UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 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 2008

User:Huntah

Has decided to change the agreed upon barricade plan for vinetown. This is against the organised groups wishes. These are the pages: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Vinetown and http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Club_Izzard --Bunkis 05:25, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism' - this is an edit conflict, take it to arbitration. Barricade plans are simply some people's view of what the situation should be... he simply disagrees with you. Go to arbitration and get a third party to work it out for you -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:14 29 April 2008 (BST)

User:JonnyFive

JonnyFive (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
For this edit. Accurate or not, Its up to a group member to do the editing. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 18:59, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Good faith, it improved the accuracy of the paragraph. The edit was accurate to what the stats said at that time, and the paragraph was talking about the stats page, not about known members who may not have the exact words "Dunell Hills Police Department" in their profile. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:33, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Read the reporting guidelines, please. "Avoid submitting reports which are petty." --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:03, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Allright. Its just that I thought that the fact that since the edit in question was not in the NPOV section and that Johny is a member of a group known to Grief the DHPD, that it was innapropriate. I assume this means that anyone can now edit any group page as long as the edit is accurate? Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 15:28, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Edit in the means of adding new info, no. Update already existing, yet outdated, information from a reliable source, yes. You could've prevented that by simply saying as of (day) of (month), the DHPD yada yada --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:37, 28 April 2008 (BST)

If the minor editing of the group page continues in a way that I think can be considered to be for annoyance value, then yeah, it may be ruled as vandalism... but not simply this -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:24 29 April 2008 (BST)

User:Blanemcc

For this edit -- in which he blanked out, as I count them, seven seperate News posts on the Molebank suburb page -- all in one go. Admittedly, not all of these were NPOV/News style, and those ones ought to have been deleted or moved to the Talk page; however, several of them were just fine and deleting them was IMO vandalism pure and simple. --WanYao 04:39, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Please discuss it with him first, it was heavy handed, but not really bad faith from what I can see -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:32 28 April 2008 (BST)

you know, i just don't see how can argue "not in bad faith"... he deleted a number of perfectly legit News posts (i.e. perfectly NPOV reports...) with the fairly apparent intent to obscure the fact that the suburb was no longer dangerous... this is deleterious to the wiki being an accurate information source... however, i shall take the issue up with blanemcc as you advised. but i do expect that such occurances in the future, by anyone, will be treated appropriately. --WanYao 23:21, 29 April 2008 (BST)

He removed both sides of the argument, not just the one he disagreed with (from that edit I can't tell which side he agrees with)... over a period of days one person would say "Safe", and another comes along and says "Nah ah". It was a pointless back and forth "yes it is, no it isn't" dispute, with no one backing either side up with any form of proof -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:33 30 April 2008 (BST)

Looking further through the page history, there are allegations, and even admissions, that the news is being suppressed to hide from the horde. You've got to point this stuff out here, WanYao... don't make me search for what you already know. I'm tending towards a vandalism ruling now... would like to hear from another sysop though -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:49 30 April 2008 (BST)

Maybe I didn't see that, myself, did that occur to you? Anyway... I figured that the simple deletion of several perfectly valid news posts with NO justification whatsoever was enough... --WanYao 07:52, 30 April 2008 (BST)

Maybe I didn't see that ... because ... compare the times of the edits! They're after this vandalism report was file, dude? Also, note that I didn't once mention anything about suppression of facts to hide from the Dead... I presented the case solely on its own merits, i.e. the deletion of valid and NPOV articles without any justifcation or anything... Even though... even though I knew full well what was going on... I thought the case was strong enough on its own, without this added information... --WanYao 08:00, 30 April 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:55 1 May 2008 (BST)

User:Gabdewulf

In the process of striking their votes and baning all but the main. I'm not sure of the precedent regarding punishment of the main.--Karek^maps?! 22:39, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Warned - And I assume you've banned all the socks, Karek? Spectacularly inept sock-puppeteer -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:38 25 April 2008 (BST)

I have.--Karek^maps?! 23:44, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Hang about... that last one you found, coyote, was permbanned the other day by AHGL, without him noticing it was a sock. So Gabdewulf (as the main account) should have received his second warning for that... making this a 24hr ban -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:28 26 April 2008 (BST)

User: Signguy

Made only three contributions.[[1]] the first of which being vandalism, and the other two being mean spirited at the very least. --Bullgod 02:48, 23 April 2008 (BST)

The first edit is Vandalism but I've not been invovled with the VB page long enougth to feel happy about making a descision wether to perma or warn this user.--Seventythree^Talk 12:30, 23 April 2008 (BST)

so no ones even going to warn him about the vandalism he did do? --Bullgod 21:55, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Warned. Thanks for ZS's clarification--Seventythree^Talk 23:10, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Hey Bull, you are a hipocrite and a liar. That wasnt vandalism, it was responding to your comments, the same as you do. The only difference is that you are a sore looser and your olny source of power is complaining to make yourself feel bigger. And I never recieved any warning, so you all can go to hell. This game sucks, and so do your petty politics. Fickin ban me...from a fuckin wiki. Big deal. I am done with you and this stupid wanna be game.--Signguy 23:21, 30 April 2008 (BST)

first of all, edits should go at the bottom, not the top of a vandalism report, second, i didn't report you for your annoying comments to my user talk page, altho they didn't help me to think highly of you, it was your edit of the Cornfed Undead group page that was vandalism, and thats why i reported you.--Bullgod 00:08, 1 May 2008 (BST)

that, and you can't deny being warned by deleting the message--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:12, 1 May 2008 (BST)

User:Jamie_Cantwell3

Putting crap into the suggestions category. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:22, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I think he made an oops -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:41, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Implied intent. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 19:57, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Idiotic Mistake which he then corrected. I've done it before as well. -- C h e e s e 20:58, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - It was a silly mistake that was put right when I picked him up on it. He hasn't been found guilty of vandalism before and only joined the wiki in january. I reckon he just mesed up, no bad intent behind it and it was sorted out by the user way before this case was bought.--Seventythree^Talk 21:13, 22 April 2008 (BST)

User:Coyote

All 3 edits vandalism, banned in accordance with the guidelines. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:21, 22 April 2008 (BST)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

Altered a image which was used on my page and in one of my templates. Obviously a bad faith edit with the purpose of modifying my user page and my templates.--Luke Skywalker 11:10, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism. You chose to use an image that he uploaded. You can't stop him from modifying it for his own use now -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:19 21 April 2008 (BST)

Last time I checked bad faith was vandalism. But anyways, just unprotect my user page then so I can replace it.--Luke Skywalker 11:22, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Template:Finis Valorum isn't protected, which is what you will need to edit. But if you are back, your talk page at least should be unprotected -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:26 21 April 2008 (BST)

I'm not back, don't worry. I just monitor my user pages from time to time to be sure.--Luke Skywalker 11:28, 21 April 2008 (BST)

According to the edit log of that picture Finis never actually edited it, nor did it link to any of his pages.--x o x o 11:36, 21 April 2008 (BST)

No he didn't edit it, but it was on his page up until a few minutes ago when he changed the template I mentioned above... now this is sorted, so no need for further comment, thanks -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:41 21 April 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - just to close the case with bold letters... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:17, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Finis, I can't contact you on your talk page, so I hope youll read this. It was for MY template, not yours. It's your fault you put my picture in it. closed.

