier but I was a bit busy and was unable to leave a message saying so. - Jedaz 07:33, 30 June 2006 (BST)
Yes, you are correct, and I have retracted the warning. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:50, 30 June 2006 (BST)
He did a third one after the first warning. Sonny Corleone WTF 19:23, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Bonefiver

Edited Crossbow's user page. Even admits to his vandalism. Cyberbob  Talk  08:29, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. --Karlsbad 08:31, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Excuse me? I don't think Crossbow minds about that edit (it's his territory afterall) plus aren't you just happy to jump the trigger? Bonefiver 08:52, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Tell me about this "jumping the trigger" technique. Is it anything like pulling the trigger? Or jumping the gun? Cyberbob  Talk  08:54, 28 June 2006 (BST)
This is about to sound as spam, but you got another proof of my bad English skills right there. Congratulations.
I take it you got the meaning though. Care to answer? Bonefiver 09:01, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Upon further review- I reserve the right to re-instate or deny warning if and when Crossbow responds. --Karlsbad 09:04, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Retracted. Note to people: If you've given someone else permission to edit your user page, make sure it can be found ON THE WIKI. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:06, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Legend X

Vandalised the Anti Cheater Alliance page, deleting part of the section about his group, the BME, to make it less incriminating. History. --Grim s-Mod U! 03:19, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Warned, Banned 48 hours --Karlsbad 03:30, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Labine50

Normally, I wouldn't bother with this, but he is deliberately taking cheap shots, and making snide remarks at the same person over and over. Check the suggestions page. –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:06, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Just in case the votes are changed or something else happens, this, this, and this are good examples of what Xoid means. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:13, 28 June 2006 (BST)
There was an arbitration case about this. It was agreed that he would not make comments to a person and that they'd avoid each other. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:18, 28 June 2006 (BST)

St7

Keeps recreating a page that has been deleted. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:45, 26 June 2006 (BST)

FUCKING WARNED. Cyberbob  Talk  16:46, 26 June 2006 (BST)

W3c

Vandalised the suggestions page. Diff comparision. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:30, 26 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  07:31, 26 June 2006 (BST)

GODhack

Completely and vulgarly altered the Zerg_Hunters_Unlimited page. I would revert it back, but I don't know how. --Anime Sucks 21:51, 24 June 2006 (BST)

Vandalism reverted for you. (Mods: here is the result of his several vandalizations). –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:14, 24 June 2006 (BST)
I reverted the vandalism of GODhack on the Man Up page too..--Vykos CMS-Meta 22:32, 24 June 2006 (BST)
Warned--Vista 23:21, 24 June 2006 (BST)

Legend_X

Posted offensive things on my talk page: "Thank you for banning Denzel again. He is a real jerk. To Denzel I would like to say "It's about time. Go get a life." -Legend X"--Denzel Washington 13:13, 24 June 2006 (BST)

just delete and ignore it.--Vista 15:10, 24 June 2006 (BST)

Mad Dog Maddox

Blanked the CDF's group page. Cyberbob  Talk  06:36, 24 June 2006 (BST)

warned.--Vista 11:45, 24 June 2006 (BST)

Galendinwen

Vandalized the Peer Rejected Suggestions page. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 18:48, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Looks like we've got an arsehole on our hands, warned.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:07, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Duce Nauks

Has replied to just about every vote on his suggestion - most of the replies are nonsensical. He also acted in defiance of a warning about this exact topic from another user. Blatant abuse of the Re. Cyberbob  Talk  18:30, 23 June 2006 (BST)

But to give a warning for that is rather heavy handed, don't you think?--Vista 18:38, 23 June 2006 (BST)
It is counted as vandalism. The rule is on the Suggestions page. Cyberbob  Talk  18:39, 23 June 2006 (BST)
Not to nitpick, but the rule says "Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment." Note the "every kill vote" part -- not "nearly every kill vote" or "almost every vote." –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 18:41, 23 June 2006 (BST)
And here it descends into a spirit vs. letter of the rule argument... Cyberbob  Talk  18:43, 23 June 2006 (BST)
I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, I'm just saying that the letter of the law needs to be rewritten, because it doesn't reflect the spirit. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 18:46, 23 June 2006 (BST)
Yes bob it does. and you've broken the spirit of the rule already. The spirit of the rule is not to report people for vandalism or give people warnings as soon as they 're' to many times for your liking. Just try talk to him first.--Vista 18:45, 23 June 2006 (BST)
Someone already did. Did you follow the second link? Cyberbob  Talk  18:48, 23 June 2006 (BST)
yes I did. And no that is not what i meant. and that isn't you. Talking to him would be, you going to his talk page and write something down, something like "currently you are replying to almost every kill vote you get. That is considered abuse of the re function. while I understand you're quite involved with your suggestion using re that way is niether allowed nor particulary helpful. It is best to re only two or three votes try to explain away their conserns. re that way will be more helpfull to your goal." after you've done that and he still continues his behavior you can try again a little more forcefully and explain that he could end up on the vandal banning page or you could simply move the re's to the talkpage yourself. Vandal banning is for serious stuff, when all other option have been tried. Right now there isn't even a moderator comment and you want him warned already--Vista 19:00, 23 June 2006 (BST)
OK, will do. Cyberbob  Talk  19:05, 23 June 2006 (BST)

The person behind Hendrix224 and Pinkfloyd224

The title says it all. Multiple account abuse. See these votes on the Suggestions page for some proof. Cyberbob  Talk  17:37, 23 June 2006 (BST)

NOTE: If he gets warned, put it down for Hendrix224 - it's been around for longer, and made more edits. Cyberbob  Talk  17:41, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Is there any other proof of multiple acount abuse?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:44, 23 June 2006 (BST)
No... damn. Wait, I have more proof! The accounts both have 224 on the end! AND, they both have similar pages! All of which won't cut it, I guess... :-( Cyberbob  Talk  17:47, 23 June 2006 (BST)
I'll look into it. Probably doesn't deserve a warning, but we should keep a close eye on them.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 18:00, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Jimbo bob

Wonderful. My very own idiot troll-child. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 14:52, 23 June 2006 (BST) Update: the dipshit strikes again. Why, it's almost as though Amazing this unknown vandal is out to make me look bad. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 14:54, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Permanent block as a impersonation account--Vista 15:00, 23 June 2006 (BST)
Thanks, Vista. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 15:02, 23 June 2006 (BST)

LillianAsh

Created ErynSMA. This, in itself, isn't vandalism. It's her conduct when I put the page up for Speedy Deletion (Criterion 11) that is. First, she posts a reply as if it is her page. Then, she logs in to ErynSMA and changes her signature to make it look as though ErynSMA is a separate user. Note her little mistake on that first edit. She calls herself Eryn, before changing her signature! Also check the page history of ErynSMA. The only edits up to the Speedy Deletion case were by Lillian. It is only after I put it up, that "Eryn" could be bothered to edit her own user page. Whether it is bad faith (making another account), or impersonation (editing someone else's comment), she should recieve a warning. Cyberbob  Talk  11:59, 22 June 2006 (BST)

After reviewing the Speedy Deletions page's history, and the page that was nominated's history, I agree that this deserves a warning. I have no doubt that they are the same person, it is simply too "coincidental" for her to claim otherwise. Her main will be warned, the alt will be listed. –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:06, 22 June 2006 (BST)

Sexypixels

Gayknight.gif and the post here which is obvious that was meant to inflame the situation further. It fits these qualifications:

# Vandalism is malicious in intent. There's no such thing as "accidental vandalism".

and Wikipedia rules can be paralelled here,

Attention-seeking vandalism: Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks)

Image vandalism: Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. Repeatedly uploading images with no source and/or license information after notification that such information is required may also constitute vandalism.

Copyrighted material vandalism: Knowingly using copyrighted material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies is vandalism.

I'm filing this report as Sexypixels could have easily just put the picture up for deletion and/or waited for The Fifth Horseman's Arbitration/Vandal Banning report to go through and be done with it. Circumventing the moderation process is what has led the situation get to where it is. --Ahote 00:53, 21 June 2006 (BST)

Not a picture of an user, this is simular to the "Fuck Abandoned" pictore and quite a few other pictures against groups. pictures that attack groups have been allowed. and as I said below we don't follow Wikipedia rules here. That post is within the rules of the wiki. This place is not for fighting out personal vendetta's. Further attempts of using this page that way will be looked very negatively upon.--Vista 08:13, 21 June 2006 (BST)

Akule

Image:5th.png

Since Odd Starter said himself that

# Vandalism is malicious in intent. There's no such thing as "accidental vandalism".

and Wikipedia rules can be paralelled here,

Attention-seeking vandalism: Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks)

Image vandalism: Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. Repeatedly uploading images with no source and/or license information after notification that such information is required may also constitute vandalism.

Copyrighted material vandalism: Knowingly using copyrighted material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies is vandalism.

Akule knew well enough that he had no permission given nor implied to utilise my photograph in any way nor modify it.

Thus, apart from the image being removed (already in Deletion queque), I'm filing this vandal report on Akule's actions.--The Fifth Horseman 10:18, 20 June 2006 (BST)

when somebody uploaded a picture of amazing we took action as well, and personally I'm sick and tired of all the people creating drama. Warned. And the fifth horseman we don't follow wikipedia's rules per se. you might want to ask yourself in what way your actions contributes to all this drama.--Vista 18:07, 20 June 2006 (BST)

DarkStar2374383

Released classified login/password information. That data list was meant only for the purposes of The Abandoned, and the login/password were not meant for public access.

