Difference between revisions of "UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 01"

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Undo revision 1638129 by Special:Contributions/Suicidalangel (User talk:Suicidalangel) chck this dif please. you could at leased to it properly.)
Line 35: Line 35:
::You'll notice that I tried experimenting with rollback on my talk page - it doesn't wipe the edit in question from the page history. As for the other thing, show me when Jed ever posted your photo or your name to try and "win" an argument with you. That's the bad faith - if you'd just posted it in a more friendly banter-ish context then I wouldn't be bringing you here because that's just a matter of stupidity rather than outright malice. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
::You'll notice that I tried experimenting with rollback on my talk page - it doesn't wipe the edit in question from the page history. As for the other thing, show me when Jed ever posted your photo or your name to try and "win" an argument with you. That's the bad faith - if you'd just posted it in a more friendly banter-ish context then I wouldn't be bringing you here because that's just a matter of stupidity rather than outright malice. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:::I never attempted to "win" any petty argument, just to demonstrate a very valid point of not just idiocy, but also using uncalled-for IRL references to start up shit (as demonstrated '''[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration&diff=1634362&oldid=1634326 here]''', not to mention calls like this that have been going on for +2 years) and any other method is obviously lost on your as demonstrated with 12 months of "banter-ish" behaviour. What you have, my friend, is a case of the butthurt because you were found out by Read or such, who, like anyone on the internet, was bothered searching your email via google. Great security there. Also, nice work on the [[wikipedia:Streisand_effect]]. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 15:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:::I never attempted to "win" any petty argument, just to demonstrate a very valid point of not just idiocy, but also using uncalled-for IRL references to start up shit (as demonstrated '''[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration&diff=1634362&oldid=1634326 here]''', not to mention calls like this that have been going on for +2 years) and any other method is obviously lost on your as demonstrated with 12 months of "banter-ish" behaviour. What you have, my friend, is a case of the butthurt because you were found out by Read or such, who, like anyone on the internet, was bothered searching your email via google. Great security there. Also, nice work on the [[wikipedia:Streisand_effect]]. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 15:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
{{quote|DanceDanceRevolution|I never attempted to "win" any petty argument, just to demonstrate a very valid point}}
::::more on talk. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::::lol? {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 15:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Aww, a bombshell destroyed your chance at last-wording-to-win-an-argument? It's as simple as this and I'll say it again: Nut up or shut up. You make IRL jokes about a group of people for 2 years, one of them is going to turn around and bite you on the arse with information that you willingly gave to them. Simple as that, be prepared. Your fucking loss. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::I make IRL jokes (that apparently were mostly not even true) that can't be used to identify you by people that don't already know you. That's quite different from posting your photo and real name, my cyberstalking friend. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::The point is you've been bullying users and baiting them with (deliberately) far-out assumptions of their IRL relationships for 2 years and they are obviously much tougher that you they didn't bring you here- not to mention J3D and others have been refering to me by my real name against my will for months and yet I just dealt with it.
:::::::The truth is, if you're gonna fuck with someone like Read for 2 years about IRL business, you should have been prepared to get the horns, and now you can't. Someone checking information '''obtainable on your userpage''' via google and loling at the results is your security fault and your tough shit; again, and for the last time, '''deal with it'''. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 15:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I make IRL jokes (that apparently were mostly not even true) that can't be used to identify you by people that don't already know you. That's quite different from posting your photo and real name, my cyberstalking friend. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for confirming you have nothing more to say on the matter on this butthurt joke case (though your obsession with the last reply still overtook this). Maybe next time you get pwned using your famous [[2C]] baiting technique you'll learn to use the right [[A/G#Scheduled_Deletions|admin action]] attached to the right [[A/SD|admin page]] instead of adding to this month's unecessary drama pit (btw you can manually delete contribs, noob op). TIA. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::How on Earth can you manually delete contribs from the history without having to delete and recreate the page? That would've saved a lot of hassle with Iscariot a few months ago. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Delete and recreate every revision that exists before the personal data was added? Der? --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 00:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::...Yeah I don't think that's really an option in most cases. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 00:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::derp how'd that undeletion work out for you? "nice one box..." indeed {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::please [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration&action=history check] shit before you make such idiotic calls in the future. thanks. and btw, better get onto those unusedimages. watch the text links LOL --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 13:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Vandalism''' - posting a link to someone's personal details in order to ridicule them is not on. History removed <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup></span> 20:42 4 January 2010 (BST)</small>
'''Vandalism''' - posting a link to someone's personal details in order to ridicule them is not on. History removed <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup></span> 20:42 4 January 2010 (BST)</small>
Line 53: Line 41:
'''Vandalism''' - As boxy. A user's personal information is not a weapon to be used. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
'''Vandalism''' - As boxy. A user's personal information is not a weapon to be used. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


