UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2006 03

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

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

March 2006


User Xbehave deleted part of my vote justification here. Granted, the deleted statement of mine was fairly inflammatory, but that's all the more reason for it to be preserved. A user's vote should not be tampered with under any circumstances. His talk page also indicates that he has at least once restored a spaminated suggestion. furtim 19:25, 31 March 2006 (BST)


Pretty simple; he deleted our group's entry (GANKBUS) GANKBUS HISTORY and signed it with "Eh, I'm done with you now". I'm pretty sure deleting an entire entry counts as vandalism. He constantly overrides the original page with something new and claims its for his own personal use and that we are vandalizing it. However, GANKBUS is a legitimate player group - he created the page first to make our presence known (since we killed him), but we are completely legitimate. User:Rasher - 21:21, 28 March 2006

There is an arbitration case currently underway, I suggest you post there.--The General 19:40, 29 March 2006 (BST)

Multiple Spam Accounts

I'll be trying to revert these, but if anyone could lend a hand, that'd be most appreciated. --Lint 21:14, 28 March 2006 (BST)

Done. --Lint 02:29, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Yeah, 1143554791 was the asshole that added adware/spyware links in the Degenerates page before I had to revert it out. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Degenerates&diff=prev&oldid=179622 No stupid fuck should EVER vandalize a wiki with adware links and get away with it via a warning. I want a fucking IP ban on whoever's making those accounts.--EdFanMH 09:26, 29 March 2006 (BST)

Nick shaw

To be honest, im not sure where exactly to report this, but this appears to be the only disciplinary area on the wiki, so i shall make do. He decided to leave a comment on my talk page with the sole intention of annoying me, and instead amused me with his demonstration of infantile behaviour. Worse still, he completely ignored the style guide i had set up for my talk page! THE BASTARD! Needless to say, while i find his vulgar and crude attempt to insult me and/or annoy me amusing, i feel that such behaviour shouldnt really be tolerated, and await a moderators verdict on the matter. --Grim s 15:00, 28 March 2006 (BST)

This would be a very different wiki if one-off insults on talk pages constituted vandalism. You're allowed to edit your talk page to remove offensive or amusing comments, Grim. Feel free to come back and request a response if he's actually taking it as far as an edit war. --Spiro 16:29, 28 March 2006 (BST)
Thanks for the response. Ill go do that. --Grim s 12:13, 29 March 2006 (BST)


MaulMachine erased part of my relevant post on the Liberation of Crossman Department page regarding the relationship of our two groups. I find this to be important and relevant to current discussions. The original version Link and the current version Link --Zod Rhombus 18:53, 26 March 2006 (BST)


Vandalized another user's main page Link --John Rove 08:01, 25 March 2006 (GMT)

This was followed by the vandalism of my User page Link in response. --John Rove 20:47, 25 March 2006 (GMT)


Deleted the front page (Link). --Grim s 10:20, 22 March 2006 (GMT)

Looks mostly good faith. I've left a message on her user page. Once again, can I remind everyone on this wiki that not every edit that destroys a page is vandalism. Newbie mistakes are not vandalism, and in such cases, it's a much better use of everyone's time if someone could just edit the page, and put a kind note on the user's talk page about how what they've done is not a good thing. People do often arrive on wikis unaware of the editing rules, after all. -- Odd Starter talkModW! 10:43, 22 March 2006 (GMT)


I wish to report a Renfield vandal RevDoc. He has been editing the wiki revive page to misdirect revives to Burrell way PD, evidence 1 and evidence 2 (as fucking if). As such, he must belong to the incumbent zombie faction in Molebank who have also been misdirecting (via in game spraying) likewise. Not only that, but he has, for the second time, removed the established revive points and our group from the revive list.

Since we are the major revive group and resource in the suburb, this is absurd. This is unacceptable. Please warn or ban this individual.

I would also be grateful of any update on the penalities against this turd.

--Celt 19:49, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Fixed formatting for you... --Brizth W! 20:11, 21 March 2006 (GMT)


Blanked 4 pages. Contributions. --Lint 01:40, 19 March 2006 (GMT)


Blanked 3 pages. Contributions. --Lint 01:40, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

Duce Nauks

Has been continually deleting my posts and/or rewording them to say the opposite - as shown here, as well as his false zombie levels report here, and his deletion of all information provided on the Roywood suburb page as shown here. I'm not sure if this is technically considered vandalism, as none are specifically group pages - but as the information he keeps providing is false, I'm not sure what else to do. --Firemanstan 00:29, 15 March 2006 (GMT)


http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Dunell_Hills_Police_Department This guy has been constantly changing the Dunell Hills Police Department group page to information about police departments in Dunell Hills. --Willr 3:57, 14 March 2006 (EST)

