UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2006 04

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
	2020

April 2006

Krazy Monkey

Violating rule 13 of the suggestions page (Which is very clear on the matter):

Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered
vandalism and treated appropriately by moderators. If you want to post a joke suggestion
put it on the Humorous Page.

Link --Grim s-^Mod 19:25, 30 April 2006 (BST)

You don't have to report it here. Go ahead and warn him.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:33, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I'm sorry, I wont do it again, I put it in the wrong place. I use firefox and had the wrong tab open. I was about to move it but Mr Grim comes in acting all Modish and tells me off for an honest mistake. Then he said my idea was shit. Krazy Monkey 19:39, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I never said your idea was shit. I said "shit like this", which is a figure of speech, even if slightly vulgar. --Grim s-^Mod 19:58, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, looks good faith, i'm not going to warn you. Actually, I thought your idea was quite funny. Try and take anything Grim says with a pinch of salt, he's often right but he can be a bit harsh.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:51, 30 April 2006 (BST)

The rule states that "Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism". Thank you for completely undermining it right off the bat. As written, good faith does not come into play. People should read the rules and follow them. --Grim s-^Mod 19:56, 30 April 2006 (BST)

This is total overreaction and exactly the reason why I think codifying humorous suggestions as vandalism is a bad idea. The kid's sorry; let him go. Punishing people for shit like this just undermines the wiki community, makes them feel like they shouldn't even bother contributing, and creates bad blood.--Jorm 21:15, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Yes they should, but he's obviously sorry and I think a verbal warning is sufficient punishment for a first offence.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:59, 30 April 2006 (BST)

And i think that you, by doing so, have set a dangerous precident that undermines the very reason behind the rule being implimented. Now we have to let absolutely everyone go who says sorry and says they wont do it again. --Grim s-^Mod 20:06, 30 April 2006 (BST) Edit - Not to mention the fact that this precident has tro extend to every other clear cut vandalism case. So now someone like PQN can come in, blank a few hundred pages, promise never to don it again, apologise, and get away with it. Of course, im extending it to absurd lengths to make my point absolutely clear. --Grim s-^Mod 20:12, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Grim, I think that what makes this not a big deal is this. He posted a humorous suggestion on the serious suggestion page. I voted humorous, you voted vandalism, he moved it to humorous suggestions. He apologized too. If every vandal apologized and fixed their vandalism, wouldn't that make life easier on everyone? -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 20:16, 30 April 2006 (BST)

We've always been lead more trough the spirit of the rule then the letter of the rule. the spirit of the rule is to combat bad-faith suggestions. That, it still does. you take it to literal.--Vista ^W! 20:18, 30 April 2006 (BST)

With no action the rule is dead. The spirit of that rule was to prevent those things from being posted. The threat of such edits being treated as vandalism was held up to enforce that rule. Now that the rule has been broken, and the threat not carried through, the rule is now officially meaningless, and a deadly precident has been set. Thats what pissed me off. Not the fact that its this person in particular has gotten away with something (I personally bear him no ill will), its the fact that the rule is now completely meaningless, and may as well be removed from the page, and the the fact that apologising and promising never to do it again is now a valid defense. A rule, if not enforced, is as if there was no rule at all. --Grim s-^Mod 20:31, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, so you are getting all worked up because I put a joke in the wrong place because the wrong tab on my browser was open. I meant to put it in humourous suggestions because I've already put some in there so I know where they go. I realised my mistake and set about correcting it. I have apologised and won't do it again. The next time you make a mistake, I'll go on about it for half an hour and we'll see how you feel. I know you are a moderator and have to "upholf the law" but I personally you're taking it a bit far. Krazy Monkey 20:34, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Grim, remember that the rationale for vandal banning is one of damage limitation, not punishment. We don't punish users for vandalism, we just warn/ban them to limit the damage. We certainly don't punish users for punishment's sake. At any rate, you may want to remember that all vandalism offenses are still predicated on the idea that a person is deliberately doing it, not mistakenly doing it. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 23:44, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Nice to see a Mod worse than me. Wonder how long his pass will last. -- Amazing 20:29, 30 April 2006 (BST)

If you have anything of value to add to this discussion, do so. If you feel like trolling, fuck off. --Grim s-^Mod 20:31, 30 April 2006 (BST)

No you fuck off! Zomg Modination. Seriously, though - If you can't take someone pointing out that you're a bad moderator, be a good moderator. This is my comment, and I think it applies since you're rabidly attacking someone for what looks like a mistake. --Amazing 20:36, 30 April 2006 (BST)

As odd as this sounds I agree with Amazing, not all of it but a bit. Grim, take a break, get yourself a cupcake, and maybe some prozac. There is a diffrence between vandalism, and making an honest mistake. If we go about following the rules with no exception we'd never get anyone new because we'd have banned them all. If we applied this strategy to real life a good chunk of the population would be in jail for jaywalking. Just because we don't outright ban someone the first time they break the rules does not inhibit a mod's ability to enforce the rules. This is not the American legal system, we don't rely on precedent for all our judgements. A good moderator knows the diffrence between when they need to warn/ban someone, and when they need to remind or point something out that the person may have missed. Velkrin 22:03, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I have to agree with the sentiments of the above detractors, the job of moderator is one which requires a certain amount of subjective judgment in cases such as this. No one is perfect, we all make mistakes. What happened here was just that, and I imagine if you had simply asked him to move it, he would have happily done so. Instead, in what I have seen to be common fashion, you felt it necessary to blow things out of proportion and cause unnecessary grief for all who take the time to read this page. Thank you for that. --John Rove 23:02, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Amazįng

You know the drill. I think I know who it is, too. -- Amazing 08:18, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Idiot gave me their IP address, 64.246.18.83 - by resetting my password. Houston, TX. -- Amazing 08:51, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I look on my forums and see a "Guest". Checking their IP I see it is 129.120.108.78 - University of North Texas. Seems to be coming together. The timing is perfect as well. The question is... will this person come clean or do I have to post personal info again because it's directly associated with this Wiki and proving wrongdoing? I think some of us know who this is already. -- Amazing 08:54, 30 April 2006 (BST)

As of this post, have recieved 151 new password change notifications in a row. Luckily gmail makes deailing with them such a breeze that it's almost easier than if I had recieved none. -- Amazing 09:06, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Banned the IP that was resetting your password for 48 hours. I'm going to ban the account as well.--The General ^{W! Mod} 09:42, 30 April 2006 (BST)

We've only got Amazing's word that that's the guys IP. For all we know Amazng is Amazing, he never got any real pw change notifications, and that IP belongs to someone he just doesn't like. I'm not saying that because it's Amazing, I'm saying that because I'd say it to anyone in this situation. It sounds like a setup to get someone kicked off the wiki.--'STER-Talk-Mod 15:52, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I doubt he would do that, anyway, it has happened before and odd starter banned the offending IP. However, to prove that you're not lieing, send me one of the password change notifications as proof. Send them to: "the.true.general@googlemail.com".--The General ^{W! Mod} 18:02, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Guess what, STER. I'll change my gmail pass and let you log in and take a look if you want. That proposal is open to any Mod who wants to look. General, I'll send you one, I assume you don't want all of them, correct? I deleted the old ones but still have the 59 from today. -- Amazing 20:22, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I just realised that it didn't recgnise that I was blocking an ip and simply looked for a user with that name. How do I get it to ban that IP rather than treat it as a username?--The General ^{W! Mod} 18:18, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Is it just me or did someone change the name I was reporting? Could be that the character used as a "i" isn't showing up on this other computer. Anyway, I've recieved 59 more password reset e-mails. -- Amazing 20:22, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Here, General it seems you accidentally changed the name of the person I was reporting. Just a heads-up so the correct name gets blocked. -- Amazing 20:25, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Recieved another 540-something notices. Luckily Gmail puts them together as big messages for easy deletion. -- Amazing 21:19, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I banned the right guy, I noticed and went through your user page and found his real name, don't know how I managed to change the name reported though. As there have been more today i'm going to bump the accounts ban to a week.--The General ^{W! Mod} 21:26, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Appreciated. All I can say about the name is that some funky shit goes on with those characters sometimes. I've only ever seen them turned into boxes though, but it stands to reason they might totally disappear as well. -- Amazing 21:29, 30 April 2006 (BST)

On the subject of the vanishing letter, I suspect it's a browser issue. Either due to security or not having the correct font it may not display certain alphabets, such as Russian, due to the simplicity of replacing a letter of English with one of the substitute language. The boxing effect you mention is a common sign of the font not being installed, normally seen in Internet Explorer. Suffice to say said tactic tends to be used in phishing, and I recall something about Mozilla banning the usage of some alphabet with their browser in order to protect users. I have changed it back for the sake of clarity and clerkly. Though I suspect the browser may use the wrong letter despite using copy/paste. Velkrin 22:14, 30 April 2006 (BST)

1146356957&1146357012&1146357068

Me and grim kind of did it simultaneously.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:38, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Word. That's team work:P. Sorry if my links are out of place like crazy for some reason.--Changchad 01:40, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Next time a link to that user contributions would be better like this: Grim s Contributions --Grim s-^Mod 07:22, 30 April 2006 (BST)

User:Gilant

User Gilant has been editing our group page, though he is not a member of our group. He contends he is adding a NPoV, however his means of doing so is not consistent with the Group page editing guidelines which require such content precede the first heading. (Also, I've never seen other group pages with so-called NPoV content at the top, I suspect this is an antiquated guideline.) I note from the guidelines that "Groups are quite allowed to place users on PK lists," which is all we're doing here. Request Gilant be warned/prevented from further editing our group page. --John Ember 16:27, 29 April 2006 (BST)

He is adding perfectly correct NPOV material. If it is that important to you that it goes before the first heading then move it to before the first heading. I shall not be warning him for this.--The General ^{W! Mod} 17:09, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Good to know, thanks General. I will keep this in mind in editing others' group pages. --John Ember 17:44, 29 April 2006 (BST)

The NPOV paragraph is not a requirement, and thus groups that no one has any unfriendly info about often don't have them--they're unnecessary. It is a requirement that if a user makes one, so long as it is truly NPOV, no other user shall delete it. You're right he is not allowed to put his disclimer after the first heading if you don't want it there, but if he wants to put it at the beginning you have to let him.--'STER-Talk-Mod 18:39, 29 April 2006 (BST)

1146294729 and 1146294672

Ad-bots, though they alse created some empty pages (without ads). --Brizth ^{M T} 09:12, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Yeah, i banned them. Dont think it will make a difference though. --Grim s-^Mod 10:15, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Amazinġ

Vandalized Amazing's sig here, An arbitration ruling here, and his user page here. And probably more to come. – Nubis ^NWO 01:34, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing's Userpage hit again – Nubis ^NWO 01:38, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Warned.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:39, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Past 5 edits or so, check history – Nubis ^NWO 01:44, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Yes, but they happened before the warning. If he does anything timestamped after 01:39 tell us.--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:10, 29 April 2006 (BST)

How are you going to ban amazing for vandalizing amazing? Rasher 05:57, 29 April 2006 (BST)

The g has a tilde above it or whatever you call it. It's a different account designed to look like his. --Prosperina 06:09 29 April 2006

This is pretty clearly the same person who did just this on a previous occasion. Can we assume if he makes a third variation he will get a third "first" warning? -- Amazing 07:29, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Ah, the pleasures that come along with being so massively targetted. -- Amazing 06:38, 29 April 2006 (BST)

More from above user

Here ya go. Warning 2. Then 3, then a ban. Then he makes a new name and gets warning 1 again. lol. There are actually a couple new edits so I'd suggest warnings 2 & 3 done together with an immediate ban. -- Amazing 07:51, 29 April 2006 (BST)

[1] Did it again --Sirens^{T RR} 07:55, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Considering that it is quite plain that the only purpose of the account is to vandalise your page, i've given him a 24 hour ban. Drop me a message if he pops up again and i'll reban him.--The General ^{W! Mod} 12:46, 29 April 2006 (BST)

