UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 06

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

June 2008

User:SqlGb0

SqlGb0 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Just look at the contributions man. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 10:17, 29 June 2008 (BST)

permad, Vista banned it for a year last year and it just expired. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:28, 29 June 2008 (BST)

Blake_Firedancer (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
He [deleted] a lot of suggestions from the Talk:Suggestions page. (I cannot load that link try looking at the [edit] that I made right before Blake Firedancer.) Some were up for deletion, but several still have active comments less than 5 days old.

Talk:Suggestions said:

Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted five days following the warning.

I'm going to attempt to revert the suggestions that are still under discussion. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:53, 28 June 2008 (BST) Ok I cycled the suggestions over 7 days old and put up {{Template:SNRV}} for the ones with no conversations in the last two days. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 10:42, 28 June 2008 (BST)

OK... I can't get your diff comparisons, even after fixing the linkage in you post. The wiki has been screwy over the last couple of days, with large gaps with absolutely no posts being recorded (server down?), but then, my connection hasn't been that great either. I don't know if anyone else can get anything meaningful from those diff comparisons, but if not, I'm going to put this down to server issues and rule not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:54 28 June 2008 (BST)

Same here. :/ I've noticed that the server's been a bit gay lately. Either way, it could just be he didn't notice the active conversations. Not vandalism. -- C h e e s e 12:41, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I haven't looked at the links in question, but as someone that tries to regularly prune that page I can say that it is a bit difficult determining if things have new conversation on them. Sometimes the new comments are replies in the middle so I can see how this mistake could be made. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:07, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I did? Sorry about that, I was having some trouble with my 'net that day. Pages from the wiki weren't loading properly, and I think it might have half-submitted an edit I made to include a suggestion. My bad. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:41, 29 June 2008 (BST)

User:TerminalFailure

Because the sysops refused to permaban TF he is back and vandalizing DORIS and my pages.

He's had several bans, was told to not edit DORIS pages even in good faith, was told to avoid me and AS, was told all this other stuff in vandal bans and Arby's and refuses to listen. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 00:12, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism Lots of it. Move for permaban. Have monthbanned him for the time being. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:09, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Perma - first thing he did was come back and start vandalising. He's had his last chance. Gorn -- boxy ^{talk • i} 08:45 28 June 2008 (BST)

Perma - I hate to say I told you so. -- C h e e s e 12:28, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Permban confirmed by 3-0 vote -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:50 10 July 2008 (BST)

User:Novascotia

Destroying the suburb map by pasting a large chunk of SA's user page onto it and Barrville's danger report. This guy has quite a few priors as Zinker so I don't think this was a newbie mistake. -- C h e e s e 23:51, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Alt of User:Z1nk666 -- C h e e s e 23:59, 26 June 2008 (BST)

God he's an idiot... however I don't know if we can describe it as bad faith. Why would someone do that on purpose? Is serial stupidity enough to qualify as vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:25 28 June 2008 (BST)

<cough>Terminal Failure</cough> -- C h e e s e 14:43, 29 June 2008 (BST)

Ruling Plz -- C h e e s e 20:03, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism mainly for edit 2. Destroying SA's userpage. You dont touch other peoples userpages. The fact he didnt revert after such obvious destroying of two important information pages also doesnt count in his favour. Examining both accounts, between them he hasnt put on 250 edits since his last infraction. I believe, going by the system, we are now up to a month ban (with the last warning being retroactively upgraded to a week ban). Ill let someone else confirm this though. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:17, 30 June 2008 (BST)

I agree. It's not hard to revert once you see you've stuffed something up... and how can you miss that. Yes, the last warning should have been a week ban (after being transfered once that it was discovered as an alt), making this a month. I would also apply the ban to his multiple alts... perhaps some should be perma'ed. Their number is getting ridiculous really -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:52 1 July 2008 (BST)

Banned for a month -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:07 3 July 2008 (BST)

User:Karloth_vois

Posted a humourous suggestion in the main suggestions system in direct violation of suggestions rule 10 where such an action is defined as vandalism. He knew that going in. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:26, 26 June 2008 (BST)

What do you have against laughter, freedom and puppies? --Karloth Vois ^{DR ♣ GR} 17:28, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Nothing at all. I do have a problem with them being posted in the main suggestions system when the humourous suggestions page is clearly marked and has been provided for your spamtastic pleasure. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:31, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Grim rules this place with an Ir0n F1ST!!! Down with ~~Big Brother~~ Grimchy!!! I can't believe I voted for you! T_T --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 19:12, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Can we get a ruling here please? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:54, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:31 28 June 2008 (BST)

User:WOOT

lolwut --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 19:36, 25 June 2008 (BST)

Aw Cyberbob, you dick <.<

It seems pretty obvious I was deleting spam, if that is vandalism, then shit... Ah well...

We're still homies right Cyber? --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 02:15, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:45 26 June 2008 (BST)

As Boxy, Not Vandalism. Should have gone on the talk page though rather than being completely deleted. Remember than in future okay? -- C h e e s e 12:16, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Okay... but... Why? It's not like someone is gonna respond to it... :/ --/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 16:41, 26 June 2008 (BST)

User:Nallan, User:J3D and User:Sexylegsread

Creating useless spam pages;

--Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 14:00, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - All 3 warned. -- C h e e s e 14:04, 24 June 2008 (BST)

In fact, Nallan gets a 24 hour ban and Read is on his final warning again with the possibility of a month ban. -- C h e e s e 14:05, 24 June 2008 (BST)

They are in game groups. Not Vandalism.--x o x o 14:09, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Ruling from non-sysop removed. -- C h e e s e 14:20, 24 June 2008 (BST)

You do realise trying to rule on a case if you aren't a sysop is vandalism as well? And I seriously doubt that they are all groups. -- C h e e s e 14:19, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Well, doubt is the decisive word in that statement.--CyberRead240 14:20, 24 June 2008 (BST)