Incorrect, he has been changing a redirect to your groups page, not the group page itself. He has also been leaving a link to your group page at the top of the page. I fail to see how this is vandalism. Indeed, i would contend that you are, in fact, the vandal in this case, deleting worthwhile content that has been created and maintained in a consistant fashion, as seen here. The page WAS a redirect, now its both a link to your groups page AND a useful source of information about the game. Please do grow up Willr. --Grim s 23:23, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Grim has a point. Novelty is not changing the DHPD page at all, merely adjusting a redirect into the Dunnell Hills generic Police Department Building information page in accordance with the Location Style Guide. I don't think that DHPD needs this particular page to be a redirect, and I'm happy to let Novelty adjust the page, especially if he's linking to your page anyway. This is the price you pay for having a generic description as your group name... -- Odd Starter talkModW! 00:43, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Our group as listed on the official game stats page is "Dunell Hills Police Department". The link associated with that group leads directly to the page Novelty has been changing. I am unsure as to what exactly establishes group page ownership, so I could be completely off base here. However, instead of being lead directly to the front page of our department they are being led to another page entirely, with only a small redirect at the top. I should think that whatever page is linked to in the game stats section would be considered the group page. If our choice to use this as a redirect represents violation or poor use of wiki policy then we can certainly change the structure of our pages to reflect this. Essentially, I am most worried that people seeking further information on the Dunell Hills Police Department will become confused when they reach what appears to be no more than a generic location stub. I had hoped to talk this over with Novelty without moderator intervention, but it appears Willr chose to post here. I don't think this is a case of vandalism but nor do I think it is something to be discarded out of hand.--Bill Turner 21:26, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
I dont see how it can cause any confusion myself. The Redirect is at the top of the page, and is in the very first place a person reading the page would look, so any misinterpretations are killed immediately. Personally i think your whole method of constructing your page is shoddy. You didnt need a category, for instance (Which is messing up the groups category). A page with links to all the other pages would have been more than sufficient. --Grim s 22:55, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
I think my contention is that since we are an established group and had the page first we should be allowed to do what we want with it. If someone who comes later would like a link to their newer, smaller contribution from our page, I'm fine with that. I did not make the Dunell Hills Police Department pages, so I'm not going to defend the way they are set up. As I stated before, I am willing to make the necessary changes to keep the Dunell Hills Police Department page linking directly to our group. If you have other problems with the way our pages are set up, we can certainly discuss that elsewhere. A possible solution, however, would be to use the page in question as the list of links to all the other pages. At the bottem, of course, Novelty could have his page or a link to it. We really should take this elsewhere, if it is not an issue for the Mods. My talk page is certainly open.--Bill Turner 02:54, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
Sorry for butting in here, but could this not be solved by moving all groups to a "Group:" namespace? Seems like it would solve the problem, as well as making a clearer definition between group pages and the rest of the wiki. --Lucero Capell 22:59, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
I would support moving all groups to a "Group:" namespace. It would instantly highlight that the page is "private property" and (other than NPOV items) should not be messed with unless one is a member of the group. --Nov W!, Talk 08:02, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
It's a lovely idea, but unfortunately requires Kevan to hack the wiki code to create the custom namespace, and Kevan tends to be busy enough that requests for extra namespaces don't tend to provide a response. I mean, seriously, if we're working on extra namespaces, there are a few others I'd like to add, but alas it's not up to us, it's up to Kevan and Kevan alone. If I were able to add namespaces, believe me I'd have added quite a few by now. -- Odd Starter talkModW! 03:53, 21 March 2006 (GMT)


http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Rotten_Tomatoes&curid=8183&diff=167763&oldid=166826 Stupidtiy at work again. Also edited main page but reverted it seconds later. --ALIENwolve 03:44, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

He also created the page "MadMan" with the sole intent to abuse that person. I have referred it to Speedydeletions as well under the no content rule. Its sole content was:

I love to rape little dogs 

This user seems to have nothing against this sort of immature behaviour. Perhaps in this case each of his acts should be counted seperately and punished seperately. --Grim s 05:31, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

Warned. -- Odd Starter talkModW! 00:49, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

MaulMachine Again

Reposting POV commentary on NPOV informational page. He did it with his alt the first time, now he's reposted the properly removed text under his main name. Vandalism. -- Amazing 23:46, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

What is with your mad-on towards me? Why are you such a dick? All you ever do is try to get people banned. Give it a rest already. One of your tribunal and one of your oldest members are in agreement with me, and one of them JOINED us! Why is it that you have to drag this pointless bickering on and on and on and on and on and ON?! Why do you have to DREDGE EVERY FUCKING POST I HAVE EVER MADE INTO THE LIGHT LIKE I DID SOMETHING WRONG?! Stop being a petulant little fucker, STOP DRAGGING MY EVERY ACTIVITY UP, and stop being an asshole, on your forum, in the game, and on the wiki! Stop being an ass, leave me the HELL alone, and STOP TRYING TO GET ME BANNED! You are a foul, dirty little backstabbing fuck-wit flamebaiter and a disgrace to your once-proud organization. You truly sicken me. You truly do. Never in the ten years I've been a forum goer and gamer have I found such a narrow-minded, hateful, spiteful little bag of shit as you. You piss off mods, bait honorable members like me, send your goons to kill me in my own safehouse, vandalise the wiki, lie to third party people to turn them against me, and then have the tungsten testes to call me A LIAR AND A TRAITOR. You are a disgusting individual, and if you were to be banned at this very moment, THERE WOULD NOT BE A SINGLE VOICE RAISED IN PROTEST. You dispicable little fuckwit. MaulMachine 23:56, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
Too long, didn't read. -- Amazing 00:01, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
I am on the tribunal and I didn't join you. I don't think Exo has either. Quit baiting our group and grow up. Sabotaging our respective groups' meetings is one thing, but take your fight with Amazing out-of-game. And please show some decorum on this page by quitting flaming and cursing every 3 words.--Zod Rhombus 00:18, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

I didn't even join the meeting. Some A-button Zombie Kill Krew member did. http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=455475 ChrisT, can't people READ anymore?! MaulMachine 00:25, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

If you expect me -- or anyone else -- to believe you got hacked coincidentally right at this time of high tensions - you're crazy. Besides which, this discussion does not belong here. -- Amazing 00:34, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Who said anything about hacking? You're blind AND stupid. IT'S A DIFFERENT ACCOUNT. MaulMachine 00:45, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

He's still at it. - Hey, Hey - Ho, Ho. This guy has got to go. -- Amazing 00:42, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

Why? I've broekn no rules. Dick. MaulMachine 00:45, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Pure and simple bad-faith vandalism. Vagina. -- Amazing 00:47, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Not vandalism if its true. Besides, all I keep doing is reverting vandalism LokiJester made. MaulMachine 00:56, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
And it's not true, so you admit it's vandalism. MaulMachine acknowledges his guilt and would like a perminent ban. You're also proven a liar yet again because you returned a bit of POV info that was removed. You did NOT just 'revert vandalism LokiJester made'. Do you realize how obvious your lies are? -- Amazing 01:04, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Just stop already. You're inconviniencing the poor electrons with your baby-ish bullshit. MaulMachine 01:48, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Guess what? I'm warning BOTH of you, and will continue to do so until you both STFU and stop bothering the rest of us. Maul, Amazing is very annoying; the mods understand this. Please ignore him. We all do. Amazing, please stop accusing MaulMachine of myriad and often nonexistent crimes. Let's hope this setlles it.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:59, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

Fine. MaulMachine 02:05, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

This will be my final comment on the matter unless spoken to, since 'Ster sees fit to abuse his position and use warnings as a threat to silence someone he doesn't like for personal reasons.