I think you have some precedence about releasing classified information? --The Fifth Horseman 10:27, 19 June 2006 (BST)

I'm sure there is no precedent about this. Regardlees, if the password was old, why do you care? –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:55, 19 June 2006 (BST)
The password was changed shortly ago because of that data leak being discovered. I am unsure whether it was valid at the date when he has posted it.
Regardless, the material he linked to is group property of The Abandoned, and he had no right to publicise any part of it.
Especially that this database holds a large number of not only character names but also profile links. --The Fifth Horseman 11:01, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Although it is xoid's case I would like to give my opinion. This is indded something new. It doesn't fit the normal category of vandalism, but although we are a rather free form and liberal, as are most wiki's, we've always made it clear that releasing potential private information about other users here is probited and we've warned people for less serious infractions. This was placed on this wiki obivously as back up proof and DarkStar was under the impression that it was an outdated password on that forum. So he could argue good faith. However reveiling passwords even if out-dated on that particular forum is still a dicey business. That password could still be in use on other forums as people frequently use only a limited amount of passwords. As such it's clear that putting it up on the wiki was not conforming to the standard we use on this wiki. And darkstar should have known better. Especially as using the password for verification has only meaning to The Fifth Horseman using it in a public forum in stead of a private message is just plain neglicence. DarkStar should have thought of the potential for abuse. The fact that he didn't makes this a bad faith edit in my opinion.--Vista 17:26, 19 June 2006 (BST)
I didn't want to touch this; without a precedent I may end up getting another frivulous misconduct case and I am sick and tired of them. sigh. Regardless, I will do what is right in this case.
You say DarkStar didn't think about it. If it was malicious he would have thought about it and done it deliberately. Frankly I don't care if he did or did not think about it; premeditation would make this worse, but this is still far from a gray area. Posting passwords to a private access area on the wiki was more than questionable — even if he believed they were no longer useful. Commonsense would tell one to think better of it.
I think Darkstar stepped way over the line with this act. As such I am going to issue a warning to him. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:49, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Seems you might have another report on him, particularly on the subject of the "Fuck Abandoned" image he has used on his user page (unauthorised usage of an image he had not acquired permission from the author). I'll leave filing that report to the image's author, however.--The Fifth Horseman 18:25, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Amazing lost his case for something very similiar under the basis that parody and satire do not require prior permission. You will lose yours as well. Don't waste our time with it. –Xoid S•T•FU! 18:40, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Yeah! :P Cyberbob  Talk  18:43, 19 June 2006 (BST)
Except that one is plagiarism. --The Fifth Horseman 09:44, 20 June 2006 (BST)
The Fifth Horseman believes he has a working grasp of the law.
It cannot be considered plagiarism if it is parody or satire; Mad Magazine has been sued over this line of reasoning before. They've also been sued for their work under many other lines of reasoning for that matter. Repeatedly. They've won countless court cases. In numerous countries. Don't even consider trying to stomp on parody or satire — it is damn near sacrosanct and as such you will lose. –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:19, 20 June 2006 (BST)
Seems that the author decided to use a different method of expressing his displease at the situation. One that you will notice in a short while. --The Fifth Horseman 10:23, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Rip purr

He altered historical record, presumably in order to cover up his past misdeed. (Pretending his two accounts were different people, using one to argue his way out of the vandal banning of the other, instead of using the proper channels.) –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:48, 18 June 2006 (BST)

It's his archive. It falls under the talk page rules and as such it is allowed. I already gave him a big chewing out at the time for his pretending to be two seperate accounts when he did that at the time. I'll note the two accounts as one on the vandal data page for good bookkeeping if that hasn't happened already, so that he won't fall through the cracks if he vandalizes in the future.--Vista 15:01, 18 June 2006 (BST)

Amaz'ing returns

Vandal alt. Perma-ban. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:46, 15 June 2006 (BST)

Amaz'ing

Vandal alt. Perma-ban. –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:01, 13 June 2006 (BST)

Seems that the first registered activity of that user was on 5th June... but wasn't that before Amazing was actually banned? --The Fifth Horseman 18:40, 13 June 2006 (BST)
Was a vandal account made by Guess who and was warned. Looks like he brought it back for his latest spree of faggotry. – Nubis NWO 18:53, 13 June 2006 (BST)
Why would amazing vandalize the page of the group I believe he's still a member of? It could be just an asshole trying to create more wiki drama. It's not like that would be something new. We've had persons impersonating him before just to stir up trouble and drama. This seems more in line with them then with amazing himself.--Vista 21:23, 13 June 2006 (BST)
I had that impression, at first. Then I asked myself, "Why would they continue to strike after Amazing's ban though?", the answer was simple — they're idiots; probably haven't even heard he got banned yet. Either that or they're continuing their character assassination. Don't know why they'd bother though. –Xoid S•T•FU! 00:35, 14 June 2006 (BST)
Me neither. It's a bit hard to assassinate something that's already dead. Cyberbob  Talk  06:46, 14 June 2006 (BST)
Making it more likely that it was Amazing? Meh. I could care less. Whoever it is, unless we get an IP address, someone bothers to hunt down the ISP and complain profusely, it ain't gonna make a scrap of difference. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:50, 14 June 2006 (BST)

Jim Carey

Blanked much of the Dore St PD group page. Cyberbob  Talk  17:00, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:09, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Hang on. The group leadership has him as a leader! It's his page! Cyberbob  Talk  17:10, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Retracted. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:18, 12 June 2006 (BST)

User:Pillsy

I'm too tired to make coherent judgements, but this seems to fall under impersonation rules: diff --Brizth mod T W! 13:17, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Yep, it sure does. Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  13:19, 12 June 2006 (BST)

AnimeSucks and his alt accounts

Multiple accounts created as a deletion workaround. --The Fifth Horseman 12:13, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Is there any precedent for a double warning? This sort of blatant attempt to go around the rules is disgraceful in and of itself. Even with the pages being freshly deleted, I'm contemplating going for the images as well, it'd serve him right for trying to skirt the rules. –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:24, 12 June 2006 (BST)

I don't see one, but on discussion forums, cases like that end with immediate block placed on the alt accounts. Sometimes also in doing the same to the original user, but on some forums (and in some cases) the perpetrator only receives a warn increase.
However, I consider each of these instances to be an individual case that just happens to be perpetrated by the same user.
When viewed that way, it might be grounds for five warn increases total, one for each multi. --The Fifth Horseman 13:01, 12 June 2006 (BST)
We have an insta perma-ban policy for alternate accounts created for vandalism. If he was trying to skirt the rules, that would be vandalism and yes, I could perma-ban them. However, I just looked at his talk page. There is a very old message stating that those were his friends' characters. He may have told them to get accounts so they don't get deleted again. He might not have.
Those may be legitimate users, and banning them on mere suspicion would be hasty. I'll give him some time to answer for himself. Regardless, a year long ban over this incident would be harsh IMO. Regardless, this will stay on the backburner until he answers. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:10, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Xoid, The fith horseman, We only give only one warning per time. And in that warning all simular Harmful and bad faith edits up to the time of the warning are included. So the maximum we penalty for AnimeSucks would simply be a single warrning. And taking both the time passed before it was noticed and the content of the page, I fail to see why a heavier penalty should apply. --Vista 15:04, 12 June 2006 (BST)
If he did this merely to get around the rules, it demonstrates that he is willing to twist them far beyond their spirit to get his way. I don't know about you, but I view that as morally reprehensible.
I ask you, if I went and placed {{:suggestions}} on three dozen pages before I got my warning, would I still have my editing privileges? Frankly, I'm sick and tired of you bringing that rule up every time I question it, I've not forgotten the rule, I merely consider it farcical for the aforementioned reason. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:36, 12 June 2006 (BST)
I know you know the rule, but the fith horsemen doesn't as do other people who read this. I found it a bit murky to just address him as you brought it up as well. I agree that he should get a warning for circumventing speedy deletions. I said as much, I simply stated why he shouldn't get two. And no being morally reprehensible or just being an asshole isn't grounds to give a person more. If that was the case we have for worse person wealking round who deserve it more then just a petty rule breaker. And creating a couple of pages that nobody ever visits or even noticed is very petty. The reason I don't consider it petty because of this. Just because it personally annoys you it doesn't get worse then all the things Rasher, scinfaxi, reufull, amazing, Benders etc. have done. We shouldn't be judge, jury and exicutionary. We should only be judges. Because that works. if we don't limit ourselves. we get huge differences between moderators. similar cases would be awarded different penalties. All depending on who the moderator was. The differences would lead to a huge amount of misconduct cases and drama. Or we make every single thing count and people get year bans for making 5 petty, stupid and idiotic pages that did no harm what so ever to anybody or to this wiki and somebody who posted goatse or an abortion pix on the front page would only get a warning. I know the system is flawed but it's better then both alternatives I mentioned. If you look at vandal data you'll see that the vast majority learns from their warning. We're not here to punish people for bad edits, we're here to try to avoid future bad edits. It's a small difference but it effect on how we should act is big I think. But seriously if you know a better way then the two alternatives I mentioned I'm all ears, because there is room for improvement in this system, I'll agree to that.--Vista 16:11, 12 June 2006 (BST)
I know what you're saying, it's not like I haven't tried to talk other mods out of pursing a case when it would be petty for them to do so. *sigh* I just wish there was a way that something like the transcluding example I set out be punished by an instant 24 hour ban at a minimum. Someone doing something that severe knows what they're doing is wrong — there is no way it could be an innocent mistake. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:35, 12 June 2006 (BST)
His talk page suggests that a moderator made those User Pages and moved the content there after he just made ordinary wiki pages for the characters. Was it Anime Sucks that actually created the multiple accounts, and if not, did he actively abuse the situation? --Boxy
No, Odd didn't do that, he merged those pages with AnimeSucks' user page. Who created the accounts is another matter. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:16, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Ah, I see. Yep. Hope you can still tell whether the accounts were used for active abuse or not (other than just their creation), now that they've been deleted. Carry on :) --Boxy 13:51, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Apart from creating their user pages they did exactly nothing that we know of. Meaning that they've been inactive since the last history purge, at the very least. Suspicious, but I'll still give him a chance to answer my question first. –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:10, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Quade Leafypants did make one post I know of: here.
However, given the other circumstances, there is a possibility that this was done by AnimeSucks (if Quade was in fact his alt), as the style and thought pattersn expressed seem to closely match with him. --The Fifth Horseman 14:21, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Anyone acting like that deserves a swift kick in the nuts. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:36, 12 June 2006 (BST)
By all means kick him in the nuts, but talking smack on a talk page is very much allowed. Alternative accounts have the same standard to adhere to as primary accounts.--Vista 15:43, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Huh? –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:46, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Ummm yeah, Quade Leafypants=A-hole. And no to The Fifth Horseman, It doesn't count as a vandal alt. Better? (but not by much I think)--Vista 16:15, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Never claimed them to be used for vandalism. There is just no other place where user misconduct can be reported.
Still, this deletion workaround is an indication that these accounts might be later used for similar purposes by their owner. --The Fifth Horseman 16:27, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Vandalism is User misconduct. and for the deletion work around he'll probably get a warning from xoid. And next time he does it, he'll get another warning. we don't give penalties for infraction not yet commited. (although my manager would find it very pro-active) But now we are now aware of his behavior so I doubt it'll take as long to discover if he fauls up again.--Vista 16:35, 12 June 2006 (BST)

