UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 05

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

May 2008

User:Zed1

His contributions speak for themselves. -- C h e e s e 22:03, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Blocked, you can do this. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:07, 30 May 2008 (BST)

I know. :P I was feeling lazy today. -- C h e e s e 22:08, 30 May 2008 (BST)

User:Hahaa

blanking several pages

--Scotw 20:33, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Blocked / banned. There were several more similar edits by the same user, and ZERO good faith edits.

Swiers

User:Nubis

Maliciously increasing the image in question below to 1500px totally destroying any chance of reading the page. In short, being a spammy troll. -- C h e e s e 22:46, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Oh can I rule on this case like you and Hag do for your own cases? And if you bothered to check I'm the one that actually removed the image in the end. So shove this little report up your ass. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:50, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I like the fact that I am up on misconduct for doing actual work and you two are up on misconduct for being douchebags. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:52, 29 May 2008 (BST)

weird... i dont see any ruling on our cases... i must be growing blind. care to increase that image to OVER 9000px so i can read it better ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:53, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Stop being such a self-righteous bastard. You're the one that blatantly spammed the Misconduct page. We have precedent for users who vandalise then remove their vandalism getting warned. -- C h e e s e 22:58, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, this is vandalism (I was warned for this). I can't recall where the report is, but Engel should know. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:34, 29 May 2008 (BST)

here --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 23:37, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Meh, it was up there for, like, 3 minutes before the image was removed altogether by Nubis. Not vandalism, but only because it was removed so quickly... but don't do it again, please Nubis -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:05 30 May 2008 (BST)

Looks like he removed it before the report, anyways. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:14, 30 May 2008 (BST)

A wise man once said Avoid submitting reports which are petty. Not Vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 00:12, 31 May 2008 (BST)

User:Krazy Monkey User:Hagnat

Continually editing and vandalizing my post. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:26, 29 May 2008 (BST)

There is a big difference between making a point and breaking someone's page. My monitor make not be as high techly awesome as yours and as a result, it totally and utterly breaks it. Keep the image, but at the very least have some consideration for us on a limited budget when it comes to computers. -- C h e e s e 22:29, 29 May 2008 (BST)

your post consists on an huge image with text on it. There is no need for it to be cluttering the discussion. In several other occasions images have been switched to links to the image PAGE because they served little purpose or evidence in the cases they were added to. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:30, 29 May 2008 (BST)

You have no right to edit my posts. Where does it say that you can change the size of an image to fit your screen? --– Nubis ^NWO 22:32, 29 May 2008 (BST)

And where's the rule that gives you the right to fuck up an official misconduct case by sticking a 640x480 image onto the page just purely to make us all seem like stupid fucking retards because we can't tell the difference between an image and a page. It has no bearing on the case at all, and as a result, doesn't need to be anywhere near that big. -- C h e e s e 22:35, 29 May 2008 (BST)

There is also no rule that says i cant make nubis image into a link... wouldnt that be me exercising my best discretion on a case-by-case basis ? Nubis image serves no purpose in an administraion discussion, therefore i simply removed it from the page while still poiting to it --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:38, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I have more of a right to post an image than ANY of you have to edit my post! That's for goddamn sure. And 640 x 480 is hardly huge. It clearly matters since none of you can tell the difference ! Otherwise this whole thing would have been ignored! PAGES /= IMAGES! It's like talking to a fucking brick wall here! SHUT THE FUCK UP HAGNAT! --– Nubis ^NWO 22:40, 29 May 2008 (BST)

It's like talking to a fucking brick wall here! <--- There's definitely something about pots, kettles and the colour black springing to mind here...but for the life of me, I can't quite remember what it is... -- C h e e s e 22:43, 29 May 2008 (BST)

well, if images are not pages, than so arent categories, and templates, and special pages... OW BOY, with no governing rules to edit special pages i am free to write whatever i want in them :D --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:43, 29 May 2008 (BST)

That's exactly the type of response I would have expected from you. And Cheese, when has anyone EVER said that about me? --– Nubis ^NWO 22:45, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I just did. The wall's getting a huge dent in it from my thick head bouncing off it in frustration. -- C h e e s e 22:48, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Large images and templates have always been removed (and resized or replaced with a link) from admin pages like A/VB and A/M. If you want to mess around like that, take it to the talk page. Not vanadalism. And please provide diff comparisons rather than simply a link to the page. The edits in question were buried in the history -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:12 30 May 2008 (BST)

Read #User:Nubis, Not Vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 00:13, 31 May 2008 (BST)

User:Killerzkings

repeatedly censoring my guide despite my repeatedly telling him to stop. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:24, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Hmmm...this is a tricky one. On one hand you have the fact that he was actively editing Grim's user page and reverting Grim's attempts to revert him. However on the other hand you have the fact that Killerzkings is virtually a complete newb on the wiki (first edit was on Tuesday) and as a result is unfamiliar with how things work. On this occasion I am going to rule Vandalism, mostly because of his reverting the revertings and continuing to do so despite being asked twice to stop. Especially considering the "You have New Messages" prompt is actually pretty noticeable. -- C h e e s e 15:39, 29 May 2008 (BST)

User:TheBeyonder

For this suggestion, it might be considered humorous... --BKM 06:12, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Your link was broke so i fixed it, when linking to a full url with http and everything you don't want a |. Also, that isn't funny at all. Unless there's something i'm missing...--x o x o 06:16, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Warning for pissing about on suggestions. -- C h e e s e 11:45, 29 May 2008 (BST)

No idea what he was on... but please don't wait for a ruling here before removing such suggestions from the current suggestions list. It was there for hours -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:50 29 May 2008 (BST)

I've run a check user and it also turns out that he is the following users as well: User:JheriCurlDrip, User:Thesurveyor, User:The Anti-Comunist FaceStomper, User:Chaptermastertyros, User:PimpOfTheRealm. I'll link the lot in VD. -- C h e e s e 11:52, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Looks like Thesurveyor already has a warning. This would count as a second would it not? -- C h e e s e 11:58, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Yes -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:11 29 May 2008 (BST)

Done as well. :) All the accounts I've identified are linked in VD for easy finding. -- C h e e s e 12:12, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Umm, you know the suggestion system, you make a suggestion page then edit it. He obviously hasn't finished editing it. Perhaps it you could give him abit longer to edit the page?--KOOKY 14:44, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Considering the creation time was 01:36 and the entire suggestion consisted of dffd, I don't think it was going to be a serious suggestion, or even one that was going to be finished. -- C h e e s e 14:46, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Well, dffd are very close together, seems he thought of a title, but then was too busy to write it so just put anything down. Whatever, doesn't really matter.--KOOKY 16:47, 29 May 2008 (BST)

User:Kikashie

Here vandalized the page to their liking. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 04:26, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - It's an edit conflict, try A/A or the talk page. I suggest keeping it "disputed" as that is obviously the case. Also, please don't use A/VB as a means to solve edit conflicts against other users. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:28, 29 May 2008 (BST)

User:Ioncannon11

Vandalism here. Ioncannon is trying to rewrite history for propaganda. PKers have won a decicive victory in the battle and Ioncannon is trying to play it as a victory for his people when it is not. For historical accuracy his idiocacy cannot stay. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 04:04, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - It's an edit conflict, try A/A or the talk page. I suggest keeping it "disputed" as that is obviously the case. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:27, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I tried to do that, but he keeps changing it back... except with derogatory comments. I started a discussion about it a few hours ago on the talk page. --Kikashie ^{Read the Dispatch!} 04:31, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Cry me a fucking river. I'm tired of your shit now. I told y'all accept shit as it is but instead you and your friends got to try to lie and spin shit your way. See you in Arby's. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 04:40, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Way to be a sore looser, Sonny. I'm actually looking forward to this arbitration case. --Kikashie ^{Read the Dispatch!} 04:41, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Fuck off. We killed 200 of you and you barely hit 75. You "victory goals" are nothing more than vague dreams and delusion. Fuck you, I hope your dog dies. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 04:44, 29 May 2008 (BST)

User:Nick nitroz

Blanked this group page that he had not previously edited. Couldn't find an indication that he has any claim to it.--– Nubis 01:08, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I'm going to go with not vandalism. The page was last edited about a year ago so it could be he was thinking he could blank it and it would go up for deletion automatically kind of thing. :/ -- C h e e s e 01:11, 28 May 2008 (BST)

He has done this to a few pages that he has never edited. Actually, I'm not sure why you didn't report him for this incident. And why are you voting not on a "2nd" incident?

My concern now is are we allowed to retro actively punish him for those previous incidents since it is clearly a vandal history or if we have to give him a pass on them since "we missed" them. --– Nubis 02:46, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Hazard Genocide Radio (cur) (last) 12:45, 18 May 2008 Nitro378 (Talk | contribs | block) (Its called a deletion request.) perhaps he is affiliated with the group? I'm not sure on the others, meh.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:55, 28 May 2008 (BST)

There are better ways to make deletion requests with pages that you have no ties to. Given the fact it was repeated and theres nothing to indicate he was ever a member of the group, Vandalism. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:07, 28 May 2008 (BST)

He's trying to clear the Roftwood page of inactive groups by the look of it. Seems like he just doesn't know better, and it's a pity someone hasn't had a word with him before about using the deletions page instead of just wiping them. I don't see any bad faith in it, just ignorance of the procedures... if it happens again after he's been told the right way to do things however... -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:32 28 May 2008 (BST)

The only pages I request for deletion are the ones that I have personally made with this wiki account, or my former one N dG. In the future I will go about with the proper procedure that you have explained. As for removing idle/dead groups from the Roftwood page, I will let you know that I did not do so in ignorance. For the past two years I was the admin of the Roftwood Co-ordination Center forum. We have about a total of 20 or so groups participating. Many of these groups had dissappeared from both the forum and in game. Is there a process in which inactive/idle/dead groups need to go through in order to be removed from the "active" groups list that I am unaware of?--Nick Nitroz 15:16, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Removing the group's icon from the suburb page is just a matter of editing that suburb. There is no procedure for that. Our concern was you blanking pages. That is a common tactic for vandals. Is there a reason you are no longer using the N dg account? --– Nubis 22:37, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Actually, him being that user (N dG) completely absolves him of any vandalism charges. As you can see here, the page was created by him and its kind of a round about way an author blanking his own page. -- C h e e s e 23:03, 28 May 2008 (BST)