07:41, 30 April 2008 (BST)

User:Dangerchnager

Did this to many suburbs. His name even shows his intent to vandalize. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 02:01, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Every edit is to change a danger report to safe. I vote vandalism and suggest a permaban (but want confirmation from another sysop before zapping) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:22 21 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah, looks like all edits were vandalism, as well as the name seeming to confirm it.--Seventythree^Talk 11:26, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Permban - just to be clear, of the 10 contributions, all were changes to danger reports making them all safe, some jumping straight from VeryDanger to safe -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:45 21 April 2008 (BST)

User:J3D

Creating a subpage of my talk page to circumvent a protection requested by me (while I was away). I didn't think it was really necessary to check the wiki for these idiots but it seems stupidity has no boundaries.--Luke Skywalker 09:59, 20 April 2008 (BST)

I was going to wait for a sysop to say something but i'm off to bed so i'll make a statement now. This isn't vandalism, i was writing on his talk page as i have frequently for the last year, yes i created a page, however i was not editing one of Finis' pages i was editing one of his talk pages. He has as much right to remove what i wrote as i have to put it their.--x o x o 14:01, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Ummm, you didn't edit one of his talk pages, you created a page in his userspace called "dickwad". Vandalism, don't make pages in other users namespace, especially not insulting ones simply containing links to your own projects -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:09 20 April 2008 (BST)

I did not make a page in his user space, i made a talk page in his user space. Any user is allowed to edit a talk page however the owner of that talk page can remove what ever is posted. Creation of the page User:Finis Valorum/Dickwad is different to creation of the page User Talk:Finis Valorum/Dickwad --x o x o 03:21, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Huh-huh, it's not the same thing.... IF the page for whom you created a talk page EXISTED in the first place... since User:Finis Valorum/Dickwad dont exists and never existed, you had no right to create a talk page for it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:19, 21 April 2008 (BST)

User:TastyNougat. No user page, but airborne edited his talk page. A page doesn't have to exist for a talk page to be created for it.--x o x o 04:40, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Just because a page has "talk" on it doesn't necessarily mean that it magically becomes not vandalism. You're still calling him a Dickwad. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:42, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Jed. pĺease dont take the administration staff for a fool, ok ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:50, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Heh. Calling Finis a dickwad isn't vandalism, and creating a talk page for a non existent user page isn't vandalism. If those pictures of Marty Banks aren't vandalism i don't see how this is. --x o x o 04:57, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Precedent says otherwise. Now will you please STFU and accept that warning ? Dickwad. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:04, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Link me to the precedent and i will be more than happy to.--x o x o 05:06, 21 April 2008 (BST)

this case shows how it is considered vandalism to create a page (or a talk page) with an offensive link towards another user. That was easy. I am going to bed now, hoping not to hear from this case of yours ever more. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:10, 21 April 2008 (BST)

User:Hagnat

Insists on deleting a conversation between Axe Hack and myself. When I saw the first edit I assumed he was going to put it on the talk page. When he failed to do so I did it myself rather than bringing a case against him. Now that he's done it again... I have no choice. "Fuck the rules" has no place in this wiki. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:57, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Where did i played the fuck the rules wild card in here, heh ? Your comments were simply trolling, and trolling doesnt need to be archieved or moved anywhere. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 06:02, 19 April 2008 (BST)

That is exactly the "fuck the rules" card I'm talking about. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 06:04, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Didn't belong there to begin with.--Karek^maps?! 06:09, 19 April 2008 (BST)

--> A/A. Alternatively, you could both jump out a window. Not vandalism -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 06:08, 19 April 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

The user was asked to stop trolling on vandal reports, but that might applies to any administration pages as well. After a discussion on axe hack's promotion bid (where cyberbob was trolling him), axe hack requested his user pages to be protected for his leave, and cyberbob simply trolled the request several times. This is clearly an action in bad faith. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:34, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Stop making up rules. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:36, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Scinfaxi goe banned for beng a troll... you are on the verge to become one as bad as he was, to the point i think that your removal from this community would be well appreciated by sveral more users than those who still find you amusing. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:42, 19 April 2008 (BST)

I imagine it would - but we can't all have our way, can we? Find a reason other than "fuck the rules" and I'll accept your warning without protest. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:43, 19 April 2008 (BST)

I can't say that it was, the promotions bid was pretty tame and it wasn't due to Cyberbob "trolling" him, he snapped at Cyberbob. Other than that he's not causing a problem any more than Axe Hack, Not Vandalism unless you want to say they're both vandals for not getting along.--Karek^maps?! 05:38, 19 April 2008 (BST)

TAME ? You've got to be kidding me?! "Tame"... it does look tame now because i removed a fuckload of discussion from the bid to talk page... and the most heated debate is under the parachute voting header... Hah! tame... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:44, 19 April 2008 (BST)

PROTIP: You didn't put the discussion on the talk page, I did. Without starting up a case against you for deletion of comments, no less. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:46, 19 April 2008 (BST)

PROTIP: I dont have to move trolling anywhere :D Now go fuck yourself, will ya ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:49, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Now you're just shooting your own arguments in the foot. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:50, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Well, according to Karek this is not vandalism... so whathehecks... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:52, 19 April 2008 (BST)

--> A/A. Alternatively, you could both jump out a window. Not vandalism -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 06:09, 19 April 2008 (BST)

User:Ded2zeds

Mid morning blanking spree - Vantar 17:02, 18 April 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 17:24 18 April 2008 (BST)

Missed one here --

Showcase^Talk 17:43, 18 April 2008 (BST)

Perma then. 3 strikes and you're out -- boxy ^{talk • i} 17:47 18 April 2008 (BST)

Various Goons

Evidence:

Reason: Blatant Impersonation of Zeug. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The man (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

The very best idea in this case would be for you not to incite this sort of thing on The Dead's talk page. Also, please sign these things in the future. Ta! --Deadtanian 11:42, 18 April 2008 (BST)

Vandalism. A warning each for impersonation.-- Vista +1 12:42, 18 April 2008 (BST)

A wiki is a very free environment, almost every user is free to edit anything they wish. So we've made rules to make sure that readers can be relatively sure that what they are reading is actually written by the person who has signed the post. Even on user and group pages, to sign a post with someone else's name is to circumvent the basic trust that everyone needs to have for a workable community. Vandalism in the extreme, despite the talk page "warning". Don't do it again -- boxy ^{talk • i} 17:20 18 April 2008 (BST)

discussion moved to talk page

Actually since I'm inclined to agree that it's not vandalism I would say they're only as tied as you choose them to be. There is no misunderstanding about who is writing the comments, or at least that they are not Zeug, and if Zeug doesn't mind other people doing that, and there's no confusion about who is signing, then it really is a nonissue and a waste of everyone's time that it is here at all. --Karek^maps?! 00:49, 20 April 2008 (BST)

Hum... yeah, we could try to overule the initial ruling... not vandalism. The goons had a warning that their talk page was gonna be filled with trolling, so people should know with what their were dealing with. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:24, 20 April 2008 (BST)

I should also point out here that this ruling violates the Punishment section of the Signature Policy:

UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy

If a signature doesn't meet the above requirements then these steps will be taken.

The user of the signature will be warned once and asked to change it. The user has one week to comply.
If the user does not change the signature then a vandalism case will be brought forth where the user may receive a warning or banning in accordance to the vandalism page. The user has three days to comply extending out till when they next sign, if they continue to sign with said signature then they will be referred for another vandalism case.
If a user repeats such actions then the initial warning can be skipped and the vandalism case can be brought forth immediately.