PQN 14

He's back. - CthulhuFhtagn 19:47, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Blocked by Spiro.--'STER-Talk-Mod 23:22, 28 April 2006 (BST)

User:Mrs Fitting

Sorry if ive done something wrong here--im new at this. Our page The Wandererswas just deleted by Mrs Fittings. Member of the Four Horses, in the game this person attacked and killed one of our characters. We returned the favor to Mayor Fittings and I guess the person took it badly and deleted our website. Not very cool at all. Question, is there any way to get back all this information? I am not going to touch it until i get some advice. Thanks and hope i did all properly. --Lovemachine 03:36, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I reverted it for you. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 03:53, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Thanks alot, how can i do this so i dont have to keep bugging individuals, or is it a mod only thing?--Lovemachine 03:57, 28 April 2006 (BST)

You can edit old revisions in exactly the same way you edit the current version of the page. Just go to the last good version and re-submit it as the current version. --Sindai 04:10, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Yes, using the history tab you can view and revert to old versions of a page. I warned Fitting. --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:13, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Cool thanks a lot! --Lovemachine 04:23, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Fun Fact: This is not the first time she's been on the page. I direct you here. Velkrin 08:45, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Saromu

Created The Amazing Saga and The Epic Battle, clearly useless, to stir up more drama. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 02:09, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Extremely bad taste, but didn't violate any rule. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:36, 28 April 2006 (BST)

It was pretty funny though, I mean, Chicken nights? come on! also he deleted the content himself afterwards as a show of good faith I think -¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 02:40, 28 April 2006 (BST)

It was a given that I knew it was wrong when I admitted it 5 times, voted to delete it, and deleted it myself. Saromu 02:42, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Then you really shouldn't post it at all, because we consider that vandalism. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:43, 28 April 2006 (BST)

How do you vandalize your own page? Saromu 02:58, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalism means any edit not made in good faith. If you knew it was wrong when you posted it, it's not in good faith.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:11, 28 April 2006 (BST)

You guys are kidding, right? There's no way this is vandalism. Maybe bad taste, whatever, but no more so than all those zillions of stupid templates and the like, and I don't see anyone getting vandal reports about those. He pulled the content; voted to have it deleted; lay off. --Jorm 04:13, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Bad faith edits used to create pages are still edits in bad faith. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 18:47, 28 April 2006 (BST)

You guys seriously need to find better hobbies than trying to find wiki drama everywhere. This shit is starting to turn into a fuckin' witchhunt.--Jorm 18:54, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Communists! I smell Communists. Anyone who disagrees with me must be a Communist! Saromu 20:59, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Wow, I actually agree with Jorm! Well, there's a first for everything. ;) I never actually saw the pages in question, but I have to agree that, however wrong or inappropriate they might have been, you can't be reported for writing some horrible page and then agreeing after the fact it should be deleted. The mods could warn or ban him, but it's not, IMHO, an incidence of vandalism. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 21:52, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I'm a bit abrupt and full of piss-and-vinegar, but I like to think that I'm at least *fair*.--Jorm 21:59, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I disagree with this, as what would you warn him for? You have to either believe he did something that is considered vandelizing and therefore he deserves a warning- even though he agreed that it was non-necessary, or believe that he is alright. We've had many non-necessary pages created on this wiki, and we've NEVER called vandel because of it. --Karlsbad

MRBboy2005

Changing votes, comments on the deletions page.--Mpaturet 02:03, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Evidence: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Moderation/Deletions&diff=prev&oldid=220872 -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 02:14, 28 April 2006 (BST)
Also vandalized my profile page. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASaromu&diff=220949&oldid=220783 Saromu 02:37, 28 April 2006 (BST)

He also vandalized the RRF page. I was going to ban him even whitout this third evidence. He is out for 24h. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:42, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Was he unbanned? He just told me that he was unbanned because he claimed it was ok with me. Because it isn't. That was wrong what he did. Saromu 03:30, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Nikku

Cleared the Main Page here. – Nubis ^NWO 21:36, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Jabrall

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Whittenside&diff=219969&oldid=217071 Cleared Whittenside page. forgot to sign it first, thanks Brizth--Changchad 19:14, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Mrs Fitting

HereAs well as in the discussion tab of the page but i dont know how to direct link you. It almost feels a bit pointless to report it since if banned the user will probably just register another name and do it again. But still it needs to be known. Seen 10:20, 27 april 2006 (GMT)

Hmm... That does seem pretty clear vandalism. Warned. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 10:53, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Micheal.j

Here. Clearly vandalism and not a mistake. We all know who this person is affiliated with, if he is not actually one of those folks using a fake name. I'd appreciate action on this as opposed to ignoring. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 02:03, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Banned. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:29, 27 April 2006 (BST)
- Um... Why? Its a first offense, so warning, not banning. --Grim s-^Mod 08:34, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I've unblocked him, infinite banning is not an appropriate action for a first offense.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:31, 27 April 2006 (BST)

LibrarianBrent

Moved the Moderation/Deletion/Amazing page from deletions back to speedy deletions illegally after it had been disqualified from Speedy Deletions by recieving several Keep votes. He also deleted the sixteen votes (Including eight keeps) it recieved in the process (The Vandalism). I quote from the guidelines:

A Speedy Deletion may be circumvented by a single vote of Keep under the request.
If this occurs, the Moderator  shall move the  Speedy Deletion request to the 
Deletion Request Queue, where the normal rules for Deletion of the page  shall 
apply.

As this shows, it was clearly moved well within the rules by recieving my keep vote, and then shifted over to deletions. I contend that he blatantly disregarded the guidelines of this page by moving his request back to the Speedy deletions page, and blatantly violated the accepted norms of the wiki by deleting the votes on the request. --Grim s-^Mod 05:47, 26 April 2006 (BST)

By request: Here he removes it from deletions , and Here he adds it back to Speedy Deletions Please not the suspicious absense of numerous votes. --Grim s-^Mod 05:59, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Oh, and here is where i legally removed it from Speedy Deletions: Link --Grim s-^Mod 06:02, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Seems to be a good faith edit by a seasoned Mod who apparently had a reason to do so, though his info may have been off (not sure). Newbie Mod and long standing troll has no case. (Personal opinion) If Grim deleting my community announcement isn't vandalization, this REALLY isn't.

Your report also needs a link to when it was "justly" moved out of Speedy Deletions the FIRST time to show it was supposed to be moved - as well as a link where Brent moved it back. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 05:49, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Except he didn't break any rules. This did--Mpaturet 05:53, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Feel free to offer the links I just asked for in my edit, and yes, Grim did break the rules by bad-faith (according to his own statment in the deletion) deleting info that was right to be placed there. That's not a debate you're starting here. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 05:55, 26 April 2006 (BST)

This was a good-faith edit- you had originally said that there were no reasons for this to be a speedy deletion, so I re-submitted the request with the appropriate reasons included. --LibrarianBrent 06:00, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Incorrect. I said this, taken from the history:

Moderator note: Moved from Speedy deletions to deletions due to ineligability for speedy deletion and reciept of a keep vote. --Grim s-^Mod 12:43, 25 April 2006 (BST)

So Grim s Voted and Immediately moved it himself, and Brent replaced it with changes to make it more appropriate. Sounds like two Moderators with a disagreement about how to handle such an instance. Suggest taking it to policy discussion instead of making someone decide a case where there's no clear vandalism due to a person's right to restate their case when questioned, which was circumvented by Grim, not giving enough time for Brent to make the case Grim asked him to. After all he'd "Vote Keep anyway" so Brent should get no opportunity to respond, right? -_- -- Amazing 06:07, 26 April 2006 (BST)

I considered "vote keep anyway" to be snowcloning hyperbole, not a literal statement of fact. I feel as if the Speedy Deletion and Deletion rules need to be re-evaluated as a result of cases like this- clearly, there's something wrong here. --LibrarianBrent 06:11, 26 April 2006 (BST)

IMNSHO, Clearly "working" the system by voting and removing in a minute's time. This happens a lot. (working the system I mean, not specifically this.) -- Amazing 06:07, 26 April 2006 (BST)

LibrarianBrent. Despite the fact you should have known better than to delete 15 votes (And keep MiaKristos's vote, for some reason), im willing to drop the charges if you promise not to make such a mistake again. --Grim s-^Mod 06:12, 26 April 2006 (BST)

I agree. I'm going to rule for the moment that since it now currently had more Keeps than Grim's vote, It should probably stay in Deletions (and that frankly, I'd have issues with it being a Speedy Deletion myself). I'm not going to warn LB (since it's pretty obvious good faith) and just note that we'll let the Deletions process rule this case, and I'm going to clarify that if a Speedy Deletion is moved to Deletions, it's probably best to leave it in there. If it's clearly Speedy Deletion material, then in theory the votes should bear that out. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 06:14, 26 April 2006 (BST)

I fully accept this judgement. --Grim s-^Mod 06:18, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Thanks for clearing that issue up, Odd. --LibrarianBrent 06:20, 26 April 2006 (BST)

User:I.V

Vandalized this page. - CthulhuFhtagn 21:07, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Warned.--The General ^{W! Mod} 21:22, 25 April 2006 (BST)

I fail to see how thats vandalism...it was just a one off joke...come on...cut me some slack--1337 07:27, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Slack? We don't do slack here. You must have this wiki confused with somewhere else. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 10:03, 27 April 2006 (BST)

If you look in his contribs you will find that he has vandalised before.--The General ^{W! Mod} 22:28, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing

Repeatedly vandalized the SaveTheWhales template. Regardless of the template's intent, of which Amazing is obviously aware of, despite what he says, He continually edits the template to "thwart" its purpose. His edits are obviously and admittedly purposed to "thwart" (in his own words) the original intent of the template. Though he says that it should be left to the creator whether he likes the changes, Amazing has not posed the question to the author of the template on his talk page, and Amazing is already well aware of the purpose of the template and that his edits are not made in good faith. --Lucero Capell 21:27, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing is now vandalizing the GANKBUS page. Rasher 22:00, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Since he asked me not to contact him via his talk page, I've decided to ask Amazing here. Please stop editing the template. Please. Think of the whales. :'(--Mpaturet 22:26, 24 April 2006 (BST)
Isn't calling someone a whale an insult, especially towards overweight people? --Karlsbad 00:41, 25 April 2006 (BST)

A) Calling someone a whale is a compliment. B) I'm not calling anyone a whale. C) All glory to the hypnotoad. --Mpaturet 00:43, 25 April 2006 (BST)

A) I disagree, and therefore there is room for debate B) According to credible Journalism, using a Picture of a person with an associated Headline is equal to labeling the person in the text itself. C) Hypnnnnoooooo Toooooooadddddd.... Wait, what? I Love this Template! All of Mpaturet's interpretations are correct! I am not disregarding common sense by agreeing with him! --Karlsbad 00:57, 25 April 2006 (BST)

The vandalism was the CREATION of that template, and LUCERO committed vandalism by replacing the Whale image which was IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTENT. Lucero needs a warning now. -- Amazing 01:07, 25 April 2006 (BST)

That's actually not for you to decide.--Hypnotoad 01:51, 25 April 2006 (BST) Also, now that it's changed to the hypnotoad do you really want to continue your feeble case?