We don't know that he is N dG though, do we? Do we have a Check User on N dG that we can compare to this account? If that is his account (N dG) why not blank the page with that account? This would be a creative new way to get out of vandalism charges. --– Nubis 00:11, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Erm...no...we don't. Check user doesn't go back that far. All we need to do is ask him to make an edit with N dG on this page and bingo, you have confirmation. Also, maybe he didn't like the name? :/ I have to admit, N dG is a pretty lame name compared to Nick Nitroz. -- C h e e s e 00:17, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Here I am, Nick Nitroz on the N dG account. I apologize for the confusion and will resign from using this account ever again. I also pledge to use the proper deletion process rather than simply blanking pages. --Nick Nitroz 00:29, 29 May 2008 (BST)

There you go Nubis. Case Closed. -- C h e e s e 00:35, 29 May 2008 (BST)

PS: I did do a checkuser, and yes it is definitely the same guy. -- C h e e s e 00:38, 29 May 2008 (BST)

The Scoobies solve another one! Thank you, Nitroz--– Nubis 01:23, 29 May 2008 (BST)

User:Detective Ice

Please check this out. Ioncannon11 00:21, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - What is it with people and trying to make their rival groups look stupid? It's easily fixed and at most it'll be around for a day before getting wiped of the face of the wiki and they'll more than likely get told off for it. -- C h e e s e 00:23, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Also, confirmed sock of User:Airheadoh. As a result, I'd like some input from my fellow sysops on this case. Is it a ban for this guy and a warning for the main or just a warning for both? -- C h e e s e 00:27, 28 May 2008 (BST)

meh, there is little reason to ban him... just link both accounts in vandal data. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 00:43, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Cheese - I'm with you on this one. If he is going to make sock accounts to do his dirty work then they will never be "redeemed". He should lose the sock account and get a warning or whatever level he is up to on the main account. This isn't a rookie mistake.--– Nubis 22:52, 28 May 2008 (BST)

The Detective Ice account was only used for vandalism and creating a user page (which the main account edited anyway), so I agree. The sock is banned, the main gets the warning -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:01 29 May 2008 (BST)

Done. :) -- C h e e s e 12:08, 29 May 2008 (BST)

User:Le Penseur dick

This. Probably that Ihateyou guy a few down. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:01, 27 May 2008 (BST)

KM got him. And I'm having difficulty reverting. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:03, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Got it with a Rollback. -- C h e e s e 20:04, 27 May 2008 (BST)

I've been focusing on zergers quite a bit more recently, $5 says he's one of them. --Sir WV 18:38, 28 May 2008 (BST)

User:Met Fan

Breaking links on Red Rum's group page. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 19:51, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Warned for pissing about with group pages. -- C h e e s e 21:44, 27 May 2008 (BST)

User:Ihateyou1

For this. Stuff's been reverted. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 19:45, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Again...And reverted...yet again... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 19:48, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Throw this in as well. And revert. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 19:50, 27 May 2008 (BST)

And Karek got him. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 19:51, 27 May 2008 (BST)

He has, of course, been permabanned.--Karek^maps?! 19:53, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Several users

Cyberbob240, WanYao, Iscariot, Funt Solo, Ioncannon11, Saromu... when not involved in a vandal case, comments should go on the talk page, mmkay ? You guys are pretty aware of this, and this is just a reminder. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:25, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Only Cyberbob has been really prolific, as such cyberbob gets a soft warning logged on his page, and the rest of you, well, please refrain from using the main space to comment on cases. we have a perfectly good talk page for that. Case closed, for now.--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:31, 28 May 2008 (BST)

due the great amount of users involved in this case, its asked to carry any discussion in the talk page. Thank you -- The Administration Staff

User:Karek

On my user page under the topic of "If you're not aware...", in a talk having absolutely nothing to do with him, Karek decided to spam it with 3000+ characters of writing "TEXT" over and over again, a la Real Gamerz, followed by a little snap at me. This both was spam of my user page, as well as meant only as harassment. When a sysop (Cheeseman) told him what he was doing was wrong, he called him a hack. Karek's vandalism of my page is at the very least flamebaiting, harassment and trolling. When this is decided, I can erase this all from my user page. Thank you.--Tselita 14:10, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Being rude is not vandalism, trolling is not vandalism, or saromu and cyberbob, along with much of Redrum would have been banned long ago, and harrassment, well, since you are an active participant in this disupte, the majority of the conflicts within it being ones you started, it doesnt count as harrassment (Especially since this is the only thing you have decided to bring him here for. and everything else he says there is in response to crap you brought up rather than being antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic). As was subsequently pointed out, he was making an object point on the hypocricy in how you call all long posts trolling, yet your long posts somehow arent. You were also informed of this repeatedly before you brought this case, yet you still went ahead. Not Vandalism. If you really want him to go away, try arbies before we get it fixed. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:18, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - being an idiot prick appears not to be vandalism in this wiki. And the compliment applies to you too... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:18, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism and who ever told you to bring this complaint against him gave you crappy advice. If it was a sysop that told you he clearly shouldn't touch the A/VB page until he understands what it is about.--– Nubis 14:23, 27 May 2008 (BST)

But because we know this won't go away this easily I will put a warning on Karek's page about his behaviour. --– Nubis 14:24, 27 May 2008 (BST)

u guise r so wittay. just sayan. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:24, 27 May 2008 (BST)

User:Skritz

Hes back for more. Deleted this after switching group affiliation to DORIS. Ioncannon11 02:20, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - he created the page, if he wants to get rid of it, so be it -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:49 27 May 2008 (BST)

It's not his page to do whatever he wants with. The guy who made the page for Santerville can't just delete it. He made it a public information, non-group about the Imperium Must Die coalition and its enemies. Ioncannon11 04:13, 27 May 2008 (BST)

You're an idiot. It's his page. If I want to delete the Imperium Must Die page then I can. He wants his page baleeted then so be it. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 05:18, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Yup. He created it, with the exception of nubis categorising it, and your subseqeuent "vandalism" of the page (Restoring it afetr he blanked it) as well as sonnys revert, all edits on it are his. Not vandalism on his part. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:56, 27 May 2008 (BST)

User:FlameD

Fucking with a group page. -- C h e e s e 23:44, 26 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism But I am not sure that he understands how to use the wiki. --– Nubis 00:14, 27 May 2008 (BST)

I'd suggest a warning. If he behaves afterwards, then no harm done. If he doesn't then he's just here for the vandalism. -- C h e e s e 00:17, 27 May 2008 (BST)

I just went ahead and warned him.--– Nubis 02:44, 27 May 2008 (BST)

User:Generalmayhem

Fiddling with profile ID numbers on the CGR page, making them point to completely different players. -- C h e e s e 23:42, 26 May 2008 (BST)

And again. -- C h e e s e 23:46, 26 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism I'll warn him, too. But at least that is more creative than adding "we suck cocks".--– Nubis 02:46, 27 May 2008 (BST)

User:Ihateyou

Permabanned 2 and out. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 11:16, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Check A/G for details on the insta permaban before you go off again please. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:06, 25 May 2008 (BST)

l2sysop. A/M? :P --x o x o 07:57, 26 May 2008 (BST)

User:Nallan

Impersonation.--Luke Skywalker 08:33, 24 May 2008 (BST)

For editing spelling mistakes? really?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 09:20, 24 May 2008 (BST)

He edited the spelling mistakes of others to make editing my comment harder to notice.--Luke Skywalker 09:23, 24 May 2008 (BST)

OMFG he changed PWN to PAWN! TEH EXTREME VANDALISM!--Nitro378^{T JNL} 10:01, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Please explain how fixing spelling makes your comment "harder to notice". --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:08, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Actually in that example he's not fixing the spelling, he's altering it to its phonetic pronunciation. As we all know, 'pwn' is '1337' or 'leet' for 'own'. The spelling in '1337' came about from the common mistype on the standard QWERTY keyboard. By changing this spelling he's actually misspelling Finis' message in the language it was written. This could, therefore, set an unhealthy precedent. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:44, 27 May 2008 (BST)

No, don't bother explaining. Take him to arbies if you want him to leave your pages alone (a reasonable request give the history)... and Nallan, how about you go fix the typos on pages that actually matter on the wiki, rather than his talk page. Not vandalism, this time -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:24 24 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - *rolls eyes* -- C h e e s e 15:29, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Avoid submitting reports which are petty.--– Nubis 00:09, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, yeah I know I'm not a sysop nor am I involved in this case. But, for fark sake. This is vandalism. The "minor" spelling changes actually completely change the meaning of the posts, and are clearly intended to be annoying at least -- malicious at worst. Sure, Finis is a zerging dickwad, but vandalism is vandalism. --WanYao 02:27, 27 May 2008 (BST)

A good faith edit is never vandalism. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:30, 27 May 2008 (BST)

So if I start editing your posts and change the correct spelling to the incorrect one I'm not committing vandalism? Is that right? Because that's what you're saying. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:49, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Obviously not, if people tell you not to. Changing from correct to incorrect is likely to be bad faith. Use your head.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:35, 27 May 2008 (BST)

PWN to PAWN isn't fixing, Gnome. I missed it first time under the cover of all the "typo corrections". But really, go to arbies Finis, get them off your page. I'm sick of all the minor stirring that gets brought here -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:56 27 May 2008 (BST)

Petty, the rest was little fixes. If someone really wants to fix spelling, they could do it like Nubis and leave a little note (if it's ok). -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:58, 27 May 2008 (BST)