AnimeSucks said he told them to get accounts, as such I'll be restoring the pages. In short; not vandalism. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:34, 13 June 2006 (BST)

Something that popped up with the case and I am not quite sure about it (concerning specifically QuadeLeafypants): his contributions log lists the editing of User:QuadeLeafypants, but... doesn't list the post in the Cannibal Corps talk page that was signed with his username (and made a month later, according to datestamps). So, would that mean an impersonation attempt or just I don't understand something about how Wikis function?--The Fifth Horseman 18:31, 13 June 2006 (BST)

The history is purged regularly around here. That was from before the last wipe. When the next wipe comes; a lot of people are going to have their contributions go from several thousand to squat. Confusing; but you'll get used to it. –Xoid S•T•FU! 00:38, 14 June 2006 (BST)

Cyberbob 240 ("A Bothan Spy")

Removed the Policy Documents cathegory from the Moderation: Guidelines page, claiming to be reverting a case of 'vandalism'. (see his report below for details)--The Fifth Horseman 12:05, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Meh. It was in good faith. Just because it was without thinking doesn't change that fact. I honestly thought I was doing the right thing. Actually, I thought it was just replacing the Moderation category. I forgot that using the rollover button removes all edits made by a user back to the last other user's edit on a page. Cyberbob  Talk  12:36, 12 June 2006 (BST)
The "compare with last version" view option clearly showed what my edits contained. There is no rule that excludes reverts from possible means of vandalism.
On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki".
Your revert classifies as that kind of edit, since there was no vandalism to be reverted in the first place, and you have destroyed an addition that classifies as an improvement attempt (that being the association with Policy Documents cathegory). --The Fifth Horseman 12:41, 12 June 2006 (BST)
One again, my edit was in good faith. Do I need to explain everything I say twice? Please read the entirety of my above comment. Cyberbob  Talk  12:46, 12 June 2006 (BST)
You can view the content of previous edits, as well as the content of revert you are about to emply. Thus, your action must have been intentional and as such qualifies for a warn. --The Fifth Horseman 12:53, 12 June 2006 (BST)
You assume much. I only saw your last edit. Which was to remove the Moderation category. I forgot that the rollback button removes all a user's edits back to the last person's edit. Call it a lapse of stupidity, but it wasn't my intent to remove the other content you added. Cyberbob  Talk  12:56, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Your claims. One click of a button to check what I did in the edit just before that one would clearly show it all. And you could have checked the content you put there with Rollback before your revert. So shut up and wait for other mods to decide their judgement. --The Fifth Horseman 13:04, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Last time I checked, I don't have to do what you say. And you're still not reading what I say. I thought the rollback only changed the last edit; I'd used it before, why should I check it for your special case? Computers don't magically change their functionalities. I had no reason to believe that it would change any edit besides your last one. Cyberbob  Talk  13:07, 12 June 2006 (BST)
You brought this one on yourself, Cyber. Going after him with the other case was petty. Just like I wouldn't touch The Fifth Horseman's case, I won't touch yours. I think you done wrong by issuing the warning yourself, it is supposed to be left up to another party. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:12, 12 June 2006 (BST)
While it isn't vandalism Cyberbob, You simply must be both more careful and more moderate in your actions. Time and time again I've seen you jump the gun where a simple question would solve most problems. I think you have the highest amounts of dismissed reports at the moment. That is not a good record for a moderator to have, You really should have more patience in these cases.
And the Fifth Horseman, you should also take it more easy, Although you might be a mod in a forum. A wiki works different then a forum, And all wiki have their own nuances. Let us do our job the way we should, Like we should let you do your job in your forum. --Vista 15:23, 12 June 2006 (BST)
I'll try. --The Fifth Horseman 15:50, 12 June 2006 (BST)

The Fifth Horseman

Removed the Moderation category from the Moderation/Guidelines page. Cyberbob  Talk  04:35, 12 June 2006 (BST)

The only reason it was in that category was because he added it. He then removed it when he noticed that there no moderation page is in that category. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:15, 12 June 2006 (BST)
I thought there was a Moderation cathegory when I was adding the article to "policy documents" cathegory. Upon noticing my mistake I fixed that. The time difference between edits... 1 bloody minute. It's quite surprising that you have not checked what changes my previous edit to the page involved. As a side note, I'd love to see you explain how fixing an incorrect portion one's own edit can be considered vandalism. Without that "case-by-case basis" b/s, please.
By the Wiki definition, it was your revert that was the actual vandalism here. My edit added the article to Policy Document cathegory, to which it in all respect belongs. Xoid and Vista agreed on that subject.
So, thanks, Cyberbob. You just got yourself reported for vandalism.
--The Fifth Horseman 12:05, 12 June 2006 (BST)
I'd personally consider it a case of Cyber being an overzealous dolt, but yeah… –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:21, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Whether he is overzealous or a dolt (though his behavior seems to disprove that possibility) makes no difference. His revert has destroyed an addition to the page, and as one can view the content of previous edits to the page and the content of the revert he is about to employ. Thus, his actions could only have been done on purpose.
We make the following notes on what isn't vandalism:
  • An edit that adds information arising from a misunderstanding.
  • An edit that improves the page from a user you don't like.
By your own rules, my edit was not any form of vandalism.--The Fifth Horseman 12:51, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Fuck it. You've just proven to me that we need a template for that. I'm tired of text three miles off my screen. Be back in two minutes. Edit: now ain't that better? Dear god that's an improvement. It's not what it was intended for, but it's good enough. Vandalism case dismissed, next case. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:17, 12 June 2006 (BST)

OK. It's obvious that the warning was unwarranted, with you guys' discussion as evidence. I'm retracting the warning. Sorry, Horseman. Cyberbob  Talk  13:17, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Astram Loccasin

Vandalized Stanbury Village page. It seems all of the MRH are out to prove that even in old age you too can be immature. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=287081&oldid=287060 Sonny Corleone WTF 23:05, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Warned.--'STER-Talk-ModP! 23:37, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Somebody

Vandalised Ang Hukbong Sandatahan ng Bayan's page here and here. Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  19:20, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Fluffypinkbunny

Vandalised the Knights of the Temple of the Shrike's page. Cyberbob  Talk  19:12, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Looking at this user's contributions, it can be seen that he (she?) has a long history of vandalism. Because of this, I'm warning Fluffy. Cyberbob  Talk  19:15, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Bonefiver

Vandalised the Stanbury Village page. Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  17:44, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Noodlesoup2

Diff Comparision. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:30, 11 June 2006 (BST)

I saw (and wondered) about that... are you sure it's not part of the Lexicon (as in, part of his contribution)? Cyberbob  Talk  17:36, 11 June 2006 (BST)

That's a subpage of Wyndallin's user page. The only edit I made was fixing a busted link, he's rewriting what Wyndallin was doing. Would seems like a clear cut case of vandalism to me, but he is a newbie, from the looks of his contributions list. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:38, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Newbies aren't exempt. Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  17:39, 11 June 2006 (BST)
I wouldn't want them to be. Reading the policies isn't that hard. Nor is asking a more experienced member. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:54, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Dastardly Duo

  1. Adios - Diff Comparision.
  2. Officershake - Diff Comparision.

I am inclined to believe these were alts of the 3pagewikivandal - the edits were made at around the same time he hit on those days, AFAIK. I might be wrong, of course. –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:55, 11 June 2006 (BST)