The Vandal page is there to report Vandalism.

I reported Vandalism.

What kind of Moderator are you to tell someone to stop reporting when someone vandalizes Wiki pages?

I thought this whole issue of Bias had been handled - You're showing a ton of Bias by telling me to stop reporting a repeat offender just because he's a repeat offender and you're sick of looking at it.

Shame, lazy Mod. Shame.

'STER's bias is quite heavy and quite obvious in his rude, Un-Mod-Like and inflammatory comments. (Nonexistant? Look at the history and don't lie - it's not good Mod behavior.) I hereby request an unbiased Moderator for this case. -- Amazing 02:41, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

I would suggest that you take this situation to Moderation/Misconduct or Moderation/Arbitration, as there certainly seems to be a good deal of dispute here, and I think we'd all like to see it settled as soon as possible. --LibrarianBrent 05:30, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
I think I'm taking a risk posting here again, but I wanted to say I'll probably hit up the Misconduct page soonish. I feel I need to let tensions die down first so I don't get ban-hammered.. -- Amazing 05:53, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
There is no reason whatsoever that you would be banned for bringing a moderator action to Misconduct, or Arbitration- I'm not sure who or what gave you that impression. I would say it would be better if you posted sooner rather than later, because this kind of thing tends to fester and grow worse over time, but if you'd rather wait that's OK. Just make sure that it actually does get cleared up, though. I think everyone is getting fed up with this type of issue on the wiki... --LibrarianBrent 23:22, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Erm. It is not only Ster' that is tired of all this Amazing vs. MaulMachine stuff. I rarely come to this page, but everytime i come in here there is a 'MaulMachine' vandalism report made by Amazing. --hagnat talk 02:56, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
That's like seeing the same student who spray-paints the school in the Pricipal's office over and over again... and deciding that the Teacher should stop sending him there when he's caught because it's bothering the Faculty. -- Amazing 03:28, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
I honestly don't care who was right or wrong but it's a good thing I'm not a mod 'cause I'd have long-since banned the fuck out of you, Amazing. You're childish, pathetic whining and sniping has long since bled dry any empathy I might have had towards your situation. Now you come across just like a five year old, snot-nosed tattletale, and no one likes that. I'm certain you'll respond with some sort of "no one asked you" and "this isn't your business" post, but it IS: you are publically airing this crap CONSTANTLY so you *make it our business.* My advice: drop it, shut the fuck up, and grow the fuck up.--Jorm 03:47, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
It just isn't a topic-derailing flame war without Jorm. -- Amazing 04:40, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
I'm not sure how my comment saying that this should be resolved soon sparked a flame war, but it did. THIS VANDAL BANNING REPORT IS CLOSED. --LibrarianBrent 05:21, 14 March 2006 (GMT)


(Retracted based on new info) -- Amazing 19:22, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

Don't know if you're intentionally misrepresenting him or just being paranoid, but the page had accused "Amazing" since the 25th of February; it looks like MaulMachine was just changing it back after someone had replaced your name with his. You should check the context of an edit before reverting it, let alone calling for a permanent ban. --Spiro 19:54, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
Don't be stupid. No one knows the history of every single Wiki page. Get with the real world. So he used an alternate name to post it after that edit he made, whatever works. I'll just delete entire thing since it's unprovable POV anyway. Don't speak to me like I'm a child, especially when you're being dense as to how much a person can know about the entirity of this wiki. It was brought to my attention, I reported it. Don't be unreasonable. -- Amazing 22:08, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
If you click the "history" tab, you can browse through the history of every single Wiki page; it took me about a minute to glance through it to see what Maul's recent edits had been changing, and was the least I could have done when considering whether someone should be banned or not. But yes, deleting unprovable POV is better than knee-jerkingly changing it to some other unprovable POV and calling for a permaban. Well done. --Spiro 23:03, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
This isn't Kindergarten and you aren't the teacher. Heh. I know all about how the history tabs work. You'll have to find it in your superior heart to forgive me for taking someone's: "OMG Maul put your name on this page instead of his!" message without a grain of salt. -- Amazing 23:36, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

  • Retracted - None of the Mods would have done anything anyway. You can also see that This was MaulMachine's alt, used to aggrivate me yet again. -- Amazing 22:17, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
Correct, we wouldn't, because he hadn't done anything worth being banned for. (How can we tell that Lewiddyion is his alt? Is it that anyone who doesn't like you must be MaulMachine?) --Spiro 23:03, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
WTF? Why was I not notified of this? Christ, you're paranoid. You think I'm the only one you've ever pissed off? Spiro was absolutely right. That was there since February, and it was changed by none other than your stooge LokiJester to frame me. More than a little selectively forgetful, are we? You've brought history up in every single case you;ve ever brought against me, win or lose, and you just happen to forget this? You're a small-brained idiot who should have been banned months ago. MaulMachine 22:57, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
Check out the new report above, twice-banned vandal. -- Amazing 23:46, 12 March 2006 (GMT)


long list of ads Long list of useless crap on the front page as visable there. --ramby T--W! - SGP 08:31, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