The whole thing is fucking petty... petty vandalism. In any event, changing PWN to PAWN changes the meaning. PWN is not a spelling mistake... well it's an intentional one... it is a facetious misspelling of "OWN"... "PAWN" has the exact opposite meaning, and it's used a way to mock the intended meaning. Everyone fucking knows that. This was clearly not a good faith edit, sheeeeeeesh... --WanYao 14:04, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Shut the fuck up and learn to use punctuation marks other than ellipses. The case is over - nobody cares what drivel comes out of your mouth. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:08, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Yawn................. --WanYao 14:45, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Irrespective of my relation to both users involved, regardless of the nature of the edit, Finis really did not need to bring it to vandal banning, as he could have just reverted it, as he does to every other post he doesn't like that gets posted on his talk page. --CyberRead240 11:22, 31 May 2008 (BST)

So given this is vandalism (precisely impersonation) and the ruling admin confessed he hasn't paid enough attention to the case, why the no vandalism ruling still stands?--Luke Skywalker 13:12, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Given that this is vandalism? Tell me again - which sysop is saying that? All I'm seeing is WanYao, who really doesn't know much about anything other than how to abuse elipses. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:17, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Boxy already pointed out he didn't notice the malicious edits when he made the ruling. Since he didn't justified his ruling, I'm willing to bet Krazy Monkey did the same. I think this case needs a reevaluation in the very least.--Luke Skywalker 13:30, 1 June 2008 (BST)

"Avoid submitting reports which are petty." Straight from the horse's mouth.--x o x o 13:32, 1 June 2008 (BST)

So what are you trying to say? That this is vandalism and should not be brought here because it's petty? Or that it's not vandalism, but something petty and shouldn't be a A/VB case either way?--Luke Skywalker 13:48, 1 June 2008 (BST)

I'm not trying to say anything apart from that is what a sysop said directly in relation to this case so maybe you should take his hint.--x o x o 13:50, 1 June 2008 (BST)

And given that one sysop already said in relation to this case his ruling did not take any malicious edits into account, I seriously consider this case was far from properly reviewed. In fact, Boxy's statement leads me to believe neither Krazy Monkey nor Nubis noticed the bad faith impersonation due to the "typo corrections"--Luke Skywalker 13:55, 1 June 2008 (BST)

My God! Give it a rest Master Skywalker! The Force has spoken! As the famous Yoda said: 'Do or do not, there is not try.' You tried to get him banned, you did not, so how about you just go back to your 'inactive' state on the moon of Endor. :) DanceDanceRevolution 10:31, 2 June 2008 (BST)

User:Tselita

Didnt want to do this since she provoked a confrontation, but id like to report her for impersonation, specifically for taking one of my posts on her page (Essay length) and inserting her own responses after each paragraph. This not only breaks up the flow of my post, removing much of the intended tone, but also strips all but the last segment of my signature which, given the length of the post, means that its unlikely some of it will be attributed to me, especially if each individual section gets its own response tree (Not going to happen now, but its something that can and does happen). The comments will be divorced from me and, since they were written as a whole and intended to be read as such, placing a signature at the end will further bury the intended tone as a signature hits a comment in much the same way as a sentance hits a full stop, wheras these were inteded to be one long continuity. I tried simply moving her comments out of my response, in an attempt to resolve the issue without bringing this here, (Leaving a comment that my reply would be forthcoming and explaining that breaking upm my post strips ot of its flow) however she moved them back in. She then later had a sook and deleted our active conversation before i could reply to all the shit she was heaping on me. I guess that last is her right given her talk page, but its frustrating when you try to discuss something with someone to work out a problem when she seems to have a bee in her bonnet just because she thinks im are out to get her because of one close call that they came out on the wrong side of. Suffice it to say, the deletion of the discussion does not in any way absolve her of her conduct before this.

Also, the following sysops are not welcome to rule on this case: Conndraka. I do not trust his impartiality. AHLG. Too inexperienced.--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:36, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Not in bad faith, however Tselita should please stop doing that, it's really annoying and makes it hard to follow things. You can use Quotes / "Quotes" / Quotes to break up individual sections. I think I'm echoing others when I say that you need to stop doing that. There is also A/A if you're having problems with eachother. Lastly, I'm too inexperienced and inept to comprehend the last part... durrr (there are at least 10 other able sysops, quiet the feck up). -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:01, 23 May 2008 (BST)

First off, you don't get to specify who can and can't rule on cases, Grim, especially totally uninvolved parties. This is a thing that should be handled in arbitration really, but Tselita, seeing as you're here, you've been asked (and agreed not to) before, you should know damn well that it's not acceptable. If you'd have inserted some signatures (copies of grim's from the bottom of the post) to make it clear where grim's paragraphs stopped, and your replies began, you may well have a case for doing it, but as it is, you forced your replies into the middle of his text, orphaning chunks of them so no one could tell who wrote what. Vandalism for mine -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:10 23 May 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - it's her talk page, it's her rules for repying. She is properly identing her comments, it's not that hard to figure who is saying what, specially for those involved in the discussion. Also, kudos for grim for closing tselitas suggestion while she was typing it, using gnome's vote as an excuse... rules exist, but one must learn when they need to be enforced, and that was not the case. And, yay, you are barring gnome from ruling on a case for inexperience... then how the fuck is he supposed to get experience ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:29, 23 May 2008 (BST)

In response. 1: Just because its a persons talk page doesnt give that person the right to chop up and orphan other peoples posts. Its been ruled previously that impersonation isnt allowed on your own talk page. In response to 2: Hooray, you like slander better than fact. As for 3: AHLG can get experience on many other cases present. Since he hasnt looked into the history of this case, or the users involved, he made a bad call. You made the same bad call, while boxy, whom i dont particularly like, actually saw the whole of the story and came up with a conclusion based on that (Given his comment). In that way i at least respect him, regardless of which way he would have ruled on it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:42, 23 May 2008 (BST)

I dont like slander better than facts, but i do notice how everything in this discussion could've been avoided if you had removed that stick from your ass and started acting like a human being towards other users, specially in the suggestions page, which is where most of the newbies first edits are. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:48, 23 May 2008 (BST)

I'm laughing. You're drawing conclusions that I don't look at the history of the user. I read Talk:Suggestions and have also read Tselita's talk page. Stop assuming I know nothing. It's a bad habit that needs to stop, and I do not feel it is necessary to officially warn someone for such a thing, at this time. Maybe I'm not a hard ass like you, but I happen to be lenient and try not to be an anal retentive user (most of the time, dam mudkipz).-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:02, 23 May 2008 (BST)

How many times are you going to let her do it before you officially warn her? Is there a magic number? She's been told not to do it and she did it. --– Nubis 04:06, 23 May 2008 (BST)

If she does it again. This vandal report has already served its purpose, she should get it now. I guess a soft warning, if people feel it's right. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:09, 23 May 2008 (BST)

You didn't really read any of her comments in the link or follow any of her "discussions" on Talk:Suggestions do you? She invented a grudge against Grim and others because they disagreed with her suggestion. Most of the comments are people pointing out the same things over and over because she ignores them (like she did when she was told not to break up posts the first time). She doesn't seem like she is going to "pick this up" from a soft warning. Remember [this?] Did you see [this?] She needs to be told the same answers by multiple people before she gets it if she ever does.

I don't want to be a hardass on this, but I want something done that will actually help the situation.--– Nubis 22:15, 23 May 2008 (BST)

I read my own talk page, no worries. It's pretty obvious that she's in a conflict with some other users, but I don't think it is necessary to warn her for a bad editing habit. A last resort... it may take a few tries for her to stop. I don't believe she is specifically doing this just to piss Grim off (it could be a contributing factor, I don't read motives). Her justification was It's my page, and with your insanely long posts, the easiest way for me to respond to each of the thousand things you post is to take it one-by-one. My page - my rules, just like your page - your rules. , page ownership is not good justification though, but I can't say her reasoning for responding in that manor is bad faith. This is just incredibly petty, it's just annoying. Vista, Dux, boxy etc put up with me and others for be annoying tards, but we certainly shaped up fine. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:29, 24 May 2008 (BST)

As a sysop, and as someone involved in the case here I'd just like to say a few things. Firstly, it is increadably close to call. Admittedly Tselita should not have broken up Grim_s argument, I think we can all agree on that, and as I pointed out to her that can be construed as vandalism. However there are some mitigating circumstances that realy make me hesitate to call this either way, firstly I beleive that Tselita was under the impression that her talk page was her area where she could enforce her rules as she saw fit, which as we all know does not stretch to altering someones posts to make it look like they said something they didn't. Now, secondly Tselita was not making a bad faith edit, she was merely (unwisely maybe) structuring her reply in a manner that she wished. Seeing as she signed the individual posts I think its safe to assume that Impersination wasn't her aim, nor misrepresentation, though of course no user should ever mess with someone elses post. While this may very well fall into the category of vandalism, seeing as Tselita was not acting in bad faith, and the entire conversation appears to have been deleted I'm going to appeal to Grim_s' better nature and ask that he either drops the thing altogether or takes it to arbitration. All that I can see happening if this is pursued is an argument between different sets of sysops over the finer points of talk page ownership/editing peoples comments that will no doubt go on for ages and more bad blood between Tselita and Grim_s. Where's the fun? I geniunely beleive that Vandal Banning is not the place to settle this dispute over what is, quite frankly a very small issue that I would quite like to see remain a small issue.--Seventythree^Talk 03:25, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism. She has been doing that very thing (breaking up replies) for a while on the talk:suggestions and has been told not to do it. She acknowledged it and said she wouldn't do it again and now she is. That first incident was the "good faith" freebie. This is clearly vandalism. And given the drama of the topic and the profile of Grim I don't want to see people posting her words and using them against Grim later on because they couldn't tell they weren't his.
There are cases brought up against people for impersonation on the talk pages. So you are wrong Conndraka when you say it's your talk page and you are free to do whatever you want. --– Nubis 03:44, 23 May 2008 (BST)

They wouldn't be posting her words and attributing them to Grim, because she signed all her posts. There is a case where people may mistakenly think that what Grim said could be attributed to her (because she failed to insert anything indicating that Grim had posted the first few paragraphs below her sig), but not the other way around. There may be a case for her being allowed to split up posts (on her own talk page), but she's got to make it clear who said what -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:54 23 May 2008 (BST)