There is a difference between a group and one you've just entered into your group field to attempt to avoid a warning on the wiki. -- C h e e s e 14:24, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Lolz! You got me. haha--CyberRead240 15:44, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Hahaha! That last comment of read's caused me lulz.--x o x o 09:49, 25 June 2008 (BST)

A triple banger! Well done, guys! DanceDanceRevolution 02:27, 26 June 2008 (BST)

*Sniff* I'm so proud... But seriously admin team - there needs to be some clear-cut guidelines to this sort of thing. I mean these could be legitimate groups in-game - you have no way to prove otherwise. Really it's kind of ridiculous just banning me and warning them over making a wiki page for a group which you don't think is real. Are you guys following me? I really am doing this for the betterment of the wiki, I assure you. Is this a loophole or what?--Nallan (Talk) 12:43, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Further discussion moved to talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:14 26 June 2008 (BST)

User:DOTTS DarkShade

One of the DOTTS fucking with their mortal enemies user page. Warned. -- C h e e s e 00:52, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Is a confirmed alt of User:DOTSS DarkShade, User:Dotss spleens fury and User:Spleenhunter. -- C h e e s e 01:15, 24 June 2008 (BST)

User:Tselita

Tselita (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) Removing a large [chunk] from another users post. I initially assumed good faith, but then I just looked up Tselita's previous warning on the exact same thing [here]. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 23:25, 23 June 2008 (BST)

WTF? I never removed a post from Haberdash! --Tselita 23:40, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Not in that diff. This one does show it better [1]. It does show you taking away a chunk of the post. -- C h e e s e 23:49, 23 June 2008 (BST)

If I did then I definitely wasn't TRYING to. I don't remember doing anything like that. If I erased Haberdash's sig or whatever it was probably just an accident. I seriously don't remember doing anything of the sort, and wouldn't have done it on purpose if I did do it. --Tselita 23:51, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Well, that's what it shows you doing. But the looks of it, you've taken that second paragraph and worked it into your own. :/ Which could be classed as impersonation. I am however going to have another look at this, just in case I missed something. -- C h e e s e 23:55, 23 June 2008 (BST)

wtf? Was I trying to quote him maybe and forgot the quotes? Or maybe I put my response in the wrong place? Whatever it was I was -not- trying to delete his posts. I don't remember doing ANY of this. I remember the suggestion and the comments but I didn't do what I'm being accused of here --Tselita 23:59, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Regardless, you did paraphrase Grim's post. True, it may be your talk page, but it's a user's signed post, and keeping that intact takes higher priority than your ownership of your own talk page. --Aeon17x 23:46, 23 June 2008 (BST)

The grim thing was already settled in a vandal thing, Geez! After that I decided to just delete his posts in total. What the heck is wrong with you people? --Tselita 23:49, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Oh, you were already penalized before about this? I just looked at the dates and thought you haven't had a vandal case yet. *facepalm* --Aeon17x 23:53, 23 June 2008 (BST)

I got a warning for that already, after which I said that I'd just delete his entire post on my user page instead of summarizing. --Tselita 23:54, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Better question, why is Gardenator bringing up something nearly three weeks ago just now? Seems like a retaliatory response. --Aeon17x 23:55, 23 June 2008 (BST)

More than likely. It always happens on here. -- C h e e s e 00:00, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Because he knows that if I had done anything, it wasn't in bad faith and it wasn't until I made a vandal report against him for his most recent Mock-suggestion (based on the same reasoning as a vandal report that boxy made against Zaphod Beeblebrox for an equally vandallous mock-suggestion). Gardenator even states in his vandal report that that's what's motivating him to do this. Geez --Tselita 00:02, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism - I've had a second look. And it looks as though Tselita suffered a momentary loss of brain power and appeared to have cut and pasted the comment she was quoted instead of copy and pasting. At best it's a case of hitting the wrong combo on the keyboard. And worst, it means that you need to learn to read better. :/ I don't know. Either way, just a stupid mistake. Not vandalism. -- C h e e s e 00:07, 24 June 2008 (BST)

That make a whole lot more sense than the idea that I was removing portions of his post, then just happening to past them into quotes which I respond to. And it would explain why I don't remember removing any parts of his posts if I had accidentally cut instead of copied. Gardenator, you call me pathetic but you are truly pathetic for having brought this up. And why are you googling the internet looking for web pages that have the word Tselita in it anyway? Are you that much of a loser with that much free time on your hands? --Tselita 00:12, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Yo Pot, what's up? Love, the kettle. --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 00:23, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Ah did I misunderstand you making a suggestion post making fun of 4 of my suggestions at the same time? How about call some more people homosexual hate words when they delete the crap that you put up? Me going running to people for protection - hah. Pot calling kettle black indeed. At least my vandal post about you was based on something that was clearly NOT in good faith that you did. But seriously, if you claim your nailgun cleans whatever is real, put it to voting. If it doesn't get blasted as Spam for being in the wrong section when it should be in Humorous I'll drop the whole thing. In the meantime, if you really want me to do the same as you, have the guts to put -your- real name up so I can do a google search on you instead. Chicken? --Tselita 00:28, 24 June 2008 (BST)

I may have ruled Not Vandalism, but this is not the cue for this to descend into a free for all. Take it to your own talk pages please. Thank you. -- C h e e s e 00:30, 24 June 2008 (BST)

User:Roxas1113

Replaced the page with the original version pre edits and warned him.--– Nubis ^NWO 21:29, 23 June 2008 (BST)

User:Gardenator

Bad faith trolling on suggestions talk page (among other pages). --Tselita 17:28, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Trolling and asshattery has never been considered vandalism, or a number of people, particularly sonny and cyberbob would have been banned long ago. Not to mention many of the players in Wikigate. Not Vandalism. Take it to Arbies. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:09, 23 June 2008 (BST)

As an additional note, id like to say that if you had acted like a reasonable person instead of playing the victim and acting like any disagreement with you was a full scale attack, they wouldnt have targetted you. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:12, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Hey if you feel it's a good use of space to have his mock suggestions cluttering up the talk:suggestion page..... I'm not considering it vandalism because of his rudeness. I'm considering it vandalism of the page because the more mock-suggestions he makes with no intention of bringing these humorous (yet unfunny) suggestions to a vote, the more he can cause the page to break.