And he's out! -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 10:16, 11 March 2006 (GMT)


It's our old friend, the 3-page-vandal, again. Contribs: [1]g026r 03:19, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

Banned.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:59, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

Alexei Yaruk

What's this? It's someone deciding that "groups shouldn't hold a monopoly on their own page" means "TIME TO VANDALISE CRAP BECAUSE SA IS RUINING THE GAME!!!" That's just awesome. P.S. Alexei learn to spell. --Katthew 21:54, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Much as I dislike defending the NeoCoL, editing the POV sections of a group's page to be more NPOV is in fact against the rules. Warning now.--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:48, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
Apparently he's been warned twice already, and so I was forced to ban. Wasn't on this page, never made it to ban before so it wasn't in the logs, because of those two he wasn't in Vandal Data.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:13, 11 March 2006 (GMT)


Main page ad-bot. Special:Contributions/Yptphc --Brizth W! 18:51, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Banned.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:42, 10 March 2006 (GMT)


see this: (cur) (last) 01:30, 10 March 2006 Duce Nauks (Lets see how you guys like it.)

I have been typing on thier wiki, same as they have been talking to us. But this takes it to far. It is in The Dakerstown Elite Army history.

Warned. you might want to title the section on this page with the name of the vandal next time.--'STER-Talk-Mod 04:01, 10 March 2006 (GMT)


Ad-bot, see here. --Brizth W! 09:47, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Banned.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:18, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

User:Red mafiya

Deleted the enimies of the RAF part the RAF page. Proof --Deathnut RAF 08:02, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Warned.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:24, 9 March 2006 (GMT)


[2]. Boring how he did the same thing. Would count this for the hez account, too. --ALIENwolve 02:23, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

That's indeed who I counted it for. Second warning.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:38, 9 March 2006 (GMT)


The Peer Rejected Page I noticed this when I was trying to look up the reasons why people spamminated my suggestion. Most of what I see that he's contributed to has been vandalism/"jokes". -- Quasispace 07:04, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

Warned.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:46, 9 March 2006 (GMT)


Clearly this is Scinfaxi. -- Amazing

Lucero Capell Again

Just look at the history of Crossman Defense Force. He keeps changing the NPOV area and, even though he asked for proof and I supplied it, he persists in reverting to his own preference in spite of evidence. This is a PARADE OF BAD FAITH EDITS and the Mod team should have done something about him the first time. -- Amazing 03:35, 5 March 2006 (GMT)


Vandalism on multiple articles. Contributions --Lint 06:45, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Reverted vandalism --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 07:46, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

All accounts of the 3-Page vandal are being banned as they are found. Please report and revert when you notice them. Thank you for the work done so far.--'STER-Talk-Mod 23:58, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

Cool duded

Vandalism on multiple articles. Contributions --Lint 06:45, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Lupcerel capriell

Vandalism on multiple articles. Contributions --Lint 06:45, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Reverted vandalism --RAF Lt.G Deathnut 07:47, 4 March 2006 (GMT)


same person as user:37583 blanked out pages including two moderator pages proof

Again reverted vandalized pages.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 05:06, 4 March 2006 (GMT)


Blanked out random pages and vandalized others. Proof--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 04:33, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

I reverted the vandalized pages.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 04:47, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Main mansss

Moved Main Page over top of Gameplay. (Contribs: [3]). I'd say (based on the name) that it's our 3-edit friend again. — g026r 20:02, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Dead wikiee

Blanked Caiger Mall Knights, Let the Living be Live Campaign, and Daikon Shinsengumi. (User contribs: [4]) — g026r 17:30, 3 March 2006 (GMT)


from responsibleforthe3pagevandles: Just reposting from below so you mods dont miss it.

read before you revert moderators. First of all I am most certainly NOT a vandal bot, in fact I take extreme offense at that thought. The reason why I do the 3 page thing is because it draw less attention to the account that I am using at that time, no more no less. Another thing is that I am changing IP adress as you can probablly already see and I never use an account twice so you should probably not even bother to ban them. Oh and also dont ban this account since there has been no vandilzations on this ones history and if you do then you will lose contact with me for a while since I have a bad temper. That is all

Don't block you or you'll get mad? Is that a threat? Well I'm sure I'll miss all the wonderful albeit horribly spelled conversation, but I'm going to take a chance on this one. Just keep vandalizing, it only takes our users a second to revert your pointless edits. And if you continue to be a nuisance we can always take your IP and have it matched with the logs your ISP keeps. Maybe without the internet you'll go outside and notice that the sun is shining. If you'd care to explain yourself, I'll give you a day. Then I'm just going to keep banning your sock puppets as they come. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:29, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
Banned --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:45, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Blanked the main page. --Grim s 21:38, 2 March 2006 (GMT)


Blanked VGCats Survivalist Union. See the history].

--John Taggart 21:29, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

He got two other pages as well, typical of our little friend. Im reverting them as i type. --Grim s 21:38, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Thank you, Grim. I was going to take care of them myself when I'd noticed you'd gotten there ahead of me. --John Taggart 22:27, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Legend X

Just vandalized my userpage.--Denzel Washington 21:10, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

I think it might have been good-faithed, but he's warned.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:39, 3 March 2006 (GMT)
Well, i should still have the screenshot somewhere on Desensitised.--Denzel Washington 12:48, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Lucero Capell

Unfortunately, Lucero has forced my hand and I must again make a vandalism report. He has edited the Crossman Defense Force page at least three times in order to post his own propaganda (not NPOV, it accuses a leader of cheating and OMG HE CAN PROVE IT IF YOU ASK HIM LOL and none of the leaders are doing anything about it publically how can this be? It's terrible!! etc. etc.) Evidence in the Crossman_Defense_Force history and the most recent case here. I Tried editing the NPOV area to be broader and TRULY NPOV, (I stated every concievable travesty one could alledge about the CDF and stated that every group suffers these claims) but he had to repost his. I archived his biased complaints when Mods failed to back the group as the rightful owner of the page. He still posted his rant at the very TOP of the Group page yet again.