Ah, her being mistaken for Grim is almost punishment enough! I agree that she needs to acknowledge what are his words and what are hers, but if she copied his signature that would CLEARLY be impersonation. The point is she has been told not to do this before, she did it again, that means an official warning is needed. --– Nubis 04:06, 23 May 2008 (BST)

I disagree, copying someone's signature and placing it on part of what they said if it gets split up isn't impersonation. It is attributing something that they actually said at that actual time (I've done it when people forget to sign when they make multiple replies on a page)... but the more I think on it, the more I see the problems with splitting up posts and replying in the middle. Like Grim said, it has the real potential to throw what was said down the bottom out of context. I don't know that she did it in bad faith, but it's got to be made clear that this is unacceptable, even if she doesn't get an official warning this time. Use quotes Tes -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:17 23 May 2008 (BST)

Normally I'd agree, but this isn't exactly a wiki-life threatening habit, is it? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:07, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Well neither is blanking pages but we warn/punish people for that all the time. That's not a good argument. So, what do you consider "wiki-life threatening"? Which rules do you want to follow? I'm curious so I can tell the goons it is open season because AHLG won't vote them vandalism because he doesn't like that rule.--– Nubis 22:15, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Don't take wiki-life threatening too literally, a bad faith edit doesn't need to asplode the wiki for it to be vandalism. See above. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:29, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism She indented each paragraph to make it obvious that it was of a different source than what had been posted. I've done the same myself (although not on the wiki that I can recall) but I normally Italicize the original script. Two more points: 1 Her talk page, 2 assuming good faith as is mandated somewhere along the lines. Now show me where you have the authority to prevent me from ruling on a subject that falls under my responsibility as a sysop. Note to Sysops other than Grim, if such a designated power does exist, consider this an amicus curiæ rather than an official ruling. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 04:57, 23 May 2008 (BST)

You are ignoring the facts that 1. [Precedent] was set here that you can't alter things or impersonate people on your talk page even in jest. 2. She was told not to do it before. Doing something again that you were told not to do is clear cut BAD FAITH. You can't defend that. You can not claim good faith or "she didn't know any better". --– Nubis 22:15, 23 May 2008 (BST)

What I am saying is that unlike some people, I can actually tell where she broke up the post to reply to it. Had she not indented the replies then Yes it would be impersonation/vandalism, but she made a clear effort to differentiate between her and Grims text. And as far as Precedent is concerned.. I'm tired of hearing about precedent. Sometimes a wrong decision of the past needs to be reevaluated on its own merits. Even the Supreme Court of the US has made major changes by setting aside precedent and reevaluating a circumstance/case. Several instances come to mind readily. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 01:28, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Furthermore in your [Precedent] The individuals in question purposefully put another users signature in place of their own. Tselita did not, she simply inserted her own comments into the statement. Again, she could have done a better job of it, but she did make the effort. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 01:35, 24 May 2008 (BST)

The precedent was against your claim that "your talk page is yours to do what you want with". Which includes rearranging people's posts which is what happens when you break up someone's post. It's like trying to talk to Tselita here. It's all going in circles because you selectively ignore the facts.--– Nubis 00:15, 25 May 2008 (BST)

That precedent is a pretty good example of "do what you like on your own talk page"... the dead guys actually got let off for signing with someone else's name because it was their talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:50 25 May 2008 (BST)

Let off because Kid Sinister was taking Vista to arby with Karek as the mediator, Vista was going to step down soon anyway, there were 3+ pages of discussion on it, they were never given the 1 week to change the "violation" and it was a very petty case in the first place. Just to clarify - there is a 1 week window allowed on accidental/good faith impersonation. The only reason I voted this case vandalism in spite of the 1 week to change it is that she had been told not to do it before which for me removed the good faith. If she hadn't have been told before don't do this, then I would have said "give her the week to put it all back" (or delete it). I do hope someone links this on her talk page so she knows her next time won't be forgiven. Ironically, this is becoming a Grim/Tselita sized wall of text on its' own. --– Nubis 02:18, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism, unless maybe by User:Grim_s - who state's in his own essay that he's intentionally creating a "wall of text", IE making a post that is needlessly difficult to reply to. That's border line trolling, and seems close to a bad faith edit, as it goes against the entire intent of a "talk" page. The fact that she replied in irregular form to what she likely (and perhaps reasonably) would have seen as a bad faith troll posting on her own talk page, should hardly itself amount to vandalism.
Nor does "breaking up" the flow of logic matter much to what is essentially a private talk where, in own User:Grim_s's text, he states that the main purpose of the "flow" was to cause a flood. This is not a precious Gutenberg text she hit with crayons; it was a argumentative personal message she dealt with in a less time consuming manner than the OP would have wished for. Swiers 08:24, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Sweirs, you have no idea how happy i am that you have decided to equate being wordy with trolling. So, whats the upper limit on how wordy a person can be without being a troll? 10,000 char max? 9,000? 8,000? 7,000? Id really like to know that line so i can avoid it in future. In defense of the long post, i had a lot to talk about and a lot to respond to. combine the two and you invariably end up with a mini novel. If i had wanted to pad that up, i could have hit 50,000 characters quite easily. My post was broken up into paragraphs which made it readable. If you want unreadable, check out her posts on talk:suggestions in her nailgun suggestion, specifically the one where she simply went in one long unbroken line of text (Wrapped automatically by the software) alternating between quotes from me and responses from her, the only difference being italics on the quotes. That was nigh unreadable. The intention of that post was not to flood, and i was genuinely suprised it ended up as long as it did. Of course, i dont really expect you to believe me. After all, as with tselita, your assumptions of my motives simply must be more accurate than anything i say about the issue, because im a mean person and all, and i say bad things about people and argue forcefully until weak posters cry and run away. *rolleyes*--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:06, 23 May 2008 (BST)

If Tselita feels she is being trolled she can delete Grim's message altogether as it is her talk page. However breaking it up and creating ambiguity as to what was written by whom is impersonation. Ruling this as NV would create a total double standard as to what is impersonation. You are basically saying that as long as the person who left the message had bad intentions you can do what you like to their post.--x o x o 08:28, 23 May 2008 (BST)

The post she replied to is more than a page long on my 900 x 1440 px monitor with a small font setting. I can't see his sig from its top even BEFORE she inserted he replies. Thus, the ambiguity exists in the original post.
I'm not saying "anything goes", but when the reply itself is less offensive than the original post, its hard for me to support the OPs claims of vandalism, especially when they rest more on technicalities and form than on intent, and have no impact on the wiki at large.
But yes, I AM saying that if you act an asshat, you can't expect me to support vandalism claims on those actions when the person doesn't follow every nicety in response. Its one reason I don;t act much on this page; it gets put to that use FAR to often.

Swiers 08:41, 23 May 2008 (BST)

The post she replied to is more than a page long on my 900 x 1440 px monitor Luckily for you size really doesn't matter. And this just goes to show you haven't seen the towers of text she leaves on the Suggestions page.

I can't see his sig from its top even BEFORE she inserted he replies. So we should all post in soundbites? --– Nubis 01:23, 24 May 2008 (BST)

But yes, I AM saying that if you act an asshat, you can't expect me to support vandalism claims on those actions when the person doesn't follow every nicety in response. COOL KIDS CLIQUE ITT If I don't like the person bringing up the charge I won't be fair and look at the facts? And you wonder why the sysops get no respect.--– Nubis 01:23, 24 May 2008 (BST)

(is my post small enough for you to realize it is all me talking?)--– Nubis 01:23, 24 May 2008 (BST) Do I need to paste my sig in there a few more times so that all of my text on your monitor is attributed to me and you aren't compelled think it is ok to just put whatever you want in there since you can't see who wrote it? Since basically that is your argument for it not being vandalism. His post was too long therefore not vandalism and I hate him anyway. Good job!--– Nubis 01:23, 24 May 2008 (BST)

I wasn't aware it served any other purpose :P . I'm just concerned that should this be ruled NV it opens up new opportunities regarding what people can do on their own talk page. And while yes, grim's post was far from the correct way to do things Tselita had the total right to delete it altogether, it's not like Grim would be convinced or change his ways from what she said. It was a pointless argument and i feel this could result in people thinking they have even more rights on their own talk page, allowing them to break up and move people's posts around.--x o x o 08:48, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Those ruling have made it clear that they're ruling according to the specific circumstances of this case, so it's not as if some inviolable precedent is being set, and anyway the entire idea of precedent ruling future cases is nothing but an argument that is used sometimes - it's not enshrined in any policy. Each case unto its own merits. Those ruling may want to note that this sort of wiki-lawyering approach to undermining and attacking a disliked user (and abusing A/VB in the process) has been used in the past by Grim when he tried to have Nalikill thrown off the wiki for using his personal template. --Funt Solo ^QT

10:52, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Tselita frequently argues positions that cannot be defendable so instead, he throws up huge blocks of text in an attempt to browbeat his position on things. Grim at first replied nicely, I read it Funt. I also read that you need to get off your white horse, apparently you have some issues with Grim. This is not the first time I have read you bitching about Nalikill. I suppose if the situation was reversed and Grim was facing VB, you would be all for it. So what is your take on Tselita's repeated wall of text spam? Is it ok 'cause you think she's female? Those ruling may want to note that this sort of wiki-lawyering approach to undermining and attacking a disliked user (and abusing A/VB in the process) has been used in the past by Grim * Your hypocrisy is amazing. What exactly was the purpose of your very own policy attempt? --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 01:13, 24 May 2008 (BST)

To curb homophobic language on this wiki, but that's not really got anything to do with this case. Neither does the gender of either party. I was simply posting something that I thought was relevant to this case: it demonstrates a history of A/VB abuse, where Arbitration would be the correct forum for a personal disagreement. --Funt Solo ^QT