There's no definitive evidence that they are 3page - warned. (If it was the 3pagevandle, wouldn't he have left that message?) Cyberbob  Talk  14:59, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Vandalisations from before he started adding stupid messages, during the first and second sprees respectively. (We are up to what, the fourth at the moment?) Probably better to be on the safe side though. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:08, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Rosicrux

Vandalized the Stanbury Village page after a biased statement was posted to discredit another group's statement. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286115&oldid=285770 Sonny Corleone WTF 05:32, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. I saw the history, and this is a recurring event. Cyberbob  Talk  05:34, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Isn't this the other way around? Sonny Corleone is not even in the suburb yet he writes these "news" that aren't even remotely accurate. A news post expressing this fact was deleted by him out of the blue which in itself discredits our groups (Malton Retirement Housing) statement. Similarly Sonny Corleone removed our group (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=253885&oldid=249134) from the suburb at the exact moment I was minding my own business there with at least 15 of MRH populace. Bonefiver 13:44, 11 June 2006 (EET)
Uh... confusion. Cyberbob  Talk  11:55, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Why don't you let them solve it in arbitration?--Vista 12:02, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Good idea. Bonefiver, take it there if you really want to take this any further. Cyberbob  Talk  12:06, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Those groups were removed since they didn't update in months. Some, like the People's Federation, left Stanbury Village a while ago. I know because I was there. Every group has to update or else their removed. The only exception is historical groups which are kept because...they're historical. And your news update was removed because it goes against the rules of "Do not post biased statement that are aimed to discredit a previous statement." This is how we have edit wars during Mall Sieges. A zombie will say the mall is clear while the survivor says it's still populated. It has to be unbiased. Sonny Corleone WTF 15:51, 11 June 2006 (BST)

To comment on the group removing again. I just contacted leader of the A-Team and S6 to see if they were still there before I removed them for inactivity. The leader just confirmed it with me today. However it seems to be a one man only group which usually get's removed anyway. Sonny Corleone WTF 15:57, 11 June 2006 (BST)
So I take it we can't counter or delete your claims (event descriptions) which are 1. biased and 2. invalid (read 'bs') just because you wrote them first? Isn't it obvious that you can't know what is going on just by having one zombie alt there? Bonefiver 18:30, 11 June 2006 (EET)
What part of 'take it to Arbitration' was unclear? – Nubis NWO 16:35, 11 June 2006 (BST)
None. Apparently the rules are different to so called "wiki-newbies" than "established writers". The latter group can comment on this subject, the former can't. Yeah yeah. I'll take it to arbitration if I want to spend time on this bs.Bonefiver 18:49, 11 June 2006 (EET)
Actually, that applied to Saromu as well. Way to selectively misinterpret a comment. Cyberbob  Talk  16:53, 11 June 2006 (BST)
That comment was directly under mine with extra indentation. The message was directed to me and me only was it not? More correct approach would've been a message with no indentation saying "take it to arbitration. case closed". ? Bonefiver 19:00, 11 June 2006 (EET)
Oh for fuck's sake. That has to be the weakest comeback ever. Cyberbob  Talk  17:04, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Comeback? Sorry for being a wiki newbie, but threaded discussion looks just like that does it not? Sorry if I took it the wrong way. Bonefiver 19:21, 11 June 2006 (EET)
And you know experience has nothing to do with the way you're treated around here. It's your attitude, not history, that defines your popularity. Cyberbob  Talk  17:25, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Bam. Both of you are in arbitration. I tried to be nice to leave your comment but take out the part aimed to discredit. It still got your message across but in a nicer way. Obviously nice isn't part of your vocabulary. Sonny Corleone WTF 16:55, 11 June 2006 (BST)
I would advise you to make separate cases. Means they can defend themselves without having to second-guess the other's thoughts. Or something. Anyway, it'd help to avoid confusion. Cyberbob  Talk  16:58, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Ok. I'll just copy and paste it and put it as two different cases. Sonny Corleone WTF 16:59, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Repeat offence here. Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  16:43, 11 June 2006 (BST) Whoops. I mean Bonefiver. Cyberbob  Talk  16:46, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Whap

Vandalised the STARS page. Cyberbob  Talk  06:45, 10 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:46, 10 June 2006 (BST)
He has vandalised again: Diff Comparision –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:13, 10 June 2006 (BST)
Warned. Cyberbob  Talk  12:14, 10 June 2006 (BST)

Kjsdd

Has made one edit which was to completely break this page by adding the suggestions template hundreds of times. Judging by the similar names I would guess that he is an alt of the below account. Banned.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 00:09, 10 June 2006 (BST)

Kasdjf

Edited the wiki page of the small human group Wyatt's_Rangers to completely remove group references and instead include a long set of rants and insults against the wiki and its moderators. See the History page to see what was done. I will be reverting the page to the previous version right after I post this.--Ky 20:48, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Banned. Indefinately. Must have missed him earlier. – Nubis NWO 21:05, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Why indefinite? What about the three strikes policy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The General (talk • contribs) .
here is what he actually did. The link provided with the report was a bit misleading. I say that banning is justified. --Brizth mod T W! 21:31, 9 June 2006 (BST)
It was one of 18 Accounts (Counting the ones I banned only) made today for the purpose of making a single edit vandalism replacing the content of a page with that of Amazing's userpage. Hence the indefinate ban. Check the Ban Log and all the edits of the people that have been banned today for more. – Nubis NWO 21:38, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Red mafiya

Edited the user page of Antonio360 - who, unlike what the user page says, is NOT the leader of LoSH - who, whilst obviously one of their covers for vandalising the wiki, should not have their userpage edited by another user. All of the formatting has been done by them though. --Grog 18:24, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Note that there have been several suspicious vandalisms of the wiki by users suspected to be fake fronts for the Red mafiya, these include Too Cool and Antonio360. --Grog 18:28, 9 June 2006 (BST)
He has been warned against editting other's userpages, the next violation will result in a 24 hour ban. – Nubis NWO 18:29, 9 June 2006 (BST)

MEGGAHHA

vandalized this page. Replaced all content with that of Amazing's userpage. -Banana Bear 18:07, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Amazing Strikes Back. Blocked as per the others. Indefinately. – Nubis NWO 18:07, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Dskjd did it first, then MEGGAHHA did it again about 2 minutes after it was fixed back. btw. --Grog 18:09, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Damnrightyoucant

Blocked infinately for ban evasion – Nubis NWO 16:44, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Too cool

Wiped STER's talk page here and vandalized Channel 4 News Team here. Blocked for a week, as obviously has no good intentions here. – Nubis NWO 16:19, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Surely this, coupled with the previous warning for the following earlier today:
(Vandalized LoSH, The Malton Mafia, and The Corleone Family page. Sonny Corleone WTF 00:37, 9 June 2006 (BST) Warned.--'STER-Talk-ModP! 00:42, 9 June 2006 (BST))
As well as the dubious reasons behind Antonio360's(Who, unlike what the user page says, is NOT the leader of LoSH) editing of the LoSH page to get rid of all the anti-Red Mafiya stuff that is there.
Should result in a permanent baning of the user? not that it will matter much, as Red Mafiya will most likely simply set up another account to vandalise the wiki with. What i also find interesting is that despite vandalising all of these pages, they left the one thing that links them (with the exception of STER's talk page) exactly as it was, presumably so as to not make it completly obvious, this is the page I talk of: Down with Red mafiya --Grog 18:34, 9 June 2006 (BST)
If he evades the ban, I'd have no problem with a permanent ban on him and alts, etc... – Nubis NWO 18:42, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Thanks for watching my back! You folks stay Classy! --Ron Burgundy 05:36, 10 June 2006 (BST)

Amazing

Due to the fact that, as JimboBob correctly pointed out, the previous ban was Amazing's fifth (counting the two erroneously issued warnings as the bans they should have been.), Amazing has been banned permanently. Bye bye. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:42, 9 June 2006 (BST)