Just slap the warning on and be done with it thanks, hopefully cyberbutthurt has understood what we mean when we say 'fuck off with unfounded IRL jokes' from now on, and if he does then my job is done. TIA. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 00:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
more on talk page. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:No I will not stop cracking jokes about the nerdy shit you guys get up to when one of you tries to call someone else a nerd. u butthurt? {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 00:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::you're fuckin kidding right? This whole case is a product of fucking butthurt (you could have just deleted the info yourself you fucking pitiful excuse for a user) and you spend the best hours of last night crying to me over A/A. Butthurt my ass. Get back to fucking your gayfl buddies. Oh no! Better run for the hills! DDR used something from CB's IRL life that he was told personally by CB!!! =O --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:::haha yeah buddy it's not like the posting of the photo+name in a public place (I believe I gave you that information on IRC, no?) was itself brought on by a lil touch of the hurt butt due to "unfounded IRL jokes" {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::::You think one measly escalation makes me butthurt? I work them off within days dude. then again, it's okay... After last night I can add something else to my "how to press cyberbob's buttons" list, and that's all that mattered to me from the start. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Not talking about the escalation, I'm talking about the motivation for posting the photo in the first place. by the way I think you'll find "malicious posting of real life photo and name" on just about everybody's list of buttons, hope this helps {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::You'd be surprised, now you've a/vb'd me for it you've lost your own chance to give it a try and see how it flys with people who have had it been done to them for over a year now. You really dissapointed me with how quickly you folded. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah sorry I'm not quite as fucked in the head as you :\ {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Awwww there there... Don't know what happened to you but your skin seriously went so much thinner over Christmas... (see below case too. like what?) Speaking of which, I'm gonna go out and get some sunshine. Have fun sitting infront of RC... though I'm surprised you can still manage to sit after last night... --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 01:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Vandalism''' Silly --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
'''Vandalism''' Silly --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:47, 5 January 2010


Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:

  • A link to the pages in question.
Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.
  • The user name of the Vandal.
This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.
  • A signed datestamp.
For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.
  • Please report at the top.
There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.

If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.

Before Submitting a Report

  • This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
  • Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
  • As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
  • Avoid submitting reports which are petty.


Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice
Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works. Sometimes assuming good faith and speaking with others can avoid a lot of drama, and can even help newbies feel part of this community.
Administration Notice
If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment.
Administration Notice
Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.



Spambots

Spambots are to be reported on this page. New reports should be added to the top. Reports may be purged after one week.


January 2010

User:DanceDanceRevolution (2)

DanceDanceRevolution (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

There is a limit to what being a sysops and/or an involved party lets you get away with. He is simply abusing the right to comment on the main page at this point, we can't get a policy straight on the topic, so lets make some fucking precedence on it instead. My comment had more to do with the case than most of what he said, which amounted to bitching and trolling at and with cb, I confirmed that there hasn't been any mention of DDR's personal info that could lead to someone finding him IRL.

You're power tripping again DDR.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

SA said:
I'd rule vandalism if I wasn't such a noob and hadn't fucked up.