11:09, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Summary - this has been going on long enough. The ruling is Not vandalism (with 2v, 4nv rulings), with most (all?) sysops agree that while this was not bad faith, it was bad formatting of a reply, and that this ruling in no way legitimises the splitting up of other peoples post and replying in the middle of them. Use the quote tags and reply at the bottom if you want to respond in a point by point fashion -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:50 25 May 2008 (BST)

You might want to put that on Tselita's talk page to make sure she gets the message, given the total silence from her throughout this discussion. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:56, 25 May 2008 (BST)

I'll get to it. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:59, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Actually I was silent because I didn't even know this was happening until AHLG just told me. I only do wiki stuff while not doing my normal work so I don't always follow it closely and no one had told me that this was occurring. PS - I got the idea for how to do this from reading other people's user pages (on whom Grim_S has apparently not declared a wiki war). Do I have to bother with making a case against Grim_S now for his editting my page? --Tselita 16:26, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Not all - I am glad this is over, but I have to say I did think it was "bad faith".--– Nubis 06:53, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Damn...:( I missed all the fun. Not Vandalism - It is her talk page and, as a result, is free to reply to comments as she wishes. It is not impersonation because no changes were made to Grim's post bar the dividing up of it. She clearly indented each reply to show that it was a separate comment and one needs only to look at each section to tell its from Grim. However, due to Tselita being warned before about it on Talk:Suggestions, I will rule Vandalism on the next occasion of this occurring and ask that she doesn't do it again. The only reasons I'm not on this one is because it is her talk page and because it was a huge essay worth of post from Grim. I apologise for the late response, but I completely missed this report. :/ Dunno how. But I did. -- C h e e s e 17:29, 25 May 2008 (BST)

User:Jhon boner

Vandalised suggestions --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:38, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - He's not reached three strikes (yet), so it's a warning for now. -- C h e e s e 11:06, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Seriously Cheesy, you were considering a permaban for that? He stuffed up the formatting, and where to put it. Idiotic, yeah... bad faith? Not unless you're assuming a whole hell of a lot -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:13 23 May 2008 (BST)

I was joking. :P I wouldn't have permabanned him for that. -- C h e e s e 22:02, 23 May 2008 (BST)

The guy actually wrote his feelings, not garbage or pagewiping. I think he just doesn't know how to use the wiki so well, maybe you can explain it to him instead of him scaring him off... Ioncannon11 21:27, 22 May 2008 (BST)

User:YaoWan

Seems like an attempt to impersonate WanYao, and they even edited his user page. Also seems to be an alt of MikeJones, who has been going around impersonating DaytonDead -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:07 22 May 2008 (BST)

Permaban - Created with the sole aim of impersonating WanYao. -- C h e e s e 11:05, 22 May 2008 (BST)

And MikeJones? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:27 23 May 2008 (BST)

LOL! It's so flattering to have haterz! ;P --!!!!

BTW what the fuck is a Yoshi? --WanYao 02:36, 27 May 2008 (BST)

"Xiao Yao Wan is so famous that it has many names by many manufacturers..."[1] :P --WanYao 02:45, 27 May 2008 (BST)

User:Thermopylae

Blanked Inundantia and it's talk page. -- C h e e s e 00:05, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism I've never understood why just blanking a page seemed like a good "burn" on an enemy especially when it is so easily fixed. --– Nubis 01:44, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Good burn? A good burn is replacing a group page with goatse images....--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 16:51, 22 May 2008 (BST)

User:One Ugly Stupid Nagger

Two and Out Permabanned. Anyone else is free to reevaluate if they feel this was an incompetent action on my part. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 06:59, 21 May 2008 (BST)

That's fine, it's an alt of one of the banned suggestions sock puppets down below, but there's no point recording vandal data for straight permabanned vandals on A/VD. VD is to keep track of vandal escalations. As long as it's recorded here, it's fine -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:22 21 May 2008 (BST)

User:Jorm

Basically for this policy where he's stating that should it fail no other policy can be made, period. I don't recall there being any humorous policy page section of the administrations pages. Do you? --Amanu Jaku 03:04, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - No, he's been silly. There isn't any humorous policy vandalism thing either, and he isn't being all the disruptive of administration process. The policy is a paradox, it ignores itself, thus it won't do anything if it passes... or fails. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:18, 20 May 2008 (BST)

So any user can make any "silly" policy for fun? Why is the suggestions pages stricter than the administration policy pages? --Amanu Jaku 03:20, 20 May 2008 (BST)

If they start abusing it to the point of absurdity, then no they cannot. There's a rule on the suggestion page and not on the administration page, just how it is, I guess. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:40, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Properly developed, such a policy would not be stupid. Id like to leave it and see what happens. For example, a policy banning stupid policies like ones mandating the wiki be green or upside down or forcing the whole thing to be rewritten in russian would be more than welcome. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:42, 20 May 2008 (BST)

See, that makes sense to me, but not one that states that if it fails no other policy may ever be made. Can we just revert the edit or just suggest to make a serious one? --Amanu Jaku 03:44, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - the same way silly suggestions are treated as vandalism, silly policies are also treated as vandalism. Silly vandalism reports are also vandalism per se, the same wat silly deletion requests are also called as vandalism... you are NOT supposed to joke in administration pages, as it's a waste of time and jorm knows this well... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:45, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Since I've even said as much in the policy - that people making stupid policies should be punished - I am more than willing to take a bullet for this. I shall be the martyr of the stupids. However, I believe I shall only be required take punishment if the policy passes.--Jorm 04:01, 20 May 2008 (BST)

If you made it a serious policy preventing those policies along the lines of what Grim was talking about, it'd make sense. It's just that recent change shoved it firmly into the realm of a waste of time. --Amanu Jaku 04:07, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism It's a discussion. It doesn't violate anything on [here]. You can't seriously be suggesting punishing him for a rough draft of a policy that he has 3 days to change and discuss? Seriously? Are you trying to punish him because he suggested something you don't like? --– Nubis 10:02, 20 May 2008 (BST)

this is not a discussion in the open discussion section, it's a policy discussion, therefore anything there should be taken seriously, and if we had to define this policy, serious it wouldn't... stupid policies are already forbidden, therefore his should be considered an act of vandalism... please, use some good ol'common sense... i have spoken with jorm and he agreed to be punished... and how can i dislike this policy ? it's a fricking joke! I would have took part of it if i wasnt so busy here at work :( and the fact that i enjoyed it doesnt change the fact that i must do my job once it had been reported for vandalism --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:39, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism on the following grounds. IF properly refined it could actually form the framework of a policy that could (if used properly) prevent future policies from being suggested that are either over the top bad, or simply as a matter of fact out of the ballpark for this particular wiki even if the proposed "stupid" policy is accepted protocol on other wiki's. I know that wasn't Jorm's intent, but we live in a post modern world now. Go figure. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 06:51, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Disturbingly, that is my intent. However, I enjoy leaving the details of such things to other people. I just want everyone to use common sense.--Jorm 07:23, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Would you mind then reverting the current edit and work toward making a serious anti-stupidity policy? Mainly I would hate to have people start seriously creating policies that would add stipulations should they fail. --Amanu Jaku 08:47, 21 May 2008 (BST)

A lot of discussion has been moved to the talk page (way to long, even if some of it was relevant). Not vandalism, but pushing the limits with that last "if this fails" addition. If you are going to make a serious policy out of it, please fix it up asap -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:42 21 May 2008 (BST)

Both sides have had very good points and its taken me a while to come to a decision, but with precidents already established, namely, that people who dick around with administration pages get warned/banned (It happened in deletions for deletions, it happened a fair bit to Nalikill). Given the latter part of the policy, which stated that it would impede the creation of new policies in the event of a failed vote (Though policies do not get implimented if they fail, so it was kinda pointless) indicate an attempt to dick with the administration of this wiki, and is thus vandalism under all existing precidents we have regarding the issue. This sucks, because i really really like Jorm (This was why i didnt rule earlier, and gave myself some time to come to a conclusion, FYI). Id really like for you to turn it into a serious policy Jorm, but if you are just going to come here to pop one liners to antagonise other users and screw with the system, then you may as well not come here at all. The system is broken, WE GET IT ALREADY. People are morons, WE KNOW. Change doesnt happen just because you decide to throw a wrench into the works, all that does is break the machine without providing for a new one. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:24, 22 May 2008 (BST)

My main concern about ruling this Vandalism before the 3 days were up was that I wanted to give him the benefit of good faith and (probably naively) believed that the policy could be worked into something decent like I and others suggested. His behavior has shown that he isn't interested in that. I had hoped that the discussion wouldn't get too derailed and I believed making him a martyr would have done just that.

On the other hand, I don't think a warning for vandalism for this will really do anything to change him. (not that I think you shouldn't punish the incorrigibles, but since there isn't a clear cut policy on this like there is on the suggestions page, for example, I think trying to quickly rule vandalism and whipping up a precedent is a bad idea.)

I think we should build on [this] idea so that we have a clear policy and punishment in place (with more than a slap on the wrist) so we aren't going through this again. I don't want the wiki to "take itself too seriously" and act like not treating policy discussion with the utmost respect is forbidden. Or have it try to control the users beyond maintaining a semblance of order. But I don't want to wade through any more policies and discussions like the last ones that caused this. --– Nubis 12:05, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Are you seriously calling me an "incorrigible"? Seriously? You say, and I quote, I don't want the wiki to "take itself too seriously" and act like not treating policy discussion with the utmost respect is forbidden and write that?--Jorm 22:56, 22 May 2008 (BST)

User:Jcarnell

On 16-May-2008, Jcarnell vandalized the Policies section of the Cannonball Crew home page to make the group look like PKers. The first sentence originally read, "The Cannonball Crew does not practice or support Multi abuse, Zerging, Player Killing (PKing) (although we may practice Bounty Hunting as revenge on a PKer that kills one of our own), Generator Killing (GKing), or Combat Reviving (CRing)." Jcarnell changed it to read, "The Cannonball Crew does not practice or support Multi abuse, Zerging, Generator Killing (GKing), or Combat Reviving (CRing), the group does however support and actively engage in Player Killing (PKing)." --Deletion 17:01, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Warned for editing a group page without permission or due cause. Next time you bring a case, please provide diff links such as this makes it much easier to identify the edits in question. -- C h e e s e 19:17, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Thank you for the quick resolution. Sorry about not providing a better link as this was my first vandalism report. I'll be sure to provide the proper link(s) next time, but hopefully there won't be a next time.