I could also consider his posts Impersonation, since he keeps claiming to be a 'jewish girl on the internet' (basically claiming to be me, like me, etc etc' and quoting me as his 'good friend' when he's not claiming to be me. "This is my second version of my attempt to find a real use for all of the portable Nailguns my Dual-Nature Girl Survivor Character keeps finding in tinyurl links sprayed in UD. Additional use for a Nailgun to temporarily remove the darkness effect from dark buildings." - but I don't because, like you said, he's clearly just doing it to be a jerkface. --Tselita 18:16, 23 June 2008 (BST)

FYI, I am a Girl on the Internet. --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 23:21, 23 June 2008 (BST)

No, you're a shmuck internet stalker with way too much time on your hands --Tselita 00:14, 24 June 2008 (BST)

If we could remove suggestions based on them not being a "good use of space" do you honestly think half of the suggestions on there would remain? If we removed suggestions based on size you would have to find another place to post. There is no rule on the TALK:SUGGESTIONS page that says anything about humorous suggestions. That is only on the actual suggestions page. Learn the difference. There are no real enforced restrictions on what you can post as a suggestion, even the Frequently Suggested list isn't a "rule" otherwise every person that posted a gun, car, or sniping would be warned for vandalism. Besides, I'd rather read those suggestions than another 20 for sniping, portable light sources, new guns, X Ray/Night Vision, and storage boxes.

Learn the definition of "wiki impersonation". By no stretch of the imagination is that impersonation. How do you know Gardenator is a guy? You keep saying "he". For all you know Gardenator could be a girl. That's a bit egotistical of you to think that you are the only Jewish girl on the internet and if Gardenator references one s/he must be talking about you. I think I see the problem.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:07, 23 June 2008 (BST)

1) If a suggestion is being placed simply to troll another person, it shouldn't be going in there. He can just bring purely humorous-intent suggestions to the humorous suggestion board instead - that's why it's there... to prevent the talk:suggestions board from being overwhelmed to the breaking point with crap which the author has no intention of using. Talk:Suggestions is meant to test potential suggestions and work the kinks out of them, not for infantile flamebaiting slams. So totally not surprised that the first two Not vandalism votes came from you two guys. Did either of you notice I pretty much cut-and-pasted what was said about the Zaphod Beeblebrox thing below? Odd how you guys were absent on the 'Not vandalism' thing down there. Oh wait, not odd. Predictable
2) The problem is ... - Yknow what? Not even going to bother explaining to you why the second paragraph you wrote is chock full of "insanely stupid shmuck". Was going to, but it's a waste of my time. --Tselita 19:24, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Please cut and paste where I made any ruling on this case and get back to me. If you can't find it then FUCK OFF.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:29, 23 June 2008 (BST)

I will re-state what I said then. Instead of saying So totally not surprised that the first two Not vandalism votes came from you two guys, I will instead say So totally not surprised that the first two people defending Gardenator's vandalism of the Talk:Suggestions page are you two guys.. Happy now? Is that more accurate for you? --Tselita 19:33, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Please cut and paste where I made any ruling on this case I can has bold now. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:37, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Also, did you miss the whole post where it was discussed whether or not Zaphod was a sock puppet? That makes a difference on vandalism cases, but since you can't seem to grasp reading I won't try to explain.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:37, 23 June 2008 (BST)

The more recent Zaphod Beeblebrox vandal case, not the first one. The one that's lower on this page. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:Zaphod_Beeblebrox_2 - Where Boxy brought up the whole 'bad faith trolling on the suggestions page', which made me decide I should make a vandal report as well since Gardenator is doing the same, and both are vandalizations of the talk suggestion page. And you're telling me I can't read. Learn to read yourself. You can has bad grammar as well. How nice. --Tselita 21:40, 23 June 2008 (BST)

I'll try to explain: If Zaphod is a sock puppet then his suggestion/edits are clearly with the intent of trolling. (Socks exist to skew votes and/or troll) If he is a regular user maybe he's just an asshole. Gardenator is an asshole. That's why there is a difference. If there was a sock puppet account Tselita2 that only existed to vote and make crappy suggestions then that would be vandalism. Tselita (original account) voting and making crappy suggestions isn't. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:51, 24 June 2008 (BST)

The difference between my suggestions and the faggot sockpuppet: my suggestion is an actual suggestion. It is remarkably similar to ones made by Tselita and Rothlessness. There are no calling of names or insults on my suggestion and I am not a sockpuppet. Tselita, you are pathetic for making this report. There were at least one that I could have made against you for doing your inane cutting and pasting of peoples posts and then omitting a section of it. So cry more about how the mean goons are after you, if I really wanted to, I could have made a real vandal report against you. Go and check it [here]. Maybe I should report you for removing those lines from haberdashes post. --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 23:16, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Dude, Rosslessness actually contributes a lot to the wiki. Uncool dissing him.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:51, 24 June 2008 (BST)

I wasn't dissing rosslessness. I was comparing the suggestions I made by pointing out that the ones made by Tselita and Rosslessness are very similar. I can't help it if Tselita's suggestions make ours look stupid too. --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 02:55, 24 June 2008 (BST)

I heard no one dissing me. All seems in order. Carry on. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:56, 24 June 2008 (BST)

I never removed anything from any post haberdash made, wtf are you talking about? And to say that your suggestion is an actual suggestion is a laugh. If it's an actual suggestion, bring it to Voting. You made the damn suggestion, like you and DrPain made 2 others, just to poke fun at my suggestions. Several users have already called you on that. Drop dead you pathetic excuse for a human being. Go back to trying to stalk me in RL, talking about 'Rod' and whatever, freak. --Tselita 23:47, 23 June 2008 (BST)