We don't we perma ban users, don't we? I thought there was a one year maximum on non bot/vandal ats--Vista 08:20, 9 June 2006 (BST)
M/G. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:25, 9 June 2006 (BST)
I always though that Odd starters suggestions that it whould be limited to a year was implemented in the policy. Not that there is any paractical differance any way.--Vista 09:26, 9 June 2006 (BST)
The difference being that if Amazing continues to vandalise the wiki; perhaps through use of alternate accounts now that he has been perma-banned, he may eventually (1 year) return to his own — why leave ourselves open for that possibility? (If he can hold a grudge that long. I have seen people holding them longer than that, but I don't think he has it in him.) –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:35, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Your own rules state that the last ban is for one year period.
Don't you think that after a year-long ban the chances he'll return are near zero anyway?
If he creates additional accounts to vandalise, you will notice that and will be able to ip-ban him on that basis. Otherwise, you have no justification to perma-ban him.--The Fifth Horseman 09:50, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Oh, go away if you're going to carry your grief over being warned in here. The Guidelines clearly state that the fifth ban is permanent. Cyberbob  Talk  09:53, 9 June 2006 (BST)
What grief?
After Penalties for Vandalism: Fifth ban: 1 year
Is my eyesight wrong? I don't think so.
Is "1 year" equal to infinite? I asked a mathematician I know, and his answer was it isn't.
Thus, your point is incorrect.
I feel inclined to investigate your actions further. --The Fifth Horseman 11:11, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Oh oh, what's that? This page has the current rule (at the bottom) that is being used? Damn! Cyberbob  Talk  11:13, 9 June 2006 (BST)
For the future, having two contradictive rules, one of which is publically visible on the front page of the Wiki and the other being hidden so that it is not accessible from the front page can cause a lot of doubt as to which one is "THE" valid rule and which one is not.
Since you have proven that your point is correct, I withdraw my statements from this discussion and | have performed neccesary amendments in the relevant pages.
  • Ban periods in Policies/Vandalism has been amended to conform to the newer rule. You might want to remove one of the sets on ban periods altogether later (putting in a link to the one that is kept in their place), given that if any further changes are made, the two sets of rules might become contradictory to each other again later on.
  • Moderation/Guidelines is now linked to Cathegory:Policy Documents. To all extent and purpose, it is a policy document.
  • A proposal has been made on the Talk:Main Page to list Moderation/Guidelines under the Moderation Services tree.
Of course, knowing you, I'll immediately receive a warn for vandalism because of doing something that should have been done many months ago. --The Fifth Horseman 11:52, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Also: get the fuck out, and take your grievance-mongering with you. Don't shit up this report because you can't deal with getting warned one fucking time. If you really can't handle that, take it to Misconduct or somewhere else where you can be laughed at in a suitably official manner. I am getting really fucking sick of trolls smearing their shit all over the wiki because people won't treat their pathetic grievances with the gravity they so obviously (don't) deserve. I badly need to get some sleep now, so I leave you with this parting thought: Shut. The fuck. Up. Okay? --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 11:27, 9 June 2006 (BST)
It is a great disappointment for me to see a moderator using that kind of language. My posts in this discussion had nothing to do with receiving a warn increase, merely with a perceived case of incorrect application of rules. Have you seen it from the side of a user, there is little doubt you would think the same.
As to that other matter, I will take it to Misconduct as soon as I have time for that. I still have my own moderator duties to fulfill today. --The Fifth Horseman 11:52, 9 June 2006 (BST)
  • Fact. Jimbo isn't a mod. Lolz to you for not picking that up.
Divide eight hours of sleep between four days. Get something that resembles a huge hangover - multiplied by a thousand. Get the idea? --The Fifth Horseman 12:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)
OK, I'm sorry for that one. I can understand tiredness; I'm a chronic sufferer of that particular condition :-P Cyberbob  Talk  12:18, 9 June 2006 (BST)
  • Fact. Misconduct is only for abuse of moderator specific powers, such as deletions, protections or bans.
  • Fact. Your precious feelings fall into none of those categories.
Uh... what he said. Damn Jimbo, you really know how to lay the smackdown! Kudos, my good man! Kudos! Cyberbob  Talk  11:31, 9 June 2006 (BST)

I changed Amazings previous wrongfully given warnings and bans to their correct status according to the rules so he gets another week and month added to his current ban period. And I do believe the one year rule on the Penalties for Vandalism was more up to date then the infite Ban on the Guidelines. So The Fifth Horseman I would be much obliged if you would revert your change. Odd starter will know wich of the rules are more current. I propose you go ask him.--Vista 12:10, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Okay, reverted until the priority can be determined. --The Fifth Horseman 14:08, 9 June 2006 (BST)
March 10 (infinite) vs March 2 (1 year) — seems to me that 1 year is the older of the two. –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:40, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Yep thats the last edit from before the history wipe. As they were both on the pages before 06:06, 2 March 2006 and 21:51, 9 March 2006 meaning that both date from before the last wipe. Odd probably wrote both of them. He'll remember how much before the wipe he wrote each.--Vista 12:57, 9 June 2006 (BST)
If Odd meant for us to go by the policy documents firs

More vandals

I will report all other vandals I find tonight here.

Alt of our recent 'friend'; .: instant perma-ban. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:55, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Moosy

Vandalism here. Seems to have simply gone through and inserted various typos throughout the page. I'd have reverted it myself, but he changed stuff in so many places this really seems more suited for the handy-dandy revert button you mods have. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 01:41, 9 June 2006 (BST)

All you do to revert is edit and then save an old version. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:44, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Yeah? I may have to give that a shot sometime, then. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 02:23, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Warned. –Xoid S•T•FU! 02:50, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Vandal alts

It doesn't seem like there has been more vandalism for a while, and it doesn't look like any of these vandal alts are listed on Vandal Data, so hopefully the last few vandal alts from the earlier vandalism:

If I see any more soon, I will add them under this heading instead of creating a new entry. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:14, 9 June 2006 (BST)

I checked, and none of these previous alts/vandals are in Vandal Data either (Vista, I believe you wanted me to make this list earlier? I haven't added these to Vandal Data because I am not a mod.)

Vista, do you want me to go through the block log and get all of the others as well? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:26, 9 June 2006 (BST)

If it doesn't take to much time...It's more for the book-keeping stuf then anything else.--Vista 08:22, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Check the block logs. If you really want to add them, there are plenty of accounts, just from today. Fucking hell that persistent twat is irritating. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:25, 9 June 2006 (BST)
This may be one for the record books, because it looks like there were 68 vandals banned in one day. Now, the alphabetical list with duplicates removed (but not those already mentioned, sorry about that), can be found right here. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 09:51, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Also, several of the accounts I listed above have not yet been banned. Probably want to do that, just to be safe. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 09:53, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Can you mark which ones are not banned? –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:56, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Sorry, I should have been more specific. By "above," I meant, "in the lists of users in this section." All of the users that I listed on my user page were blocked today (because really, that's just a heavily parsed copy-and-paste from Special:Ipblocklist (thank God for regular expressions)). As for the users who haven't yet been banned, they are:
  • Nononononon
  • Adder
  • Nuberly
  • Abreaa
–Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 10:01, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Ban hammered those pus buckets. I also infinitely banned a number of those alts that vista gave a year day for. (1 day for the 3page wiki vandal? Are you shittin' me? *sigh*) There are simply so many of them that it's not funny. –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)
I'm surprised that {{Banhammer}} didn't already exist. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 10:31, 9 June 2006 (BST)
I started using it before you even posted that. :-D –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:38, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Xoid check the data, they expire in 11:24, 9 June 2007.--Vista 11:24, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Blind as a bat. 'Tis what I am. Regardless, vandal alternates are supposed to get instant-permabans. So nyah-nyah. :-p –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Too cool

Vandalized LoSH, The Malton Mafia, and The Corleone Family page. Sonny Corleone WTF 00:37, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Warned.--'STER-Talk-ModP! 00:42, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Moderatiiion

Bloody idiot vandalized this very page. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:16, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Not vandalism, he was making a comment. I would prefer him doing that rather than blanking pages. Account banned anyway as it is a vandal alt.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:22, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Sorry, I wasn't sure, but I thought it was better to be safe than sorry, considering his spotty track record. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:28, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Generalsucks!!!

Vandalized the protections page. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:01, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Blocked, with a vengance.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:05, 8 June 2006 (BST)
What is it with these bloody vandals? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:07, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Hmm. Looks like this is probably the same person puerile jackass as was behind the Damage-bots. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 21:07, 8 June 2006 (BST)
He calls himself the 3 page wiki vandal. The accounts only make three edits each. Although, he appears not to be able to count and these most recent account have only made one edit each. Just wait till we can wildcard ip ban.....--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:09, 8 June 2006 (BST)
That, and the account blacklist plugin look like they're absolutely necessary. What are we waiting for? PQN8040 and "Lololbobhammerosuckstoo!!!"? (Oh Lord, I hope not.) –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:12, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Ok let me inform you guys a little bit ok. I am the 3-edit wiki vandle. The reason why I am not doing 3 edits right now is because it gives you to much time to ip ban me. I used to do 3-page edits a long time ago when there was less mods on but I can't do that anymore ok. Also I am not a bot. I am hand doing it myself ok I would like to make that clear. Also what is the wildcard ip ban? - -signed 3-page wiki vandle/howsthatfordamage

A wildcard ip ban would alow us to ban your entire ip range, it's done by putting a star as a variale, such as: 123.2456.* Any ip which has those exact numbers is banned whatever the last set is. The stands for all of them. And we know your not a bot, I just call you one because you may as well be one as you act exactly the same way as a bot.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:20, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Just to note that because of Mediawiki's (idiotic) design, IP banning apparently doesn't ban registered users. And since UDwiki doesn't allow anonymous edits anyway, IP bans do nothing. Or so I remember reading from somewhere. This means we really do need those plugins/extensions/whatever. --Brizth mod T W! 21:27, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Maybe if you chime in over here we can get Kevan to help us out a bit. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:31, 8 June 2006 (BST)
that would be a yes. -you know who

Gosh... Of all the Moderators to choose, too. -- Amazing 21:50, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Amazing the only reason why I choose General was because He was the one who was reverting the most of my edits you see and because I have not really been following the amount of suckyness of each individually mods. But as I see and know that you are and expert in this area I would gladly accept your imput on which mod is the suckyest, That is all, 3PWV/HTFD

Tata

Here. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:47, 8 June 2006 (BST)

I've given up bothering to ban this guy, I just revert his vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:06, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Lollipoper

And again. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 20:45, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Zillaa

Del vandalismo. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 20:44, 8 June 2006 (BST)

I got them all after their first edit. 3 page wiki vandal=infinite ban--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:45, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Abreaa

Vandalized the main page. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:40, 8 June 2006 (BST)

I got them all after their first edit. 3 page wiki vandal=infinite ban--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:45, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Nuberly

Vandalized the main page. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:40, 8 June 2006 (BST)

I got them all after their first edit. 3 page wiki vandal=infinite ban--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:44, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Toejam

