|
|
| (22 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <noinclude>
| |
| {{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Header}}
| |
| {{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Bots}}
| |
| </noinclude>
| |
|
| |
| ==[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 10|October 2010]]==
| |
|
| |
| ===[[User:DDRSUCKSKNOB]]===
| |
| {{vndl|DDRSUCKSKNOB}} {{Verdict|Three edit rule|Permaban}}
| |
|
| |
| Turns up, insults DDR and uploads a very unfashionable photo of the male anatomy. Banned Under the three edit rule. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :Protected user page, reverted edit to DDR's main page and put on banned template.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3}} 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ===[[User:Hermann von Teutoburg]]===
| |
| {{vndl|Hermann von Teutoburg}}{{Verdict}}
| |
|
| |
| Open Proxy, poor grammatical English, anti Jewish Ramblings, and another name for [[User:Arminius]], anyone think its not Corn? The proxy is already blocked, as per tradition, but I'm assuming we block the alt and remove whatever its posting? Because of the ban avoidance. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:11, 26 October 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| I'm not sure, honestly. The English is poorer and the writing style is quite different than what Corn previous exhibited. That said, they did jump onto the wiki and start using it like a veteran, they're (mis)using the phrase "National Socialist", they didn't stop or pass by Go before immediately starting the anti-Jewish rhetoric, they're using a blatant German reference for their name, they used a proxy to make their account and comment, and...well...10-to-1 says it's Corn. I'm tempted to suggest contacting them and asking them to respond here without the use of a proxy, but I honestly don't know that doing so would change my opinion. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 00:19, 27 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :Of note, not misuse of the term. Nazi is a contraction of the Nazi Party's german name, '''Na'''tionalso'''zi'''alistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party). Whilst the complete opposite end of the spectrum from plain socialism, it's still the correct appelation. Cf/ Irish Republicanism and the US' Republican Party. Oh, and ban the proxy, ban the alt as a workaround account, and protect the page. Consider the idea of a policy limiting the use of real-world politics as wiki group pages after an open discussion. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 00:26, 27 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::Why Protect the Page? Why not delete it? It is vandalism, as its an edit by a banned user? The Proxy is already banned btw. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:59, 27 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::Ban the alt, delete the page, make no such policy as it stems free speech. Also, Aichon's correct. Whilst the party was called the National Socialist party, as soon as Hitler became leader of the party he ousted all socialist elements (Well, he did it in 1934). The terminology isn't apt at all, which is why people refer to them as "Nazis". But yeah, obvious alt is obvious.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3}} 10:21, 27 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::If we're ruling it's an alt of a banned user, then, yes, delete the page as a vandal edit. Now that we've corrected the IP banning so that it'll take effect on Hermann, it may be interesting to see what happens. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 19:27, 27 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::I don't mind waiting but in the long run I want the page gone. Otherwise it just shows that people avoiding bans can post happily and we'll tolerate it, even when its full of basic chemistry mistakes. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:30, 27 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::I'll delete the page some time tonight if there are no objections.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3}} 20:49, 27 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::I'd say not, just protect. I was in cahoots with the guy who edited [[Nazi Party of Malton]] page, and he used a proxy too? I dunno. I just don't think we have enough evidence to kneejerk in Corn's direction. There ''are'' other nazi's out there, they all use rhetoric (it's hitlers thing), and while I have to be honest, I think it's corn, we could at least wait on some evidence (or at least inaction after the proxy ban) before deleting, until then this seems draconian. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 23:28, 27 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::::I'm happy to wait a few days. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 23:35, 27 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::Works for me.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3}} 23:57, 27 October 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ====All the sysops====
| |
|
| |
| I'm reporting all the sysops for being facists and racists and I demand an unban for user Hermann von Teutoburg.
| |
|
| |
| The reason why I'm using an open proxy is the same reason as why I'm using a nickname. I don't want my personal data on the internet. In my country, when you have someone's IP adress you can look up personal data of this certain person which I do not wish to be on the internet. I use it 'everywhere', with the exception of websites I trust.
| |
|
| |
| That said, I do not know who Corn is.
| |
|
| |
| Yes, I have experience using wiki. No, I have never had an account on this wiki. I had an account on 'The Vault'.
| |
|
| |
| No, I am not anti-Jewish. Yes, I am anti-Zionist.