And you'd be able to post 'your almighty opinion' too. But you can't. moving it to the talk page is not A/VBable, nor is butthurt banter between the accusee and the victim of a case, even more so if they are both sysops. Of course, you could have moved said banter, but you'd rather go past 'compansating' and just throw your own on there. Can. Not. Happen. --

13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And you offered an opinion which you call "confirmation" despite it being nothing but opinion with no evidence to back it up. Not relevant. Opinion. Talk page. -- 13:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
"The administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment."
Fuck off with your "irrelevant" horseshit.
"you're fuckin kidding right? This whole case is a product of fucking butthurt (you could have just deleted the info yourself you fucking pitiful excuse for a user) and you spend the best hours of last night crying to me over A/A. Butthurt my ass. Get back to fucking your gayfl buddies. Oh no! Better run for the hills! DDR used something from CB's IRL life that he was told personally by CB!!! =O --DanceDanceRevolution (go go aussies!!!!!) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)"
Nothing. But. Irrelevance.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Please explain how Bob's post that that was a reply to was just as relevant. Nah, he doesn't get a case because he isn't game/present to enforce a simple rule; you have a problem with this? A/PD again. I has to sleep now. Let kangaroo court judge again. -- 13:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Who started it? Who's showing hypocrisy and hiding behind a thin veil of "involved" and a badge? Oh, and by the way, didn't know you were back Grim. Nice to see the same 'ole kangaroo court accusations.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:LeoMcDermott

LeoMcDermott (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

blanked and then replaced the zerging page with a personal rant.--~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 07:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - He would have seen Zerging was encyclopaedic (or as close as it gets on UDWiki) before he wiped it and crapped it up. --

09:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

DanceDanceRevolution (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Maliciously posted a site that contains my real name and contained (thankfully I was still able to delete it) a photo of myself, then went onto maliciously posting my real name on the wiki itself. Regardless of the outcome of this case I want A/A deleted and recreated with the information in question removed to delete it both from the page and its history. Posting personal information that can be used to actually identify someone like that without their permission is just not on, especially when it's being used as part of an argument because then it's actively being used to hurt. Cyberbob  Talk  14:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal information is an A/SD crit, not a vandalism criterea. If I had A/VB'd people for calling me charlie against my will then J3D would have been finally permabanned. You should have just always reverted the edits but the battle for the last word is too great for you, isn't it? -- 15:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You'll notice that I tried experimenting with rollback on my talk page - it doesn't wipe the edit in question from the page history. As for the other thing, show me when Jed ever posted your photo or your name to try and "win" an argument with you. That's the bad faith - if you'd just posted it in a more friendly banter-ish context then I wouldn't be bringing you here because that's just a matter of stupidity rather than outright malice. Cyberbob  Talk  15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I never attempted to "win" any petty argument, just to demonstrate a very valid point of not just idiocy, but also using uncalled-for IRL references to start up shit (as demonstrated here, not to mention calls like this that have been going on for +2 years) and any other method is obviously lost on your as demonstrated with 12 months of "banter-ish" behaviour. What you have, my friend, is a case of the butthurt because you were found out by Read or such, who, like anyone on the internet, was bothered searching your email via google. Great security there. Also, nice work on the wikipedia:Streisand_effect. -- 15:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
more on talk. -- 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - posting a link to someone's personal details in order to ridicule them is not on. History removed -- boxy talkteh rulz 20:42 4 January 2010 (BST)

Vandalism - As boxy. A user's personal information is not a weapon to be used. Nothing to be done! 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

more on talk page. --

13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Silly --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, I took the liberty of manually undeleting the 1,200 odd edits on A/A which Boxy seemed to see fit to see removed despite only 10 contributions actually having said censored information on it. Don't worry, doing the job properly can elude even the best of us. --

13:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:J3D

J3D (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Posting irrelevant crap in an A/VB case where he is uninvolved. Again. Cyberbob  Talk  09:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Even my jed-vandetta sense isn't tingling on this one... Not Vandalism... Meh... Izzy referred to him via jed's own group... etc. --

01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That is the most tenuous connection ever. Ever. Cyberbob  Talk  01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I never ruled based on that connection, the whole case is mediocre at best, but at leased that sort of helped justify said ruling. -- 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Iscariot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

I consider this an attack policy that serves nothing and is absolutely frivolous/stupid considering the fact that there are about 7 ZL cases pending on several admin pages including A/A and A/VB, making this was drama for drama's sake. --

02:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Vandalism Cyberbob  Talk  06:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, oh why, am I not surprised by the actions of the Southern Cross Club yet again?