"Please cut and paste where I made any ruling on this case" - You say this. I respond with this: "I will re-state what I said then. Instead of saying So totally not surprised that the first two Not vandalism votes came from you two guys, I will instead say So totally not surprised that the first two people defending Gardenator's vandalism of the Talk:Suggestions page are you two guys.. Happy now? Is that more accurate for you?" - would you like to repeat it a third time so I can repeat that a second time? --Tselita 21:45, 23 June 2008 (BST)

I almost miss Wikigate. At least back then the lines were clearly drawn, and there wasn't any of the pansy bullshit that goes on these days. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 18:33, 23 June 2008 (BST)

User:T13

Undoing a shitload of my own and Whitehouse's work, as well as removing a load of ads and updates other people had put on the page. Newb error yes, but this user is not a newb and should be warned of such shit accordingly. Especially since as it's going to fall to me to fix this clusterfuck tomorrow. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:12, 23 June 2008 (BST)

I'm afraid that n00bish errors arn't vandalism, Iscariot. As it says up above, "as much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort". Sorry that you have to go to the trouble of fixing that stuff up now, I know what a pain in the arse it must be. I will contact T13 and tell him not to do it again in the future though. Seems that he edited an old version of the page, reverting it to an earlier version -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:37 23 June 2008 (BST)

User:Suver

Impersonation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:04, 21 June 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism. Their checkuser results show similar IP addies, and their user pages are very similar. Probably the same person with different accounts -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:54 22 June 2008 (BST)

Probably? Fucking probably? We're working A/VD on "probably" now are we? Not even a check using a message to the original user's ID? Just a Not Vandalism because we can't be arsed? If that's the precedent being set you'd better hope a trenchie doesn't appear in my city so I can claim the 'similar IP' card. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:15, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Iscariot, there are limits to how definite a result can be through check user. Both users are, as far as we can tell, the same person. It's Not Vandalism because we can't assume bad faith when dealing with users and everything points to it not being impersonation.--Karek^maps?! 01:54, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Have you two lost your minds? 1. You can't alter another poster's signed post. Period. See Below VVVV 2. If they are the same person (and I hardly think similar user pages and close IPs are convincing evidence - Especially not coming from you, Karek, since you tore Cheese a new one because he banned someone because the IPs were close and now you are letting someone off because the IPs are close?) then why didn't she log into the original account that she meant to use or log into that account to delete the comment? Or maybe post the sign so that it links to Account A but reads the name of Account B? There was no reason to change the sig like that from a different account except to impersonate. If you insist on the IP addys being enough evidence does that mean if I find a proxy that can spoof an IP close enough to someone else's I have free reign to alter any post they make as long as I steal the code for their user page? How retarded is that? Vandalism clearly.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:22, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Newbies do this sort of thing quite often actually, without meaning to impersonate. They get the idea that they should have a wiki account for their different characters, and then forget which one they're logged in on, and sign with the other accounts name. I've contacted Standzs, asking what's going on. And no, this doesn't open up the ability for you to find someone's IP addy and impersonate them using similar proxies, because all it takes to show that you arn't that person is for them to tell us. If this edit had been something malicious, like changing the Standzs words to make him look foolish, then yeah, it'd be vandalism in a second, but due to the nature of the edit (simply changing the sig link) it looks very much like a newbie mistake -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:26 23 June 2008 (BST)

Well, there are some issues with checkuser, there's also the point that the Zaphod case was because he banned a user for having a common IP with another user that was a known proxy. The way I see it more information is needed before an informed decision can truly be made, that means I rule Not Vandalism because at this point in time there's not enough proof to say Vandalism without a doubt.--Karek^maps?! 14:10, 23 June 2008 (BST)

I did do my research on that one Karek. I still believe that he is the same guy as the sock. Here's my reasoning if you want. Look at their contributions. Zaphod and DeadManWalking. Also compare it to other identified socks at that time: for example Real Robert Lord and Rage. As you can see, each one starts with the making of their user page, then dives right into suggestion voting. There is also the fact that all the accounts were created around the same time. In my opinion, the IP match is just carelessness on his part by picking a proxy he'd already used. If you look at the facts, if you look at the connections, you'll see that him being the same guy is really not that unlikely. -- C h e e s e 22:25, 23 June 2008 (BST)

Why don't we ask Suver... -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:25, 23 June 2008 (BST)

NO Gnome! This is why you didn't make crat. We must argue here and come to a conclusion without consulting anyone involved. Also while i'm here i'll give my 2 bob worth - just give them a warning, it's no big deal and it'll let them know that next time they should be more careful. This is why the first tier on the vandalism ladder is a warning, not a permaban.--x o x o 08:36, 23 June 2008 (BST)

J3D, what you wrote is the funniest thing I've ever read on the wiki. Thanks :) --Tselita 19:37, 23 June 2008 (BST)

No backseat modding please. Go back to the kids corner and have a free balloon for your trouble. *gives J3D a red balloon* -- C h e e s e 22:27, 23 June 2008 (BST)

I got no reply from Standzs, but Suver replied that it was an old account of his that he has given up on, so he changed it -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:47 3 July 2008 (BST)

User:Goolina

Impersonation. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:12, 21 June 2008 (BST)

You joking? DanceDanceRevolution 13:36, 21 June 2008 (BST)

lol ur witty --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:23, 21 June 2008 (BST)

This comment is relevant to this vandalism report. kekekekeke--x o x o 14:46, 21 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism You can't edit someone else's comment. Adding that image made it seem like the original poster made that headline a link to that image. You want to post macros do it under your own name. Warned. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:43, 21 June 2008 (BST)

Seconded --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:53, 21 June 2008 (BST)

Not a vote, but a lot of users change the headers that discussions get posted to on their talk page's. If we dug them all up, we should probably be banning several such users. What's the difference in this case? Swiers 18:11, 21 June 2008 (BST)