I ask for a 24 hour ban as he's been warned enough times. His post was still in tact on an archive page, so there is no reason he should post it in a second location after flagrantly dismissing CDF's ownership of that page - and blatantly disregarding an edit to the NPOV section. Lucero is taking an in-game spat and bringing it to the Wiki, trying to defame a group he does not like with POV ranting he poorly disguises as NPOV info. -- Amazing 19:09, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

I believe the evidence speaks for itself. Amazing removed the NPOV section, shuffled it off to an "archive", and added a highly POV title to it. He is obviously unaware of how NPOV sections work. If that archive is indeed the actual NPOV section (which it is not) than Amazing is guilty of vandalism for adding a high and obviously POV title to it. If it is not the NPOV section, than Amazing is guilty of vandalism for removing information against his group. --Lucero Capell 20:48, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
You or anyone else are free to change the title. If you leave it I guess you don't mind that much. I am immensely glad you at least admit that you posted information against the group. So is it NPOV or against the group? You can't have it both ways. ;) -- Amazing 20:59, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Actually, no, we are not free to change the title. It is a part of your group page, and one that we non-members are not entitled to edit =P. About "against the group", you don't understand. The information is against the group, yes (as in "negative"). But it can be both. Otherwise, how else would Wikipedia have an article on Nixon? Information is presented as is, the information most certainly can be positive or negative, but that doesn't change the POV. Think about the term, Point Of View. That suggests that it concerns how it is written, not what information is written, does it not? --Lucero Capell 22:11, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
The problem with your highly flawed, borderline insane logic is that by your stated standards, I could edit your pages to include: "Someone has called Lucero Capell a problem bed-wetter." because it's true now, problem bed-wetter. (See? It's a fact now that someone called you that. Shall I place it at the top of your pages?) Any group you join, create, etc. I'll pop by and put "Someone called a member of this group a problem bed-wetter". Sure. Your logic is terrible. -- Amazing 01:20, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Amazing, in the time i have been here i have seen you do nothing but whinge, whine, and act like a complete and utter arsehole on the wiki. Every time someone says something you dont like, you delete it, and when they or someone else restores it you call it vandalism and report it. I request that you pull your head out of your arse and grow the fuck up. --Grim s 01:48, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Hahaha! Look, another lying troll from the usual gang stops by! Do point us to any other place (aside from Lucero's current bullshit) I removed someone's comment. Go ahead. Doesn't exist. ;) You're nothing but a lying little "Peanut Gallery" troll like your friend Lucero, here. Also, scroll down and you'll see that group leaders have free range to archive Talk page posts. Grow a brain you fucking mental midget. I thought you're deletion of my approved suggestion from Peer Approved was idiotic, but now you're one-upping yourself. Besides which, it's archived, not deleted you peonic cunt. -- Amazing 01:54, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Archiving, in this case, effectivly amounts to deletion. Archiving, in my opinion, should only be done when conversations are over, not when there is information you wish to hide. --Grim s 01:58, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
It's not hiding info, it's REMOVING POV COMMENTARY WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO INFLAME WIKI DRAMA, tiny bitch. Also, your opinion doesn't matter because Moderator rulings go strictly against your belief. Do your reserch, troll. -- Amazing 02:05, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
People are allowed to be POV of talk pages Amazing. As for inflaming wiki drama, you are the one who is going into hysterics because people disagree with you. --Grim s 02:16, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Let me explain it to you as if you were six years old. Group page owners have the right to archive anything. Anything. Go away or at least take this out of a public forum you histrionic whining bastard. It's sad how the my little fan club follows me around butting in on things that don't concern them with the obvious intent of creating a flame war so massive that it obscures the entire point of the report. -- Amazing 02:22, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
You can archive anything on your talk page, true, but archiving solely for the purpose of hiding information (Which is what is happening) is tantamount to deleting the comments, and deleting other peoples comments is bad. I do, however, find it amusing that you constantly play the victim when you are the antagonist. --Grim s 02:29, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Victim or no, you're the one that came running to defame and insult, Troll. It's not "Hiding comments" - It's removing malicious POV commentary from the front page. Do I have to explain this fifty more times, or will you finally understand the concept? -- Amazing 02:35, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
From what i understand, there was a comment in the NPOV section of your groups page, and the proof supporting it was placed on the talk page. You archived teh proof to hide it, and then deleted the NPOV edit, claiming it was POV simply because you do not like what it says, and then acting as though nothing bad ever happened. Also, if anyone here is the troll, it is you. Finally, explain it 50 more times if you feel like it, you will still be wrong each and every time. --Grim s 02:38, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Guess I'll drop by your user page and drop some NPOV comments on it, supported by proof. Until then, I urge you to crawl back into your shithole and leave the Moderation/Vandal Baning page alone, Troll. -- Amazing 02:41, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
You do that. However by doing so you accept full responsibility for the consequences of your actions, especially considering the fact that user pages do not have NPOV sections. Oh, and here is a better idea: Why dont you grow up and act in a civilised manner instead of being a guttermouthd immature twit? Too hard for you? --Grim s 02:49, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
I told you to crawl back where you came from, preteen queen. Do I have to draw directions to your mother's bed? Seriously man, give it up - You're just trolling and it's clear. -- Amazing 02:58, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Im the troll because you are habitually rude? When did that happen? --Grim s 03:04, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
If you had any proof of me wetting my bed and prove that it had some bearing on a group page, yes, you could place that on my group page. But I don't have a group page, sorry (and, as I'm sure you're not aware, User pages do not have NPOV sections). But unless you know something I don't, you don't. I, on the other hand, have gone so far as to give screenshots, rules, instances, though you still refuse to admit it. So, since you refuse to accept it on the talk page, I will put the NPOV section back, with the proof I provided on the talk page.
What you don't seem to realize, fool, troll, idiot, prick, is that no one has to say anything to you, because you're not King Piss of the internet. Screenshots are nothing and you posted POV COMMENTS. Piss off and go play with your fellow trolls. -- Amazing 01:58, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

