UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 11
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
November 2008
User:Mpontius
Mpontius (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Suspected sockpuppet of someone on the 'Censorship-Yay!' side of the Borehamwood argument. Two contributions, both removing sourced information from a community page. Obvious bad faith. Request IP check, warning of main alt and banning of this puppet. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do not backseat mod, iscariot, this can be real bad for you... And as far as i am concercened, this guy commited no vandalism... but i am biased on this case. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 21:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- How is any of that backseat modding? Not once did I rule vandalism. And all of this from an admitted biased judge, why are you postin g on this case then? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- This IP is from the University of Central Florida. Nobody else uses this particular IP.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 22:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the future, do not post the location from the ip you just checked. Saying it doesnt match any other user is already enough. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 23:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Hagnat is correct for once. This breaks the privacy policy by detailing where the edit is made from. Ruling? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the future, do not post the location from the ip you just checked. Saying it doesnt match any other user is already enough. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 23:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Iscariot
Iscariot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Don't we have a rule against obnoxious flashing signatures [1]? -- Cheese 15:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so, it's not covered in the policy regarding signatures. - User:Whitehouse 15:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Not Vandalism - Obnoxious signature policy failed, and the signature policy above doesn't seem to cover it. Iscariot's signature quite nicely ruined the location for me, but what can you do? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
What's this? A sysop creating a case and it being shown that he doesn't know the policies by which this wiki is governed? This from a person who gets to vote on vandalism cases? You'd think I'd be shocked.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fuck off and stop trolling the Admin pages with your "I know best so give me attention" bullshit. Grow up. -- Cheese 21:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not trolling, commenting. This case has been made against me and I am allowed to comment on it's content and the reasons for it being brought here. Enjoy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tap your helmet mate. Come on, not that big of a deal.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism - Iscariot currently signature makes it look like its me signing ;) --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- What. No. It doesn't.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hagz, not it doesn't. And by your little wink smilely, I'm to assume you're joking. On a case that affects a user pretty heavily. Don't joke.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unless a policy against fun was created during my idletime, i think i am still able to joke around in here. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 23:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, you're allowed to joke, just make it seem more of a joke next time. It looks quite official how it is, you have to admit that. :). Glad its not serious, I'd have to hang you for being power corrupt. :D -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see if he removes the bolding, or adds a note at the beginning of his edit, before deciding if I'll misconduct him for being an involved party and ruling on this case, or vandalism him for spamming the admin pages for admitted humour. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, you're allowed to joke, just make it seem more of a joke next time. It looks quite official how it is, you have to admit that. :). Glad its not serious, I'd have to hang you for being power corrupt. :D -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unless a policy against fun was created during my idletime, i think i am still able to joke around in here. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 23:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hagz, not it doesn't. And by your little wink smilely, I'm to assume you're joking. On a case that affects a user pretty heavily. Don't joke.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)