This was reported. You dig up more cases I'll vote them Vandalism. The user didn't create that header and didn't have the right to make it redirect to a macro. If someone goes to a talk page that you created a header on (like a vandalism warning) and changed that header to link to goatse making it seem like you posted it that way would you allow that? I wouldn't.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:16, 21 June 2008 (BST)

Please, an lolcat is hardly goatse. While we've always given users a bit of latitude to change headers on their user and group talk pages. It's their talk page, and they want certain standards (for organisation and so that they can easily find stuff later), changing a header only to insult the person being replied to (as was done here), doesn't fall under such good faith edits. Saromu would be advised to be vewwy, vewwy careful in future given this precedent, however -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:48 22 June 2008 (BST)

Meh, it was funny. I figured it was allowed since it wasn't the actual post but the headline. I didn't mean to hurt the anonymous proxy-users feelings by suggesting he get, you know, real friends. --Goolina _{The Kilt Store} 19:48, 21 June 2008 (BST)

User:Die zombies

Likely an alt. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:35, 20 June 2008 (BST)

Warned. Just doing some investigation to see if its an open proxy. If so ill ban it before i go to work. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:38, 20 June 2008 (BST)

User:Alan

This edit to another person's userpage. --Zs L 06:08, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Brutal. DanceDanceRevolution 10:43, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Warned - also for this -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:06 19 June 2008 (BST)

User:Terra

Violation of this policy which prohibits the use of open proxies. All edits come from an identified open proxy (Simply google the IP) and a mail server, also being used as a proxy. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:38, 18 June 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism, it's not against the rules to use a proxy unless you're using them for a purpose that is against the rules(much like having an alt account). The IPs, however, are ban-able if they are open proxies.--Karek^maps?! 08:55, 19 June 2008 (BST)

Fairynuff. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:19, 19 June 2008 (BST)

User:Bob probert 2000

apparently he finds it wise to vandalize a page dedicated to anti trolling. --Scotw 19:44, 17 June 2008 (BST)

He's just giving this place a little laughter. Sorry for posting here, but I felt I had to. Ioncannon11 22:42, 17 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - We had a guy attempting to give the place a little humour before. Turned out he was 3pwv. I'll let him off with a warning for now though. I'm in a reasonably good mood tonight. -- C h e e s e 22:49, 17 June 2008 (BST)

User:Hypno

This, impersonation.--Karek^maps?! 07:40, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Warned - Oh so close to getting a permaban. He's been a regular at changing people's posts -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:59 16 June 2008 (BST)

Im just curious If you guys have already reported this as well?[2] --Doctor Oberman 06:04, 18 June 2008 (BST)

I took it into consideration, yes -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:12 18 June 2008 (BST)

User:Zaphod Beeblebrox

Bad faith trolling of the suggestions talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:38 16 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - some things are, and can only really be dealt with in this manner. This is one such case. Swiers 07:08, 16 June 2008 (BST)

That's almost two weeks old. Why is it here now? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:54, 16 June 2008 (BST)

User:Insomniac By Choice

editing another users signed comment. Welcome to impersonationsville. You cannot either put or remove words from another persons mouth. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:11, 15 June 2008 (BST)

Then I ought have been suspended a long time ago for correcting the spelling and grammar of the Fort Creedy page numerous times. If you see malice or harm in it, that's one thing, obviously. If it's improving the page, that's equally obviously another.--Insomniac By Choice 08:20, 15 June 2008 (BST)

Spelling and grammar doesnt change the content of a post, you deleted a sizable chunk of another persons signed comment. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:25, 15 June 2008 (BST)

I didn't change the content of the signed comment there, either. I took out the redundancy of suggesting some melodramatic nonsense that's going to happen anyway. Of course people are going to make up their own minds; it doesn't need to be said. But the rest of the content was fine. What you're suggesting is that I should a) leave it there and leave the article worse offd, b) delete it outright and probably start an edit war with the fellow, or c) actually impersonate the guy by using the edited version and signing it myself. If what amounts to plagiarism is the official way to go about it, that's fine, but just so we're clear about it. I've been doing this same thing for years.--08:32, 15 June 2008 (BST)

He wanted to say it and you have no right to remove it from his own comment. You did wrong, live with it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:35, 15 June 2008 (BST)

Oh sure, sure. Of course I did. But tell me which of those options or another I ought to go with so I don't commit this wiki sin in the future.--Insomniac By Choice 08:38, 15 June 2008 (BST)

Maybe posting on his talk page that you think that line sucks and his writing needs work? Call him a hack? I find criticism can often make people change things. Besides, if you just remove his comment (besides getting in trouble) you won't really be helping him get better at writing articles. Since that is what you claim to be your ultimate goal (improving the page) you should really begin by helping those that contribute to them. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:35, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Its an author's note, which means editing it didn't improve the article in any way, and only changed how well we can understand the authors thinking. That's exactly WHY we can't change the content of signed posts. However, I'm not inclined to go father on this one, as it wasn't with ill intent, and I have better things to do with my time than process paperwork on what should at most be a warning. Its not vandalism in any sense I'd bother bringing to this page. I'm puzzled that Grim had time to bring this here, bit not fix the 50 or so characters of "vandalism" to protect the user's rights that he seems so concerned about. Swiers 08:55, 15 June 2008 (BST)

I did revert it you moron (And yes, that comment is more than justified. A quick check of the history would have shown you to be incorrect here). Bad or good faith has never had anything to do with impersonation. Impersonation = vandalism and always has. You, simply put, do not ever change another persons post unless its a link fix or typo correction. It is absolutely taboo. If you have a problem with what they are saying you take it to their talk page, or in the case on that page, you do what Aeon17x did and move everything to talk until the matter is dealt with. What a spectacular brain fart on your part swiers. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:24, 15 June 2008 (BST)

Actually, no, the "moron" comment is not justified in any logical sense, its purely argument ad hominem. Unless you have access to an IQ test I've never seen. By any definition I know of, I'm not a moron; please look in the dictionary. I have made a mistake in this case, but that doesn't change my IQ; it just makes my statement invalid. Idiots can be right, and savants can be wrong.
Your continual use of ad hominem attacks (even when simple disproof of the argument has sufficed, and the ad hominem statement is redundant and false) is truely noxious. In fact, I believe its a form of trolling, since you are making false statements about another user.