Apart from the fact there has never been an escalation given for any policy, see Jorm's paradox policy. They find me guilty of bad faith for one contribution even though both are aware and have been for some time that Zombie Lord is abusing Developing Suggestions due to his repeated statement that he's never going to take anything to the main system. He gets to continually abuse that page and attack other users in one of the main systems in this community and there is not one case for this, I propose a new cycling policy, that I'd yet to hear any objection to from other users or these two when mentioned before on talk pages and T:S and I get escalated.

Regardless that this will fix the problem now that Zombie Lord is browbeating users into leaving his suggestions unopposed through the use of unlimited arbitration rulings and is trying to systematically make T:S into his own personal user space and bury the legitimate use of the page by other users under the mass of multiple versions of his own 'work'.

For months Zombie Lord has acted in bad faith on that page and neither of these sysops even though they aware of this bad faith usage make a single case against him, I attempt to create a new cycling criteria to prevent this mass attack on the page, that has to be approved by the users of the system being abused and there's an instant case.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration is the place for such disagreements, not suggestion policy. That's not the place to take disagreements with single users. Still, not vandalism, just, because it's still just a talk page -- boxy talkteh rulz 07:15 2 January 2010 (BST)
Talk page? He tried to use policy to forbid a user he has daily disagreements with from using the suggestions system with unrealistic demands that were both unsavoury and uncalled for. The fact he used the right place to do it (which was by coincidence a talk page) is as bad as using A/PD. -- 08:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You linked it, it's a category talk page. Would you like a diagram? Also, unsavoury? How exactly? Unless you are inventing a new meaning for this word. I am attempting to stop someone who is abusing their right to edit that page from filling it with pointless volume. DS is specifically for refining and feedback on ideas before taking them into the main system. Zombie Lord has repeatedly said he has no intention in putting any of his suggestions into the system as per the entire point of DS. Stopping him from continuing bad faith edits by using the established method to enact a cycling policy does not equal unsavoury, at least in the English language.
And uncalled for? The majority of those involved in the suggestions system have tried to reason, debate and explain things to him. Many have said or intimated that the page would work better without his involvement, it was certainly called for.
Months of bad faith contributions by Zombie Lord and you've done nothing to attempt to stop him, what business does a user who has no intention of putting his ideas on the main system have with placing ideas on a page designed for feedback or refinement? Do tell me, because I have no idea. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 08:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Dare I say "that's just like, your opinion, man"? ZL has done less bad faith contributions on this wiki in 09 than you but that's my opinion and I don't flaunt it around forcing it on people. 3000 characters in the last couple of hours Iscariot, you've really fought your way out of this one. A/M coming up soon? -- 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

While I still have my powers, not fucking vandalism. As box and this. Making attack policies are okay ddr, remember?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the difference between that and this is small enough to warrant precedent then you are deluded. -- 08:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
So when does badging other sysops that disagree with your attempt to escalate me stop being good faith and start becoming harassment? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 08:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Badgering? LoL, I don't think you want to go there -- boxy talkteh rulz 09:02 2 January 2010 (BST)
Lold -- 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
See the talk page Cyberbob  Talk  09:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism Welcome to the world of arbitration. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Serious attempt to stop a genuine problem, though not handled overly brilliantly. Nothing to be done! 14:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Penguinpyro

Penguinpyro (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

We take a break from your regularly scheduled ZL drama to bring you a user who puts on his own page that he's the "Head recruiter and publicist for AZS".

I'm betting he doesn't have permission to be editing the group page of a group based on wiping out his survivor group. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned --

01:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Lord (4)

Zombie Lord (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

I don't want to get too involved here, so I'll leave at whatever ruling comes out here. Anyway, I am bringing him for spamming up admin pages, the page in question Admin/arbitration. Note that the case made by Lelouch against Zombie Lord isn't involved here, at least not directly. This is about the 3 separate cases Zombie Lord made against, in order, Verance, against Bobboberton and against Lelouch. If you read the cases you'll see that all 3 of them are worded almost identically and that they all resolve around the same thing; Zombie Lord request that the users I named above are no longer to be allowed to give their comments on his (Zombie L's) suggestions on Developing Suggestions.