Despite being warned by me not to delete content off of Help:Good Editing Practices without discussing it first (this is the original deletion), this user has once again removed content from that page. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:02, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Warned.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:44, 8 June 2006 (BST)
General why did you gave a warning? this is a simple editing conflict, it is not in a user space, the edit itself is reasonable. Although it would be polite to discuss it first that is not a requirement. It also wasn't a full blown edit war. And if both user can't work it out together there still is arbitration. How is this a bad faith edit or vandalism?--Vista 22:57, 8 June 2006 (BST)
For whatever it's worth, I considered this bad faith, and worthy of this page, for two reasons:
  1. When I first asked Toejam not to delete content without discussing it, I mentioned that I assumed the first edit was in good faith, but if the content was removed again without discussion, that I would take it to this page.
  2. If you read Help talk:Good Editing Practices, you will see that, after I made a good-faith attempt to edit the content into something that Toejam would find acceptable, based upon his/her original stated problems with the content, Toejam responded that he/she found it acceptable, but then proceeded to remove part of my altered version anyway.
If this is not indeed bad faith, or is inappropriate for this page, then I apologize for placing it here, but I thought that the situation warranted it. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 23:07, 8 June 2006 (BST)
I also believed it to be bad faith. If another moderator wishes to give their opinion then they are welcome to and, hopefully we can create a suitable solution.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 23:18, 8 June 2006 (BST)
This is a wiki, and every thing you put out is with the explicid permission that other may edit it. Sometimes different editors opinions will differ. That means that those editors will have to argue, discuss or fight it out to dicide which is the best version. When that fails there is mediation on the arbitration page. While Toejam was indeed very impolite in not participating in the discussion more before making the second edit, niether was BobHammero by threathening with vandal report if the text was changed again. The fact that on the second edit it was immidiatly reported here is also just as a big a breach of wiki editting spirit.
If you write an article here you must expext it to be changed. If you do not like the change you try to discuss it with the other editor, if that fails you take it arbitration. You do not threaten with vandalism or take it to vandal report before going through that route. That is against what wiki stands for. next time invest more time in trying to find a solution between yourselfs and if that fails take it to arbitration. Vandal banning is most defintly not meant for this. BobHammero did not try to continue the discussion nor tried arbitration.
A warning is very severe penalty for a wiki ettiquette breach. It did in no way harm the wiki, there were enough avenues over for BobHammero to try to come to an agreement that would have continued his version as standard. Those paths should first be explored before we step in.--Vista 23:36, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Ok, looking at it i've decided that I jumped a bit to quickly. Fell free to withdraw my warning.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 23:39, 8 June 2006 (BST)
My apologies, then, for taking this to vandal banning first. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:58, 9 June 2006 (BST)

27.15

I had a link to this page with the hopes of eventually setting up some protocall for the channel, but someone deleted it. It is still linked on Radio. Since I am not experienced enough with the ways of the wiki, I don't know how to look up who erased it as there is no "History" tab on the page. - Zizanie13 16:59, 8 June 2006 (BST)

It was deleted by a moderator through the M/SD page. You can't see the erased page as your not a moderator.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 00:48, 9 June 2006 (BST)
It was deleted by Cyberbob. I placed the request. He most likely went through with it because of the fact that there was little content here. There is no reason to waste a page on one or two sentences. Especially when they are short, unhelpful sentences. If you don't want a page speedily deleted under criterion 1, then put some actual content on it. People do no wish to go through 40 or 50 stubs that are so content free, that calling them stubs is an insult to proper stub pages everywhere. Especially when than content is redundant. "The mall distress channel" - the only important piece of information could already be found on the radio page. –Xoid S•T•FU! 02:38, 9 June 2006 (BST)

The Fifth Horseman

Put up information on Blig's user page regarding his ingame character that he may not want made public knowledge. After all, if he did, wouldn't he have already have put it there? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 14:48, 8 June 2006 (BST)

I fail to see how this could be proven to be a bad faith edit. – Nubis NWO 14:56, 8 June 2006 (BST)
It's common knowledge that other people's user pages are off-limits, except for things like typos and errors in coding. The Fifth Horseman has been around for a while; he should know the rules. Cyberbob  Talk  15:00, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Then warn him for editting someone elses userpage, not for putting up info that you have no proof is bad faith or not. – Nubis NWO 15:02, 8 June 2006 (BST)
OK, fine then. Geez... don't be so friendly Nubis! It's murder on your facial muscles!</sarcasm> Cyberbob  Talk  15:04, 8 June 2006 (BST)
I would like to point out he has already revealed that name a while back: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:The_Abandoned#Accusations.
Thus, I fail to see how exactly "revealing" information that has already been revealed to the public before can be basis for a warn increase of any sort. --The Fifth Horseman 17:13, 8 June 2006 (BST)
Did you even bother to read Nubis' comment? Cyberbob  Talk  17:18, 8 Jufne 2006 (BST)
As you have read you haven't recieved your warning for providing that link, But for breaking the limits placed upon editing anothers User page. The fact that the link was made public knowledge before is inconsequential as you didn't have the authority the place it on his page. The content of the edit is irrelevant in this case.--Vista 17:28, 8 June 2006 (BST)

After The Urban Dead Wiki:Vandalism: When assessing cases, the important question is one of intent, not action. (snip) It is considered extremely poor form to automatically assume that a person's edit was an act of vandalism. (snip) Moderators are expected to always look at an edit in the light of a good-faith edit, rather than assume guilt The definition on the Vandalism page do not qualify that edit as any form of vandalism. SCEG do not qualify that edit as vandalism either. Neither does the discussed future policy.

  • As far as my knowledge went, the Wiki did not allow Talk pages to be created without the existence of a parent page.
  • Creating content where none exists is not considered vadalism as far as I know.
  • The only content I put on the page was what has already been made public knowledge by the supposed page owner.
  • "Common knowledge" is not justification for a warn where the ruleset does not define the situation as user misconduct.

This said, I am going to accept your decision on giving me a warn increase on a single condition: that the "offended" party agrees with your interpretation. If he does not, I will report your actions as a severe case of power abuse.--The Fifth Horseman 18:28, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Guess what? It's just a single warning. It doesn't make much difference one way or another. Your reputation (such as it is) isn't affected by getting one. But, it you're hellbent on making your name well known around here, by all means - go ahead. You will lose, though. You broke a very clear cut rule. The punishment you recieved is also in accordance with the rules. Cyberbob  Talk  22:26, 8 June 2006 (BST)
You broke a very clear cut rule. The punishment you recieved is also in accordance with the rules.
Show me where is that officially named to be a rule? "Common knowledge" is not an official rule, no matter how much you want it to be. Thus, it is not a valid ground for any ban and warn increase.
I am a moderator myself, elsewhere, and what is truly "common knowledge" is that the moderators cannot make up rules as they go.
You are not the rules. You are not above the rules. You serve the rules, and as such must follow them yourself.
Furthermore, if I read your little discussion with Nubis right, you initially intended to dispense a warn for an action that could not be classified as a breach of rules. When Nubis suggested that you might consider issuing a warn for editing someone else's user page instead, you were all too happy to do that, without referencing to your own rules.
User and User_Talk pages are property of the person owning them. Same goes for Group pages which are property of groups to which thye belong.
Yet, if going in that vein, everyone posting a message on User_Talk page can also be accused of vandalism, and everyone who ever added a scrap of information to a group page can be accused of the same.
Analyse the following pages and edits. If you were indeed giving warns for editing pages that do not belong to the user making the edit, you would already have given me a number of warnings:
(he had two pages, Mattiator and User:Mattiator; material merged into one and Mattiator page sent to Speedy Deletions)
Five known, real number is still under speculation.
(Neon Knights page, an edit to it I made ages ago, replacing the "unknown" at members count).
I wonder how will you adress that fact.
--The Fifth Horseman 10:40, 9 June 2006 (BST)
I don't need to. Those edits are perfectly legal, as they are fixing errors in the pages - making your "point" irrevelant. Stop trying to be tough in fighting this. Because it's not going to be reversed. Cyberbob  Talk  10:46, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Point the exact page and line in the official ruleset (and, at that, one that has not been added since that warn increase) that was a valid basis for the warn increase and I'll shut up. --The Fifth Horseman 11:04, 9 June 2006 (BST)
The simple fact is, that vandalism of your type is decided upon by the moderators on a case-by-case basis. There is no rule to cover every possible edit, because that would turn the wiki into its own country (at least as far as the length of the law code goes). Your edit was decided to be vandalism. Tough. Here, let me call the waaambulance for you. While you're waiting for it, would you like some McDonald's to cheer you up? Maybe a burger and cries? Grow up. Cyberbob  Talk  11:08, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Again, you are making up rules without any basis. Furthermore, you are attempting to flame a user; behavior that is at least unfitting for a moderator. We'll meet on the Misconduct page, then. --The Fifth Horseman 11:17, 9 June 2006 (BST)
If you'll just actually read the Misconduct guidelines, you'll know... well, I'll leave it up to you to find out. Needless to say, this kind of thing (the flaming, I mean) doesn't fall under a moderator's special abilities. Cyberbob  Talk  11:18, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Keep trolling, mate. Just keep doing that. The more you do it, the more incentive you give me to carry on.
Truth is, you cannot accept the fact that you made an error. Flaming is one thing, and I might consider taking that to Arbitration. Your actions as a mod, however, are most definitely suitable for a report.
Regards, --The Fifth Horseman 11:58, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Wait. Did you just compliment my moderation actions, but still hold that I can't accept the fact that I made a moderation error? WTF? Cyberbob  Talk  12:00, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Report on the MISCONDUCT page.
Apologies if my previous post got your spirits high. When one keeps getting massive >250 mg/dl hyperglycemies and barely sleeps at all for four days in a row, mistakes tend to happen. --The Fifth Horseman 12:08, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Warning a vandal is something that, while not a "Moderator ability" only ever carries weight when a moderator uses their authority — also, you may wish to look up on the rules Cyber, misconduct also includes throwing our weight around when it is uncalled for, as well as threats, belying your claim that only our special abilities fall under that.
While I am uncertain as to whether this was in bad faith, because the user has since altered their page to remove this information, unless they say otherwise it seems to be against their wishes for it to have been placed there. –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:13, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Really? OK. In any case, it doesn't apply. I was having an argument with him, where he gave as good as he got. Also, zero threats of anything were utilised or even implied. Cyberbob  Talk  12:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Blig&diff=282854&oldid=282762 Blig removed that after this discussion was started.
Exactly, 28 minutes after this discussion was started. Cyberbob240 had nothing except for his own assumptions when taking that here.
I have left a message for Blig on his talk page asking what is his own view on the case. If he considers my actions to be vandalism, I will not post any further complains on the subject of this warn increase.
Or is it another case of vandalism to post something on a talk page? Gotta admit Cyber's explanations got me completely disoriented.
As far as no threats were utilised, one of Cyber's messages contains trolling. I presume he intended to get me to lash out aggressively against him, in which case more warns could be issued.
Here, let me call the waaambulance for you. While you're waiting for it, would you like some McDonald's to cheer you up? Maybe a burger and cries?
To all extent, flaming is not only threats, but also insulting other users and attempting to provoke a hostile response. --The Fifth Horseman 12:33, 9 June 2006 (BST)
You would presume wrong. That comment was not made in an attempt to try and get you to lash out again (and even if you did, that wouldn't be vandalism). It was meant to make you see how ridiculous you are being in your efforts to have a single warning revoked. Cyberbob  Talk  12:39, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Actually, being a complete arsehole isn't against the rules. So he couldn't touch you, even if you did do something. Threats more along the lines of "STFU or I'll ban you" is what I was hinting at. Fifth, the vandalism has to do with creating and/or modifying user pages — adding content and such against someone's wishes is enough to get you a warning. I personally think that Cyber went overboard in this case, and merely should've said "Don't do that again, it's hard to tell stuff like that from actual vandalism, due to the number of dickheads who do put stuff on people's user pages that they don't want getting out" (I vaugely recall reading about two or three incidents.) –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:42, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Benders