Heads and Shoulders

Actively vandalising the Escendo Numerus pages. Permabanned. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:11, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Why? Should he not be given vandal escalations? Ioncannon11 21:18, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Check his contributions. All edits to a group he wasn't a member of, all vandalism. Three strikes and you're out and active vandal precedent. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 21:25, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Sock Puppets: Wave 2

I'm linking the following users to the ones below due to a very similar IP range. Only the last section is different.

I am Iron Man (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Allison (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

There is also a strong possibility of links between the following users but I'd like a second opinion.

Howser (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss), Canarsie Jones (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) and Sullivan (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Rex (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) and AshLaw (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

-- C h e e s e 01:02, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Also, this guy is fairly suspicious, most of the votes he makes are keeps, even if he claims to hate the suggestion because he's on a keep streak. -- C h e e s e 01:24, 19 May 2008 (BST)

User:Funt Solo

Funt Solo (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Altered [this] policy discussion page during the discussion instead of submitting a new policy. The new policy is very different from what was originally on the page and not just a "minor" edit. If this isn't vandalism then the current discussion should be closed at least and the idea resubmitted since it has radically changed. I think it is a "bad faith" edit set up to be used as a weapon to attack other users. Especially since he changed the policy to fit the "examples" he provided. -- #99 ^{DCC ^{SNACK STRONG}} 19:56, 18 May 2008 (BST)

The aim of the policy is the same as it was originally: to promote tolerance by outlawing intolerance. The entire point of policy discussion is to shape a policy into something the community may find acceptable, and that is all I've done. The majority of the new wording is that of another contributer to the discussion and therefore cannot have been "changed ... to fit" by me, as DCC is spuriously suggesting here. --Funt Solo ^QT

20:47, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Since this case was brought, it's been changed again, by the way. I fully intend to continue changing it in line with the discussion until we've either succeeded in hashing out a workable policy or ground to a halt on the battlements of Subjectivity Castle. --Funt Solo ^QT

21:39, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Policies can be completely rewritten if necessary and discussion can take place on the rewrite. The whole point is to reach a consensus that will be accepted by the community. -- C h e e s e 22:19, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Sock Puppets

A plague of sockpuppets descending upon the suggestions page. These are all the confirmed ones, and there are literally dozens of others on the nailgun suggestion page whos ips are in the same range as those used by these socks and, given their contribs, im thinking a number of other suggestions pages too, but im too fucking tired to sort through all the crap and strike them. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:44, 18 May 2008 (BST)

That would explain the huge number of votes on some pages. I'll go hunting. I'm not doing much else. Telly's shit tonight. -- C h e e s e 22:56, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Right, I've removed votes from Suggestion:20080501 The Tumbler Slug, Suggestion:20080501 Ice Storms 2.0 and Suggestion:20080504 Modify Profile Death Status so far. I've also perma'ed the socks to stop them giving us more work. -- C h e e s e 00:06, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I spotted some more that appear similar on that page earlier. See Karek's talk page for list. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:08, 19 May 2008 (BST)

All current suggestions have been purged of the votes of the above socks. I'll try and link the other suspected ones in a bit. -- C h e e s e 00:50, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I did a massive checkuser run on everyone i didnt know of on the nailgun suggestion, i merely forgot to add lambert and billyray to the list when i built it. Those are the only matching IP socks, though id venture a guess that most of the ones listed on kareks talk are also socks with different proxies that the user was smart enough not to use twice. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:52, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Can you check the ones I've put a bit further up? I'm pretty sure they're socks of this guy. -- C h e e s e 01:03, 19 May 2008 (BST)

User:RevivalOfTheFittest

Well, looks who's come crawling back to the wiki... trying to take over a group page both as himself, and as Vidad21 (an attempt to impersonate Vidad12, an actual member of the group). Something similar went on ages ago -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:27 18 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism: Impersonating a group member in order to gain access to edit another's group page without permission. Next escalation is a 24 hour ban. I'll also permaban the sockpuppet. -- C h e e s e 11:57, 18 May 2008 (BST)

(discussion moved to talk page) -- C h e e s e 00:48, 22 May 2008 (BST)

User:CrusnikXII and User:JesusChrist 93

Repeatedly fucking with each others group pages. -- C h e e s e 10:03, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Also, Vandalising user pages. -- C h e e s e 10:05, 17 May 2008 (BST)

More stuff: Crusnik appears to be an alt of User:Zaos. -- C h e e s e 10:10, 17 May 2008 (BST)

I'm going to warn CrusnikXII, he should know better than to put that on a rivals group page. But I'll just have a word with JesusChrist 93 for now. He seems very new, and was only using the group page instead of the talk page in the same manner (actually much more politely) that his own page was used -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:16 17 May 2008 (BST)

We going to do anything about the possibility of him being Zaos's sock? -- C h e e s e 10:19, 17 May 2008 (BST)

It's hard to tell which is the main account. I'll cross link the accounts on A/VD, that way vandal data from either account will be recorded against CrusnikXII (and any bans will apply to both accounts) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:28 17 May 2008 (BST)

Alright. If I had to choose, I'd say Zaos would be the main due to him having a better User Page. -- C h e e s e 10:32, 17 May 2008 (BST)

User:Pac8s

Impersonation. - . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:27, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Warned. -- C h e e s e 22:35, 15 May 2008 (BST)

He is a newbie, and he did try to put it back (only half succeeding)... still, a warning isn't the end of the world. Try not to be too aggressive with the newbies on the suggestions talk page... at least it's better for them to put it there than to just jump straight into voting with bad suggestions -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:38 16 May 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

For repeatedly shitting up the voting/discussion in UDWiki:Open Discussion/System Operators, which ones do you trust with trolling and inflammatory comments -- including snide remarks on other people's votes. If it were one or two such comments, or it were confined to being a shit-ass in his own votes/comment, no problem... But as it is, he's been shitting up the open discussion in a manner that is clearly intended to antagonise, i.e. not in good faith. --WanYao 21:42, 15 May 2008 (BST)

If you feel you need specific edits, ask... And I'll provide them later... It's not as if anything has been reverted, it's all there to see, just some has been moved to the Talk pages (proving it didn't belong in the voting section IMNSHO). Anyway, I am sure everyone will vote Not Vandalism, but I'm bringing this up... To see whether what was good enough for, say, Nali, is good enough for cyberbob... I wonder...... --WanYao 21:45, 15 May 2008 (BST)

I've just been having a look and, to be honest, it just seems that he's trying to stir up shit and make a complete dick of himself. He's got a vendetta of sorts against virtually all the sysops ever since this If he wants to be an arse, just let him. It may be poor form, but it's not vandalism. -- C h e e s e 21:52, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Vendetta? You honour me far too much. After that failed review (which I note only a few others have had the guts to put themselves up for) I was really focussed on making my way back - to regain the trust of the community. Somewhere along the line I just sort of went "fuck it" and decided to actually start having some fun. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:37, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - I read through the comments on the voting section, I don't see anything problematic. Or on the talk page. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:52, 15 May 2008 (BST)

FTR I am referring to his comments on other people's votes, not his own votes. His own votes are not the issue here, those are fine, he can say what he likes. But he made numerous trolling comments on other people's votes, and it's these I was referring to. --WanYao 22:02, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Forget it... My wrong... Congrats, Cyberbob240, on being a GREAT troll. But doing it within the rules... Your mom must be proud... --WanYao 22:07, 15 May 2008 (BST)

I've counted two other comment, one being nothing, the other <3. What trolling? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:08, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Fuck that! I'm a much better troll. God Hates Fags is my new homepage. I put a basket full of puppies in a river and shat in it until the basket sank. I framed Roger Rabbit. I put AIDS in the pool. I'm the greatest troll!!! --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 03:57, 16 May 2008 (BST)

I lol'd. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:16, 16 May 2008 (BST)

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Wan, you're such a darling. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:34, 15 May 2008 (BST)

User:Downinflames

Deleted lots of votes on [[2]]. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 06:13, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Looks like I jumped the gun. Appears he was just putting his sig on a vote he made that was struck out. The problem was he reverted everything put in after that. [[3]]. --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 06:17, 15 May 2008 (BST)

So Not Vandalism, just bad editing on his part?--Karek^maps?! 10:30, 15 May 2008 (BST)

User:Fagnat

Reverting Hagnat's reverts of Cuntdrakka's vandalism: [4] and [5]. Permabanned as alt of vandal. -- C h e e s e 23:59, 14 May 2008 (BST)

User:Cuntdrakka

Perma-banned - mostly for uploading a goatse image --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:52, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Mmmm...yum... :/ Kinda makes you wonder what some folk do with their time. -- C h e e s e 21:16, 14 May 2008 (BST)

User:Pvt Hawkins

bit of an odd one. He commits vandalism and then reverts it. Thought i'd report it, but I don't relay know what the policy would be. --Seventythree^Talk 12:45, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - He's editing the page, then reverting to cover it up. I'll give him a warning for screwing with group pages that don't belong to him. -- C h e e s e 13:24, 14 May 2008 (BST)

User:Thesurveyor

Malicious edit to a group page. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 20:52, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism and warned. Nice and straight-forward this time. :) -- C h e e s e 20:56, 13 May 2008 (BST)

User:Delta33

Vandalism here. The first part blanked was confirmed by the person in question, as seen in the history of the page, and the last part blanked was because he doesn't like being quoted when admitting to something he lies about. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 04:51, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Two additional unauthorized edits. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 21:53, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - ~~3 edits. None constructive. Account created purely for vandalism. Therefore Permaban.~~ User contacted me by email giving reasoning and apologising for not understand the procedure. I am therefore changing to a warning. A copy of the email will be on the talk page in about 2 minutes depending on my internetz. -- C h e e s e 21:56, 13 May 2008 (BST)