These cases are pretty much the same and there is no reason these 3 cases should all be treated separately, in fact, that would be insane. Now, Linkthewindow and I have repeatedly asked Zombie Lord to merge said cases, which he did, only to unmerge them later on and apparently refusing to merge them again. This seems to be an attempt to stir up as much work/drama as possible. I am not sure if this is Vandalism, I'll leave it up to the Sops, but I will urge them to merge said cases. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Obvious troll is obvious. -- Cheese 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You should be brought up on Vandalism for disrupting ongoing cases.-- | T | BALLS! | 22:54 1 January 2010(UTC)

Clearly my decision to split the cases proved correct, as the Boberton case has been finished already due to it. Now if LeDouche will stop dragging his feet we can finish this up. User:Krazy_Monkey should be brought up on Misconduct or Vandalism for his interference and this Warning should be struck.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:04 1 January 2010(UTC)

That would be misconduct, you're free to bring Cheese up there yourself. See A/M. Better hurry though, if all these 4 vandal cases against you end up ruled vandalism (which I doubt though)) you're looking at an 48hour ban. *snarks* --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 23:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, this is how it looked before Cheese went through with the troll-buster.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 23:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - People use A/A for a playground worse than this. Also, see: User:Amazing. Warning struck until further vote. Jeez, Cheese. --

01:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Meh. Cyberbob  Talk  06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism - why don't you keep your nose out of it, Thad, unless he accepts you as arbitrator -- boxy talkteh rulz 07:11 2 January 2010 (BST)

Don't tell me what I can and can't do especially since it's well within my rights. I don't care about the drama surrounding DS anyway, but I did find it stupid to have 3 cases about the same subject. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 10:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because you can doesn't mean you should, hope this helps Cyberbob  Talk  10:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I gave my reason, if you think I shouldn't have, go build a timemachine and revert the past. Or you know, rule not vandalism and close the case. I merely asked for sysops input, giving input is part of the job, if that input is not V then I'm perfectly fine with that but don't go harass me because I asked for your opinion. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 10:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What a load of shit. Making A/VB cases has always been seen as an act with intentions, you can't try and pretend like that mysteriously doesn't apply to you - particularly given your *snerks* comment above. Cyberbob  Talk  11:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps actual reading isn't your thing since I already pointed out my intentions; I didn't like the fact he made 3 cases about the same thing, I asked him to merge and he refused, I a/vb him, and I come here asking you if that counts as spamming up admin pages, you say no it isn't, I am perfectly fine with that, thanks in fact, I know it now for the future. BUT, don't tell I shouldn't have brought it here when I have done nothing wrong. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 12:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If you were really only after the sysops' opinion you would have asked us on our talk pages. Please don't try and absolve yourself of trying to involve yourself in this situation, it's not working very well and only makes you look dishonest as well as intrusive. Cyberbob  Talk  12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
...amIthatmisunderstood? I meant what I said about my intentions, sorry if I come over as a drama-whore if that's what you're saying I am. I was unaware that you think so low about me that you automatically assume bad-faith here. Jeez...--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Lets put it this way. You added the fourth case about Zombie Lord in a couple of days. You didn't even give any links, making it harder for us to review the case than usual (don't ask; you'd be surprised). It was almost unanimously voted Not Vandalism (besides Cheese's stupid vote which's subsequent ghost-ruling was idiotic imo). What do we say to that? Think about the cases you bring and don't act so innocent if you're going to throw it at us, simple. -- 14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Lord (3)

Zombie Lord (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Spamming the hell out of DS with those inactive discussion templates: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Warned - both because of the really fucking obvious bad faith and because neither party in that Arby's case between him and Aichon should be touching those things until the case is over. I told him this in the case at the bottom of the page but clearly that didn't quite sink in. Cyberbob  Talk  10:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Aichon isn't a party in the Arbies - it's Lelouch. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
My mistake. Cyberbob  Talk  11:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, cause Boberton was in total good faith right? HAHAHA.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:58 1 January 2010(UTC)

When did I say anything about his edits? Cyberbob  Talk  11:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, I know he gets a pass.-- | T | BALLS! | 11:04 1 January 2010(UTC)
Oh, you're talking about the case below. That was one (1) template, and he didn't include a snarky edit summary. Take him to Arbies for something like that. Cyberbob  Talk  11:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Lord (2)