We were punished immediately and not given a week to comply with removing the violations. The offending impersonations have all been removed from the page in question. --Kid sinister 03:40, 21 April 2008 (BST)

That is relevant for users who don't have links to their user pages. Karloth would be the most recent example of having no link in his sig to his user page. The only time impersonation shouldn't be deemed vandlism is if it is a newbie mistake (danger reports specifically) and good faith fixes (spelling, broken links, formatting although it still may be reverted). -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:51, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Actually, it does. The first line of the Punishment section is:

UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy

If a signature doesn't meet the above requirements then these steps will be taken.

One of the above requirements is the Required Link section:

UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy

The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature. Superscript adornments, images and other parts of your signature may link to other locations provided that such links do not violate the rules below.

We violated that section, so we should get the option to correct it as dictated. In no place on that official policy page is it stated that this policy is restricted to users who don't have links to their user pages. Please, start following policy. --Kid sinister 04:16, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Kid, kid! Listen... there is no way you can use the signature policy to help you guys out. Do not attempt to wiki lawerying your way out of this. Me and Karek are already trying to bust your ass out of this, so keep your mouth shut and dont make youself look like fools. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:34, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Wait, all you guys are having a discussion about this out of the sight of the public? --Kid sinister 05:09, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Making me look like a retard pubbie is not going to help on your case, kid. And no, we are not having discussions about your case anywhere else but in this page (and talk page). You can put the conspiracy hat down. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:15, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Calm down, I didn't know. Your reply sounded like you were doing more than just your post above. Jesus, forget I said anything... --Kid sinister 05:22, 21 April 2008 (BST)

We are not required to warn users before warning users. A warning is telling a user to stop, a ban is actually stopping the user. UDWiki:Vandalism, despite being so loose, states specifically that impersonating another user is vandalism. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:35, 21 April 2008 (BST)

So who in the Signature Policy is supposed to be warning the offending user then? --Kid sinister 05:09, 21 April 2008 (BST)

AHLG states "UDWiki:Vandalism, despite being so loose, states specifically that impersonating another user is vandalism" ... which is patently incorrect. It simply states that if you're impersonating another user the mods can only "assume that you're trying to do bad things" to that user. It's a question of the assumption of bad faith and unless you anal retentives are going to argue the wiki policy FORCES you to assume bad faith in each and every case then let's just dismiss this case outright now! There is no reasonable argument to be made for bad faith impersonation here ... none whatsoever! The context of the "impersonations" makes it self evidently clear that 1. they aren't me, 2. they aren't trying to fool anyone into thinking they're me, 3. even The man couldn't possibly be deceived cos he's the subject of their joke. 4. there's absolutely no intention to do "bad things" to me! ERGO NO BAD FAITH = NOT VANDALISM!. --One of The ZEUGS! 09:43, 21 April 2008 (BST)

User:Stocom, User:Alex007, User:Hero Cinquire

Stocom (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Alex007 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Hero Cinquire (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Each of these are accounts whose only edits have been to vote against Axe Hack's promotion bid. I call shenanigans. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:55, 18 April 2008 (BST)

So you are complaining that they are actually contributing to the wiki? --DCC 22:10, 18 April 2008 (BST)

Members of group asked for their opinion on an off-wiki forum. Shenanigans averted! --Deadtanian 11:41, 18 April 2008 (BST)

Righto then. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 00:52, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism Everybody can voice their opinion, even single time editors. The bureaucrats won't take them serious, but they're allowed.-- Vista +1 12:45, 18 April 2008 (BST)

we used to ban meat-puppets, but whateheck... times be achangin --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:10, 19 April 2008 (BST)

We still do - it's just that these are not alt accounts (which were generally the flavour of the day back then). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:14, 19 April 2008 (BST)

There is a difference from a MEAT-puppet and a SOCK-puppet. The second is also called as alt account and is controlled by a user which already has an account in this wiki, while the first is just a member of board who creates an account for parachute voting. Both evil, both an abuse of this wiki policies, both banned. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:28, 19 April 2008 (BST)

Thanks Captain Obvious! --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:31, 19 April 2008 (BST)

User:Locke588

Unauthorized editing of group page. Looks like a well intentioned newbie mistake, but he shouldn't be doing it. Also, requesting rollback to undo his edits. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 17:55, 17 April 2008 (BST)

I'll look into it more to be sure, but it looks like all he was doing was fixing typos. That would be Not Vandalism, no mean faith of cruel derailment.--Karek^maps?! 18:06, 17 April 2008 (BST)

I agree, I was just hoping you could give him an unofficial warning and roll back the page. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 18:49, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Why would you want to roll it back? He did you a favor. Those spelling mistakes were terrible. --Nitro378^{T JNL} 18:53, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Yes. They certainly were. That's not the point. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 19:02, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Druu, non sysops can revert pages. You click on the "history" tab, go down and click on the date of the page before the vanderlism occured, eg on scour the earth it was "21:03, 15 February 2008" next to Vandr, and then click save page at the bottom like you would a normal page. This will revert the page.--Thekooks 19:07, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Ah, that does work, too. I should have thought of that. I blame too much schoolwork. Disregard this, then. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 19:13, 17 April 2008 (BST)

User:Gabdewulf

Editing another user's page. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 17:55, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:42 18 April 2008 (BST)

User:Kid sinister

One more time. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:34, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - read the header title... poor form, but on the spirit of the discussion. You would do a lot better talking to the user and explaining not to quote marty that way. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:43, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Then wouldn't the report Akule posted below this not vandalism neither? Thus meaning he didn't deserve a warning? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:44, 16 April 2008 (BST)

No, since the first quote was changed with the gerbil in the ass comment while the second remained intact. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:47, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Also, read the below report. the Capt Schwartz one. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:49, 16 April 2008 (BST)

ITP we make seperate reports for seperate reports.--Karek^maps?! 21:08, 16 April 2008 (BST)

*sniff* It's nice to see that you all care so much... --Kid sinister 08:00, 17 April 2008 (BST)

User:Bedlami

Signed posts which were not his. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:40, 16 April 2008 (BST)

It's a goon fooling on goon's page on a goon's discussion. there was no harm done too. meh. not vandalism. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:44, 16 April 2008 (BST)

User:Capt Schwartz

Impersonation. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 03:21, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism, but I've modified it to make it clearer that he is quoting something that Marty said elsewhere -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:02 16 April 2008 (BST)

User:Kid sinister

Silly Kid sinister and the impersonation of Mary's post.--Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 00:39, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Warned - Vantar 01:13, 16 April 2008 (BST)

The vandalism still needs to be reverted.--'BP^Tmz 02:33, 16 April 2008 (BST)

I've reverted it now. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:37, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Sorry about that I had seen something in recent changes and thought it had been already - Vantar 02:51, 16 April 2008 (BST)

User:Dedling

Wipe --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 03:15, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Warn -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:51 14 April 2008 (BST)

User:Cythrelo

Warned for impersonation. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:35, 12 April 2008 (BST)

User:Leviathan37

Pretty blatant abuse of author Re's. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:01, 12 April 2008 (BST)

I've had a word with him, but being a newbie, I don't see any bad faith in it. If it continues to such a degree in the future it may be a different story -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:01 12 April 2008 (BST)

User:Laughing Man

Blanked location page- Vantar 20:36, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Second warning issued. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:39, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Er, breaking a redirect to make a location, as it should be? I don't think Laughing Man knows about autoblockers. I'm going to say not vandalism. At the very most, its a misunderstanding as the redirect was not redirecting to a group page, but rather locations with the exact same name. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:37, 10 April 2008 (BST)