Thanks for coming around. -- Amazing 04:21, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Lucero Uploaded an image of me I had removed from the Wiki. This is not allowed, as stated by Moderators in previous instances. This image was not available for him to use, so he uploaded it himself. Ban immediately. -- Amazing 01:26, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Mmhmm, yessir Mr. Moderator. You uploaded it yourself, don't complain to me if you made that mistake. --Lucero Capell 01:29, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Once I removed it, you were no longer allowed to use it. BAN. -- Amazing 01:36, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Mmhmm, whatever. Anyway, just to placate you and save the wiki from more of your unending drama, I changed it back to your version. --Lucero Capell 01:56, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Thanks for coming around. -- Amazing 04:21, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Scinfaxi

Tried to remove his Arbitration case from the Wikigate list. Here --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 10:34, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Reverted. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 10:35, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Reverted my revert. Also is trying to close the case on the basis that he doesn't accept it. Here is the revert. Here is the attempt at closing the case. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 10:46, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Reverted. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 10:48, 24 April 2006 (BST)

- Query: While I don't agree with the deletions, isn't the idea of arbitration that the two sides decide to allow another person to settle their argument? So therefore if he doesn't want to arbitrate, the case is null and void in the arbitration sense. That'd be correct right? BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 14:11, 24 April 2006 (BST)
  - You'd think so, but no: In assisting in Arbitration, we generally suggest that both parties agree to the Arbitration. This is not, by any means, a requirement, but we do require that both parties be represented in procedings. at this point an arbitrator can close the case or amazing can retract it, but thats it. (interesting legalistic point, you could bring the case up yourself, change your mind, and have to sit trough it when the accussed wants to go forward with it.) there quite a lot of holes if people want to frustrate the procedings. and yeah the system is due for an overhaul. wether or not Scinfaxi knew this or even thought about it is a different matter, but he quit doing it since notificated--Vista ^W! 14:20, 24 April 2006 (BST)

At the very least he should get a warning, because he has been told before that he has to sit it out. He knew what he was doing - he tried to revert it back! I have given a warning for far less - in my case it was a good faith edit. This was malicious. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 15:57, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I'm sure Scinfaxi appreciates the verbal gang-bang from Amazing and his associates. It's probably better if one of you exclusively post here instead of making it look like you have a lot of support. Rasher 20:25, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Can't take it when you're not the only ones ganging up on someone? Sad whiner. -- Amazing 20:55, 24 April 2006 (BST)~

PQN 13

Need I say more? Eh, just check his contribs. -- Amazing 08:13, 24 April 2006 (BST) Ah PQN is a classic noob. HE vandalises pages just because he thinks he's great and really just because he can. He likes being the rebal. Just leave him be and ignore him...revert his edits ban him and ignore him...it's easy--Ompa lompa 02:23, 27 April 2006 (BST) VANDALIZEM!? FUCK OFF! I merly submitted a fucking MOD application you stupid cunt!-- PQN 13

Did you forget that you blanked my page? :( And after I supported your Mod bid, too! Everyone's so cruel to me. *single tear* -- Amazing 08:19, 24 April 2006 (BST)

learn to spell, get a life. I hate to do it, but I agree 100% with Amazing here. Let's not let it happen again ;)--Mpaturet 08:18, 24 April 2006 (BST)

If ya'd just leave me alone, we'd get along fine. Wait, what? -- Amazing 08:19, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Shocking no?

I am now officially taking a personal interest in this case, because of your vicious vandalism of my own talk page. No-one vandalises my talk page and gets away with it! --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 08:20, 24 April 2006 (BST)

STOP MESSING WITH MY MIND! -- PQN 08:13, 24 April 2006 (BST) well who deleted my MOD application? EH!? -- PQN 08:13, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Why do you keep doing this? All that vandalism just gets reverted straight away; why bother? And for the record, I deleted your mod application, as it was impersonating numerous other wiki users and violating your ban, among other things. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 08:22, 24 April 2006 (BST)

BANARCHY!--Mpaturet 08:24, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Banned. Sorry for the Delay, but i went out for lunch. --Grim s-^Mod 08:25, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Mpaturet

Continued pointless and immature discussion on the Deletions page after requests to stop. Here. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 07:43, 24 April 2006 (BST)

You do realize I did not even post in the discussion of SaveAmazing? Didn't think so. Also if simply warning someone not to post on a page is sufficient reason for a vandal banning case, I'm warning you no to post on this wiki again. Doing so will result in a report on the vandal banning page. And following that train of thought, next time I make a suggestion, I'm warning all tose who would vote keep not to post or else...BAN!--Mpaturet 07:58, 24 April 2006 (BST)
Fair enough. I removed the SaveAmazing part as evidence. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 09:14, 24 April 2006 (BST)

User:Tambourine Man

Has created 9 new pages, all of which redirect to his group. I put the redirects up for speedy deletion--Mpaturet 06:39, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Rasher

Same as below. A collaboration by the two friends/griefers to vandalize my page. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 06:25, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Rueful

User Page vandalization after being told before not to edit in another case where he saw fit to mar my personal space. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 06:05, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Stop fucking whining, both of you. I uploaded the file, and now you're ot image leeching anymore, and Rueful no longer has any reason to edit your fucking page. DONE--Mpaturet 06:07, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- Nope, Vandal report's open because he did more than edit the image, and even if he didn't, the case would still not be "done". I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to close a case you're not a part of. (I was in the process of uploading the image to my own site when I realized you'd edited the page anyway) -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 06:08, 24 April 2006 (BST)
  - Alright then, continue this bullshit whine fest. Both of you are acting like children. GROW UP--Mpaturet 06:10, 24 April 2006 (BST)
    - Sorry my report of someone editing my User Page with snarky text after being told not to offends you. :( -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 06:11, 24 April 2006 (BST)
    - Amazing, why are you attacking Mpaturet for trying to close the case by fixing the issue? He was just trying to help. -- Rueful 18:17, 24 April 2006 (BST)
      - I don't believe he's a Moderator. -- Amazing 18:59, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Question, will each group drop the vandalism charges if there was an enforceable agreement that the other side would drop there's and there would be immediate enforceable punishment should it ever happen again?--Prosperina 7:14 24 April 2006

Problem is they vandalized my User Page while I agreed to a group's position on its talk page. -- Amazing 07:20, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I acknowledge your view, but I'm merely posing hypothetical here. I'm merely askng if such a situation would be considerable.--Prosperina 7:26 24 April 2006

I don't understand why this is being considered vandalism. Amazing should know as well as any of us that inlining images from another host without their permission is stealing(if not copyright, then bandwidth). I was merely pointing out this fact along with temporarily fixing the situation. If I had overlooked a similiar situation on my user page, I would appreciate the same courtesy that I afforded you. -- Rueful 18:17, 24 April 2006 (BST)

No amount of obfuscation excuses your textual vandalism of my personal page, fully knowing you were not welcome to do it. -- Amazing 18:59, 24 April 2006 (BST)

No amount of obfuscation excuses your external linking of an image on your personal page, fully knowing you were not welcome to do it. -- Rueful 20:23, 24 April 2006 (BST)

You textually vandalize reason when you try to argue. -- Rasher 20:26, 24 April 2006 (BST)

The definition of vandalism seems vague, please define what you think constitutes as vandalism--Prosperina 20:37 24 April 2006

Are you kidding? Is she kidding? Rasher 22:03, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Discussion's over. Waiting for Mod action. (perpetually) -- Amazing 20:53, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing

On the ASS talk page, Amazing continued commenting even after he was told that he was not welcome, and even though the page states quite clearly at the top that he is not welcome to comment. This comes after he suggested that we be reported for vandalism for managing our group talk page, after another user repeatedly changed text on it until he was warned. --Tehasskickars 05:59, 24 April 2006 (BST)

The notation was "Okay" in responce to his telling me not to post anymore. I removed it myself IMMEDIATELY afterward, realizing you'd use my agreement to your demands against me. Surprise, you did. Nice try, but no dice. Suggested he was a vandal for editing the text someone else placed on his page, comedically impersonating that user. Case closed. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 06:05, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Incorrect. The comment was "Okay!," followed later by a reversion where you deleted that text with the comment "O Rite," clearly showing your mockery once again. We have the right to manage our group talk page. Case open. --Tehasskickars 06:11, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Nope, I removed it saying "O Rite" meaning "Oh, right. You're going to take that as a chance to misuse the system." Sorry, but you have no case. I removed it myself, and it was a good-faith responce telling you I was going to abide by your silly diva bullshit. Oh, well. Nice try. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 06:16, 24 April 2006 (BST)

P.S.: Amazing: Anyone who thinks for a moment can clearly tell the difference between the original text and our edit, as you clearly showed by being able to differentiate the two. --Tehasskickars 06:13, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Add in some info as to what you're actually talking about. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 06:16, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Do you think you can comprehend what you yourself write? Let's find out! "Obviously written as if you had said it, though you obviously didn't." Though you obviously didn't. PWNED. --Tehasskickars 06:19, 24 April 2006 (BST)

You left out what specifically you were talking about, and obviousness of impersonation does not excuse impersonation, as I heard from Odd Starter himself, I believe. Further Comment - Talk Page - You know what to do. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 06:28, 24 April 2006 (BST)

How about we just say that you don't own this wiki, and you, the vandal, are in no position to barter. Too bad your attempt to screw with the system failed. You are the vandal. Go home. --Tehasskickars 07:07, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I appreciate your help in my defense against this transparently false case. (That "barter" thing makes you sound a little unhinged, though, since nothing of the sort was said.) -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 07:11, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Question, will each group drop the vandalism charges if there was an enforceable agreement that the other side would drop there's and there would be immediate enforceable punishment should it ever happen again?--Prosperina 7:14 24 April 2006

We might consider it, but Amazing has no vandalism case against us. He is the vandal on our page, not vice versa. --Tehasskickars 07:34, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Suppose this would count for all accounts of vandalism charges on either side then. If there was absolute guarantee that all future incidents would be limited to two times before the user was banned completely, would that be acceptable? And if you could outline what exactly would count as vandalism or flaming onyour pages as long as he could outline what would be vandalism and flaming on his, what would you say? If you find that it is a possiblity even with modifications, I would request that you make your input on this page --Prosperina 7:46 24 April 2006

Amazing just vandalised the "SaveTheWhales" template, completley proving he has no soul--Mpaturet 07:35, 24 April 2006 (BST)

The Vandalism was creating the template, as we can see with people who are banned for doing similar gravely unwarrented, irrational, and highly disgusting things. -- Amazing 07:37, 24 April 2006 (BST)

apparently you think this page is where you can throw an insult or two, then shout PWNED! and run away with a cry of "kekekekeke" As you stated, I did not post on your talk page. Instead I posted here. I did not break any rules in making that template. You did by vandalising it. Thus unless youhave better arguments than insults, I suggest you leave--Mpaturet 07:46, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I don't think I'm the one who said "pwned" on this page. Look again. Guess what? A user was BANNED for uploading an image to use specifically in an attempt to harass me. You did MUCH worse than that, so really I think it's clear that you're the vandal here. -- Amazing 07:51, 24 April 2006 (BST)

No you said PWNED on your talk page in response to me. Thus I referenced that statement in my reply to you. Please get your facts straight. And guess what amazing? 50% oft he images uploaded since wikigate began have been mocking you. Number of bannings? 0.--Mpaturet 07:54, 24 April 2006 (BST)

"I don't think I'm the one who said "pwned" on this page. Look again." The lack of motivation where Moderators are concerned simply comes from apathy and disdain. -- Amazing 07:57, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Grim s

Moving this to the appropriate page as per Odd Starter and Zar's comments that it's not misconduct to vandalize a page.