We aren't just going to ban somebody whos making a good faith edit, and with no previous moderation warning. This should go to arbitration, not here. --Zaruthustra-Mod 01:56, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Do you job, please, and BAN someone who is repeatedly posting biased POV commentary at the top of a group page. Are you a Moderator or what? This guy's purposefully starting an Edit war by posting INFLAMMATORY POV COMMENTARY on the main page and REFUSING GROUP PRIVILAGE TO ARCHIVE MATERIAL. I repeat. This is vandalism to the Nth degree and you are ignoring it. -- Amazing 02:03, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
You invented that trick. You nearly got me banned when someone in my group archived some of your bullshit on our talk page, now you bitch when someone else does it to you, then archive something negative about you? You fucking hypocrite. HALF THE WIKI IS TELLING YOU TO SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN. Take our advice. MaulMachine 02:08, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Another troll comes out in something that doesn't concern him! :D I was unware of the rule before, so now I know about it. That's all there is to it. Sorry, you fail to dog-pile on Amazing. Yeah, MaulMachine got banned a couple days later anyway so no reason to listen to him. And half the wiki is like 5 or 6 people? Freak. Let's end it there. -- Amazing 02:11, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Ok, I'm just gonna throw a verdict out. If the other mods want to challenge it they can. Lucero's edits were in good faith attempting to promote an NPOV section of the wiki page. You cannot archive group pages repeatedly to suppress information. If you disagree with his information you can take it to arbitration to be evaluated. Group pages are public, and there is an expectation of balanced information in the current version. There is plenty of precendent for this. Archiving constantly and deleting the parts you dont like in the new version is tantamount to deleting them. This is different from talk pages, which are running discussions and have no expectation of current, fair, or balanced content. No action will be taken. Your archive is also pretty weak, and blatantly POV against the edits. That isn't trying to give people access to unslanted information.

Remember, when writing an NPOV section be sure it is clearly labelled. Dont just throw it in anywhere. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:34, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

How about you at least stop him from posting it at the TOP OF THE FUCKING PAGE. Can you do that one just thing? I hope so, but will probably be disappointed. -- Amazing 02:51, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
NPOV sections go at the top of the page, always have. --Lucero Capell 02:53, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Spot me 5 groups with over 20 members that have NPOV sections at the top created and used to defame the group. -- Amazing 02:55, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Taken from the groups area:

  1. Group pages are structured however you wish, but certain conventions apply:
    • The opening statement should be written from a neutral point of view, as if written from an outsider's viewpoint. This is to convey the basic information about the group to the reader, and so should be as easy to read and understand as possible.
    • Additional headlines may be added to explain the group's perspective. However, do not label anything as definite or truthful, as such things cannot be verified by external sources and therefore opens up the POV section to abuse. If you are documenting your groups actions, do not label anything as having happened for certain unless another group can verify it. (ie, the Many's assaults on human safehouses can be verified by the humans that were attacked.)
    • Slandering other groups in the NPOV section is not allowed. You cannot make baseless claims about their actions or their nature. Conflicts or treaties can be documented.
  2. Groups that are very effective at taking controversial positions in the game often inspire strong feelings. However, vandalism of group pages will not be tolerated and repeated offences will be punished with banning.
    • Adding unsubstantiated claims or "facts" to a group's page (such as "the group has recently disbanded" when they have not) is construed as vandalism and will be treated accordingly. If such information is genuinely believed to be true, it should include an appropriate disclaimer to avoid confusion.

I'm really not sure if that means the top is the NPOV or the top must be NPOV. Wait for others to weigh in. --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:07, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

I fixed the formatting, and i have generally taken that to mean everything before the first heading is the NPOV section, and if there arent any headings, the first paragraph. --Grim s 03:12, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Zar, are you saying that "some people believe" is an "appropriate disclaimer" as opposed to leaving out an unsubstantiated bit of POV info? -- Amazing 04:24, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Everyone needs to shut up. I am part of the leadership of the CDF, so I have a stake in this as well. This useless system of vandal banning does no good to anyone. 24 hour ban? Pfft. Sometimes I don't get to play for longer than that. It is sad that the wiki really outpaces the game, which should be the focus and should be enjoyed. This 'banning' crap only proves to serve as a vehicle to give what few moderators there are the power of self-importance and creates an 'elitist'-type mentality and breeds comtempt among the players at odds, therefore complicating and worsening the problem, which in turn causes more disputes, ill will and the desire for revenge/retribution. This does not promote healthy gameplay, yet perpetuates itself by causing more friction, thus more mod services. That is known as a 'vicious circle'. There are two persons at odds, yet four people, myself included, involved on this thread (or whatever its called). Why? One side should make an argument, the other side counter, a rebuttal from each, then a ruling. Instead of letting both sides get out of hand, the mod(s) should step in. It seems the mods should be better trained for diffusing situations than just handing out rulings indescriminately. It would probably put more focus on the in-game play and help players co-exist better. --Zod Rhombus 04:58, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