| |
|
| |
| I'm reporting all the sysops here for being facists because I didn't have a chance to defend myself here on Vandal Banning and because they ban for no reason. (I have done nothing wrong, so leave me alone.) That leaves banning me because I'm an anti-Zionist. This makes all the sysops racists. Zionists would like to see the White race destroyed. Banning someone for being anti-Zionist makes you a Zionist. This means the sysops (Zionists) are racists. Since user Hermann von Teutoburg has done nothing wrong, or be it at least that he can't be proven to have done anything wrong, I demand this user unbanned. --[[User:Hermann von Teutoburg2|Hermann von Teutoburg2]] 07:14, 28 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :I have a couple of questions (and yeah, you're probably gonna have to answer or at least acknowledge them if you want anything done cause I'm probably the only op on the team slightly open to communication). Firstly, I'd like (though this isn't necessary) for you to tell us which country you're from, out of curiosity. I'd also like to know how you found this Vandal Banning page, were you linked here from the ban notice? Also: Was the '''account''' banned or the proxy IP? Because if the account was banned, we apologise, we don't have the right to ban accounts that use proxy IPs, only the IPs they use (if this is the case and the original account has been banned, please do specify so).
| |
| :I'm willing to talk to you over this one, though I'll give you a heads up that doing the "report the whole admin team for evil and corruption" route has been done to death by many, and it goes nowhere, not because we are evil heartless zionists but because we have a brain and understand proportion, or at least where it counts. I respect that you're not hiding who you are or what you believe in, though I've heard it all before and as tiring as it is I don't care how many nazis are on this wiki as long as they don't break the rules we have in place. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 07:42, 28 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::I wanted to edit something, saw I was banned, typed in 'banning' at the search function, found this page, looked around. The IP was banned, I was assuming the account would be too. Anyhow, I demand also the page not to be protected or deleted. Same reason as for the account being unbanned. --[[User:Hermann von Teutoburg2|Hermann von Teutoburg2]] 07:54, 28 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::I'd implore you to check the account but on a different IP, because as to our knowledge (and the wiki software supports this idea- though it is out of date and can be wrong on stuff like that) the account isn't banned- only the IP that you use it from.
| |
| :::As for the IP tracing of your personal details, that's something I'm afraid you'll just have to deal with if you want to use UDWiki. The facts and truth are the Sysops can ''find'' your IP details but are bound by policy (and also law) not to discuss in public ANY detail of you which was gained via that IP- or any part of your person that can reveal where you live or who you are. In fact, one of our sysops was officially misconducted and punished for accidentally breaching IP confidentiality a few weeks ago (don't worry, it wasn't IRL information leaked, just that one account on the wiki was linked to a certain other account. The controller of both didn't want the two accounts to be publicly linked and the sysop breached this)- so the issue is still alive in our minds and concerns.
| |
| :::The reasoning behind this derives from two things. The first one is that the sysops are the only guys who can find this information and we've been qualitatively given the confidence by the community to handle this information as well as a lot of other tasks that aren't designated to all of the community. The other reason is something a lot of users tend to forget when spewing demands of terms of use on the wiki and that is that use UDWiki, as all other forums or wiki, is a ''privilege'', not a ''right''. We can't bend our rules (banning open proxies, the misuse of which can cause havok by those so inclined and has before) just for your concerns of privacy, I'm afraid if you want to be able to use our site you'll have to accept our rules and regulations and trust us with your IP information- which, to be frank, we don't give two shits about as long as you aren't using it to breach rules eg. avoid a ban or sockpuppet votes.
| |
| :::All I can say that your IP details are safe with us as long as you're not breaking any rules on our sight (the big two IP related breaches are mentioned in the previous sentence), and as far as my word goes, you'll just have to trust us. As for being a Nazi or leading a Nazi party in Malton, that's not against the rules. Similarly, if this is a concern about the amount of crap you'll get for ''being'' a nazi, either in roleplay or IRL, then that's something you'll have to get used to on this wiki, anonymous or not. We don't persecute nazis, though the community tends to react to you guys in a hostile way. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 08:50, 28 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::Oh, and as for the protection/deletion of the page, there is a large chance it won't be if you can accept our terms of membership and not edit with a proxy IP. Beyond that, the page has every right to be there and we're more than happy to not kick up a fuss. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 08:52, 28 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::Yep. IP is banned, account is not. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:31, 28 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::::Of course they can. If I post here with no proxy, you place an external icon on the wiki, match the download time against the reply time, and you have the IP. Even when you there no sysops. In this way I have found a persons IP once, on a forum where I wasn't able to check IPs. --[[User:Hermann von Teutoburg2|Hermann von Teutoburg2]] 16:55, 28 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::Except for the fact that external images are ''incapable'' of being placed on the wiki. The wiki software does not allow external images to be used anywhere for security reasons such as the one you just listed. If you can think of another reason why you can't use your actual IP address, feel free to share, but every other user on the wiki seems to be okay with it, and we have a history of cracking down on sysops who betray the trust of the community.