Swiers 01:21, 16 June 2008 (BST)

You know what he meant which makes this comment valid. You're being just as big of a troll as he is for responding in the manner you did here.--Karek^maps?! 01:26, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Yes, it was obvious that he meant to be rude, which there is no rule against. That doesn't mean I need to accept it, and (when its a repeated behavior of misstatements about other users) doesn't mean its still OK.

Swiers 01:35, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Maybe not, but you weren't choosing to not take the insult, you were choosing to make it mean something it obviously didn't, you were fabricating a false meaning and being very condescending.--Karek^maps?! 01:41, 16 June 2008 (BST)

You misused the term ad hominem. I did not use namecalling as a justification for disregarding your points, i used it as general abuse, which was quite justified seeing as how you did not examine the case properly and actually attacked me for allegedly not doing things that i hhad already done, or do you not recall this: "I'm puzzled that Grim had time to bring this here, bit not fix the 50 or so characters of "vandalism" to protect the user's rights that he seems so concerned about.". If you want to get snitty about it, remember you made the first use of personal attacks, and that i do not much appreciate the implication of hypocrisy. Ad hominem only applies when you attack the person instead of the arguement and act as though you have taken care of the argument. This i did not do. I used them in addition to rebuttals. Your insistance on focusing on the few personal attacks to the exclusion of everything else (When they comprised a small fraction of the post) clearly shows that you have absolutely no interest in dealing with this case in a sensible manner. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:14, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Actually, if you look outside that one response at my other replies, you can see that I DO think this is an issue worth dealing with, I just think there may be a better way than bringing a vandalism case to do so. That's even the essence of my first post.

Swiers 07:04, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Actually, your post had nothing of the sort, except for this gem which, out of charity, i let slide at the time. Suffice it to say such charity has been expended. "and I have better things to do with my time than process paperwork on what should at most be a warning." - Its your fucking job as a sysop to process this kind of stuff. If you have better things to do than your job, then go to A/DM, sign yourself up there, and let people who are actually willing to do the job and do it properly do that job without activly sabotaging due process like you have here. To borrow my favourite SA-ism: Get out. FYI: The reason why impersonation isnt affected by good or bad faith is because with either good or bad faith, its still altering what another person is saying, it still leads to senseless conflict, and it can result in a fuckload of drama regardless of intent. As the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Saying "oh, i meant well" doesnt rebuild all those burnt bridges and magically make wrong right again. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:34, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Were you blind to The entire context of what you just quoted? To expand slightly: That's exactly WHY we can't change the content of signed posts. However, I'm not inclined to go father on this one, as it wasn't with ill intent, and I have better things to do with my time than process paperwork on what should at most be a warning. Its not vandalism in any sense I'd bother bringing to this page. To put it in tiny words; Yes, that was wrong, and there's good reasons not to do it. No, it wasn't meant as vandalism. I'd find some other way to do this. To borrow my favorite unrelated social group-ism- don't be a dick just because you can get away with it. Or, to quote something directly related to this case, As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort. Avoid submitting reports which are petty.
As for burnt bridges, that's EXACTLY my point here; issuing a vandal warning in this case doesn't re-build any burnt bridges either, and just creates ill will on the warned persons side. Honestly, just the revert (which I'm sorry I missed and critisized you for not doing; despite any personality quirks I may not like, I've noticed you do normally do a very effective job of editing in such cases) and a note to Insomniac on a friendly, informative, editor-to-editor level, that would seem to resolve the issue in the best way. If you did contact him in such a way, bravo; I'd call it case closed at that point, assuming he gets the point and doesn't initiate an edit war.

Swiers 18:47, 16 June 2008 (BST)

So, basically you are saying im right, but because you think the report is petty, the facts of the case magically dont matter. Tell you what, if it had been a new user, i would have done exactly as you had suggested, however Insomniac By Choice signed up to this wiki before or around the time i did (His earliest contrib is in October 05 and i remember him from a lot of the stuff going on back then, my earliest recorded action is back in November, FYI). Regardless of his long hiatus he has still been around for a very long time and as a result it is more than fair to assume he knew the rules. You do what you suggest to newbies who are possibly unaware of the rules, you dont do it for ancients who were there when the rules were written. Your stance on this issue is patently absurd. Furthermore, your "rewrite" of your opening post here presents a completely different implication that anything that was in your original, as i said, your original gives the grand impression that you are lazy, unwilling to check the facts of the case, and cant be arsed to do your fucking job properly. Futrther conversation has served only to reinforce that initial implication. Also, take your sugar talk to someone who cares. I am right here, you have pretty much admitted it, you know it, i know it, and yet you persist on advocating absurdity. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:44, 17 June 2008 (BST)

I said from the start you were basically right; how else can this be interpreted? Its an author's note, which means editing it didn't improve the article in any way, and only changed how well we can understand the authors thinking. That's exactly WHY we can't change the content of signed posts.
The fact that you choose to focus later parts of the paragraph (perhaps because they don't agree with your wishes, more likely because they directly, and incorrectly, critisized you) doesn't change the plain meaning of what I wrote. I'm not re-interpreting or re-writing, any more than you.
As for advocating absurdity, it seems we differ only in degree in this case, so how am I being absurd. Exactly what would be the number of edits / length of experience at which you feel its necessary to dispense with person to person civility (which you agree is proper in some cases) and go with letter of the law authoritarianism? If you can't give me a definative answer there, you can't say my opinion in this case is absurd.
Does one sentence (I have better things to do with my time than process paperwork on what should at most be a warning.) give a "grand impression? Apparently I must be a HELL of a writer. At the time, I literally had better things to do. I still do (and replying to this is wasting it further). I'm not lazy (that's a pretty absurd claim); I just have different priorities than you. One of them is placing the social interaction of community members above the rules. As for being "arsed to do the fucking job properly", when I get a paycheck, I'll call it a job. Until then, its HOBBY, and yes, I treat it as such.