Warned him for uploading a picture of an abortion--Vista 22:45, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Vilation

Vandalised the Pk-day page: Diff Comparision. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:03, 7 June 2006 (BST)

warned.--Vista 16:17, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Vaku

  1. Where he removed the suggestion...

He didn't bother noting that he removed it. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:24, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Can you prove that it was bad faith? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 08:20, 7 June 2006 (BST)
I agree with Bob, but I'm going to let the person know what they did was incorrect and direct them to project welcome to get information. - Jedaz 08:29, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Good call, Jedaz. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 08:31, 7 June 2006 (BST)
He had added a new suggestion that is near an exact duplicate to that one. He could be trying to conceal the fact he already made a previous suggestion. (Due to the limit on the number of suggestions you can make a day.) Also: what he added. Considering how close these two suggestions are (no appreciable difference IMO), I'm inclined to believe that he was doing this to hide people's previously stated distaste for it. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:37, 7 June 2006 (BST)
OK. In light of this new evidence I'm warning Vaku for vandalism. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 08:42, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Howsthatfordamage

Many of you may have seen what this user's alts have been doing to the main page. However I noticed the obvious main is still alive. Remember the reform I proposed? it applies here--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 01:21, 7 June 2006 (BST)

What reform? –Xoid S•T•FU! 02:08, 7 June 2006 (BST)
This one. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 04:25, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Oh yeah. Forgot about that. Anyway LibrarianBrent banned that one and another of that vandal's not-banned alts. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:15, 7 June 2006 (BST)
Only because I told him in IRC--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 07:33, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Inkypaws

Replied in a discussion on Xoid's talk page after Xoid told him to go away. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 13:33, 6 June 2006 (BST)

although it was a heated discussion. It was both on topic and in a ongoing discussion. Contrary to popular belief you can't blanket ban people from your talk page. Only and only if the history between users has been so conflict ridden that any post could be considered trying to start a fight we consider it bad faith. This very clearly does not fall in that cathagory--Vista 13:42, 6 June 2006 (BST)
Dang, you bet me to the response Vista, lol. So yeah it's just bad net etiquette, not vandalism. - Jedaz 13:45, 6 June 2006 (BST)
It is rapidly reaching that point. I am already sick and tired of his inane banter. Regardless, the fool seems unknowledgeable about the rules, so it cannot be considered a bad faith edit until he both knows his presence is unwanted and that when I tell him to get lost, it means under threat of vandal banning. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:49, 6 June 2006 (BST)
Dang... I keep on making false reports on things :( --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 13:52, 6 June 2006 (BST)
You still can not ban people from your user page as long as there is no histroy of trolling. This is a simple disagreement cq fight. However unpleasant the person may be those situation are not to be resolved on the vandal banning as long as common decency norms aren't broken.--Vista 14:03, 6 June 2006 (BST)
I have a question regarding this. Although the policies are currently under reconsideration, doesn't this policy document contradict what you just said? Specifically, the statements that "It has been explicitly noted that User: and User talk: pages are the sole property of that particular user" and "As such, Users are free to do whatever they wish to their user pages"? If those statements are true, it would seem to be that any user could ban any other user from their user page for whatever reason they wanted, history of trolling or not. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:44, 7 June 2006 (BST)
No not really. Talk pages are meant for discussion and communication as such there has always been less control over those pages by the owner then they have over their user page. in some case blanking your own user page can be considered vandalism as well for example.
To be entirely precise people can ban persons from making comments on their talk page but it is only considered vandalism when it conforms to more checkpoints. Due to the fact that there are many ways to deal with unwanted comments (archival, deleting and ignoring) the edit in question must be both antagonizing in tone and fit in a history of conflict for us to decide that it is vandalism.
The main effect of banning a user of your talk page is that it will be weighted in how likely the moderator staff will consider the edit in question bad faith. We have this system due to the extreme importance communication has in a wiki. In the end it is all about the golden rule of the wiki that trumps every other rule. Is a good faith edit or a bad faith edit?--Vista 21:34, 7 June 2006 (BST)
You could always put the "Dramma Llama" on the top of your talk page and delete anything you want from that individual. Conndrakamod T W! 20:33, 7 June 2006 (BST)

PQN17

Did this. Blocked. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 12:34, 6 June 2006 (BST)

SmartyMart

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions - Revive Suppositories. This is obviously for humor, and should be wiped out. Zizanie13 02:28, 6 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. –Xoid S•T•FU! 02:32, 6 June 2006 (BST)

Amaz'ing

Vandalized the main page. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 11:36, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Already got him. Am I supposed to warn him first, or because of numerous guys like this, was the instant perma-ban acceptable? –Xoid S•T•FU! 11:37, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Warned. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 11:48, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Traditionally, a certain level of evidence should be able to be brought to the table, if you think a particular vandal is a sockpuppet of a previously warned/banned user. If you don't have much more evidence than your gut that this person is someone else, then it's probably best to warn, rather than ban. Personally, I suspect that this person may be another installment of the previous Amazing impersonator, but it's only a gut feeling, alas. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 11:56, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Every incarnation has used different spelling and lacks numbers, have you ever heard of Willy on Wheels? Where was due process for his blatant ooooh, sorry, I mean "highly goddamn likely" alts. –Xoid S•T•FU! 12:07, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Banned for a week. – Nubis NWO 13:08, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Benders

Created this page. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:33, 5 June 2006 (BST)

How is this vandalism? As far as I can tell it's just another new group. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 08:54, 5 June 2006 (BST)
"Gang Raping Zombies"? Whether the zombies are the raper, or the rapee, the name seems… questionable. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:58, 5 June 2006 (BST)
For whatever it's worth, I agree. The picture is also odd. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 09:00, 5 June 2006 (BST)
I noticed that as well, I'm a bit 50/50 at the moment. It's a new group BUT it's also offensive. Also it has a lack of content, so maybe a warning and removal of the page? I'ld probably go with that because the page has a lack of content. - Jedaz 09:03, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Well, I'm staying away from this. I learned my lesson with *that image*, didn't I Xoid? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 09:04, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Warned, I decided after seeing his list of edits. - Jedaz 09:11, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Amazing

I've been watching the latest drama-wars from afar. But this is just too much: Amazing's user page. This violates any semblance of common decency. Yes, I know that there have been other offensive things written about and by Amazing on the wiki. That doesn't make this acceptable. How low are we willing to let this wiki sink? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:34, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Sorry. You are allowed to put whatever you like in your userspace. Read previous cases. No special treatment for Amazing. ;) (Now watch them ban me anyway saying only I can't do it.) Note: I believe Xoid should ban Hammero for "filling this page with crap" now. Note 2: No, I don't really believe that. -- Amazing 03:36, 5 June 2006 (BST)
User pages are sacrosanct. Also; as long as no one sends him money for the pictures I don't see too much problem. –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:40, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Ha ha ha ha, oh damn that's creepy! I would like to weigh in and say that I do not consider this vandalism, because it basically validates everything I've ever said about Amazing (ever). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scinfaxi (talk • contribs) .
In light of the Mods backing your actions, I'm copying you guys to see how it plays out. Let's see how you like dealing with yourself. -- Amazing 06:11, 5 June 2006 (BST)
Sorry bob, but that is his user page. He can do whatever he wants with it. I would only like to say that i never expected to see this from Amazing. Scinfaxi, Rasher and Co. doesnt botter me, since they are kids. But amazing is a full grown up man, he should know to behave better. --hagnat mod 07:10, 5 June 2006 (BST)
It's a response to their actions and your (the Mod team's) support of their actions. And it looks like I'm changing your policies to what I've previously stated they should be. ;) -- Amazing 18:17, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Zizaniel3

