UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 03

March 2011

User:SA

Ban avoidance.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

SA ;_; --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Also Lulz at DDR--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Valentine

DevilAsh is a liar. He is unable to feel brainwaves, having no receiver for them, nor the vital organ with which to translate them. Similarly, Nickizdaboss could not have sent him any, for the same reasons. Escalation! --DT^PK 22:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just you wait till you go to bed tonight, I'll be sending some mean waves your way. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 22:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I plead that this is a viable case for permission--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he did at least sign his edit. Since when was providing testimonials considered vandalism? I say wait and see how the contribution is appreciated by the user in question before rushing into anything. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a restraining order on your brain, sir! Not within .2 on the gieger counter for 20 ft! That'll do you! --DT^PK 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PROFESSOR DT TOLD ME TO SCREAM ABOUT MY BAN ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE IN OUR IRC CHANNEL irc.nexuswar.com/redrum AND MAYBE IT WILL ALL GO AWAY AND I WILL BE MADE A SYSOP SO I AM SCREAMING ABOUT IT IN HERE AND ON OUR IRC CHANNEL AT irc.nexuswar.com/redrum IN THE HOPES THAT IT WILL ALL GO AWAY AND I WILL BE MADE A SYSOP. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Defamation of character your honor! Nobody can provide IRC logs that DT, Professor DT, or anyone resembling "DT" told Mr. Valentine anything of the sort! My client, DT, is innocent upon these accusations! I dare Mr. Valentine to prove otherwise! --DT^PK 23:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire! I can provide these logs… provided it's in my best interest to do so, of course.

	Gold in the Basket Supporter
	Revenant believes that if DevilAsh or DT does in fact put the gold in the basket that this situation can be resolved.

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

DevilAsh is a filthy criminal

and quite the dashing gentleman too. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. As for the escalation User:DevilAsh received for this case, I'm afraid you have it wrong. I ought to receive the escalation as I was pressuring him on IRC to do this. As he is an easily manipulated person, and isn't really accountable for his own actions when pressured by peers. Please consider lifting his escalation and applying it to User:DT. This is, by the way, entirely serious.--DT^PK 20:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

DEVILASH IS A MAN?! 0.o -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When two users are screwing with each other playfully and a third party reports and neither of them actually care it's call harassment vandal reporting. At the most either user should receive a "Please don't do this on admin pages or user pages, it can often be taken the wrong way by the watchful eyes in the shadows." and be done with it. It's obviously a running back and forth shenaniganery spilled over from IRC inter-group shenaniganery, not something sysops should be wasting their time with. --Karek^maps?! 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

also --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

HEY LEAVE ME OUT THIS!--

bitch 21:48 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rosslessness

You guys are all just ripping me off. And after I stopped using these, even. Tsk. No imagination. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

How was this a soft warning/not vandalism but mine is? :( --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No idea why you would compare the two... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? Pick only sysop reported... shout conspiracy... duh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:28 21 March 2011 (BST)

Oh Boxy, I thought you'd hold me in a higher regard than that. No, I am surprised at it because he faked a timestamp on a very important page (and the precedent he has been reported for says vandalism) whilst I'm reported for saying (and signing accurately) that an obvious multiacccount is a dee dee head. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 10:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, he faked a timestamp on a public page, where there are clear rules to deal with such douchebaggery (ie. the ad gets wiped), you edited a page with clear ownership rules to insult the page owner (multiabuser or no) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:46 21 March 2011 (BST)

You said the other guy was vandalism, and Ross wasn't... O.o --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the deal with that was that UUU reported himself and Boxy took that to be a bad faith drama mongering act in itself, rather than the act of vandalism. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhhhm

I wasn't aware impersonating no one was a vandal offense. Trying to trick a group on a talk page while probably not the coolest thing to do really doesn't have anything to do with bad faith editing. If anything it's probably more inline with the debate over alt-abuse in-game than anything the wiki administration should care about. --Karek^maps?! 01:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

All that checkuser confirms is that lawliet impersonated a different user with the same IP. I won't name the other user but will say that Lawiet has not claimed they are one in the same so my ruling was based on the fact that they were different users. ~ 01:43, 8 March 2011

Understandable but all you really have to go on for true identity is the IP in this circumstance. Neither has particularly large edit histories and they obviously wouldn't publicly acknowledge it in light of what they were doing unless they absolutely had to. Not to mention it seems pretty clear cut to me, without checkuser, that they're likely the same people simply from how ridiculous the comments are and the questions they raised. Odds are that the third involved user is also them considering the group page but that's for you guys to know. --Karek^maps?! 01:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What if, though the chance is very slim indeed, the user in question is actually trying to play both sides of the coin, so to speak? I mean, he's pretty new, so he might be trying to get his alts to fight without really understanding the anti-zerg countermeasures... But, if he is trying to one-up the RRF using his new group, he's in for one helluva surprise... -- †  talk ? f.u. 12:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really hoping this is the case because I've been trying to help him for a while now... -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if this is deemed Vandalism, that doesn't mean that you have to stop to help. A/VB exists to undo damage and prevent future damage, not to pillory users and call in the riffraff to throw rotten tomatoes. Heck, I even helped Cornlolio on wiki matters, and boy did he work on getting escalated...
As for the case, at least to me it seems unlikely that this is a good faith attempt to fight her own alts. But then again, the whole linked discussion is weird. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely weird. And thanks for helping me with my 'to help or not to help' dilemma. -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

DER FUHRER

Haha, oh boy. This guy is seriously making me laugh now. I mean, yeesh, it's just.. so.. pointless. And obvious. And easily reverted. And stuff. Oidar 20:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)