Straight up vandalism, deleting a community announcement that was supported by some kind folks who thought it was important here. A slap on the wrist might be necissary just to let Grim s know he's not the judge of what's "garbage" and what's a useful community announcement. Last I checked this was a Wiki and unless there are rules written otherwise, any user may add community announcements if they are worth adding. Also guilty is another party, though the Moderator should be held to higher standards. If someone wants to make a vandal report on the other user, I think it's best if they do it as opposed to me. Also moved my commentary on an arbitration case WAY after it was placed there, only after I reported him for Misconduct, when the information was in relation to the case itself. Weather it belonged or not doesn't explain why everyone left it there until Grim was mad about the Misconduct case. The first report, at least, warrents a warning. Also more bullying from one of the worst Moderator choices ever. -- Amazing 19:22, 23 April 2006 (BST)

*Cahem*

'''Note:''' Wiki. Anyone can edit. End. -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 01:11, 23 April 2006 (BST)

--People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:53, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Yes, but you can't just DELETE based on nothing other than MALICE. -- Amazing 23:39, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Last I checked Grim counted as "anybody". It was a good faith edit. --Zaruthustra-Mod 22:03, 23 April 2006 (BST)

It was vandalism. I suppose I could delete something you post, citing it as garbage, and you wouldn't warn me? Nope. You'd warn me. -- Amazing 23:39, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Can someone explain to me why this is vandalism? Seems to me he deleted an announcement to a poll/survey, which even if it was purely yes votes wouldn't change anything. Infact the only users that argued over the deletion are the one who made the page (one line worth of argument), and the one who's being voted on. I also direct your attention here, wherein Zaruthustra states "It's not a binding policy discussion yet so it doesn't concern the whole of the wiki." Infact Amazing was brought up for vandalism because he put the link on the main page. Not to mention that in the misconduct argument it is pointed out that two other users removed the link, yet are absent from the vandilism/misconduct argument. This seems like little more then an attempt to get attention. Veritas omnia vincit! Velkrin 22:35, 23 April 2006 (BST)

It's been ruled that it wasn't vandalism already, probably for some of the reasons you mentioned--Vista ^W! 22:46, 23 April 2006 (BST)

It is vandalism. The info was placed there, was warrented, and should have been EDITED if he disagreed with POV nature. Otherwise, it BELONGED there and DELETING it was Vandalism. Double standard. And another user is cited in the original report and I specifially spoke of him you flat out liar. -- Amazing 23:39, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Nope, not vandalism, people put things on the front page even when they don't belong there sometims, and that can be an honest good faith mistake, but when they get taken off, thats still good faith. If it goes to policy discussion, maybe it belongs, but as of now, nope. -Banana Bear4 23:52, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Actually it was put on a page called by the main page, not on the main page. And I'd like to see you argue "when it's taken off, that's still good faith" in all non-blanking vandalism cases. -- Amazing 00:01, 24 April 2006 (BST)

This was projected to the frontpage Amazing not a groups page, there are different ways of editing on each page, Besides that, there is doubt wether or not it was actually warrented, as petition on an userpage has no influence on wiki procedings and it's likely that it'll never have any influence on this wiki. if the information wasn't warrented, the removal was justified, if the information is warrented, and the removal unjustified, the fact that the informations value you put is disputed, would make it a good-faith edit. in both cases no vandalism would occur. It seems to me that both you bad relationship with Grim S as your closeness to the topic clouds your judgement.--Vista ^W! 00:15, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Zar said he would ban me based on a majority requesting it, so you're wrong. It DOES have influence on Wiki policy. Additonally, I never saidanything about a group page, I said 'main page' quite clearly. The information was warrented, and even if it wasn't Grim shows his intention by calling it "this garbage". He simply didn't like it there. You know it, I know it, and anything else said is simply a lie that fools neither of us. It seems to me that you're ignoreing Grim s' bad relationship with me and how it clouded his judgement in deleting the post. I don't know if any of you really even understand how much of a double-standard you all operate by. -- Amazing 00:21, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I said I would ban you if it got a majority in policy discussion, which is wasn't in and it didn't. --Zaruthustra-Mod 01:18, 24 April 2006 (BST)

You haven't contradicted what I said. Either way, if you did, you'd be violating the spirit of the Wiki's guidelines and regulations. But that's not a problem when it's someone you don't like. Anyway, this isn't about you. -- Amazing 03:14, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Then you misunderstand me. It was not a policy vote, meaning it was not binding, meaning it didn't concern the community at large. This becomes about me if you insist on citing me in your case. --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:35, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Wait, what? I'm getting lost in all this nonsense and chest beating. First, as pointed out above, this matter was already decided in favor of Grim. It's over, you want to keep arguing, take it to your talk pages. While interesting to see the talk VS double talk, it's clutting up the page. Second, Zaruthustra did contradict you, since you were referring to the petition (as was the subject of this discussion) while Zaruthustra was referring to future events, which would have to go through official channels. Third, man up, stop trolling, and get on with life. There is enough excrement expediting on the internet already, it doesn't need your help. As a reminder for my first point, this matter has been decided. Take it to talk pages already. Velkrin 05:24, 24 April 2006 (BST)

So Amazing realised how utterly stupid his misconduct case looked and took it to vandal banning? (After the whole thing had been resolved on Misconduct, i might add). I ask you once again, since you neglected to reply on the misconduct page: How was my edit in bad faith? I didnt feel the link belonged up there, and certainly not in as POV manner as you had already put it up there before, so i removed it. End of story. Secondly, i ask you this: Why have you not brought Nubis and Odd Starter up on exactly the same charges? They did exactly the same thing as i did, one before me, another an hour or so after i did. You made no cries of distress then. You didnt run off to misconduct then. Under your own petty definitions of the terms you so love slinging around, "Bullying" and "Harrassment", your behaviour in this case certainly qualifies. Your actions here have shown you to be nothing more than a wretched, pathetic and vindictive excuse for a human being. --Grim s-^Mod 05:46, 24 April 2006 (BST)

The other removal wasn't the one I noticed, and wasn't done by a Moderator who is supposed to know the regulations and abide by them STRICTLY. Read the case to see why I say it was in bad faith. Right, you're too important to do such menial tasks as 'reading' and 'understanding'. The case was moved here because people said it shouldn't be on the other page you tremendous flaming shithead. Have you had any kind of real thought pass through your thick, infantile skull? And no, "ME KIK U AZZ IN INTERNET CHATZ" doesn't count. Stupid petulant child, go be a raw-nerve pussy somewhere else. Preferrable somewhere you aren't a fucking Moderator, you slack-jawed, slope-browed idiot. -- Amazing 05:55, 24 April 2006 (BST)

For one who espouses reading so strongly, you dont seem to do much of it (I was the only person to suggest taking your claim to Vandal banning), nor do you put any effort into understanding at all when it conflicts with your pitbullesque desire to attack those you dislike (Specifically the statements made by Zaruthustra and myself regarding the petition to have you banned from this wiki), regardless of the absence of anything remotely resembling a case. Frankly, i am astounded that no one has called you on the hypocricy you engage in on a regular basis. --Grim s-^Mod 11:30, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I believe we're all just too amused by it to comment. BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 14:55, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Frankly, I don't think this is vandalism either. It's pretty clearly a good faith edit. Further, the uncontested actions of other users (including myself) that have not been reported do seem to indicate that it is the user, rather than the action, that is being taken offense at. And since an edit you don't like from a user you don't like isn't really vandalism, I'm not going to take any action whatsoever. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 15:08, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I didn't ignore any edit to the community announcements page removing that info. I mentioned it, and said I shouldn't be the one to report who did it. Bias out the ass. "Problem with the user" indeed. Look at the unresolved cases here and tell me which folks are letting their problem with a user get in the way of their activity. -- Amazing 02:42, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Changchad

I was browsing the suggestions page and I belive that Changchad (I could be wrong) moved the votes from one suggestion to another suggestion. Changes can be seen Here, as you can see votes about Knives in a suggestion about Rifles looked a bit off to me (Votes 26 to 28 on Hunting Rifle). I would have moved the votes back but I belive that only a moderator may do so. - Jedaz 14:05, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Love of god, check my tag on it, it said that I copied parts of my own comments from the Knife one, and accidentally got some other stuff about knifes from the Rifles, which was a bit stupid, then like 1 hour afterwards when I checked it again, I found that looked a bit weird, so I deleted those that I accidentally copied. (and yes it was me, I copied some huge part of knife comment when i was trying to copy my name tag under the knife comment, sorry, i did it and i changed it back) You wrote this like 30 mins after already changed it. :].

Started with this[[2]] 1 hour after I changed it back like this [[3]] --Changchad 01:04, 24 April 2006 (BST)

- I just reported it as I saw it. I wrote this when I saw it, (the time stamps can be off apparently) but be more careful in the future when moving your comments. I'll trust that it wasn't intentional, but now it's up to a moderator to decide wether or not they belive it is. But I think they'll rule in your favor because it doesn't seem like you had malevolent intentions. Well I don't have any more to say about this. - Jedaz 08:42, 24 April 2006 (BST)

User:Fartingmonk

[Vandalized] the The_Ridleybank_Resistance_Front page.

Warned.--The General ^{W! Mod} 18:10, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Halo222

Cleared the Main Page. --Lucero Capell 22:37, 21 April 2006 (BST)

someone warned him.--'STER-Talk-Mod 17:06, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Black Scotty

I think this requires a warning user called me a Fag (Which I believe is a Hate crime.) [[4]] If they erease it you can find it here Evidence --Technerd 21:17, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Calling another user a fag is not against policy, and not vandalism. There is a vote being held for locational language which you may be interested in on the moderation/policy discussionn page. -Banana Bear4 22:53, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I would not care if he called me loser/idiot ect but calling me a fag is just as bad as if he called me the N word. --Technerd 02:25, 22 April 2006 (BST)

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't constitute vandalism either. --Sindai 05:12, 22 April 2006 (BST)

I applaud people I hate making guideline-breaking reports on this page. (This makes three! :D Yay!) -- Amazing 06:32, 22 April 2006 (BST)

When accusing people of harassment, it helps your case if you don't publicly do the same at every opportunity.--Sindai 17:05, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Just pointing out the nature of the reports in the hopes that it doesn't happen again. -- Amazing 19:52, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing I dont think any of the groups/people ever called you a FAG they may have called you stupid.. But calling some one stupid or an asshole is an order of magnitude under calling some one a racial epithat of gay/fag --Technerd 21:24, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing (Again again)

Created the template Delete the Fucking Wiki, implying that "the Urban Dead Wiki is full of morons, is beyond saving and should be completely deleted, its users nuked from orbit. Twice." — Nubis^PK|A 15:36, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I don't think this is vandalism. I think its a very stupid template, but also a very legally made one. -Banana Bear4 22:55, 21 April 2006 (BST)

It's a responce to all the many templates created against me. Only and idiot would take it seriously (I mean, do you think it's possible all the users would be nuked from orbit?) and it doesn't even mention anyone personally. Nice try, but keep fishing for troll-victories elsewhere. -- Amazing 02:22, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Anybody creating a page which does nothing but complain about the "fucking" wiki and its users is obviously vandalizing. --Punchkin 09:57, 22 April 2006 (BST)

I disagree, there should be room for everyone to speak there piece, even if its less than positive, thats why there's things like the misconduct page right? I would agree with you if you said anybody creating a page which does nothing but complain about the wiki and its users is obviously a peabrain. A vandal? No. -Banana Bear4 17:12, 22 April 2006 (BST)
What a display of sheer idiocy this all is. And Banana, put away your Troll costume. -- Amazing 18:03, 22 April 2006 (BST)

What what what? I say your not being a vandal and you say I'm being a troll? Its dumb to make a template on the wiki which says you hate the wiki, if you realize the irony in there, I guess its less dumb, but its still less than sensical to me. Get off that horse amazing. If you wanna discuss theres talk pages for it.-Banana Bear4 18:11, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Man, don't pretend the other part of your post doesn't exist. -- Amazing 19:33, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized the Community Announcements template to draw unneeded attention to himself. – Nubis ^NWO 19:13, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Not vandalism. It's important the entire Wiki community to know if they'll be banned for being "aggrivating". I was hoping that more than the select few who dislike me would have a chance to make their opinion known in this VASTLY IMPORTANT precident. I contend you vandalized it by reverting, though I assume it was just your own innocent mistake. But yeah, I guess you'd like it to be a closed, near-exclusive vote sectioned off from the majority of the Wiki. -- Amazing 19:33, 22 April 2006 (BST)

And who said that you're in charge? It's a template that everybody sees when he gets on the wiki page, I think it would be appropriate if somebody IMPORTANT (like a Mod) would edit it. --Craw 19:39, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Enough. Its not a binding policy discussion yet so it doesn't concern the whole of the wiki. If it does become a policy vote we'll put it up there, albeit not in such obviously POV language. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:16, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Note: Wiki. Anyone can edit. End. -- Amazing 01:11, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Murder

Edited Vykos' comments on The Great Humongous including a renaming to "The Enourmous Faggot" Also, Impersonation. [5] --Mpaturet 19:53, 20 April 2006 (BST)

It wasn't even the first time: [6] Same text. He also removed the delete tag from the page with the latest edit. --Brizth ^{W! M T} 19:57, 20 April 2006 (BST)

And he's been warned twice already--Mpaturet 20:01, 20 April 2006 (BST)

And so now he's banned.--'STER-Talk-Mod 04:39, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Revos windu

Weird case this one. Check following three edits of his: [7] [8] [9]. --Brizth ^{W! M T} 18:21, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Well, I'm not entirely sure what he was doing, but I've warned him.--'STER-Talk-Mod 04:39, 21 April 2006 (BST)

PQN 12

Your prayers have been answered! I emailed Kevan and he replied:

We're looking at making some changes to the wiki code, so you might want to stop if you don't want your IP range banned. But yes, the moderators seem to be doing a pretty good job, it's trivial to undo this sort of vandalism.