Swiers 07:49, 17 June 2008 (BST)

Well, as i pointed out (Before you even responded to my initial post, more reading difficulties on your part methinks), it was the only contribution of that user to the article. Not an authors note. Ive covered everything you said, and as written, your post does not convey the message you say it does. The fact that ive made a bigger deal out of some parts than others is because certain areas simply have more to be said than others.
Your absurdity comes from the fact that this case is black and white, and the way this particular kind of case is treated is also black and white. There is no gray to be found in it. Either you did impersonate or you did not. Impersonation is an escalation, not impersonation is not. Good or bad faith dont have a part to play in the issue because of the major problems that can arise because of such incidents. If a person wants to say something, its their right to say it and you cant alter their signed post to make it otherwise. I said this much better on the talk page, so heres the dif. You are arguing that this report is petty. I say that even if, by some quirk of fate it were petty, it doesnt make it any less impersonation, and the fact that he has been a member of this wiki for almost three years kind of throws the whole ignorance of the guidelines out the window, as does AHLG's link below where he was accused of impersonation but acquitted. He should have know the rules given those circumstances and as a result its fair to say he knew the rules and that he was breaking them.
You accuse me of creative misinterpretations of your posts when teh fact is that nothing you added to imply what you claim you meant was present in the original post. Yet you decide to attack my point where i use the term "grand impression" referring to three seperate incidents in your posts and apply it all to one. Rather silly. The three things in particular being your direct personal attacks in your original post based on huge errors on your part where you simply didnt check your facts (hence the laziness accusation as well as the checking of your facts before you went and shot your mouth off), the fact that you are saying that because its, in your view, petty, the rules dont apply, and the fact that you have both there, and here, stated that you cant be arsed to follow through on your responsibilities as a sysop.
When you accepted your nomination to be a sysop (And were subsequently promoted) you also took upon yourself the responsibilities of a sysop, specifically to uphold the rules of this wiki and to serve the community to the best of your abuility. If you are unwilling to follow through and carry out those responsibilities, then you should apply for demotion. A hobby it may be, but it has certain responsibilities, none of which you have managed to live up to in your conduct on this issue. If you have better things to do with your time, go to A/DM and let those who have the time, and the will to carry out their reponsibilities get on with it instead of dicking us around.
One of your responsibilities is to uphold the rules, you cannot make exceptions wherever you feel they are warranted, because such behaviour undermines them and they become meaningless. You either apply them all the time or not at all. Any attempt at an intermediate will invariably end in accusations of favouritism, discrimination against subcultures, and all the sorts of dramariffic crap that comes along with it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:31, 17 June 2008 (BST)

Oh, and it was not an authors note, it was that particular users only contribution to the article (Spread across two edits). Again, something you would have seen had you done the right thing and checked the history. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:53, 15 June 2008 (BST)

Yep, I looked at the wrong links in this case. Good points both, though it doesn't much alter my opinion.

Swiers 01: 21, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Not Vandalism And before you call me a Moron, Grim, let me tell you why. Its part of the Main article as opposed to the talk page, and by evident precedent, Sigs such as Xebulba's didn't actually belong on the article page to begin with. (see damn near every suburbs page "news"). If this is vandalism then anyone who has ever altered a page with someones sig on it without moving it to the talk page in total is guilty of vandalism, and if you want to follow up on that from this point forward...by all means. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 17:39, 15 June 2008 (BST)

As per usual Conndraka, with you the wheel is spinning but the hamster is dead, you are quite simply the dumbest most obviously biased and pathetic sysop the wiki has ever seen, and we had Amazing for a day. If you are going to bring up an alleged precident, back it up with a link when challenged (As you are now). Furthermore, you are claiming that because it was on a main page instead of the talk page, editing it wasnt impersonation. By that same argument, i could edit your verdict to say whatever i liked because this too is an article rather than talk page (Summary for the hard of thinking: You are wrong). The only correct manipulation of those posts would have been to move them both to talk, which was subsequently done by Aoen17x. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:44, 15 June 2008 (BST)

Why is this hard? You don't change anything in a signed post. Period. Look at the top of this page - none of that is signed and if it was altered (within policy since it is an Admin page - ok rough example, but humor me) that would be acceptable. Anything in this section can not be altered by other users since it all needs to be signed. He signed his post and therefore it shouldn't be altered. Vandalism.

And Swiers, Grim brought it here because of the backstabbing environment of this wiki bureaucracy that would instantly jump on him for warning without following procedures. So, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, but joy oh joy, bringing things like this here saves him the pointless misconduct case but instead forces him to have to explain slowly with pictures why breaking the rules is still breaking the rules. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:02, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Fair enough. I don't mind people holding opposing opinions in cases like this, or even overuling mine if that's how the rules go. I just was honestly puzzled. It does seem there should be a better way to warn people about minor Faux Pas like this; I generally just drop a personal note, as one user to another. Is that bad?

Swiers 02:08, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - that could have been worked out on talk pages -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:38 16 June 2008 (BST)

There are times when editing someones signed comment is not considered impersonation, such as fixing spelling/grammar, links, formatting (unless they tell you not to) or if you are new. These things can easily be seen as good faith, however you removed a chunk of his comment, which is impersonation. You should really know this, so I have to say vandalism. You can remove the warning from your talk page if you like, it's no biggie, really. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:43, 17 June 2008 (BST)

Also, these types of reports, combined with the UDWiki's users nack for wanting to respond to every comment/ruling (or provoking a response) is what makes this place such a drama filled cesspit... we can all be blamed for this. :/ -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:43, 17 June 2008 (BST)

Sooo... with 3 for and 2 against, is anyone going to actually issue the warning? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:02, 18 June 2008 (BST)

Sure. I more than said my peace, and am a believer in the democratic process here. Warned.