I'm Zod's evil twin. Or something like that. Either way he's the good one. :P heh -- Amazing 05:02, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
I find it amusing that people always complain about the rules, yet nobody has posted in policy discussion for about a month. This is your system, I just run it. Sow the wind, reap the hurricane. And believe me, if cracked down on people people, there'd be hell to pay. I don't even like handing out verdicts without consulting the other mods because somebody always screams bloody murder no matter what the outcome. --Zaruthustra-Mod 05:50, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Shame on people for trusting Mods to construct and run a working system. :\ -- Amazing 06:05, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
This is way off-topic, but it's not their responsibility to construct it. As moderators, they are only responsible for doing tasks that normal users cannot do (such as protecting and banning). As normal users, we do have the ability to create or propose policy. Since it's not a "moderator-exclusive" task, it's not their "job" to construct the system, though they are certainly not forbidden from doing it. --Lucero Capell 06:13, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
You start off going against what I said, then you end up exactly where I was. -- Amazing 06:15, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Mods don't write the rules at all. In fact its generally frowned upon for wiki sysops to determine the policy alone since its a conflict of interest. That policy discussion page isn't just decorative, its for writing laws. I'm going to take the initiative and start proposing new rules and policy there now. Heads up guys, this might effect you in the very near future. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:21, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
Already replied there. Since you guys don't go by past rulings at all, which I thought was the 'law of the land', it stands to reason you do need to establish rules, otherwise you're a bunch of folks enforcing nothing.. Handing down judgements on people where there was no rule against what they did. Well, that's Lucero and I, working toward a better tomorrow! -- Amazing 06:26, 2 March 2006 (GMT)


read before you revert moderators. First of all I am most certainly NOT a vandal bot, in fact I take extreme offense at that thought. The reason why I do the 3 page thing is because it draw less attention to the account that I am using at that time, no more no less. Another thing is that I am changing IP adress as you can probablly already see and I never use an account twice so you should probably not even bother to ban them. Oh and also dont ban this account since there has been no vandilzations on this ones history and if you do then you will lose contact with me for a while since I have a bad temper. That is all

Vandalised Bug Reports, UDnD, and MPGeeks. I believe this is a vandalbot we are dealing with. --Grim s 05:37, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

100% chance. Should we group these into one itemized report? -- Amazing 05:40, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Warned. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 06:03, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
As a note, I expect that you may be right - the various vandalisms below do seem to be 100% in pattern. A problem, of course, is how this is going to be handled, as it seems to be a pretty smart bot - It's changing usernames every three edits, and is probably changing IPs as well. If we get anymore, I'm going to start banning them outright, though the last set will only get warned (I expect that those accounts aren't going to be used again anyway, so banning them is probably not going to be much use anyway). -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 06:12, 1 March 2006 (GMT)


Vandalised Ridleybank, The Carew Museum, and Underground Special Forces --Grim s 05:33, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Warned. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 06:08, 1 March 2006 (GMT)


Seeing a pattern here? Deleted Crossman Defense Force page after Lucero Capell's peonically biased, yet of course Mod approved, edits. -- Amazing 05:30, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Man. You *really* need to chill the fuck out. --Jorm 05:33, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
No one was talking to you. -- Amazing 05:34, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Ya know, as a public wiki, the problems of other users can, and in fact probably should, be the problems of everyone else on the wiki. That is, in fact, much of the reasoning behind Arbitration and such. Comments of other users (especially users that aren't involved in a given situation) can often be invaluable as a guide what the situation may look like from an objective perspective. In short, He has the right to speak, Amazing, and I'd much appreciate it if you stopped sniping users that wish to comment, even if they aren't involved in the conflict. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 05:58, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
He was right to speak, I was right to speak. Can you dispute the factual nature of my reply? O_o He wrote a flamebait message to me and he got a pissy responce from me. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Amazing 06:00, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Telling you to calm down is a flamebait response? -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 06:04, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
"Chill the fuck out" from someone I've ONLY had foul dealings with in the past in a topic that, honestly, did not involve him in any way? Yes. Yes it is, Odd. -- Amazing 06:05, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Warned. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 06:06, 1 March 2006 (GMT)


Deleted Suggestions, Valentine's Day Massacre, and The Marfell Building. --Grim s 05:28, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Warned. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 06:10, 1 March 2006 (GMT)


Mostly blanked this page. --RedKnight 05:23, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Warned. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 06:14, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Amazing (Renewed)

Vandalized the Crossman Defense Force page by removing the NPOV section. I am willing to admit that the NPOV section could be reworked to be more NPOV, but that should be achieved by editing it, not blanking unwanted information (that is the spirit of wiki, isn't it?). He purports that the deletion of the entire section "fixes" the NPOV problem. here is one of the edits in question. The page is currently as left by Amazing because I don't want to clutter up the recent changes area with another revert war (sidenote, but perhaps a 3r rule could be implemented here, similar to Wikipedia?). Though it is beside the point, I asked Amazing if he would like to create the NPOV section and we can continue from there, but he has flatly refused.

Amazing, if you would reply, I'd appreciate it, but I will not respond until a moderator has spoken. --Lucero Capell 22:49, 28 February 2006 (GMT)

I would like to renew this report. Amazing has (again) deleted the NPOV section instead of editing it as should be done. After trying to twist the rules (unsuccessfully) by "archiving" the NPOV section (something completely and utterly against everything that is wiki). Either way, he has vandalized something, one of which was in good faith, the other of which most certainly was not. In the "archive", he has added a most blatant POV title to what he claims is the NPOV section. If this is ruled to be the actual NPOV section, Amazing is guilty of bad faith edits and vandalism. If it is not the actual NPOV section, than that title is admissable as any other piece of information on that page, but again removed it, despite being told by moderators in no uncertain terms that NPOV sections are considered to be "public" areas. --Lucero Capell 20:56, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