User:TerminalFailure

He is currently wiping mine and Sonny's userpages, the DORIS group pages and subpages. Too many to link, and its still going. check his contribs, while I try and revert--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:30, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Vandal contributions --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 21:36, 12 May 2008 (BST)

He seems to have stopped for now. Though, I had to laugh at a few of them.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:46, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - This would be another Month Ban now. I'm also going to call a Permaban vote as he'll more than likely come back and continue to be an asshat. -- C h e e s e 22:11, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Not-permban - give him a month to calm down, after all this was all due to arbitration bullshite, and sonny being an asshat as well. Sonny just loves it when he gets some noob to vandalise his pages, it's what he comes here for -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:36 13 May 2008 (BST)

List of VB reports 14th Jan messing with BB page, 21st Feb changing a header on sonny's page (not vandalism), 23rd Jan humourous suggestion, 14th March editing sonnys talk page, 30th March & 30th March arbies violation (both not vandalism), 8th April another arbies violation and this one. This last one is by far the worst case, but given a month, hopefully it will have calmed down -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:06 13 May 2008 (BST)

Yes-permaban - there is plenty of ways to avoid a conflict with saromu or whoever antagonize with him... he choosed the wrong one. I cite Izumi as a case of a user that have done little than this vandal-spree and got perma'ed, so i have no reasons to believe this is not perma-worthy. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:42, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Nay - Let the month finish first. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:16, 13 May 2008 (BST)

No --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:07, 13 May 2008 (BST)

No permaban Apart from anything else, given his edit summary I don't think he's coming back somehow.--Seventythree^Talk 08:04, 14 May 2008 (BST)

User:NIGGERBOB

Currently wiping pages. --Pdeq^Talk* 04:23, 12 May 2008 (BST)

A lot of pages. We need a sysop asap. --Amanu Jaku 05:20, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Perhaps a bot? Or just a greifing troll. --Dr Cory Bjornson 05:40, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Blocked thanks to User:Zombie_slay3r. Now we just need those pages reverted.. --Dr Cory Bjornson 05:43, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Already done. --Pdeq^Talk* 05:48, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Heh, That was fast. --Dr Cory Bjornson 05:50, 12 May 2008 (BST)

That was a good joint effort by all of us reverters. Glad it's over though. -- Ottari ^{Talk! DA PDA NW} 05:54, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, good work. There were about 5 of us going at it in the end. Hope I didn't edit conflict anyone. --Pdeq^Talk* 06:00, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Permanently banned, and a confirmed alt of Ioncannon11. I banned the IP too, but another sysop can change it if seen fit, because I have to go offline right now. Thanks to everyone who helped revert the vandalism. --Zs L 05:50, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Zombie, thanks for blocking this guy, but I don't do these kinds of these things. I use AOL and the ip is from AOL. I wouldn't wory about changing it back anyways, as this is New York City (or the AOL browser just gave him an NYC ip to use or w.e) and a million people can use proxyauthority.org or order dynamic ip to get on. I actually saw the edit war happening, albeit too late, and luled a bit. One idiot against four guys. Is everything done? (reverting the vandals)Ioncannon11 05:56, 12 May 2008 (BST)

You started doing minor edits that were heading toward vandalism, and then suddenly after you are on the vandalism page "someone from your exact same IP" came on and started doing vandalism while you were nowhere to be found? I doubt it. Can we get another sysop to help out here before we have another vandal "pop up on the same IP"? --Amanu Jaku 06:02, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Ummmm, no, I occasionally did stupid things, almost negligible, a while ago. It was over a month ago. Is it too much to believe what I've told you? The only bad faith edit I've had was the one below in this whole month. Look, zombie didn't ban me. He might have his reasons. I was nowhere to be found? I told you I was reading the whole thing! Dude, I quit vandals in late February when I got a 24-hour ban and then I got another one a month later for some stupid thing with my CTRL+V and sandbox malfunction or w.e. It's a long story, kinda. I've gone clean, mon ami....Ioncannon11 06:06, 12 May 2008 (BST)

So, whats it take to ban the main?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 06:00, 12 May 2008 (BST)

A few more escalations yet (he's got a week for this) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:42 12 May 2008 (BST)

User:Ioncannon11

Posting garbage on administration page. This user has enough edits to know that this kind of thing is not ok, and that it hinders the readability of the page. And then he did it again. --Pdeq^Talk* 03:23, 12 May 2008 (BST)

I am asking help, as many of my friends do this. Please do not insult me or make fun of me. I am not good with words, and I would like it very much if you could help me find any statistics on this topic. Ioncannon11 03:24, 12 May 2008 (BST)

I have not insulted you. Administration pages are not the place for this nonsense. --Pdeq^Talk* 03:27, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Talk pages are. And I took it to a talk page that I know sysops, usually very experienced and mature people, can help me. I took it to the page that they frequent most. Ioncannon11 03:30, 12 May 2008 (BST) Also, I changed the Shackleville page to fit both of our views. Thanks for editing my post. I know how to do it, too, now. Sorry, I'm not so good wit these dings.

You should talk to your parents about drugs, I doubt you will find good advice, especially when posting it on a page that has nothing to do with that. Use your talk page please.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:11, 12 May 2008 (BST)

My mom sells hash. I don't think she would be much help :\ I'll take the latter advice, though. Problem resolved. 04:18, 12 May 2008 (BST)

As a side note, he's also massively spamming brainstock under various different account names pertaining to weed, so I'm fairly certain this is more a lulzy thing for him.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:53, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Al'right, al'right, it was a lulzy thing. BUT, listen to dis, THAT WAS NOT ME on Brainstock. It's kind of sad how Raharu just thought it was 'Ioncannon101' when it's not. I don't know who it is, don't care, probably niggerbob (see above) who stole my idea. It's deleted anyways. I admit it was a bad faith edit.Ioncannon11 06:07, 12 May 2008 (BST)

1 week ban is the next escalation for Ioncannon. Apart from this bit of spam, checkuser shows that he is in fack NIGGERBOB as well -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:38 12 May 2008 (BST)

With the amount of damage ioncannon has done with his alt account (see above report), i'm inclined to ask for his perma. All in favor ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:12, 12 May 2008 (BST)

I'm going to side with Hagnat. He wiped over 100 pages in total. He knew exactly what he was doing when he did it as well. -- C h e e s e 20:29, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Permban votes are only available after a month ban, not a week -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:31 13 May 2008 (BST)

Let the guy have his 1 more chance.--Karek^maps?! 03:05, 13 May 2008 (BST)

Discussion moved to talk page. Perma Request dropped. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:47, 13 May 2008 (BST)

I'm going straight now, I'd like to give a big thanks to everyone who voted against the perma ban request. Ioncannon11 03:12, 21 May 2008 (BST)

User:Whitehouse

Whitehouse (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) What an asshole...removed all the groups operating in Scarletwood from the list. He says we're not there for "quite some time" BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE MY GROUP IS!!!! http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Scarletwood&diff=1134575&oldid=1132098

This is unacceptable: Proof Ioncannon11 20:55, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - in the summary he says Any groups feeling they have been wronged should reaffirm their presence by replacing their link,,, which is what you should've done, instead of bringing him here. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:01, 9 May 2008 (BST)

He has no right to remove things. Would you like me to remove status updates for every suburb and ask those believe they were wronged to repost? That's absurd. He should NOT have done this. Ioncannon11 22:35, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Status updates are reviewed in a weekly basis (once a month in the worst case sceneario), while group listings... well, i have seen some burb's list group i've known to have been disbanded for almost a year already.... so that tells a little about how often this lists get updated. I can agree that his doing can be considered poor form (he could've contacted the groups before removing them from the list), but still not bad faith, thus not vandalism. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:36, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Indeed, those suckers get WAY out of date, and they are also placed on the page with no timestamp and in a spot that makes them hard to locate and remove. I'd like to see that whole bit overhauled, although I'm not personally sure what would make an improvement.

Swiers 00:42, 10 May 2008 (BST)

I disagree, this is bad faith. Good faith would be checking to see if group wiki pages have been updated regularly then if no, posting a message on the talk page then clearing. Bad faith would be removing all groups but two (even those that were updated 2 days ago) and not even telling them on their talk pages.--x o x o 01:07, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Poor form != Bad Faith... did you even read what i wrote above ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:49, 10 May 2008 (BST)

yeah i did and i agree sometimes they sit for the ages. But its very very easy to look to see when a groups wiki page was last updated and make a judgment for that, if you're wrong thats fine but to delete a very active group...now that is bad faith. Anyway maybe a warning and a message explaining the correct procedure will discourage him from it in the future.--x o x o 01:53, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Extractor Hacked -Disbanded
Luelinks Survivors -Not seen in ages, likely disbanded
Scarletwood Police Department -Not seen in ages, likely disbanded
Evil Avatar -Believed to have moved on from Scarletwood
MFD -According to the other resident groups of Scarletwood that are still around, they only come by once in a while to spraypaint their group name in the Fire Stations.
CMS -Again, they haven't been seen recently in Scarletwood

In fact, the only group I felt unsure about was Ioncannons group, but they have not been see, I have not seen them, nor have the other residents. Just making a wiki update does not mean you have an active group in the suburb. I would have liked to have written all the above in the summary, but there is not space for that, which is why I wrote for groups to reaffirm their presence if I was wrong. - W 16:20, 11 May 2008 (BST)

In light of Whitehouse's comments, I'm going to rule Not Vandalism. Talk to the user before you bring stuff like this to VB. That's all it takes usually to fix something this trivial. -- C h e e s e 16:32, 11 May 2008 (BST)

Aha, in light of his comments you say! But how could I have not been seen if I have been advertising for a week now! Let us ask some GBP and Fortress members, who are here too AS IS EVIL AVATAR. I'd like to see the evidence for your claims. Ioncannon11 03:08, 12 May 2008 (BST)