It was Vantar who made that page a location page, not laughing man, and he was the one who reported LM. LM simply blanked the redirection, which was pointing to a location page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:45, 10 April 2008 (BST)

It really had no affect at all, though. It was just made into a location page soon after. Clearing the redirect just saved a click. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:58, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Did not... and was the main reason wht vantar created the location page in the end. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:00, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Le sigh, Not Vandalism just foolishness.--Karek^maps?! 07:57, 11 April 2008 (BST)

And how much foolishness should we endure ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:54, 11 April 2008 (BST)

As much as is not directly harmful to the wiki, it's called assuming good faith.--Karek^maps?! 16:53, 11 April 2008 (BST)

And how come LM edits were not harmful to the wiki ? He blanked a redirection page, thus anyone wishing to read about Boradbelt Grove PD would'nt have any information about it until Vantar (the one who created this case) added info to that page. Besides, reading the summary of LM edit, he asks why a location place is redirecting to a group page... when the redirected page IS NOT a group page and he clearly know it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:52, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Just let him have this one Hagnat. But if it happens again, it should be seen as vandalism. The redirect wasn't pointing at a group page, and if you're not willing to actually fix the page to comply with the LSG by making an individual location page, leave it alone. Blanking redirects is not fixing anything, it's breaking links -- boxy ^{talk • i} 18:01 11 April 2008 (BST)

well, when all sides of the sysop team reach the same veredict, i think there is little for me to do to convince them otherwise. I'll drop this, but only because i see how useless it would be to continue to fight for a vandalism ruling. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:28, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Wait why is this not vandalism? He blanked a page without valid reason. I always thought that was a clear cut case of vandalism. He even admits to knowing that what he did was wrong with his edit summary, his complain was that the page was not a loction page (which it was) and his edit left something that was definitely not a location page. - Vantar 04:41, 13 April 2008 (BST)

Exactly my point. Totally agree with that. Go figures. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:27, 13 April 2008 (BST)

User:ScoobyDooDoobie

While I don't have a specific vandalism link to provide, I could find no other means for reporting consistant and nonstop bad faith. This user's comments, as shown in his history of less than 200 comments, suggest that he has joined this wiki as a member of The Dead with the single purpose of trolling and flamebaiting. Nearly all of his comments are insulting, meant to cause aggression and useless. Contributions such as his would easily be considered vandalism on most sites even with freedom of speech.

Some examples out of the many...

His very first comment on the wiki

Turn off the moniter, walk outside, or call your mom. You've become too involved in an online game that takes 3 minutes to play.--ScoobyDooDoobie 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One of his many "stay in school" comments (just the first part)

Since you have glorified me as the glorious leader of glorious Somethingawful I have 3 statements. 1.Stay in 'skool'. I normally would typed school but I'm trying to appease your sexual side. Here's looking at you honey! Just pretend I'm wearing a skirt while you hit that refresh button! ... --ScoobyDooDoobie 06:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Here he tells us how politeness on the internet is something we don't need to worry about

Get this holier than thou crap outta here. You're not fooling anyone. Last thing you should care about is being polite on a small wikiboard about a browser based zombie game. Good thing you have your priorities straight though.--ScoobyDooDoobie 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, take the time to randomly pick differences on his contributions page and you encounter comment after comment, ironically, basically telling other users on this wiki that they are stupid or useless or a faggot of some sort. Its time for it to stop. Thanks for hearing me out. Better rule quickly before he pops up and tells me Im a cry baby or something for caring enough to make a case. --Showcase^Talk 19:12, 10 April 2008 (BST)

discussion moved to talk page

Not Vandalism - Freedom of speech ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:23, 10 April 2008 (BST)

RE: You posed a question so I am responding... Im not against free speech. Its not about those three examples, those are just examples for this page that I picked out. The point was that this user has nothing constructive to add to the wiki. His sole purpose is to troll and flame. This itself, could be considered vandalism.--

Showcase^Talk 20:27, 10 April 2008 (BST)

If we were to run around banning users because they have been trolling on the wiki, then several users would have to be banned from the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:31, 10 April 2008 (BST)

discussion moved to talk page

User:Rudiger Jones and others

[2] Some time ago, certain members of The Dead and I got into a spirited discussion on their talk page. Some of their membership saw fit to vandalize my own personal userpage here in retribution. The offensive comments were removed by Dr. Olberman in response, but upon visiting my userpage this morning to do some editing I discovered that these offensive comments (referring to certain anatomy I wish not to speak of) have reappeared. Assuming that The Dead are responsible for this, I do not wish for them to be banned, but I DO want the changes retracted, and I want someone in Administration to speak to them about proper net etiquette. An apology would also be nice, but it is not necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarumingan Gistarai (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Vandalism - and fuck the vandal escalation. I am asking for Rudiger_Jones permanent ban. This user shows no sign of respect for this community and its users. All sysops in favor, please say aye, against say nay. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:04, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Aye. I agree. If you can't get on with the existing users, then why be here at all? -- C h e e s e 15:51, 11 April 2008 (BST)

NAY Actually I mostly agree with Cyberbob. While Rudiger did break the userpage ownership rule. The first time was probably in good faith as more people edited that page then just the owner. But he should have stopped to think the second time. So a warning is warrented.

But a permaban is way overboard. Rudiger's trash talking is almost entirely limited to two places. The dead's talkpage and the DHPD talkpage. Sure, he's being a jerk, but that's it. Nobody forces DHPD'ers to comment on the deads talkpage. And it's only normal to expect to get comments from the dead on the DHPD talkpage if the DHPD leave comments on theirs. permabanning somebody because he's in an argument in which both sides claim that the other side are immature losers (and in which both sides are working hard to prove their opponents claim) is not the way to go. With due process and patience the bad apples will be seperated from the good apples in due time without having to bend the rules.-- Vista +1 17:16, 11 April 2008 (BST)

No to perma, I'm not even sure it was vandalism so much as over the top asshattery.--Karek^maps?! 18:36, 11 April 2008 (BST)

No to perma Its the price you pay to be able to delete anyones coments from your own talk page... You can delete anything you want off of that page, but folks get to say pretty much what they want... as long as it falls under what is alowable by the TOS of the host for the wiki and/or Game. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 21:13, 11 April 2008 (BST)

I realize I'm really late on this but he has an opinions section on his page, I didn't change anything of his that he had written. If that user opinion section had been in his talk page I would've posted there. Don't get mad when someone offers a different opinion. Rudiger Jones 04:58, 19 April 2008 (BST)

I just noticed this myself. What I reverted was the sandiness thing back to Rudiger's orignial opinion of "Kinda whiny." THAT was an opinon but saying someoneone has sand in their "female anatomy" isnt one. If rudiger is in that opinion then he was _really_ stretching it. Still if Taru wants it gone I'll delete for him. If Rudiger wants to keep "Kinda whiny" then he can add it back. Im going to delete my edits that attack rudiger and The dead. as well to compromise the situation.--Doctor Oberman 23:54, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Okay honestly can Tarumigan not edit his own fucking page? If he left it up there that's his own decision. Rudiger Jones 17:56, 23 April 2008 (BST)

User:Vista

Edited a comment after it had been replied to. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:32, 9 April 2008 (BST)

And again. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:34, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I'm quite the little scamp aren't I?-- Vista +1 15:38, 9 April 2008 (BST)