To reply to your absurdly tacked-on statements, NPOV sections are public areas? Well I'm a member of the public. Perhaps you missed that bit of info. I edited the section heavily, I did not delete it -- Stop lying or go away, troll. Giving an NPOV area a POV title is a gray area at best. You gave it no title to begin with thusly, it wasn't really a well established NPOV area at all. Ever. Goooodbye, Lucero. Your "Case" is so fragile and sickly that one nudge topples the whole thing over. -- Amazing 21:04, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Yes, you are a member of the public. Congratulations. You did delete the section, on several occasions, actually. Just because you "absurdly tacked-on" a statement as an afterthought does not change that. You deleted the information within that section. That is vandalism. As for "grey area", it is more certainly not. The "title" is actually a "section title". You added that into the NPOV section. As for "no title at all", here's a news flash for ya. There are quite a few NPOV sections without titles around here. It's how it's done, I know you don't realize it, but it's time you learn. --Lucero Capell 22:16, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
That and a nickle will get you five cents. Move it to my talk page, your talk page, or no page. That's all she wrote. -- Amazing 01:30, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Sorry, but Group pages are property of said group and I was within my rights as a group leader. This is what I get for giving Lucero a warning about his vandalism instead of reporting him. Everyone's sick of seeing my name, I know, but this is one I didn't bring here! lol. I also said I might make an NPOV statement on the page! - Lucero's simply a liar, it's all on the Wiki. I, as well as my fellow leaders, decide what does or does not stay on the page. Not archiving it seems like a bad thing here, but I already archived his similar dissent on the talk page, so what.. I have to archive every bit of complaining vandalism he commits? I don't think so. Besides which, not archiving a removal I had every right to make may be 'bad form' but it's not vandalism. Period. I should also point out that Lucero has been a "Chime-In" annoyance in a few unrelated discussions now, and is simply provoking further aggrivation (Boy, he sure would appreciate my reply). A short while ago, I would have left his baised commentary on the page, thinking I had to as per Wiki rules. Recently I have come to understand that I was allowed to remove it - so here we are. -- Amazing 23:06, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Heres how I think this goes down. Its not vandalism because it was good faith. Theres no such thing as good faith vandalism. If it was a substantiated NPOV claim, which I'm not even going to get into, it has a right to exist. Page owners don't have carte blanche control over group page info. On talk page you have more power. At any rate this really should have gone to arbitration first, not here. I would also pose that perhaps this would be a lot easier if we would actually write rules down instead of depending on unfinished policy discussions and weak precendent that we may or may not have even heard of. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:16, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
I can take that, thanks Zaruthustra. I apologize for bringing this here, I agree it would have been better placed in Arbitration. Would you prefer we take it there, or just finish it here while we're at it? It seems that Amazing isn't ready to admit the precedent for NPOV sections. I would also agree that we really need some clarification on this issue. Is the Policy Discussion page the only area to propose new policy? It seems that there's a discussion on that page dealing with this issue, but it seems to be pretty much dead. --Lucero Capell 05:12, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
On the contrary, I believe it's been stated that Groups have control of their page. I already archived Lucero's complaint, so there was no need to archive the second. I will archive the second if you ask, but I am fully within my rights as stated clearly just days previous. Lucero's edits were in bad faith, as can be clearly seen. His statement was a very basic "I TOLD THEM THEY HAD A ZERGER!! AMAZING DIDN'T DO ANYTHING! ZERGERS!! ZERGERS!!" The notion that anyone can go onto any group's page and slander them -- and it must then be allowed to stand when there have been previous rulings that groups own their page -- is laughable.
Despite what you may say about past precident, that's all we normal users have to go on, so that is the law of the land as it stands. -- Amazing 02:32, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
I'm gonna wait for others to weigh in on this. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:54, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Well we can at least all agree that a group owner editing a group page to remove a very thinly veiled POV slam of said group is not vandalism. -- Amazing 03:15, 1 March 2006 (GMT)~
Amazing, You have carte blanche control over everything but the "NPOV" section of the Group page, and I believe that that's been quite established previously (and in fact, we've made no ruling that has ever put that little nugget in jeopardy). With that said, You are still welcome to edit your NPOV section if you feel that it does not accurately reflect the group. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod | W! 04:49, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Thanks, Odd Starter. If it's not too much to ask, could I have you or another moderator (as an unbiased outsider) take a look at the NPOV section to see if it's acceptable? --Lucero Capell 05:12, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
It's now a bit out of date by group standards and will be archived. Moderators - I suggest you don't support biased POV edits to group pages in the future, even if they misleadingly claim to be NPOV. -- Amazing 05:23, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
*blinkblink* Well, I really don't need to say much. One Crossman_Defense_Force/Archive1. Good faith? --Lucero Capell 05:41, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Kudos for reporting something I just said I was going to do. It's accessable to any visitor to the page, unedited. It's archived becuase CDF's official lifespan for NPOV commentary on the main page is 1 minute. As I say it's there and unedited, so it's not vandalism. Is Move-alism an offense now? To quote 'STER, it's old when we say it's old. -- Amazing 05:43, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
You have got to be the most childish person with a page on this wiki, I think.--Jorm 05:48, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Glad no one cares what you think. :) Mind if I make a few NPOV edits to your userpage? -- Amazing 05:49, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Wow. A *threat*. And I thought my opinion of you couldn't get any lower. Nice to know that the world still holds surprises for me.--Jorm 05:51, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Double Wow. You took sarcasm as a threat. Additional Kudos for being incredibly Dense. My point is - You wouldn't want me making fake "NPOV" comments on your page, and I don't want people making fake "NPOV" comments on my group page. There's no threat there, but if it makes you feel like you're better than someone else, you can continue to believe that. (Besides which it wasn't phrased anything REMOTELY like a threat.. even a veiled one. Actually I think you're just being dishonest in the hopes of scoring pity points.) Just go away man, the last thing this massive farce needs is another Troll. -- Amazing 05:54, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

If the rules are going to state that Groups have to accept malicious defamation: Here Ya Go. -- Amazing 03:29, 1 March 2006 (GMT)