User:Tony Feld

Known spammer, See User:Fat Albert and many others. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:59, 9 May 2008 (BST)

User:Krazy Monkey

Striking of votes here for no good reason. Until there is something permitting the removal of votes from such things, all votes must be considered of equal weighting. You cannot just pick and choose to keep some on the basis of some arbitrary criteria. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:53, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Cheeseman was working in the best interest of the community by removing invalid votes. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:58, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Given your involvement in an identical case below, your involvement on this should not be permitted as you have a vested interest in the outcome of this case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:01, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Grim, use some common sense. If a user's first edit to the wiki is on a Policy Vote, then it could be one of two things: a) A user who has been lurking without editing for a while, as some do. b) A user account that has been created just purely to make that vote and then abandoned. As all three of the votes I struck were made by users possibly created today (the day the policy just happens to go under voting) then there is a rather high chance of that being b). It is possible to see the account creation time on wiki software as account creation does show up in Recent Changes on Wikipedia. I stand by my vote striking as I believe that those accounts were created for the sole purpose of that vote and will barely be used again. -- C h e e s e 20:03, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Got work, back tomorrow. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:05, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism Vandalism has come to mean that it is a Bad-Faith edit. I have seen nothing to indicate that the sysops were doing anything other than their perceived responsibilities of striking apperently invalid votes. If the voter had issues with their votes being struck, they should have contacted another sysop to remove their strike thus proving their involvement in the issue rather than an alleged simple meat pupet facade. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 20:26, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - This is one of the most obvious cases of meatpuppetry ever. As Conn.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:44, 8 May 2008 (BST)

As has already been clarified in the Karek/Hagnat case, no user should be striking for meatpuppetry. How can this therefore be used as a justification for striking votes to advance your own side? --Grarr 23:37, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Please do not assume that I am ruling to advance my own side. Opinions differ, just because some user thinks that meatpuppetry should not be a valid reason for striking does not mean that I share this opinion. Striking a suspected meatpuppet vote should be treated with caution and I think that Krazy Monkey made a foolish decision doing so, I don't however, believe this was done in bad faith. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:19, 10 May 2008 (BST)

discussion moved to talk page

Vandalism - given what had gone before, I don't see any reason that Cheeseman wouldn't have known that striking because of suspected block voting shouldn't be done (unless there are grounds to suspect sockpuppetry) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:48 9 May 2008 (BST)

This is a tie, given hagnats involvement in an identical case below, his verdict should not be counted. We need a tipping verdict. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:52, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism, for the reasons Boxy stated, his involvement in my case makes it obvious that he knew this was an issue and he knew it was something that shouldn't have been done. This is one of those instances where Faith doesn't figure into it.--Karek^maps?! 07:04, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Tally: Vandalism 2, Not Vandalism 2, Invalid ruling 1 (Hagnat, who has been convicted of misconduct for that ruling attempt). Still need tiebreaker (Earlier note was a miscount, sorry) --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:50, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism As boxy. Striking was already a highly contested topic of discussion. As it was stated, no one should have to argue for their vote to be considered valid unless they are sock puppets. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:46, 1 June 2008 (BST)

User:Karek and User:Hagnat

As here. --Grarr 17:41, 8 May 2008 (BST)

At the moment I'm unsure. However, I do remember a similar case not too long ago involving vote striking on Suggestions, I'll dig it up and stick the link here for looking at. -- C h e e s e 18:53, 8 May 2008 (BST) EDIT: Its a misconduct case I was thinking of, rather than a VB one so it won't really count. Here it is anyway. -- C h e e s e 18:59, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism. Warned. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:50, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Warning's ~~struck~~ contested until case reviewed by other sysops. -- C h e e s e 20:01, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Also illegal, as you are involved in an identical case above and have a vested interest in seeing that particular result. Striking the warnings is therefore misconduct. Try and get soemone who isnt involved in such a case to come forward and do it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:03, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Show me where exactly where this is Law, Grim, and I will happily retract my ruling. Last time I checked, we don't have Laws on the Urban Dead Wiki. Just Policies. -- C h e e s e 20:06, 8 May 2008 (BST) I contest Grim's very quick ruling and would like my fellow sysops to give their views on this case in order to clarify it as it is a debatable issue. -- C h e e s e 20:21, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism Vandalism has come to mean that it is a Bad-Faith edit. I have seen nothing to indicate that the sysops were doing anything other than their perceived responsibilities of striking apperently invalid votes. If the voter had issues with their votes being struck, they should have contacted another sysop to remove their strike thus proving their involvement in the issue rather than an alleged simple meat pupet facade. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 20:25, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - Controversial, should have been discussed first, could have been handled better. The one or more that did respond in the end gave some reasoning to their vote.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:57, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Check the talk page of the policy, along with the policy page history itself, it was discussed well in advance.--Karek^maps?! 22:22, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Talk page of the users. Hmm, but give me a momment to read... I might agree with this being in misconduct, but it is here, I don't think it was suitably discussed, before the strike was made. A/VB doesn't allow much leeway for rulings. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - given the lack of any policy, or precedence on the issue, I feel that it was simply a mistaken view that this type of striking was allowed, and the unstriking of a couple of votes when some of the users concerned put a case forward showed that there was no ill will in it -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:44 9 May 2008 (BST)

This is also presently a tie. Given Krayz Monkey/Cheeseman's involvement in an identical case above, his comment should not be counted. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:54, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Tally: Vandalism 2, Not Vandalism 2, Invalid ruling by involved sysop 1 (Currently up for misconduct for it). Still requires a tiebreaker. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:52, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism No one should have to argue for the validity of their vote if they are not a sock puppet. It just furthered the idea that the mods are out to get the average user. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:40, 1 June 2008 (BST)

User:Themovielib

He's been making new pages hat are advertisments for other paying sites, Pharmacy-for.us and Themovielibrary.net. if nothing else it's spam, and off topic.--'BP^Tmz 20:28, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Perma banned - adbot. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:32, 6 May 2008 (BST)

User:Loosermass

Repeatedly removed images from the Useful Items page, as seen here and went on an image deletion bender here, here, here, here and a host of others I'm too lazy to link to. Boxy has thankfully reverted most of the edits on his recent spree. I can understand his desire to conform to copyright standards, but he has repeatedly had his initial edits reverted. Sounds like bad faith to me... --Ottari^{DA PDA NW} 06:05, 5 May 2008 (BST)

As far as i can see he didn't deliberately continue after becoming aware that people didn't agree with his actions. A soft warning and offical if he does it again would seem sufficient. Also theres a small amount of discussion on it under the bottom two headers on 73's talk page--x o x o 06:10, 5 May 2008 (BST)

Looks like he's at it again, less than 10 minutes after Boxy reverted. See here and here --Ottari^{DA PDA NW} 06:19, 5 May 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism This is an edit conflict. If it belongs anywhere it belongs in arbitration. Loosermass thinks that some of the pages would be more aestheticly pleasing, and more open to imagination without some of the images. He may well be right in some cases, though I don't think he should have removed all the images he did. Apart from the fact that editing pages in the way he has been is not vandalsim I would much rather work this out with him either in arbitration or on my talkpage than ban a user for editing the wiki! --Seventythree^Talk 10:22, 5 May 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism It's an edit conflict, and i'm inclined to agree with the reported user. These images only pollute that page, as they don't follow a similar aesthetical pattern, nor have their copyrights defined... and seeing this a community owned page, copyright is an issue there. I have removed an image from the zombies page, for example, on the same reasoning --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:26, 5 May 2008 (BST)

Notice who put that zombie image there in the first place, Hagnat? Loosermass. It's removal is probably what started this wholesale image removal spree. Removing someone's contemporary artwork is one thing, removing descriptive images of guns from the weapons page is another altogether. But still not vandalism, arbies material -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:31 5 May 2008 (BST)

arbies with who exactly? No one at all seems to feel strongly for keeping them...--x o x o 02:35, 6 May 2008 (BST)

Well if he goes wiping all those weapon pics again, probably me -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:20 6 May 2008 (BST)

User:Saromu

[6] [7] He is being very hostile against this user for no other reason than the fact that he doesn't like him. The first was fairly NPOV and there are many cases where people have warned about future attacks such as Big Bash attacks and news about when Mall Tours are heading their way. The second is just stupid because even if they previously stated that they had evacuated to anywhere, they still have the right to decide whether or not they have evacuated. If a member of their group says they are in gibsonton, it is accurate information.LemonHead7t7 *̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡|͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|]]| ̡̡̡ ̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡*̡͌l̡* ^{Talk/PDA/Red Rum/MOB} 03:53, 5 May 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - arbies -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:35 5 May 2008 (BST)

User:Garviel Loken

Vandalized. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 17:42, 4 May 2008 (BST)

I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as an honest mistake that should have been put on the talk page, but he's been here long enough to know not to edit group pages. Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:37 5 May 2008 (BST)

User:Shakey60

He's vandalised at least three pages so far. [8] One more and I'm going to ban him as an active vandal and wait for another sysop's opinion--Seventythree^Talk 17:12, 3 May 2008 (BST) User....User.....WTFLOLZ ????? Got the stutterz..zz..--Shakey60 17:14, 3 May 2008 (BST)

Vandalism in question - 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kinda juvenile realy.--Seventythree^Talk 17:28, 3 May 2008 (BST)

Right, I've blocked him for a day, sorry but I need some time to revert his vandalism as he was actively vandalsing as I was reverting. If another sysop could take a look at this I would be grateful - I don't want to rule on a case I bought up. --Seventythree^Talk 17:19, 3 May 2008 (BST)

Warned as well -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:20 4 May 2008 (BST)

User:TheProphet

Two edits so far, wiping a group page and removing another groups details from a suburb page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:22 3 May 2008 (BST)

Warned -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:07, 8 May 2008 (BST)

User:Max890

Vandalizing the page The Imperium Must Die, and then vandalizing it again after my reverts. He'll probably do it again once he sees I've reverted it yet again.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:54, 3 May 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:21 3 May 2008 (BST)