Regards,

Kevan

How convienent of him. Nice fellow. I talked about how much a trashed this place & such a good job you mods were doing, ofcourse I was lying about the good job but eriously, I hate you all. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some pages to delete...

--

This user has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to contributions and/or Vandal Data for evidence. See block log.

23:54, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Hah! Nice one, Hagnat. Banned just as he was boasting. Seriously, I wonder why he does this. --Prosperina 4:16 20 April 2006.

Mpaturet

Vandalised the Arbitration page by adding a spam header and then trolling afterwards despite requests to remove it. --Sirens^{T RR} 23:54, 19 April 2006 (BST)

You don't wub me? Also who other than prosperiana asked me to remove it?--Mpaturet 23:57, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Let's calm down a bit and try to recognize the difference between jokes and vandalism.--Denzel Washington 23:59, 19 April 2006 (BST)

I really didn't care, but I saw something start as a joke on a page that, in my opinion, is meant for seriousness. That didn't bother me, but I felt that it wasn't right, and that the thing, in general, showed bad faith. No offense or malice ment to Mpaturet, just my honest opinion. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:03, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Right. I gotta say, however, that page was terribly hilarious even before his contribution, and personally i can't really take it as a serious thing anymore.--Denzel Washington 00:08, 20 April 2006 (BST)

At the moment the Arbitration page is a joke, with cases of Amazing vs. [insert person/organization/diety/government/denzel] Boohoo--Mpaturet 00:11, 20 April 2006 (BST)

I suppose you're right. Well, if it's possible, I'd like to withdraw this report. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:17, 20 April 2006 (BST)

I re-initiate this report in full. -- Amazing 02:48, 20 April 2006 (BST)

George Bush doesn't care about black people--Mpaturet 03:27, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Please keep useless, unrelated comments off important pages. -- Amazing 03:32, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing, it would probably be best to withdraw the report. Though, he should not have put that on the arbitration page, I don't believe it counts enough to warrant a vandal banning. In any case, the meat of it has been removed from the page already and its existence has been refuted. Use it to your advantage, if he wants to give you the ammo that badly. Hot heads won't get you any resolutions.Prosperina 0349 20 April 2006 (BST)

Soylent Green is made of people.--Mpaturet 04:13, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Cyberbob240 Again

Ever since the incedent here, Cyberbob240 has gone out of his way to flame and otherwise harass Grim s, including a Section on his Talk Page, a template for user's talk pages (neither of which are of any concern in my opinion by themselves). The problem is that whenever possible Cyberbob240 goes out of his way to provoke a flame from Grim s, as can be seen in these examples taken from Cyberbob240's Contributions

I personally find it insulting that such a childish display is allowed to go unchecked along the Wiki. It literally contributes nothing while wasting the time of others who have to scroll past it to look at actual information. -Nubis _A.R.S.E. 12:39, 18 April 2006 (BST)

And if you read what my comments were in response to, you would know that I was trying to defend others who were being flamed themselves.

Scroll past it? It's at MOST like three lines. That equates to... something like .5 of a second. Gee, I can see where people might get annoyed at me for wasting all of their precious time. And you've (accidentally, I'm SURE) left out the amount of times where Grim has gone out of HIS way to try and get me in trouble over the most trivial of misunderstandings, all of which I've apologised for. And besides, the vote on this EXACT issue hasn't been passed yet, has it? (By the way, I voted FOR the anti-public flaming thing)

Oh, and if something isn't your concern (e.g. my user/talk pages), don't mention it. --Cyberbob240^CDF 12:58, 18 April 2006 (BST)

My I suggest that you take this to arbitration, I would be happy to arbitrate a case there.--The General ^{W! Mod} 13:19, 18 April 2006 (BST)

This requires far more than arbitration. The fact of the matter is that this person has it in for me, for no reason i can fathom. He has lied, he has trolled, and he has antagonised, repeatedly, with no provocation, despite my attempts to limit contact with him. He has followed me around the wiki, dropping comments attacking me in response to mine (Examples Here, Here, and Here). He has posted outright lies Here and Here. This is an issue for moderators, not arbitrators. This is a case of outright harassment, and is bordering on cyberstalking. --Grim s 13:33, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Which is why I suggested that I arbitrate the case. That way, if he fails to comply with the desicion, I can punish him appropriately.--The General ^{W! Mod} 13:39, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Excuse me, but i feel that such behaviour goes above and beyond the scope of that page, especially since there is no disagreement, or at least none i know of, just a spiteful little troll trying to work me up. --Grim s 14:03, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, Cyberbob240 is warned. If he does it again he will be banned.--The General ^{W! Mod} 14:07, 18 April 2006 (BST)

As much as i would love to believe this is the case, i think you meant to put that comment on This one (Considering your apparent rapid turnaround here, before i even got to offer a bribe of cookies :D ). Also, Warnings need to be listed on the Vandal Data page. Just being helpful. --Grim s 14:26, 18 April 2006 (BST)

This has been placed correctly. I wasn't against warning him I just thought it might be better to go through the arbitration page.--The General ^{W! Mod} 14:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Well... er... thanks. I hope he backs off and decides to avoid such antagonism in the future, so that further measures will not be needed. --Grim s 14:33, 18 April 2006 (BST)

OK, I'll stop. But Grim, you need to stop taking yourself so seriously. And in the name of pure curiosity, when did I lie? --Cyberbob240^CDF 15:04, 18 April 2006 (BST)

I provided links to the specific edits earlier. Look at them. --Grim s 15:26, 18 April 2006 (BST)

I see no lies there: just ~~facts~~ my opinion. --Cyberbob240^CDF 15:31, 18 April 2006 (BST)

What you see are assertions, with no attempt at backing them up. --Grim s 16:48, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Wait - I thought they were lies? Or are you trying to change your argument? Sorry Grim. Not on my watch. --Cyberbob240^CDF 16:50, 18 April 2006 (BST)

You made an assertion, not an opinion. You stated an opinion as a fact, and thus you were lying. I expected a 15 year old such as yourself would have been able to make the connection yourself. --Grim s 17:08, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Are you a lawyer? Because you sound like one. I thought you were wellknown for your "bluntness". Where did it go? And I'm definitely not 15. Please stop with the personal attacks. --Cyberbob240^CDF 17:14, 18 April 2006 (BST)

How is stating your age, as you put it, in your profile, on a forum (from which you got banned), a personal attack? It was a statement of fact as you set it. It is not my fault you failed to set it correctly. --Grim s 17:22, 18 April 2006 (BST)

That was a joke, because I was being a troll before I was banned. I thought I'd put my age as 15 and wait for the comments on my "age" to start rolling in. Yours is the first. Congratulations. --Cyberbob240^CDF 17:26, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Looks like we have a number 7 -Nubis _A.R.S.E. 16:53, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Describing someone's opinions isn't flaming Nubis. I didn't comment on his opinions (ie insult them) at all. Nice try though. --Cyberbob240^CDF 16:55, 18 April 2006 (BST)

I think what you said is comming dangerously close to flaming him, just leave it as pro-pkers without any mention of Grim s.--The General ^{W! Mod} 17:00, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Excuse me, did you warn someone via the Vandal page for stating opinions and - at worst - flaming? Misconduct? -- Amazing Amazing 02:10, 19 April 2006 (BST)

No, the warning was for combined stalking, flaming, and constant harrassment. Im afraid this isnt a precident you can use, since you are neither stalked around the wiki or constantly harrassed here. --Grim s 05:54, 19 April 2006 (BST)

This from the one who follows me around flaming everywhere I post. This is all so deliciously ironic, but it'd be more rewarding if you could see it yourself. Oh, well. And you're right, this "Isn't" a precident I "can't" use. Your unintended double-negative actually made you honest there. Anyway, all I need to say now to make the cycle complete is "don't be such a petulent child". :D -- Amazing 05:57, 19 April 2006 (BST)

That was a typo, and im notorious for making them. Its one i missed on my preview. And no, i dont stalk you. I honestly dont give a shit about you except when you attack the established order, in which case i come to its defense. --Grim s 07:11, 19 April 2006 (BST)

I warned him because of the huge amount of unopposed evidence as shown here. Amazings case is slightly more distorted and I would therefore not feel comfortable giving them a warning without an arbitration case being taken out.--The General ^{W! Mod} 16:47, 19 April 2006 (BST)

I would consider this: Template:GrimTarget to be a continuation of the exact same stuff he was doing before, slandering me by claiming a target individuals, which is patently false. --Grim s 09:26, 20 April 2006 (BST)

It's all about how the target feels, bucko. And that template isn't attacking you - it's more like a badge of honour. Anyway, this case is over. Go find another bone to chew. --Cyberbob240^CDF 09:29, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Number 8 -Nubis _A.R.S.E. 10:48, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Try again, Nubis. That was a simple statement of fact, and an equally factual statement of my feelings. --Cyberbob240^CDF•Arb 10:51, 20 April 2006 (BST)

And yet another attack on me, unprovoked, in a discussion i was no part of. --Grim s 12:49, 20 April 2006 (BST)

No attack there, just a statement. You can understand that, can't you Grim? You know all about statements. --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb} 12:51, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Unless you can back up your assertment with proof the Grim_s' parents were not legally married at the time of his birth, "bastard" is most definately an attack on him, not a statement of fact. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:16, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I didn't mean it as an insult - where I come from, it doesn't always have to be. But if it insults Grim so much (which I don't think it does; he just wants somehting to complain with), I'll remove it. Problem solved. But you have to understand, it wasn't meant as an insult. --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb} 07:15, 21 April 2006 (BST)

You didnt mean it as an insult? Given your history, you must understand just how incredibly difficult that is to believe. --Grim s 07:35, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I'd been warned about attacking you by the mods. That's pretty good motive not to, isn't it? --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb} 07:52, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Ladies and gentlemen in the comment below, on MrAushvitz's talk page Cyberbob here openly admits to following grim around to take potshots at him:

[[10]] That is all--Mpaturet 08:16, 21 April 2006 (BST)EDIT: Specifically the last comment, bottom of the page

There is a little thing called context you know. While it indicates that he dislikes and does not agree with Grim S, I fail to see your jump to following him around and taking potshots. And it is also irrelevant because it is before the warning was issued not after. Look at the time stamp.--Prosperina 08:21 21 April 2006 (BST)

Thank you, Prosperina. You are correct. That comment was made before I was warned about stuff (you know what I mean; I can't be bothered to go through it). I'm a (mostly) changed person now. --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb} 08:29, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Case closed, continued harrasment by Cyberbob420 will result in a 24 hour ban.--The General ^{W! Mod} 09:32, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Eddo36

While not offensive, he has hit my and Nubis' wiki talk pages to help him get him unbanned from the Desensitised forums, and he has hit quite a few other people's wiki pages with help requests. It's getting quite annoying. What he's been saying can be found in my talk page's history. DarkShines

Unfortunately, being annoying isn't a bannable offense. Just try to ignore it. Tell me if he keeps doing it and i'll give him a warning.--The General ^{W! Mod} 09:27, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Speaking from personal experience, Eddo is the type of person that it's best to just ignore. Banning him, no matter what the circumstances, seems to just feed his persicution/martyr complex and He's got an unholy number of proxies, a serious record of trolling, gigs of offensive pronograpgy and far to much free time. --Stroth 19:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, we'll just ignore him.--The General ^{W! Mod} 20:00, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Thank you for the advice. I'll just reverse any edits/posts he does on my talk. DarkShines