GIVE THAT SON OF A BITCH THE CHAIR カシュー, ザゾンビクィーン (ビープビープ)

@ 15:38, 9 April 2008 (BST)

And again. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:17, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Fear my evil editing ways!-- Vista +1 16:24, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Oh my god, he changed One or two words! Call the admins! --Nitro378^{T JNL} 16:26, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Well, I think he just did. But anyway, any further non-sysop comment really should go on the talkpage from now.-- Vista +1 16:29, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - if he had significantly changed his message in order to make it look like he said something different from what was previously written, then it could be considered poor form, maybe vandalism. I dont see any of it in his edits, and he even adds an edit message after one of the reported changes he made. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:35, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - All he's doing is clarifying what was already there. He didn't change what he said at all. Next please. -- C h e e s e 21:11, 9 April 2008 (BST)

User:DCC & User:Katthew

Has made heaps of edits to locations pages to add a type of category that he has stated an opposition to to create more drama -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:49 9 April 2008 (BST)

What, ain't a nigga allowed to change his mind? If a chickenshit outfit like the DHPD gets the OK for pissing all over the wiki, the game's largest and most powerful group sure oughta mark their territory like some kinda elephant with a ten-ton bladder. Peace out, カシュー, ザゾンビクィーン (ビープビープ)

@ 10:51, 9 April 2008 (BST)

They havn't got the OK, you know that, your meatpubbies know that... that is the whole reason you're doing this -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:59 9 April 2008 (BST)

Funny, their little category still isn't empty. If you're actually serious about de-DMZin' the wiki, fucking hop to it already. If it takes us doing a little "vandalism" to drive the moderators to do their Goddamn job rather than just talking about it, then we might as well keep it up, since you apparently need us around to get anything done. Lazy buggers, aren't you? カシュー, ザゾンビクィーン (ビープビープ)

@ 11:27, 9 April 2008 (BST)

And I never said I was against a valid categorization just that worn out joke that is known as the DHPD/DMZ. As you can see, The City of The Dead is actually something you can prove exists! We don't even have to resort to only being a wiki presence. But if you would like more of us on the wiki I am sure we can arrange that. --

#99 ^DCC 12:34, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Continued on talk page.

I'm confused. What is Katthew being accused of? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:46, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Same thing -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:47 9 April 2008 (BST)

Or "talking back to der Führer", whichever you prefer! カシュー, ザゾンビクィーン (ビープビープ)

@ 12:19, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Double standard... we've worked for years on the DMZ and keeping it safe... and they are trying to remove that history... even in the description on the suburb pages, right now... and yet... Katthew and the lot get a pass because they are the big bad goons... I want to throw up... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 16:41, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Creating drama like this to make a point falls under bad faith editing. You both get a warning. If you are interested in removing the DHPD categories or adding your own, use the arbitration pages. And stay polite.-- Vista +1 15:26, 9 April 2008 (BST) Edit. The vandal escalation makes that warning a week long ban unfortuneatly.

You're full of shit. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:28, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Thank you, I try.-- Vista +1 15:32, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Too late, I assumed that I should follow the saintly example of the unimpeachable mods and deleted all the DHPD's categories that weren't on pages a) up for deletion; or b) a DHPD sub-page. But it wasn't my fault! I learned it from you, okay? I learned it from you! カシュー, ザゾンビクィーン (ビープビープ)

@ 15:33, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - if the DHPD category wasnt empty of location pages, anyone could remove these locations from there. By creating a new group category and linking locations to it, katthew has shown poor faith towards the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:42, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Just a note about DCC, he's made at least 250 edits in the past month (new policy, no longer 2 months), so should this not have been a second warning? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:23, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Read the green warning above. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:11, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Yes, I have. Regardless, the vandalism edits don't count and there were a lot. Nevermind, then. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:26, 9 April 2008 (BST)

User:TerminalFailure

While complying in part of kooks arbitration to remove comments about me from his userpage, he replaces them with even more flamebait stuff against Sonny which is not only violation of my arbys, but kooks arbys.

--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:27, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Well then tell our dear friend to stop harassing users on the wiki(especially death threats) and to delete his two latest templates. Nowhere did I name the gentleman from DORIS, and the template is for the wiki community as a whole, so that we can share our feelings about a beloved user. --TerminalFailure 21:29, 8 April 2008 (BST)

thats horsecrap and you know it. Seriously dude, take the high road. It's only digging your grave deeper.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:33, 8 April 2008 (BST)

I'll dig away. Besides, I never named the user on my page. I just linked to a community page so that visitors to my page can be redirected to a wiki resource. The minute I stop monitoring the wiki, Saromu goes on a rampage and assaults users with templates and verbal abuse. Well let me tell you something, Anime Sucks. Two can play at that game. --TerminalFailure 21:36, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Go right ahead dude, but what you are doing is not the way to solve problems around here. And you linked to Sonny, which is naming him. You are violating kooks judgement, which is even more stricter than my judgement.

thekooks said:

You have one week to remove the comments about AnimeSucks on your User Page, and then any mention of AnimeSucks or Sonny on your User Page will result in one further escalation of Vanderlism.

Since you removed the references to me from your userpage, you complied with the first part of that judgement, while at the same time, violated the second. My judgement would have allowed you to say things like "Sonny's smile brightens my day", but even putting that template on your page, is a violation, not to mention making the template is pretty bad faith and a personal attack.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:43, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Seriously man, just comply with the ruling already. I'm fed up of seeing your name on this page. As per the Arby ruling, you are now banned for a period of one month.You were previously banned for one week. Hopefully, you'll listen then. -- C h e e s e 21:50, 8 April 2008 (BST)

For some reason, I didn't get an edit conflict there... :S -- C h e e s e 21:51, 8 April 2008 (BST)

You fail to realize that saromu doesnt have an arby ruling on his back forbidding him from harassing other users. You, on the other hand, have. You have 24h to remove any mention of saromu from your user page, or have your vandal escalation upgraded. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:45, 8 April 2008 (BST)

As you can also noticed, i gave you a shorter period of time to comply with your arbitration ruling this time. The next time i see you being reported in here for violation of that arby, i wont wait a single second to enforce a ruling. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:48, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Saromu is also forbidden from harassing other users according to the ruling. In addition, what mention are you talking about? I only linked to a template and a community page. When Saromu removes the Halo 3 template, I'll consider returning the favor. --TerminalFailure 21:48, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Uh, you mentioned above that you created the template on purpose to piss him off. It can easily be considered a bad faith edit. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 21:53, 8 April 2008 (BST)

You know what, bugger it. You're getting a ban. If you can't play nice, don't play at all. See you in a month. -- C h e e s e 21:55, 8 April 2008 (BST)

I created it so that like-minded users can link to it and express their feelings. That's the purpose of a template. If Saromu asks politely after removing his Halo 3 template, I may remove the link as the content will no longer completely apply. There's no bad faith in that. Besides, templates aren't covered in the ruling. --TerminalFailure 21:55, 8 April 2008 (BST)

I'd have to agree with Cheese, regardless of any arbitration ruling. This is getting ridiculous. No more attack-templates, personal attacks are bad enough. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:02, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Sounds like policy time to prevent this kind of thing.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:04, 8 April 2008 (BST)

why create a policy when we can live with precedence ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:05, 8 April 2008 (BST)

This is also the first time this sort of thing has been a real issue in months. I think the wiki can do with less reactionary policies. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:07, 8 April 2008 (BST)

We can also do some housecleaning and put some of the attack-templates on the deletion page for removal. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 22:46, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Or we can all sit down and have a nice cup of coffee over The View. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 23:44, 8 April 2008 (BST)

User:Dr_Cory_Bjornson

Removing stuff from another user's talkpage, in this case Kevan's.