| |
| ::::::::Anyway, I agree with everything DDR said. Open proxies are [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/proxy_use|banned on the wiki]], and you need to play by the rules of the wiki if you want to use it (which, as was said, is a privilege, not a right). Your old proxy IP address has been banned, but the account itself was not banned. If you want to continue being a user here, you ''need'' to stop using proxy IP addresses. This is not a request, but simply a statement of fact. Otherwise, the additional proxy IP addresses will be banned as we become aware of them, and, if you keep it up, you may be brought up on vandal charges as well since you'd be breaking the rules on a regular basis. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 17:34, 28 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::::::Be it an external imagine, be it a link to another website; it works on the same way. Match the download time against the reply time and you have the IP. '''I can trace ''everyone's'' IP on this wiki if I wish so, even though I'm not a sysops.''' (with the exception of people that use an open proxy.) That sounds rather shocking to you guys, but it's true. I'm also wondering if there is any place where I can start a vote or something like that for a change in the rules. I think this is quite an issue. I hope the sysops on this wiki can imagine my motives; I am not, under no conditions, sharing my personal data with the entire internet. --[[User:Hermann von Teutoburg2|Hermann von Teutoburg2]] 06:05, 29 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::"''That sounds rather shocking to you guys, but it's true.''" No, it's not. There are NO means of someone passively discovering your IP address via this wiki unless they are a sysop or somehow compromise the system. If you disagree with my assertion, feel free to share my IP address here just as soon as you figure it out. You have my permission.
| |
|
| |
| ::::::::::Now, sure, if you go clicking links to unknown places from untrusted sources, then yes, someone could discover your IP address, but as you pointed out, they wouldn't be able to tie it back to you without having a post to correlate it to, and since you're already aware of the danger, I'd trust that you'd be smart enough not to click such links and post at the same time. Simply put, you're overstating the problem immensely since I have never seen a case where this happened here, nor is the danger real unless you engage in some risky behavior yourself. You do know that some of us actually have a [[User:Aichon#Background|strong background]] in stuff like this, and that your fear-mongering is not a valid excuse for violating the established rules, right? You're not the victim here, so stop playing as if you are one.
| |
|
| |
| ::::::::::And if you want to make a policy, head [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion|here]]. That said, you'll need to stop using an open proxy before you can do so. At least with me, I've only avoided banning the one you're currently using because you're only using it to engage us here, but if you used it elsewhere, I'd have no second thoughts in banning it immediately. In my opinion, you need to resolve this situation before doing anything else on the wiki. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 06:41, 29 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::: "nor is the danger real unless you engage in some risky behavior yourself." I am a National Socialist, that is risky enough and I have experienced this myself more than once, to put it like that. I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but there are a lot of folks in this world who don't agree with me on this. I do not know the sysops of this wiki in person and do know they do not support my believes and ideals, got the intention of bias, proven themselves fascists and racists, or at least given the intention of racism. Simply put: what reason do I have to trust them? The sysops having my IP would be as bad as it is, so why would I, at least, take any risk and chance of ANYONE else knowing my IP adress? I see no reason to, hence I am not going to stop using an open proxy. --[[User:Hermann von Teutoburg2|Hermann von Teutoburg2]] 09:52, 28 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::::Well, I'm afraid, if you keep using open proxies, we will keep banning them. It's a well established rule, and if you can't trust the 8 people with the utter belief of the community here, you may not find many people to trust on the internet. In terms of who ''I'' am, I'm a Capricorn. I enjoy reading, exploring new places, and long walks on the beach.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature3}} 09:56, 29 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::::::::::You believe in free speech but when others criticise your point of view, you delete their comments from your talk page?, You call us biased, when we have specifically left this proxy unblocked for you tovoice your opinion, even though we'd be well within policy to block it. Aichon has asked you to reveal his IP address. Please do so, to prove your claim correct. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:40, 29 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::::Sorry, but that's just how it is. You'll have to trust us with your IP information, as everyone else does, before you're allowed legal access on the wiki. I respect that you don't want us to know your IP and that's your prerogative, but it's going to have to be a high enough priority for you to not edit on this wiki ''at all''. That's all I can say, again, my word that we won't misuse your IP information is all I can offer, and you're going to have to deal with that or co-ordinate your UD group using another medium. If it helps, I live in Australia and I have no intention of going abroad to beat up internet nazis anytime soon. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 10:52, 29 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::::Being ''at risk'' is not the same as engaging in risky behavior, so don't conflate the two. And I love how, once your "truths" were refuted, you switched from objecting on the basis that others could surreptitiously procure your IP address to objecting on the basis that we would know it. Why not just tell us right from the start that that was your reason? Anyway, let me know when you get that IP address of mine. I'm one of the more prolific editors on the wiki, so it should be fairly simple to correlate my edits with addresses you discover, right? {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:24, 29 October 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| As its the weekend, we'll give Hermann until Monday to respond to the requests listed above. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:04, 30 October 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ====Monday====
| |
| Hmm.