1145335396

Ad bot. Hit the Guns of Brixton page and two blank pages. --Grim s 05:50, 18 April 2006 (BST) Whoops. It may still be going. --Grim s 05:52, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Banned.--The General ^{W! Mod} 09:19, 18 April 2006 (BST)

PQN 11

Yawn* Same thing again. Deleted the moderation/vandal banning section. --Prosperina 02:15 19 April 2006
And fiddled with the main page over and over. As usual. Velkrin 03:18, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Banned. I *really* wish we could ban this guy's IP range... --LibrarianBrent 03:23, 19 April 2006 (BST)

He's taking up a lot of space, can't we just consolidate it all since he really doens't do anything new?--Prosperina 02:25 19 April 2006
- Can't you ask Keven to do it for you? Velkrin 06:10, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Someone report PQN 12 right now. It'll save time. :) -- Amazing 06:15, 19 April 2006 (BST)

PQN 10

I think its great & kind, me reporting myself BEFORE I do my offenses.... Save you fellas alot of work, take that into consideration before you sue me XD! Which you cant cause of many various methods... So suck shit! Banned.--PQN 20:39, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Banned.--The General ^{W! Mod} 06:54, 17 April 2006 (BST)

PQN 9

I deleted alot of pages, edited the one with that fucking logo problem, something with Nazi's & edited the Main Page, Banned? Likely.--PQN 9 19:13, 16 April 2006 (EST)

Aaaaaaand you're out! -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 10:20, 16 April 2006 (BST)

PQN 8

Vandalized a shitload of pages again, banned --PQN 8

Pre-Thinking fellas

Banned. I still don't get this guy. He must just be really bored. Wiki vandalism is functionally equivilant to masturbation. --Zaruthustra-Mod 16:28, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Atleast I CAN masturbate. Girl --PQN 8

Guess some people can't get others to clear out the tubes. MaulMachine 19:28, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Sexist jerk. --Mia K ^(sotss) 00:43, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Says the "small penis" Princess. Ironic. Hey, just had to point out the tremendous hypocracy. -- Amazing 05:32, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Hypocrisy is spelled with an "i" and an "s" Amazing. Lets all not start flaming on the vandal banning page anymore than is absolutely hilarious now. -Banana Bear4 05:38, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Yeah, let's not, Banana Bear. Though do let me know if you come up with a useful comment beyond spelling lessons, fake reprimand, and snottiness. -- Amazing 05:41, 18 April 2006 (BST)

...Amazing, please tell me, are you trying to become the type of person who makes me want to beat my head against a wall. There's already plenty of those people. You can stand up for yourself, but this, this right here isn't doing this. By doing this you become the troll that you hate in everyone else. You become worse than your most hated enemy. That just puts you right down there with them. This is going out of your way to harass people. You've said you have spent ten years on the internet, by that arguement, you should know better than this. Prosperina 09:07 18 April 2006

I have to agree with Prosperina, lets not start a flame war on the vandal banning pge.--The General ^{W! Mod} 13:21, 18 April 2006 (BST)

PQN 5

All you need to know is here in his contributions. S'right, I'm all up on that shiznit. -- Amazing 06:03, 12 April 2006 (BST)

He's gone.. again..... --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Apologies - I'm still banned from this page for a few more days as per an arbitration ruling. In the heat of the moment, I forgot. I'll add another 24 hours onto my ban from this page. -- Amazing 06:06, 12 April 2006 (BST)

I won't complain. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:07, 12 April 2006 (BST)

PQN is starting to get on my nerves.--The General 19:13, 12 April 2006 (BST)

There are....other methods that you can use. Depending on where he's accessing the Wiki from. Legal methods mind you (not as in lawyer), but effective. Velkrin 05:13, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Believe me, as soon as I can view IPs I'm going to wildcard ban his IP range and amuse myself with a letter to his ISP if I'm bored enough. --Zaruthustra-Mod 05:32, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Go ahead, see if I give a shit XD --PQN 7-Mod 05:32, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Oh I'm not talking about IP bans, I'm talking about finding where he's coming from, and having a chat with the institution. Generally speaking most trolls who frequent forums tend to be middle or high school age, and connect from the school's network since they spend more time there. Chances are PQN is doing the same. Velkrin 19:39, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalising again as PQN 7. (It's fairly painless to undo these things in one go if you view contributions and control-click all the rollback buttons, in Firefox. Wildcard banning would be good, though.) --Spiro 09:39, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Although, only Mods get rollback buttons... -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 10:56, 13 April 2006 (BST)

I notice that Spiro only blocked this latest alt for 3 days. I'm going to up the ban to a year considering PQNs history.--The General 19:34, 13 April 2006 (BST)

I've generally been going with "forever". Thats worked well. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:08, 13 April 2006 (BST)

I went for a year because I thought Spiro might of had a reason for only banning him for 3 days, and because he's unlikely to use that account again. Normally I would ban him indefinitely.--The General 20:13, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Banned.--The General 18:38, 14 April 2006 (BST)

PQN 3

Moved main page, replaced it with a redirect to this. I've since replaced the redirecting page, since I'm not really sure how to move pages, with the normal main page setup. Main page history shows that he is a repeat offender, or a copycat. Here is a link to the current 'main' page [11]

Yea I ban hammered that dude pretty much instantly. Its a daily routine now. --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:28, 9 April 2006 (BST)

User:PQN 2

Just now I reverted the major damage User:PQN 2 did uptill a few hours ago. It could be that I missed some pages.. but I think I covered all of his Vandalism. I don't expect a bravo nor a cookie.. ;) I did it for myself.. It was anoying seeing the Wiki so fucked up because of that sad little man.. Can't there be an IP Ban sanctioned against this nitwit?--Vykos 12:36, 8 April 2006 (BST)

When you did it you moved this page (Which he had moved elsewhere) to Modertion/Vandal Banning. I was unable to move it back (For no reason i could understand, so i copied the accurate edits over here. --Grim s 14:41, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Sorry, that was me trying to fix it quickly before I went out. If only the attack had been half an our earlier then I could have helped more.--The General 16:42, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Banned --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:56, 8 April 2006 (BST)

PQN

Blanked a bunch of pages, only contribution thats not is an insult to zar right under here -Banana Bear4 11:46, 11 April 2006 (BST) http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=PQN+4

Re-ban hammered. --Zaruthustra-Mod 17:15, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Can we get an IP ban on this guy? He has shown know willingness to contribute at all.--The General 21:20, 11 April 2006 (BST)

I really wish I could. --Zaruthustra-Mod 22:03, 11 April 2006 (BST)

In theory, a standard ban should be an IP ban to boot - It should pick up any Usernames that are on the same IP, and ban them as well (at least, that's what I thought the system does). The issue, I suspect, is that he changes IPs as quickly as he changes his Usernames. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 08:40, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Has just screwed up a lot of pages. A lot. --Cyberbob240 06:02, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Wow, thats a lot of pages there, wait a minute. He screwed with the suggestions archive! Nobody screws with the archives I've tallied! Velkrin smash puny troll! Smash good! Velkrin 05:11, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Zaruthustra

Zaruthustra is a fucking prick & keeps banning me but see's past the fact we own several apartments across the city & this wiki is fucked for a looooooong time! --PQN 18:43, 11 April 2006 (BST)

I think this user's bans were in good faith, because PQN and his clones are flippen children, and deserved ban. --Mia K ^(sotss) 12:00, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Ban PQN again Zar. Show him who's the boss. -Banana Bear4 14:45, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Yea, Zaruthustra's a jerk. I hate that guy. --Zaruthustra-Mod 16:37, 11 April 2006 (BST)

I'm glad somebody said it! We should start a petition to un-mod Zaruthustra. Banning Vandals, deleting unused images, Managing the wiki perfectly. It's a disgrace a mod will sink that low! ;) --Vykos 17:32, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Crimes against humanity, all of 'em! --Lucero Capell 17:35, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Did you know that Zaruthustra was also made a moderator by Odd starter! De-mod! De-mod! _{(angry mob brought to you by Powergrap inc.)}--Vista ^W! 17:42, 11 April 2006 (BST)

I heard that he cured a horse once. S'truth. Velkrin 05:09, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Oh yeah? I heard that he has three arms. One for embracing good users, one for bitchslapping idots... and... one for... bitchslapping idiots... BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 17:25, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Banned :).--The General ^{W! Mod} 13:29, 17 April 2006 (BST)

AndyShyt

Vandalized this page several times,[12], and now this page is totally wiped out. --Changchad 13:17, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Warned. Considering that if he had been reported the first time, rather than reporting him after three lots of vandalism, he would have been banned by now, i'm going to say that this is his only warning.--The General ^{W! Mod} 13:19, 17 April 2006 (BST)

TehAwesome

Vandalized The Shuttlebank Militia page, probably registered only to do so. Is a member of a PK'er group attacking TSM in Shuttlebank. Probably wont care about any warnings. --JeffIreland 11:23, 16th April 2006

Warned. Unfortunately, I have to warn him before banning him. But, considering that his only edits have been vandalism, i'll make this his only warning. If he does it again he'll be banned.--The General ^{W! Mod} 20:39, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Fu

Vandalized the NoobCakes page: [13] --Lucero Capell 17:38, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Warned. Considering that every edit he's ever made is vandalism and that he has made five different edits all of which are vandalism i'm going to say that this is his only warning. If he does it again he will be banned.--The General ^{W! Mod} 18:40, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Michael A

Vandalized the Malton Confederacy's logo several times by replacing it with a swastika. I know a lot of you have been enjoying this whole Nazi thing (I've seen some amusing images myself), but let's try and keep it off the Wiki.

Warned, I also rolledback his last edit to the Confederacy's page.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:54, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Youguysreallydon'tlearn

This guy removed all content from The M.A.I.M. Society's group page on the 8th of April: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_M.A.I.M._Society&oldid=191748

Zaruthustra changed it back in just five minutes, so I didn't have any idea that it had been changed until today. --Lord of the Pies 12:19, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Zaru already banned him that day. See Special:Ipblocklist --Brizth ^W! 12:24, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Murder

Simple enough. Impersonation of Vykos on a page up for deletion. Here we go. --Grim s 04:42, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Warned.--The General 07:57, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Sharon2002

Ad-bot: contributions --Brizth ^W! 23:58, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Banned (i'm positive I posted this before but it doesn't appear to be here).--The General ^{W! Mod} 13:44, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Legend X

Legend X vandalized our talk page, deleting a comment i had made and replacing it with insults. I have deleted it and put my comment back up. --Denzel Washington 12:50, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Second warning. --Zaruthustra-Mod 17:44, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Cyberbob240

Changed Jedaz's vote on the Bounty Hunter suggestion from "Kill" to "Keep"History. I have reverted it. --Grim s 12:34, 10 April 2006 (BST) (Link updated 11:31, 11 April 2006 (BST))

Xbehave restored the vandalism of the vote. It is my understanding that only the person making the vote can change it (Unless they are reverting a change made by a vandal). --Grim s 12:57, 10 April 2006 (BST)

I'm not sure this was done in bad faith. Looking at Jedaz's comment, Cyberbob might have thought Jedaz meant to put "Keep". You're right, but you may be calling an honest mistake a vandal. Has you asked Bob about it? --Mia K ^(sotss) 13:00, 10 April 2006 (BST)

No, i have not asked him about it, and i do not intend to. The last time i spoke with him he tried to pick a fight with me. The reasoning provided by Jedaz directly supports the kill vote, and only with some mental acrobatics can you twist it towards keep. In any case, a vote made by one person is thier own opinion. No one has any right to enforce thier own judgement over that opinion by altering. Furthermore, it is arguably impersonation of the voter. Furthermore, by his own words here he admits to have been watching the suggestions page for some time, and as such should be expected to know the rules. --Grim s 13:51, 10 April 2006 (BST)