If that's not enough, the last edit make it look like Skyvia made the edits, which is surely a case of impersonation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:24, 8 April 2008 (BST)

meh. He only removed his own shit. Must be a newbie too. You could do a lot better contacting the user and explaining him not to remove comments from a discussion, and then removing the rest of the content under that header, rather than reporting the user here. not vandalism --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:13, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Someone has already contacted him, he originally removed everything. After being contacted he put back other people's but made it look like impersonation as I said. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:34, 8 April 2008 (BST)

my decision stands. just a bunch of newbie mistakes. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:43, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Why must you people always assume I'm trying to grief you in some way? I made my UD account 2008-03-29, I've been dead 80% of that time, NE Malton. IF you really care look at My Talk and Kevan's Talk. --Dr Cory Bjornson 05:09, 10 April 2008 (BST)

User:Nilef

For the following two edits to the Dead's page.
[3]
[4]
--WanYao 11:06, 8 April 2008 (BST)

I'm a bit conflicted actually. They are really minor edits, but they violate the no ownership rule and are obviously meant to annoy and thus bad faith.

But below we have a case with a no vandalism ruling for exactly the same sort of edits.

still in this case I'm going with a vandalism ruling. These small acts of provoking each other are not constructive at all.-- Vista +1 14:07, 8 April 2008 (BST)

I agree, Vista. But I believe the case below was misjudged... I assume because Marty Banks did not link to the specific examples of vandalism -- and boxy didn't search through the history, understandably, he shouldn't have to... But why would you be conflicted? This case is clearly vandalism, no? As, IMO, is the one below, if you look through the history... I'm NOT trying to stir up trouble, just pointing this out... --WanYao 15:29, 8 April 2008 (BST)

User:Grarr

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Grarr

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=DHPD&action=history

That speaks for itself; they've been messing with our group page and have an agenda to their movements. Now, I'm all for trimming the fat from the wiki pages, ours included; but when they take it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioners and take it upon themselves to vandalize our page then something must be done.

They've shown they have a dishonest agenda and are constantly cursing, spamming, and hounding our group on the wiki... Aren't there rules about foul language, and harassment on this wiki? If there are not, then there need to be... because this is getting ridiculous... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 23:17, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Reasonable edits to NPOV sections is allowed. But don't push it. A group with over 60 members is not small -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:26 8 April 2008 (BST)

If you want them to keep off your group and talk pages, then take the group to arbitration. You've got a good case for it -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:46 8 April 2008 (BST)

Wrong, boxy. This edit is clearly vandalism. It is in no way an attempt to improve the wiki, it's simply harassment. Pure and simple. And it I didn't even dig deeper downto find other examples... However... Marty... do a better job of presenting your evidence next time, you need to show the vandal links... Especially since the sysops, to be fair, can't be expected to dig through the entire history to find the vandalism... --WanYao 08:32, 8 April 2008 (BST) (And I have a right to comment on this, because I've been "in discussions" with the DHPD to make their wiki conform to NPOV. Note DISCUSSIONS, too... Not just going in and vandalising their page, unilaterally...) --WanYao 08:33, 8 April 2008 (BST)

I think you meant this edit, not MartyBanks's revert. --Starplatinum 16:04, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Thank you, I did mean those edits... and he persisted with it after gnome reverted it... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 17:53, 8 April 2008 (BST)

It would be clearly vandalism anywhere else on the page except for the NPOV section, where it was placed. There is a bit of leeway given in that section, however if it continued I would have probably changed my ruling (as indicated in my ruling, he was pushing it) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:55 9 April 2008 (BST)

I'm not sure how this works. If my comment doesn't go here, feel free to delete it. I don't understand why, when a user is created for the soul intent of griefing and trolling a group on the wiki, it isn't considered vandalism. Take a look at his contributions http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Grarr . They have done nothing to better the wiki and has only created more drama and terrorism as highlighted by the case(s) above this one. I apologize for butting in. Mostly, I think you sysop types have your hands full and do a decent job considering what you have to deal with. -- Showcase 11:59 9 April 2008 (BST)

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to do this without actually telling me? I just found this by accident, and I've heard nothing about it before now. --Grarr 22:07, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I disagree Boxy. The edits have been made to a group page that the user has no reasonable right to edit (read: not a member of the group or ally). Due to the nature of the edits (the Dead continuing the pointless DHPD/Dead flame war) I believe that this is Vandalism and should be punishable with a warning. Other users who vandalise group pages get warned, why should we make exceptions for this? -- C h e e s e 23:13, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Other users arn't editing the NPOV section when they get warnings. Having a NPOV section gives people a right to edit that section if they feel it isn't accurate, that right can be abused, but simply editing the NPOV section isn't in itself bad faith in the same way that editing the rest of the page is. As I said, describing the group as small, when it's the largest survivor group in the game is pushing it, and may well be considered vandalism in the future, but I'm not going to rule it vandalism first up -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:20 12 April 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism, I agree with Boxy because he's right, without assuming the user is out to cause problems you can not reasonably come to the conclusion that he was doing anything but providing more accurate information to the NPOV section which any user is allowed to edit. And Boxy, DHPD is not the largets survivor group in the game, The Fortress, MPD, USAI, Zom/, MFD, and probably a few other groups all have them beat by a fair bit, they're maybe a medium sized group as far as groups in general go in this game.--Karek^maps?! 12:47, 12 April 2008 (BST)

User:Headsaplenty

For his edit to the Escendo Numerus/Numbers page, and all these few edits to their main page. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 22:17, 7 April 2008 (BST)

All edits are vandalism, so permanently banned. --Zs L 22:30, 7 April 2008 (BST)

User:Karek

Ok, I know I said I'm off, and I am...I just had to show you this before I left.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Category_talk:Historical_Groups/FailedArchive#GANKBUS

Specifically the part where he says:

""Hell No - And further more you and your group disgust me. Not only is your group a whos who of wiki scumery(you even have Scinfaxi listed as an ally), your actions and history are of one of the worst events in the history of this wiki and should be swept under the rug of the wiki, not paraded about like you acheived some important or great victory. In game you were an unimportant, small, griefer group, on the wiki you were some of the worst contributers and drama mongers we ever had. Be proud GANKBUS, then go die in a fire and be forgotten.--Karekmaps?! 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)"

--Thekooks 13:02, 7 April 2008 (BST)

not vandalism Next case.-- Vista +1 13:05, 7 April 2008 (BST)

In view of Kareks ruling of Vandalism on 2 cases below I would be very interested in hearing what he would rule on this one. Please note that the case against sonny specifically mentions that telling someone to "die in a fire" is beyond the pale ;) Consistency is a must in these cases or does that not apply to all? --Honestmistake 15:02, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Well. I believe he was in the minority in those cases. And, I disagreed with Karek on those cases anyway. Sysops are encouraged to use personal judgement in all cases (and they are disallowed to rule on their own.) Mheh, you could ask karek if you're really interested.-- Vista +1 15:16, 7 April 2008 (BST)