| |
|
| |
| ===[[User:Mtumbe Ngoube]]=== | | ===[[User:Mtumbe Ngoube]]=== |
| {{vndl|Mtumbe Ngoube}}{{Verdict|Not Vandalism}} | | {{vndl|Mtumbe Ngoube}}{{Verdict|Not Vandalism}} |
| Line 130: |
Line 59: |
|
| |
|
| Yonn already deleted the image a few hours back, so I'm gonna go ahead and close the case, since it looks like it's wrapped. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:27, 6 October 2010 (BST) | | Yonn already deleted the image a few hours back, so I'm gonna go ahead and close the case, since it looks like it's wrapped. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:27, 6 October 2010 (BST) |
| | {{VBarchivenav}} |
Mtumbe Ngoube (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict
|
Not Vandalism
|
| Action taken
|
{{{2}}}
|
For this edit, in which he deleted the only link which shows that Rofl is the author of the guide PKer tips. This appears to be a premeditated act meant to conceal the true identity of the author, in order to make it easier to delete the guide by claiming authorship before it up for deletion.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 16:10, 21 October 2010 (BST)
I'm going to assume good faith for now, whilst I ask him to show connection between the old user and the new user. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:50, 21 October 2010 (BST)
- As Ross.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:04, 21 October 2010 (BST)
- I hadn't really considered this possibility. Sorry to take it here, I should have asked the user first.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 15:14, 22 October 2010 (BST)
- Edit summary, FTW -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:10 24 October 2010 (BST)
Seems they are the same person, so Not Vandalism. Makes the deletion vote interesting now. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:10, 23 October 2010 (BST)
- Not really, since it's a scheduled... -- LEMON #1 05:03, 24 October 2010 (BST)
- Just because a page falls under a scheduled deletion, doesn't mean that we are bound to delete it. This is a community page (even if others haven't edited it), and if the community thinks it should remain on the wiki, they are free to vote keep, and expect the sysops to leave it be. If the author wants to distance himself from his creation, he can remove any reference to his name -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:10 24 October 2010 (BST)
- Mostly incorrect, Crit 7's have preference over anything in a vast majority of cases, examples like these, no matter how trivial. -- LEMON #1 13:35, 24 October 2010 (BST)
- Those were pages in the User's namespace. Ownership rights are greater there. This guide, however, is a community page, and they should only be crit 7ed if they are of little, or no use to the community. Given that the community is voting on it, it is easy to determine in this case -- boxy talk • teh rulz 21:42 24 October 2010 (BST)
- Ah, I see your point, but I still believe that if the user has the controlling right to be able to blank the page and not have it reverted (as he does now) then it might as well be an inarguable crit 7. -- LEMON #1
Darma (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Lois Millard (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict
|
Not vandalism
|
| Action taken
|
None needed
|
More importantly the shared IP. It's either a proxy, in which case it needs banning, or they're the same person, in which case we may need to log it, and also flare signals are sent off since one of the edits from this IP was a vote in a crat election. They haven't both voted, so it would be a good issue to clear up. Proxy or alt?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:47, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Sigh. Both are on the up and up, no proxies so no bans. No vandalism has been committed, and Lois is as upstanding as they get.