Violated Suggestions Criterion #13 here. Suggest that a warning be given. – Nubis NWO 17:36, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:47, 4 June 2006 (BST)
Is that vandalism? Hmm. I never knew that... now I do. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 17:49, 4 June 2006 (BST)
It was added reasonably recently.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 18:00, 4 June 2006 (BST)
I think this decision is a bit harsh... from a common sense point of view I certainly wouldn't describe what he did as vandalism. Maybe the rule should be changed? --Toejam 23:57, 6 June 2006 (BST)
I didn't think it was vandalism either... - Zizanie13 16:55, 8 June 2006 (BST)
It was. The suggestion was obviously humourous, and humourous suggestions need to go in the Humourous Suggestions page. If not, it's considered spam and therefore vandalism. Cyberbob  Talk  17:01, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Chrono

Vandalised the New Arkham Revive Club's page here, and changed a person's comment on the talk page here. Also, looking at his contributions, it seems as though he has been vandalising the page for quite some time now... --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 16:46, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Just looking over the page history is enough to reveal that he is a frequent vandal. Regardless, warned. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:54, 4 June 2006 (BST)
Make that a double warning, on account of the fact that there are two separate acts of vandalism (separated by two days) in the report. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 16:56, 4 June 2006 (BST)
Since this is so shortly after captain obvlivious' misconduct case, I'm handling this by the book — he has to commit vandalism after the first warning to be warned a second time. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:59, 4 June 2006 (BST)
:P I understand. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 17:01, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Captain Bald

Pretty dang sure that this is vandalism. Wasn't quite sure enough the group's not okay with this to revert it, but this looks like the kind of thing that should definitely go on their talk page. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:30, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Looks like vandalism, but I'd need confirmation from a member/leader of Red Rum before I do anything. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 06:32, 3 June 2006 (BST)
Yeah, s'what I figured would probably be the case. Now we play the waiting game... or Hungry Hungry Hippos. That's more fun. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:34, 3 June 2006 (BST)
That is vandalism, and easily noticable as such, note how he says that "Anyone found in affiliation with Red Rum is subject to termination.". Terrible grammar aside, this is a threat from a member of an opposing group. Especially since he is the creator of the CAPD. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:46, 3 June 2006 (BST)
If at all possible, I'd like this to be withdrawn. He seems pretty new, and I left a comment on his User Talk page. If he keeps it up, I'll report him then. --SirensT RR 06:49, 3 June 2006 (BST)
I'm willing to let this slide. Et tu, Mr. Spy? –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:54, 3 June 2006 (BST)
No. I was new way back when I was warned for vandalism - even though it was in good faith, it was impersonation. Despite the fact that I didn't know that, I was warned. Baldy gets a warning. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 07:47, 3 June 2006 (BST)
Understandable. I'll remember that in the future. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:58, 3 June 2006 (BST)

I, as one of the members of Red Rum, dont consider this as an act of vandalism. But this is not the place for it. I will mvoe this edit to the CAPD page and add a note in the NPOV header of Red Rum. --hagnat mod 15:17, 3 June 2006 (BST)

erm... i shall remember to read the most recent article before saying i will change it. Someone else handled the situation. So, just withdrawn this whole thing. --hagnat mod 15:18, 3 June 2006 (BST)

PQN16

Did this. Banned. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 04:43, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Ha! I really shouldn't have found that funny, but I did nonetheless. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:56, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Denzel Washington

Majorly edited the NPOV section of the BME. The previous comment was in keeping with the rule of the section, and so did not need to be changed. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 13:13, 2 June 2006 (BST)

NOTE: Reverted. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 13:15, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Banned for 24 hours.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:22, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Ooh ooh, can I do it? Can I? --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 13:23, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Yeap.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:33, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Yessssss!</Napoleon Dynamite> --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 13:34, 2 June 2006 (BST)
This was in the NPOV section and thus it was not vandalism. If you read the previous paragraph you'll see how biased it was. This new edit combined with the line underneath it is much more NPOV in my opinion than before--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 03:13, 3 June 2006 (BST)
Mpaturet, check the talk page. I actually rewrote the entire "NPOV" section so that it was NPOV, but was afraid to revert to my version after it got mutilated. (Because of how often vandal banning reports come up for anyone who dares to touch that page.) –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:51, 3 June 2006 (BST)
Then wouldn't they have vandalised their own page?--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 22:07, 3 June 2006 (BST)
Problems with NPOV edit conflicts should go to the arbitration page, And be kept mostly of this page. next time it's best to refer them to that page. we are not in the business to ban as many people over something as multi interpretable as the NPOV section--Vista 22:58, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Amazing

Removed my comments made on the case below [4] & misused the vandal banning page by placing a report where he knows no existing rules were violated. Scinfaxi 06:19, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Comment was moved to Discussion page. Vandal report is for highly Bad Faith edits, which are always reportable. -- Amazing 06:21, 2 June 2006 (BST)
You selectively removed it without making a note of it, hence it's vandalism. Continue this discussion on the talk page. Scinfaxi 06:24, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Nah, it isn't. Feel free to move this to discussion, but I think you and I are done here. -- Amazing 06:26, 2 June 2006 (BST)

SHUT UP. BOTH OF YOU. Vandalising this page, by filling it full of shit, on top of the warnings you have recieved recently would be reason enough to ban you both for much longer than the 2 hours I've given you. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:32, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Ah, welcome to the fascist state of Xoid.--Jorm 03:31, 3 June 2006 (BST)
Oh of course Jorm, feel free to offer comments when you're left out in the dark. It really raises my already low opinion of you. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:43, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Amazing, I am not going to take this i was moving his comments to talk page excuse of your, since you left a comment yourself on the front page and not in the discussion page. If you were moving comments to the talk opage, you should have had left a note in the case stating what you had done, not another comment that would only serve to help your cause. For that, you shall receive a warning (and, seeing it was your third warning, you receive a 24h ban). --hagnat mod 18:29, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Flagrantly false cause for banning. Misconduct case file. -- Amazing 21:16, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Rueful & Scinfaxi

Beyond the Arb rulings, these edits are in Exteme Bad Faith and have no place on the Wiki. There is absolutely nothing that fits "Bad Faith" more than this, and I contend it does not matter where it is posted. -- Amazing 04:51, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Well, last time I checked I wasn't under any ruling. Also, it's on my talk page and a group I frequent. There is absolutely no vandalism here. It's nice to be back on the vandal page though. Scinfaxi 05:51, 2 June 2006 (BST)
As noted in response to Vista's banning of Rasher, community property does not include talk pages where Scinfaxi and co. have a vested interest. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:59, 2 June 2006 (BST)
Now listen. I said BEYOND the Arb ruilings. This is not an Arb-related report, as I stated. We've gone 'round this before... I said it wasn't related to an Arb case, so please do not operate under the assumption I was reporting an Arb violation. -- Amazing 06:15, 2 June 2006 (BST)
This report was obviously made in bad faith. Amazing is clearly aware that no posted rules were broken in this case. If he has problem with existing rules, this is not the place to post them. I demand punishment (I'm lighting my torch as we speak)! Scinfaxi 06:13, 2 June 2006 (BST)

HIGHLY Bath-Faith edits continue. This is added to the report. As is this. Again, there is no Arb case with Scinfaxi, and I originally stated this was not an Arb violation report. -- Amazing 06:17, 2 June 2006 (BST)

both Rueful and Scinfaxi are free to say whatever they want in their USER TALK PAGES. But, that suck my balls edit in the gankbus talk page was extremely bad faith, and i ask you to remove it ASAP or i will have to ban you (again) for vandalism Scinfaxi. --hagnat mod 18:15, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Lokijester

Here ya go. And for the record, I'd just like to note how unbearably hilarious I find it that it's the griefers' shit that keeps getting vandalized. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 04:20, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Warned. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:26, 2 June 2006 (BST)

The BW

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Battered_Wanderers&diff=272437&oldid=270327 Vandalized the page. Sonny Corleone WTF 21:27, 1 June 2006 (BST)

False alarm. He's the group leader. Sonny Corleone WTF 21:46, 1 June 2006 (BST)

Duce Nauks part two

Vandalized this very page with an inflammatory, unsigned comment. --Bob Hammero T•W!•U! 19:49, 1 June 2006 (BST)

i might warn for that but I don't think it deserves a ban. it was his own vandal banning case after all.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:09, 1 June 2006 (BST)
Duce has a history with George Hayduke. I don't believe the comment was meant to mock me, more so as to piss that guy off. Piss him off more than he already has, that is. –Xoid S•T•FU! 00:12, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Duce Nauks

Vandalised the MWG page [5] His vandalism [6] He has vandalized the MWG page 3 or 4 times. I warned him that I would report him if he did it again. Then he did it again. I hope I've filled out this vandalism report correctly. Thanks! --Nenogus 16:50, 1 June 2

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2006_06&oldid=2208274"