To be honest I think that death threats via the internet are funny, pointless, pathetic etc... It all depends on my mood and how good they are, I just find it very amusing that Karek can throw such a fit about others doing it without falling off his own moral high-horse ;) Actually the more i think about it the less funny I find it --Honestmistake 17:13, 7 April 2008 (BST)

I was talking about the group, not the members. That's a wee bit of an important distinction.--Karek^maps?! 00:37, 8 April 2008 (BST)

I had a good laugh. Thanks for that, kooks. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:11, 7 April 2008 (BST)

User:Sexylegsread

Shitting up the A/VB page again, despite being warned here of the consequences -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:19 7 April 2008 (BST)

No, I was pointing out that your comment was irrelevant to the situation. Nick felt that what Finis had done was vandalism and posted it in the appropriate section. You posted your ruling, but then preceded to write about us shitting up the admin pages. I was merely pointing out that you too had shitted up the admin page, with something you could have done on my talk page, like a proper sysop. I am sorry that I had to inform you that you had committed an error, but that is no reason to take me to A/VB.--CyberRead240 12:23, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism in the few day's I've been back Nallan has shown himself to misuse most of the administration page even after it was made clear that further such action would result in the assumption of bad faith. In such cases we do exactly what boxy just did. That's not shitting up anything. you were wrong, he was right. Deal with it.

You'll get no warning for this. But don't try to be annoying next time and just use the talkpage. I'd like to believe every sysop still reads that page.-- Vista +1 13:04, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Actually, Boxy's "last warning" was posted after my post, so I did not know I would be put up if I had posted. I do get where you are coming from, though. The problem with taking it to the talk page is exactly what you said, nobody reads it really, unless they are engaging in conversation. It seems as if the voice of most people are muffled by taking them to the talk page. In saying all of this, I totally understand where you are coming from. I mistook what Boxy said as hypocritical vandalism. But, if what he is done is legal, then I do not see how anyone is "right or wrong", so I guess nobody has to "deal" with anything. I still believe that what Boxy had written was not needed on this admin page, and could have been addressed via direct communication on Nallans talk page. No attempt was made to do that, so one can only assume that by posting irrelevant junk on a admin page, Boxy was vandalizing. Boxy was commenting on a page by User:Nallan yet he cited something by User:J3D. Irrelevant, and shows his bias in the deletion cases. Thanks for your ruling, and your explanation. --CyberRead240 13:09, 7 April 2008 (BST)

He ruled not vandalism on the deletion case based on the good faith rule. I hereby second that ruling. So that's done and finished now.

What I said was actually the reverse. Sysops do read the talkpage. You are right that it is muffled. But that is the point other users besides those involved and the sysop stay out it. If you are concerned about the case and want to talk it over you use the talkpage. If you want to stir up drama where everybody start butting in and start screaming at each other you use this page. A quit one on one conversation is much more productive.

Boxy made his comment in his capacity as a sysop and as such it's important that other sysops will read it. Leaving it on Nallan talkpage would've ensured that at least some sysops wouldn't have known about the comment ensuring confusion in the future. That's why we differenciate between sysops and users on this page. The comments of regular users can still be valuable of course but are not binding while the sysop ruling and motivation need to be accesable for future referencing.-- Vista +1 13:46, 7 April 2008 (BST)

User:Nallan

Willfully shitting up yet another admin page, while knowing the consequences and that a final warning had been given. I'm sick of moving their crap to the talk pages when they could, and should, do it themselves -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:14 7 April 2008 (BST)

What the fuck?! I was telling you to move the stuff above it merely following your divine influence. How are the above two comments: "Actually, Finny, this has nothing to do with the BBK. It is a different group, containing only Nick and Jed. Personal Vendettas do not belong on admin pages" and "I was using it as a general term to classify you and your retarded friends", allowed to remain?!? I was only asking you to remove them because I was worried that if I removed them I'd get put up here for it. How's that for fucking justice.--Nallan (Talk) 12:20, 7 April 2008 (BST)

::Not Vandalism He seemed willing to have the content moved (actually requesting it) but unsure if it were appropriate if he do it himself. It seems that he did the right thing: When in doubt ask for help before mashing the "save button". Perhaps it would have been better to discuss this rather than bring him here?? There is plenty of more legit vandalism going on..--A irborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 18:26, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Didn't say anywhere at the top you had to be a Sysop (or did it??) I didn't have my coffee/cigarette this morning. Sorry. Probably have my own vandal case by the time I get back from my smoke.. What was that "good faith" part again???--A irborne88

^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 19:02, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Wait, don't you have to be a sysop to vote? --Nitro378^{T JNL} 18:28, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah. It's impersonation if you're not. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 18:49, 7 April 2008 (BST)

"On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. Yeah... --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 19:04, 7 April 2008 (BST)

User:Finis Valorum aka "Luke Skywalker"

This edit on the deletions page, reverting a valid move of the case from speedy deletions to deletions by an upstanding community member as per the "1 keep vote" rule. This is the last straw. Finis' vandalism rampage has to stop.--Nallan (Talk) 11:45, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Actually, I didn't notice he moved the thing and I thought he deleted it entirely. When I realized he moved it and after receiving his reply, I left that page alone.--Luke Skywalker 11:50, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Mmm, yes, but given your history and tendency to assume bad faith amongst other users and your vendetta against any and all BBK, I'd say this is a valid case. Is it coincidence that you never make these mistakes when reverting, for example, any of the Arkham related edits and that the case in question is one with a user with whom you have a much publicised personal vendetta...--Nallan (Talk) 11:58, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Take your mutual vendetta to the talk page, or shut it. Last warning -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:00 7 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism, as long as he doesn't do it again. And you guys have been warned already, stop shitting up admin pages -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:52 7 April 2008 (BST)

RE: I'm sorry boxy, but your link there is fairly petty and irrelevant. Stop shitting up the admin pages.--CyberRead240 12:00, 7 April 2008 (BST)

User:Saromu

Flamebaitery directly against Me Template talk:HaloFans --Nitro378^{T JNL} 23:19, 5 April 2008 (BST)

useless discussion moved to talk page

Not Vandalism - While we have created some limits to it, there still exist freedom of speech in this wiki. If you dont agree with sonny opinions, simply ignore him. Creating a vandal case agaisnt him for such a template is only making a fool of yourself. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:20, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Vandalism, roughly around the part where the template commented on Halo fans dying in a fire while being a very thinly veiled personal attack on another user. There are lines you do not cross.--Karek^maps?! 04:28, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Yes but the accusation in question is of me insulting him on the talk page. Me wishing a hot and crispy death upon my enemies is not. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 04:47, 6 April 2008 (BST)

And I'm ruling based on the actual template. It's all part of the same thing.--Karek^maps?! 04:55, 6 April 2008 (BST)

So what do I have? A couple of hours of community service? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 04:57, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Additional discussion on talk page

Not Vandalism - It's a pretty dodgy template, but as Akule said, there is precedent. Sonny didn't threaten him directly, only conjured up a widely shared opinion (you should listen to the PS3 COD4 lobby on Friday nights. :S) in the form a template. Just ignore it, and stop spamming the VB page with this crap. Take it to Arbitration. -- C h e e s e 21:43, 6 April 2008 (BST)

If you're basing it off of the version there right now it's different, the old version was deleted and Sonny was told he could remake it without the portion calling for the users' death.--Karek^maps?! 23:14, 6 April 2008 (BST)

I went and checked the deletion logs and the old version out and there is no where on it that he explicitly calls for Nitro's death. Just Halo3 fanboys in general. -- C h e e s e 23:17, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Additional discussion on talk page