Zombie Lord (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

The edit - I don't want to get dragged into this mess, but come on. He removed an entire suggestion before its week was up. Aichon 10:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism. Just ask Cyberbob. You're making a frivolous case.-- | T | BALLS! | 10:34 1 January 2010(UTC)

Vandalism - Breaking the wiki to make a (shitty) point. Cyberbob  Talk  10:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw, shit all of a sudden it IS vandalism to remove an entire suggestion just cause I feel like it? Damn, what, does this work on some rotating basis? Like every 5 minutes it goes back and forth?-- | T | BALLS! | 10:57 1 January 2010(UTC)
Verance's thing looked pretty obviously like a silly mistake (going by his edit summary he was meaning to put that inactive discussion template on it), especially given that he had moved the suggestion there one minute prior to the edit you brought here. Your edit on the other hand is pretty fucking clearly bad faith. Trying to split hairs won't work, sorry - no matter how witty you think you're being. Cyberbob  Talk  11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Not being witty. Just being right.-- | T | BALLS! | 11:03 1 January 2010(UTC)
Awesome. Let me know how that one works out for you. Cyberbob  Talk  11:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Works out great, thanks.-- | T | BALLS! | 11:05 1 January 2010(UTC)
BTW, Verance removed the new suggestion (with changes) and put back the old one (without changes). Clearly he did not intend simply put a template on the new. But whatever.-- | T | BALLS! | 11:09 1 January 2010(UTC)

Vandalism - Bad faith removal of others' contents and talk comments. Nothing to be done! 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - As the bob. --

01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned--The General T Sys U! P! F! 03:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You're a fucking idiot. Learn how to update A/VD please. Cyberbob  Talk  06:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot about that. I intended to do it but it slipped my mind. My mistake, thanks for spotting it.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
See the talk page Cyberbob  Talk  09:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Verance

Verance (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

[9] Vandalism.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:25 1 January 2010(UTC)

Not Vandalism - Stop making these. Next time it'll be you up here for frivolous cases. Cyberbob  Talk  10:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So I can just go and remove an entire suggestion if I feel like it? Good to know.-- | T | BALLS! | 10:11 1 January 2010(UTC)

Vandalism - He's been on DS before and what he did is clear-cut considering the surrounding drama. --

01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism -- boxy talkteh rulz 07:09 2 January 2010 (BST)

Warned --

00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BobBoberton

BobBoberton (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

[10] Obvious attempt at Trolling. Bad Faith edit.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:21 1 January 2010(UTC)

Not Vandalism - Stop making these. Next time it'll be you up here for frivolous cases. Cyberbob  Talk  10:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - You'll be the one up for vandalism if you continue making frivolous cases.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 11:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah! Like Bob said right? yay for originality. Where did you get this parrot Bob?-- | T | BALLS! | 11:11 1 January 2010(UTC)

User:Zombie Lord

Zombie Lord (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Getting to be really quite ridiculous here. Related to the Arbitration case getting underway. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 02:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He's also been told a few times why it's happening, and since he's reverting it so quickly, he obviously has it on his Watchlist or is refreshing RC every few minutes, so I doubt he's failed to see the comments. See: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16]. Aichon 04:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is actually vandalism because it wasn't actually a signed comment he was removing. If the suggestions haven't been commented on in a week then they can be removed as per the suggestions page rules.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 04:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Suggestion has not even been up two days yet, which is why I am removing the template. LeDouche and his gang have simply moved on to Phase 2 of their Troll War, that is, Arbitration and Vandal Banning attempts based on nothing in the hopes that my unpopularity will be enough to railroad through a banning. Yeah, it's pretty sad.-- | T | BALLS! | 04:44 1 January 2010(UTC)
See the talk page Cyberbob  Talk  06:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Here you go then. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, though neither party in the Arbitration case should be either adding or removing any of those templates until the case is finished. Don't do it again please. Cyberbob  Talk  06:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't know he'd already been told not to mess with that stuff. Vandalism Cyberbob  Talk  06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Has been told that contentious edits are left as is during arbitration, and continues to disrupt the flow of the arbitration(s) he's involved in. Knows fine rightly what he's doing. Nothing to be done! 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism --

01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned for 24 hours. Cyberbob  Talk  06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)