22:49, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Well yeah, but are they the same person?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:50, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- They are the same person. Check Lois' RG forums sig -- Spiderzed▋ 22:54, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Board requires me to be logged in, but I trust you. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:08, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Edit conflictedAsking on talk page, but contribs are leaning me towards alt. What's the practice in these cases?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:50, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- To do nothing, in a case like this. If Lois uses the Darma account as a second vote, or to vandalise, that's the only time that multiple accounts are looked at. 22:53, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Yeah, but I'm wondering if a note is necessary? I think practice is for there to be one somewhere, but usually it's VD, and I'd guess she doesn't have any.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:54, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- A note is only standard practice on A/VD to show the vandal alts of those who use them, not to list any and all alt accounts. 22:55, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Is it UHUB then? I'm tired and can't really recall.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:00, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- UHUB? 23:01, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- User hub. There are a few like that on there, but I don't know really. I think she already has her name on there, so it would probably be great if she added it but not mandatory. :P Not a clue. This is here if we need it, so there's a note somewhere.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:07, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Also, I didn't add the template because this isn't strictly a vandalism case, it's an alts thingy.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:07, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- In future, alt-based vandalism requires an actual act of vandalism first. Most user with multiple accounts don't want the connection to be known, and several of them exist. It's treading into misuse of checkuser to expose them without actual cause, so please don't do this again. 23:14, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Except pretending to be somebody else is actually impersonation which is vandalism, isn't it? So the "They don't want to know" argument is BS.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:19, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Only pretending to be an existing user is impersonation, which clearly isn't the case. 23:24, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Imagine I create multiple accounts. Every time I get in an discussion I get my alts to support myself in order to steer a discussion in my favor. I'm sure there are more ways abusing this without actually vandalism. --
Thadeous Oakley 23:27, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- It's already in the actual rules (where's Box's sig when I need it) that voting and vandal alts are the only uses we punish this for. That's clear. This is unnecessary, and making a big deal about it is just pointless. Plus, if you beed to create a bunch of alts just to win an internent argument you need to find a better position in that argument in the first place. Case is closed, any sysop bringing another case like this without any actual infraction is going to A/M as a result, as no one can claim ignorance to how this operates now we've got this laid down. 23:31, 4 October 2010 (BST)
The Rules. If folks create lots of alts to "win" an argument, we can out them since they're clearly acting in bad faith. That said, I agree with Mis' statements pretty much across the board, though I'd go further and say that it was actual, though mild, checkuser abuse (I'm not taking him to A/M over it, however). Lois' alt account should not have been outed unless something shady was going on since alt accounts are perfectly permissible when used for reasonable purposes, and by all accounts, Lois was not behaving irresponsibly with the accounts.
By Yonn's own admission, this is not a vandal case, so it has no reason to be here in the first place, and why Yonn felt it necessary to note this alt when we know of dozens of others is beyond me. I'll chalk it up to him being tired, but generally the only time a note is necessary is when an actual vandal case happens. Otherwise, they are allowed to have them, as long as they use them in good faith, and we don't mention it out of respect for their privacy. —Aichon— 00:03, 5 October 2010 (BST)
- Right, Confirmed there the same person, case remains as a note in VB history they are the same person. Have a nice day. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:38, 5 October 2010 (BST)
Misanthropy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict
|
Vandalism
|
| Action taken
|
Soft Warning
|
This case is inevitable and I'm not nitpicking but I think it's gotta be brought here. Image:A BP.png needs evaluation as pornography/offensive content. -- LEMON #1 12:38, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- In my defense, we've allowed graphic slash fiction before, and it was inevitable. 13:31, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Soft Warning - Borderline case. Any worse and it would be proper vandalisms, but for now a soft warning will do. Plus, he hasn't done anything like it before.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:52, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Soft Warning - As Yonn. —Aichon— 00:06, 5 October 2010 (BST)
Regardless of vandalism, I really think this should be deleted in the interests of good taste, it fits in the definition of hardcore imagery. Yeah, I know how prudish I'm sounding. -- LEMON #1 02:28, 5 October 2010 (BST)
- Oh right, yeah. I'll get it now, was just waiting for a tad more of a consensus.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:17, 5 October 2010 (BST)
- More on talk page.
Vandalism., but just. so Soft It terrifies me to think what having you as a crat will be like. (But then I could Say the Same thing about DDR) --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:40, 5 October 2010 (BST)
Yonn already deleted the image a few hours back, so I'm gonna go ahead and close the case, since it looks like it's wrapped. —Aichon— 07:27, 6 October 2010 (BST)
Seems they are the same person, so Not Vandalism. Makes the deletion vote interesting now. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:10, 23 October 2010 (BST)