I belive that Xbehave's vote restoring was caused by an edit conflict. He also removed Mookiemookies vote, later restoring it. He must have missed your edit. --Brizth ^W! 14:10, 10 April 2006 (BST)

That is my opinion as well. He mentioned it when i asked him about it on his talk page. I left him a message suggesting that he should come here and mention that fact here, but he doesnt seem to have done that. I still had to mention it, however, for completeness. --Grim s 14:33, 10 April 2006 (BST)

yes once again my slowness has let me down, i restored Mookiemookies vote after being informed of my mistake, in future ill take more care and refresh the edit page before adding my comment. sorry --xbehave 20:27, 10 April 2006 (BST)

To clarify; Mia Kristos is 100% correct. If you'll take a look at the vote, it implies that Jedaz agrees with the suggestion. And I quote: "Being shot with a gun is a threatening action. So why can't the person being shot know where the survivors new location is?" This CLEARLY says that he agrees with the suggestion. The only objection he has is that it wasn't explained with reference to RP uses. Plenty of people have voted "Keep" in the past with reservations. This is no different. And what possible reason would I have for changing ONE vote by a random person? Grim s, you really should have discussed it with me. Even if I attacked you (which I wouldn't have), at least then you could've said you tried. But you didn't, so you can't. --Cyberbob240 12:47, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Obviously you didnt read the suggestion before coming up with that excuse, as the part being complained about was: "Bounty Hunter would work exactly like scent trail does for zombies, except that the events which give you a trail will be different. It will give you the current location of another survivor if you have just witnessed them either killing someone or destroying a generator.", which fits perfectly with the Kill vote provided. It has been established in the past that altering or deleting another persons vote is vandalism (And since you claim to have been lurking on the wiki for some time, you can hardly claim ignorance of this). If you think they made a mistake you take it to thier talk page and inform them of your suspicions. In this case you overlaid your personal feelings with regards to the suggestion over the persons vote, and changed it to suit your interpretation when the opposite was just as valid, and set by the voter himself. --Grim s 13:08, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Actually like all edits, deleting a vote and changing a vote is only considered vandalism when there is malice in play, you know that. while there is certainly a lot of ignorance, blindsidesness and lack of common sense on the part of cyberbob proven, actual malice isn't certain. Cyberbob was without a doubt in the wrong, but for all his confessed lurking and big talk, he's been only active for a couple of days. As an editor he's as green as grass. cut him some slack grim, he's just a newbie who got off on the wrong foot.--Vista ^W! 14:38, 11 April 2006 (BST)

I would, but he doesnt like being called a newbie, and if you look over his contributions, he has been far from friendly. Also, as i said previously this case is arguably impersonation (Changing someone elses statement to say the opposite in this case), and as a self confessed lurker, he should know the rules with regards to that and know its wrong. Believe me, if he hadnt claimed to have been lurking on the wiki for some time i would have just reverted it, left him a note on his talk page, and been done with it, but as it stands his claims of lurking force me to consider him to be an experienced reader in this regard, and thus i had to bring it here. --Grim s 14:55, 11 April 2006 (BST)

In the end, it stands that the edit wasn't malicious, as it was an attempt to fix a precieved mistake. But as Grim pointed out, you really shouldn't edit valid votes, or any kind of discussion. Even as a newbie I knew that, and it's common curtousy. I personally believe a warning is an order here (and I think that's all he'd get anyways). Just my two cents. --Mia K ^(sotss) 15:20, 11 April 2006 (BST)

Grim, you really need to get over yourself. Just because we had an argument a while ago doesn't make me a generally bad person. I don't want to be on bad terms with you forever. People have arguments all the time. My "big talk" was all part of defending myself against what was a quite unwarranted attacking spree by Grim. Anyway, back to the issue at hand. You're right, I shouldn't have edited the vote. I'm sorry. But you have to understand. It doesn't matter how "experienced" at editing you are, everyone makes different judgement calls and reads things differently. Here's an idea; why don't we ask the author what his intentions were? If he says the vote should have been Kill, I'll back down and apologise (but not to Grim, unless I get one in return for going behind my back). If not, I fully expect apologies all round. Is that reasonable? --Cyberbob240 00:11, 12 April 2006 (BST)

If you didnt want to be on bad terms with me you shouldnt be attempting to "zing" me at every available opportunity, like you did earlier on my talk page in a chat with another person (And failed miserably, i might add). Also, i never attacked you. I gave you an honest opinion and some advice about how you should probably conduct yourself when you first show up in a community to have the least friction with other members and your response was to react in a hostile manner towards me. However, this has nothing to do with my feelings about you, but a matter of rule violation, specifically yours. I am capable of a measure of impartiality in seeing these things and reporting them. The moderators dont always act on them, but you really should know better than to edit other peoples opinions to suit your own ends. --Grim s 02:59, 12 April 2006 (BST)

My own ends? Why would I want to change ONE vote by some random person that I don't know? But this is all beside the point. You've neatly avoided replying to my suggestion of asking the author him/herself what the original intention of the vote was. --Cyberbob240 03:04, 12 April 2006 (BST)

What you ask is irrelevant. If he meant keep as you claim, he would have put keep, or if he made a mistake, you should have gone to his talk page. You broke the rules as they exist under impersonation and changed one persons comment to the opposite when he was following the rule on the suggestions page to vote kill if they want something changed (That which he wanted changed was clearly specified in the message he specified clearly in his message). You claim to have been around for some time, so you should know the rules and thus what you did was knowingly wrong. --Grim s 03:29, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Why do you keep saying I "claim" to have been around for a while? It's as though you don't believe me. And I have gone to his talk page. I recieved no response. --Cyberbob240 03:35, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Because there is no proof one way or the other? Anyway, its getting to the point where you are both putting WAY too much work into it. Drop the knives; its just going to be a warning, and CyberBob240 is most likely never going to do this kind of thing again. Grim is assuming malicious intent, which is his right, but should not come into effect. --Karlsbad 04:48, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Thanks to Cyberbob240 for pointing out this to me otherwise I wouldn't have know about this. The vote was meant to be a kill as I put it. Its not realy a big thing so I reckon that as long as this kind of thing doesn't happen again then it'll be fine. But in future if you feal that a mistake has been made just leave a message on the users talk page so they can change it if it is. - Jedaz 08:58, 12 April 2006 (BST)

User:NMS

This was Pegton page before I reverted it. See here for history. And here is a direct link to his "contibutions". --Brizth ^W! 23:17, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Banned. --Zaruthustra-Mod 23:34, 8 April 2006 (BST)

1144485031

Ad bot spam. Check contributions. --Grim s 09:54, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Interestingly, there appears to be blank pages in it's contributions, any idea why?--The General 10:03, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Banned. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:56, 8 April 2006 (BST)

GhosT

Vandalised the Suggestions page twice. The first time, to place explicit ASCII imagery in one of the suggestions. The second, to apparently make it more clear what he thought--he removed the entire page, filling it with ASCII penes/penises. Linky.--Wifey 03:48, 8 April 2006 (BST)

I'd get right on this, but can't. -- Amazing 03:54, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Warned. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:56, 8 April 2006 (BST)

User:Someoneyouknow

Vandallized the WCDZ page. --hagnat ^talk 03:18, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Reeks of Slavik. His name being what it is and the fact that his only edit is of the WCDZ. Alt-banned. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:59, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing (again)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=GANKBUS&diff=188377&oldid=188255 Why are Amazing's edits not considered vandalism? The facts in any case have a slant to them, based on who reports them. GANKBUS reports the hard-hitting news from Malton as we see it, as accurately as possible, yet amazing changes our anti-CDF slants of the facts to pro-CDF slants. Should we start changing the CDF page to make it fit our version of history? --Rueful 18:38, 5 April 2006 (BST)

More history of him screwing with our page can be found on the complaint two down. Guess I'll start the running talley over again here. Ozno Axe 19:01, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized by Amazing again! Ozno Axe 19:01, 5 April 2006 (BST)

four more non good faith edits (vandalism - this isn't excusable. The CDF page has been left untouched. Rasher 20:36, 5 April 2006 (BST)

SPAM: Amazing already has an entry on this page. (Yes, I know theres no voting, but the moderator hadn't even replied to the other one.) --Mia Kristos 20:46, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, thanks for the useful comment. In the meantime, Amazing continues to vandalize our page and nothing is done about it. Rasher 20:52, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized by Amazingagain. Rasher 20:52, 5 April 2006 (BST)

If there are indeed rules about vandalization, enforce them. Otherwise, this page and others are useless. I removed all information from GANKBUS not related to killing until disciplinary action is taken. Amazing has made at least 20 acts of unreciprocated vandalism against GANKBUS and nothing has been done. He vandalized our page again. I'm sure he thinks he has "won" because we took down the content he was editing, but we're tired of having to protect our page from these revert wars. Rasher 21:05, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Moderator: Goddamn, this entire mess (once again) is apalling. You're attacking a vandalism attempt (and it really is just that) that attempts to enforce an arbitration decision. Really, both of you are in the wrong right now, and I really can't be bothered. Consider both of you on your second warning. If GANKBUS continues to violate their Arbitration ruling, the offending user will be banned. If Amazing continues to vandalise the page outside of enforcing the Arbitration ruling, then he will be banned. Got it? -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 00:40, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Bad moderator, Bad! Enforcing an arbitration ruling and getting harassed by a Wiki user earns me another warning? Total crap. Correcting info on a page, removing false and inflammatory info - is NOT vandalism. Sorry you had to read, but that's no reason to lose your cool and issue hair-trigger warnings. I NEVER edited outside the Arbitration ruling. You should ban the asshole for all he's done so far, yet you warn me. Good work. *tsk* -- Amazing 02:28, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Well, according to you. Looking through, it's a goddamn mess, as I noted above. Yeah, they're in the wrong, but that doesn't automatically put you in the right. I just got back from wikivacation and I'm almost ready to take another one (I'd go permanently, but since I'm the only bureaucrat present...)

Honestly, Amazing, I'd like to make a deal with you - I will break almost all the regulations I've previously made, and will instantly make you a Moderator for one week, with your permission. I want to see how I'm supposed to handle this shit. And hell, if it turns out you can handle it, I'll even give it to you on a permanent basis. Deal? -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 04:53, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Done deal. -- Amazing 05:05, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Right. You've got a week to show me how I'm supposed to run this place. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 05:11, 7 April 2006 (BST)

You know what - Mods like you are so absurdly lame and poor in decision making that I'm going to ask others to make reports in my place from now on. Your (multiple Mods) inability to look at the instigators and vandals for what they are is so superfucking huge that the minute you see my name you might as well auto-warn me. Hey, if the messenger's dead, you don't have to hear any bad news! Some volunteers. If a Mod is going to ignore an Arbitration ruling, or at least dismiss the strictness of it, and warn the person who was enforcing it, then I'm sorry but you're not doing your "job". -- Amazing 02:31, 7 April 2006 (BST)

A tempting alternative, to be sure. The reason nobody ever deals with your cases is that you do this every time. So the possibilities are that either A) every mod on this wiki is wrong all the time or B) You wont accept being criticized. I think I can speak for the entire moderation team when we say we're sick of all this drama and we just don't want to deal with it anymore. Recently you have accounted for about half of all moderation related cases and tasks on the wiki. Its ridiculous and it isn't my (non profit voluntary) job to wade waste deep through wiki bullshit all day. --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:58, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Actually, no. Try counting up all the moderation cases again and see if you still come up with "Half". Unless "Recently" means "These past few days". I'd just appreciate it if you didn't skew things just to make your point. As for the Mod team - You guys fell down many times when you could have nipped ALL of this in the bud. Instead you sat back and let it get worse. You said it yourself - You don't want to do it. The worsening falls squarely on your shoulders. I even blame you lazy/burnt out Mods more than GANKBUS members. After all, you guys are creating the environment in which the vermin are thriving.