User:Nitro378

Template:Saromu=Asshole Flamebaitery directly against me. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 23:16, 5 April 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - as the reporting user and the ruling sysop are also guilty of creating harrasing templates towards disliked users. So, meh! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:28, 6 April 2008 (BST)

I'd like to have that ruling overruled. During the Amazing drama Scinfaxi and Jjames were punished for their templates against Amazing. There was also the case against Akule by The Fifth Horseman over the image that Akule made. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 00:45, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Actually, it wasn't talking about amazing this time ;) but fine, if you want another sysop opinio, we can leave this case open for a little while. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:55, 6 April 2008 (BST)

And for the record I don't have any templates I made that directly name a person I'm insulting. The only template I have I made that has anyone else's name that may be considered mean is the Coolio Greatest Spy Evar template and that's because he tried to infiltrate Big Bash but then bragged about it so we found out before he could be trusted and it isn't exactly mean but really laughing at his spy skills. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 01:03, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - for gods sake Sonny. Nitro creates a template and minutes later you create one ripping it off, saying that Halo fans (I wonder who you could mean?) are faggots and should die. And you're the one to come here crying because of flamebaitery? Cry moor pls -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:13 6 April 2008 (BST)

He inspired me. There are plenty of Gaylo fans on the wiki. All of them are pretty buttsex. But I didn't specifically name any of them. He named me. And it's gone now anyways. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 01:18, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah right, you weren't talking about the guy that created a Halo3 template just minutes beforehand? Just because you don't specifically name someone doesn't mean you arn't flamebaiting. You're the master at it. Besides, you are a homophobic arsehole... doesn't truth count for anything? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:24 6 April 2008 (BST)

Him and many more. But not specifically him. TerminalFailure is also a Halo fanboy. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 01:48, 6 April 2008 (BST)

For the record, I am the author of the code for {{Gaylo}}. For some reason Sonny decided to make it a template. The raw code can be seen Here a quick check of the time of edit shows I made it. Further research will indicate I spent roughly 2 hours helping User:Nitro378 with a template for ALiM. We have never had any issues. The intent of the template {{Gaylo}} is very simple: humor. It wasn't pointed at anyone nor had any ill intent behind it. As far as I know the only 2 pages it is on are my talk page and in my sandbox. I think that there are deeper issues here than a video game and don't think the vandal page is the proper place to sort them out. But, if anyone should be drawing fire for Gaylo template it should be me I suppose.--A irborne88

^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 01:45, 6 April 2008 (BST)

I wasn't talking about the Gaylo template (but the reason it was converted to a template was Sonny improving the drama level). I was talking about Template:HaloFans which was made only minutes after Nitro's creation of his Halo template. You didn't create the Gaylo template, you just wrote something in your sandbox... Sonny decided to inflame the situation by templating it... and it's been ruled not vandalism. He seems to think it's fine to throw flamebait out willy nilly, as long as he doesn't specifically name who he's targeting... but when he cops some back it's straight to A/VB trying to score warning points in his little bait the n00b games -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:58 6 April 2008 (BST)

Vandalism, In what place is this acceptable? The template crossed a line, even more of one than Sonny's template which would have moved the acceptability of the actions in this template to a less restricting line. Do Not Call For User's Deaths, the only thing you could have done that would have been worse than that, without posting photographs of illegal activities, would be to threaten to come to his house and kill him yourself. Both Templates Have Been Deleted. Even if the end result is Not Vandalism they have a Snowball's Chance in Hell of surviving a Deletions vote and even then it would be completely absurd to look the other way regarding their content.--Karek^maps?! 04:35, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Additional discussion moved to talk page

User:Nitro378

Vandalized here and here. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 23:13, 5 April 2008 (BST)

Fuck you. --Nitro378^{T JNL} 23:13, 5 April 2008 (BST)

I only vandalized because you were being a dick who cant accept that anyone who likes something other than what you like might not be gay. --Nitro378^{T JNL} 23:16, 5 April 2008 (BST)

Oh. Ok, then nevermind. You're excused of everything. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 23:16, 5 April 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - if you dont like the templates, ignore them. It's not vandalizing the wiki that you are going to win a discussion. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:29, 6 April 2008 (BST)

User:Nallan

Messing with the promotion page, if the user in question want to make a promotion run they may but, what they posted is not a promotion run - Vantar 13:53, 4 April 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:27 4 April 2008 (BST)

User:Scurley7

Messing with the promotion page- Vantar 12:59, 4 April 2008 (BST)

24hr ban is the next escalation -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:25 4 April 2008 (BST)

User:Doggie

Warned for this, and vandalism to the talk page of The Dead. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:25, 4 April 2008 (BST)

User:MaxFloyd

Run through his contribs for the time I'm posting this. He's advertising the MPD on suburb pages. I'm pretty sure this deserves a warning or something... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:16, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism, just silliness. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:19, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Well...It looks as if it deserved a warning...I've gotten a warning for this stuff too... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 23:22, 2 April 2008 (BST)

I've notified him, more propaganda/advertisement edits should be considered disruptive. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:25, 2 April 2008 (BST)

User:MankyButtNutz

This is a notice of action already taken, I've currently permabanned this user as almost all of his edits are vandalism which included the uploading of pornography to be used in one case of said vandalism(Template:DHPDmember). I've since rolled back all his edits.--Karek^maps?! 21:33, 1 April 2008 (BST)

It should also be known that I'm going to be blocking all TOR proxies.--Karek^maps?! 21:38, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Some additional comments shunted to Talk page.--Karek^maps?! 00:31, 2 April 2008 (BST)

User:Finis Valorum

Impersonation.--x o x o 13:16, 1 April 2008 (BST)

That is a header on my talk page, not a comment.--Luke Skywalker 13:19, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Yes, however by changing the header you are changing the entire context of Nallan's comment. As the entire text of the comment excluding the 'question marks' was enclosed within the header of the comment you are effectively impersonating Nallan, an act which is not tolerated on this wiki, please refer here if you are unsure of wiki policy regarding User talk pages..--x o x o 13:29, 1 April 2008 (BST)

I have not altered Nallan's original comment. The header is not part of his comment, but part of the formatting of my talk page. Period.--Luke Skywalker 13:46, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Warned - The header did indeed constitute part of the comment (childish as it may be)... in fact it was the whole comment, given that the what you kept reverting to was a couple of question marks. Delete their crap, or take them to arbies next time -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:49 1 April 2008 (BST)

User:Nallan

ZOMG.vandalism.--Luke Skywalker 12:13, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Ban me, please. I need to fucking study...--Nallan (Talk) 12:42, 1 April 2008 (BST)

This looks familiar õ_O Anyway, vandalism... another sysop will issue your punishment as i am busy with work :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:19, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Warnied -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:45 1 April 2008 (BST)

User:Chombi

Editing [5] the page of a group he does not belong to. --Chris of the Dead 11:02, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Vandalism definitely. This is nearly two months old and the account hasn't been used since...therefore a Ban is pretty useless, it is worth a Perma though. However, I shall wait and see what the other sysops reckon. -- C h e e s e 11:25, 1 April 2008 (BST)

Banned, just in case -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:56 1 April 2008 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 04

April 2008

Various Goons

User:Stocom, User:Alex007, User:Hero Cinquire

User:Rudiger Jones and others

User:DCC & User:Katthew

User:Finis Valorum aka "Luke Skywalker"

Navigation menu

Search