LibrarianBrent banned MaulMachine TWICE because he was actively abusing the wiki to get at me. Now MaulMachine gets away with whatever he wants. Why? LibrarianBrent apparently left, and no other Mod is worth two craps. You know I fought LibrarianBrent in the beginning and we had a lot of drama there, and he still ruled in my favor because - surprise - the other party was wrong. Now you guys support the vandals/abusors/harassers through your inaction. It's a shame. Maul had 2 24 hour bans when I made the next report. You guys ignored it/dismissed it. Right off the bat after Brent left, you guys did nothing. So bullshit on your rediculous excuses. Drama comes up when someone is repeatedly mistreated and Moderators do nothing. -- Amazing 04:24, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I was going to withdraw my candidacy for modship because of this. As an arbitrator i already have to deal with lots and lots of complain about and from amazing... imagine it as a mod ?! Anyway, since he is saying that he will stop posting in the wiki, i beleive all our jobs are going to get easier. :D --hagnat ^{talk • wcdz} 04:17, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I said I'd have others make my reports. You'd fit in as a Mod, since you don't care to read what's said. heh -- Amazing 04:24, 7 April 2006 (BST)

If Amazing gets banned because of one his edits to my revert to the Group Page's Personal POV, I'll be happy. Seriously, he isn't ENTITLED to edit the Wiki. If you aren't worth it, you aren't worth it. It isn't that you can't become a good person, its that you aren't worth waiting for it. --Karlsbad 05:08, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Though I disagree, all I can really say is that "Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here." is below the edit box. I can't change your opinion of me, and trust me - I don't intend to try. Everyone's entitled to their own point of view. I hope that, in the future, we can come together on another subject we agree on. -- Amazing 05:11, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Multiple Spam Accounts 2

Reverted. --Lint 21:40, 4 April 2006 (BST)

As these seem to have been ignored, i'm going to ban them both now (bit late I know).--The General ^{W! Mod} 20:54, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing

This guy doesn't stop. Vandalized the GANKBUS page again. He claims its inflammatory, but I provide direct links to quotes and theories. it is also labeled as speculation. It is not inflammatory in any way. Requesting that this user be banned for the third case of GANKBUS vandalization in one weeks. Rasher 22:27, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized again after a revert. Rasher 22:40, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized again after a revert.Rasher 22:49, 3 April 2006 (BST)

It was unfounded accusations and inflammatory content which you know jolly well was false. I shall be posting a vandalism report for failure to comply with an arbitration desicion in the morning.--The General 22:57, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized Arbitration discussion page. "Lucero Capell (Revert. It's a talk page, as long as it's active, it may go here. Deletion of material on talk pages is vandalism.)" Nothing listed in the section about you is untrue, and links are provided to all sections. Every further incident will be reported as vandalism. Rasher 23:09, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized Arbitration discussion page again. Rasher 23:19, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized GANKBUS again. Rasher 06:32, 4 April 2006 (BST)

After looking over the so-called vandalism, I see very little wrong. Several of his edits to the GANKBUS page were uncalled for, but they appear to be to remove biased information against the General. I've noted that some of his edits have even been left alone on that page. You can't call someone a vandal when you agree with part of what they're saying! As for vandalizing the Petition page, Amazing was acting correctly. Despite the majority of votes in favor of moving the page, no final descision was made. You should be happy that he left the note these last few times, instead of blanking it yet again, like I would have done. Now boys, take your hands off each other, or so help me...I'll pull this car over! --Mia Kristos 15:01, 4 April 2006 (BST)

I agreed on certain changes made to the General's section. If you look at the changes, most of them were him removing the entire section, which is vandalism. Blanking any discussion page is vandalism as clearly stated in the rules. Rasher 17:02, 4 April 2006 (BST)
- True, but he did stop in later edits. To me, this says that he learned his lesson, at least as that page is concerned. --Mia Kristos 20:01, 4 April 2006 (BST)

- Probably not, he's just trying to go over the head of the normal process. If he has learned his lesson, I'll be satisfied.Rasher 01:18, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Like Daft Punk says, One More time Even if you say he's making a factual correction, coloring commentary he didn't write is still vandalismRasher 02:04, 5 April 2006 (BST)

I would just love to see what happens if I try to correct the GANKBUS allegations, about us being one person, on the CDF page. He would most likely revert it and report me for vandalism.Rasher 02:06, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized again! Keep on rocking and you don't stop, bro! Rasher 02:16, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized again! I'd like to point out that there's no back and forth on this...no GANKBUS members has modified any page not relating to GANKBUS. It's a one man show. This isn't even inflammatory stuff. I'd like to remind the panel that edits not made "in good faith" constitute vandalism. Rasher 02:18, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized by Amazing again! Ozno Axe

Vandalized by Amazing again! Rasher 02:34, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized by Amazing again! Ozno Axe 02:55, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Vandalized by Amazing again! Rasher 03:06, 5 April 2006 (BST)

User:Robbie the king

He has vandalised the CMS wiki by adding stuff like "or one of our stupid twat members" and "we r twats remember this when you join". He also changed the Group Footer. He changed Survivor group into PKer Group. I warned him on his own talk page. He has also Vandalising my own User page now for warning him.. User talk:Vykos Please take a look at his vandalism... soon. thank you.--Vykos 19:57, 3 April 2006 (BST)

update: As of now he deleted some stuff from my user page, changed back a few things on the CMS and deleted my warnings from his user page, I put down another comment on his user page just now. The History of the CMS page, my user talk page, and his user talk page will be clear enough to judge this problem. PROOF --Vykos 20:45, 3 April 2006 (BST)

User:Phish_dude

member vandalised the Dulston Defense Death Squad group page.evidence --Sarah79 00:06, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing & The General

After an arbitration case deciding any act of editing not in good faith on our page would be considered vandalism, Amazing and The General vandalized the [Gankbus] page. Amazing blanked it three times, followed by The General removing a rezzer from our page. Regardless of what he thinks about how we determine who is a rezzer or not, it is not the position of CDF to modify our list of targets. No inflammatoy information was posted whatsoever, and this is a direct act of vandalism. Rasher 5:50 EST April 2 2006

After speaking with Amazing it is my understanding that the blankings were unintentional. However, removing the rezzer information was not and still vandalism as described by our moderation policy. Additionally, Amazing using inflammatory language when contacting me calling me a "fool" and "idiot". Rasher 7:48 EST April 2 2006

May I point out that the character in question does not even have the skills required to revive someone and that I am not a member of the CDF. I posted that there was an error on the groups talk page and one of the group removed it, but you the put it back, without even considering that you might be incorrect. I then went ahead and removed it.--The General 06:42, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Rasher has now added an even more blatantly false version of the information which now states that I revified someone yesturday, when I was in Wales, with no internet connection! If this isn't dealt with then I shall take it to arbitration.--The General 15:12, 3 April 2006 (BST)

What we choose to post there may or may not be related to actual revivification and could be used for other secret information for our group members. It is not a personal attack. If we can't edit the allegation that GANKBUS is one person on your page then you are not allowed to edit what could be considered useful information on ours. Rasher 1153 EST 3 April 2006

There is no allegation that GANKBUS is one person on my page, I am not a member of the CDF. The character in question does not have the skills required to revive somebody, and I was not here at the time you claim I revived somebody. If this blatantly false information is not removed from the page then I shall take out an arbitration case.--The General 19:17, 3 April 2006 (BST)

I'm taking your character off of the main page and adding allegations that you are somehow involved with Amazing or CDF. More research will be done. Regardless, you have vandalized our page because the information that you are a rezzer is not inflammatory or slanderous in any way and can be used for other information regarding our projects and campaigns. The request for banning stands. --{[User:Rasher|Rasher]] 1615 EST 3 April 2006

The day that good faith edits, correcting incorrect information, are considered vandalism will be the day I leave the wiki.--The General 15:16, 4 April 2006 (BST)

Changchad

This suer is currently vandalizing the suggestions page. He has made two simuler suggestions. And apperently deleted a vote. --ramby T--W! - SGP 15:09, 2 April 2006 (BST)

Just in my defence, I was doing this new suggestion, and forgot that new suggestion has to go to bottom of the page. After inspection, and read the rules again, I realised I have put the suggestion the wrong place. Straight after this, I used copy and paste to move the suggestion to the bottom, and had pasted twice. I did not realise at that moment as I was facing a vast amout of text. After submitting the changes, I realised I had two multiple suggestions which are identical by the mistake described above. At that moment I went back to edit, and I simply just deleted one without noticing theres a vote by Grim S (I think that was him), which now I have put it back again. Which can now be seen at the suggestion page. I hope this is clear enough to prove that it was simply a honest mistake rather than a 'planned' thing.changchad

good faith edits cannot be considered vandalism. Try to be careful in the future. --Zaruthustra-Mod 23:24, 2 April 2006 (BST)

Abatathu

This user deleted a whole range of pages including Declarations, Crystal Method Food Conglomerate, The Malton Fire brigade, Operation Bookworm, Grayside Attack Squad, Vere Cinema , Miltown, Moderation/Protections, Evans Row Fire Station, and The Prancing Horde. I've reverted a bunch of them, but, of course, you can check the history. Special:Contributions/Abatathu's changes. ~JRH 06:25, 1 April 2006 (GMT/UTC).

Howsthatfordamage

Absolutely went nuts vandalizing all sorts of stuff - basically every page here: [14]. --Jorm 06:14, 1 April 2006 (BST)

[[User::Gkhas]] is also in on the fun. Same person, most likely; claims not to be a bot; figure it's a 14 year old with masturbation issues. --Jorm 06:22, 1 April 2006 (BST)

"Don't even bother reverting becuase ill just vandalize it again!!!!" Awesome. Fairly certain this is a bot; it vandalizes and switches names faster than I can revert. --Jorm 06:29, 1 April 2006 (BST)

I AM NOT A FRIGEN BOT MAN!!! THAT IS LIKE VANDALIZATION CHEATING OK!!!!!!!!!! First of all to prove that im am not a bot i will tell you how easy and quik it is to vandalize a page. First create a wierd name. Then click the random page button. Then click edit. then do ctr-a then delete then click save and vola you have vandalize a page in liek less than 15 seconds. Also I claim full responibility for all vandalizations that were done by the person know as the "3 page wiki vandel" -howsthatfordamage P.S. I am 15 not 14. But I aplaud you on your good guess on my age!!!

Ohimonfire. -- Amazing 06:31, 1 April 2006 (BST)

I have reverted all of the pages done by users above this line. --John Rove 08:35, 1 April 2006 (BST)

... --Lint 07:25, 1 April 2006 (BST)

Good god. I'd consider mega-banning all of these, but I think I'll just make a deal - If he pops up again (and there's every reason to suggest he won't, but if he does), list the damage here, and I'll ban the accounts that he's still using. But then, it may be that he's already had his fun - Vandal banning isn't for punishment, more for damage control. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 06:23, 6 April 2006 (BST)

From howsthatfordamage (aka the 3 page vandel) "sigh" You guys seriously underestimate me you know that. What i'v been vandelizing for like 2 to 3 months now you know that. I just want to point out the most probable error of the quote "(and there's every reason to suggest he won't)" Because if that was the case i would have stopped 2 months ago. well whatever

Try stepping up your efforts. Maybe people here will acknowledge your existance. Theres about 100 people to revert every edit you make. We'll really enjoy the culmination of this saga where you lose your job at Denny's and die alone. Love, luck, and lollipops, --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:26, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Blasteded

User erased the page Mrh Cows and replaced it with spam. The page has been restored, but the edit can be seen here: [15] --Mia Kristos 06:11, 1 April 2006 (BST)

Looking at this users's contributions[16], it seems that they have hit a total of 21 pages. I'll be reverting one of two of them and I'd do more except that it's late here. --RedKnight 07:55, 1 April 2006 (BST)

Warned. The number of pages he's hit has led me to make this a "double-warning". If he does it again, he'll be banned. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 06:10, 6 April 2006 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2006 04

April 2006

1146294729 and 1146294672

More from above user

Amazing (Again again)

Amazing (again)

Multiple Spam Accounts 2

Amazing & The General

Navigation menu

Search