Swiers 07:52, 20 June 2008 (BST)

User:Ioncannon11

Vandalism here as well as here. The Imperium disbanded. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 04:06, 15 June 2008 (BST)

If he does it again, now he knows they're disbanded, then yeah, but as it is, not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:46 15 June 2008 (BST)

Wow my computer goes down for a few days short of a week and I come back to a disbanded Imperium...sorry, I didn't know about this. Ioncannon11 08:17, 15 June 2008 (BST)

User:No o.O

Active vandal that started a spree while i was pking. All vandal acts reverted and permad. Thanks to DarkStar for alerting me on IRC, and Midianian for reverting the first vandalism of this page. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:08, 11 June 2008 (BST)

User:Zaphod Beeblebrox

I have finally managed to confirm that he is indeed (as I originally thought) that he is one of the Sock Puppets from this case and this case last month. One of the IPs he used in the past couple of days is an exact match to one used by User:DeadManWalking (one of the banned socks). This would of course explain the spammy trolling that he does. And the open proxies. -- C h e e s e 11:38, 11 June 2008 (BST)

Whoops. :/ Forgot to ban him. Perma-ed as a Sock Puppet and for Ban Evasion. -- C h e e s e 14:50, 11 June 2008 (BST)

He was smart enough to leave it until it wouldn't show up on the wiki IP Check, but by going back through the logs he does show up as using the same IP as DeadManWalking. Nice work Cheese -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:53 11 June 2008 (BST)

:D Thanks. I felt dead proud of myself for that. -- C h e e s e 14:58, 11 June 2008 (BST)

All of Zaphod's IPs are Proxies, all have already been banned as such by me in the past, which could have been easily checked and should have been obvious considering I said as much on User_Talk:Zaphod Beeblebrox. I'm unbanning and depending on the response starting a misconduct case, this never should have gotten this far.--Karek^maps?! 17:36, 11 June 2008 (BST)

And why exactly did you unban him Karek? Because with all the violations of the Socs in question and the fact that he edited while being under a ban gets him a perma, unless I'm totally mistaken. If I am...great, if not..you are the one likely to find yourself on the receiving end of a misconduct case. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 23:02, 11 June 2008 (BST)

He's not under a ban, and didn't violate one. The matching IP in question was a proxy that for some reason wasn't caught in the sock puppet case, all IP's this user edited from are proxies, there's no actual proof that Zaphod broke any rules except voting while using a proxy IP, which isn't scalable because the user didn't know there was a rule against that until I told him/her.--Karek^maps?! 23:12, 11 June 2008 (BST)

I fully believe he was one of those sock puppets. He was active at that time, same sort of pattern edit wise, his IP was very close to one of those at the time but not close enough for a concrete match. This time however, we have a definite match. I don't believe in coincidence, Karek. I am 100% certain that this is the same guy. -- C h e e s e 00:07, 12 June 2008 (BST)

No offense Cheeseman but I don't believe for a second that you know enough about how IP addresses are assigned to claim that one IP was very close to another without at least the first two numbers being exactly the same, and since none of the three Zaphod used share any numbers I'm highly skeptical of the claim in that reply. But, even if I weren't you're still doing two things wrong 1) You're Assuming Zaphod's guilt, there is no proof that you can hold up for even half a second that is acceptable, open proxies are blocked for a reason, the open portion of that name, it means they are publicly accessible, which is why they are blocked, because they are an easy method for vandals to obscure their identity. 2) You aren't presenting any evidence to support your action, you want me to reconsider my decision give me a reason to because, quite frankly, we don't enforce rules based on how sure of yourself you are, we enforce them based off of how definite the evidence you can present of the infraction is, you've shown none and there's plenty that says you don't have the ability to prove they are the same user.--Karek^maps?! 02:11, 12 June 2008 (BST)

Karek, go to the checkuser logs page, and do a search for the exact IP addys for Zaphod, you'll see that one of them (I wont quote it here) is an exact match for Deadmanwalking, to be more specific, Grim did the check at 12:30, 18 May 2008. As to them being open proxies, yes, anyone can access them, however the likelihood of two people that have similar issues on this wiki (involving suggestions voting) happening to use the same proxy is extremely small. I agree with Monkey's conclusion that Zaphod was responsible for (at least part of) the suggestions voting sockpuppetry -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:31 12 June 2008 (BST)

I know what the IP address in question is Boxy, I also took the time to check how popularly it is used and how high the chances of it being used by two users in a span of time. It's not as low as you are making it out to be, even the wikipedia banning report has two different users listed as using it. And anyway, it is less likely that a user would reuse the same proxy site they used to break the rules before than it is that two random users will accidentally use the same one. You can't prove Zaphod did anything and are assuming bad faith on very loose pretenses. And even then you can't justify a perma-ban.--Karek^maps?! 03:54, 12 June 2008 (BST)

According to the page history, the claim that two different users (one an admin, the other a vandal) were using that IP on wikipedia was made by the person using that IP itself as an attempt to get the proxy unbanned. I don't find it a credible claim. I believe that at the very least, Zaphod needs to get warnings for the sock puppetry applied to his vandal data -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:31 15 June 2008 (BST)

Doesn't matter, I can verify that it is in-fact a proxy and if I needed to I could edit from that IP to prove it. You warn for it and I'll file misconduct against you for warning without verifiable proof, there's nothing more I can say and you've not brought up any new information to back up your point, you're assuming Zaphod is guilty just so someone can be punished.--Karek^maps?! 01:15, 16 June 2008 (BST)

You're kidding, right? Someone comes on and flogs hell out of a few suggestions with sock puppet votes to counter/piss off the goons (which gets him banned), and then this guy comes along and starts trolling goons all around the suggestions talk page, using multiple proxies, and then "just happens" to use one that was caught in the sock puppetry. If that's not enough to show a pattern of behaviour to support the theory that it's the same person, I don't know what is -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:30 16 June 2008 (BST)

So the user is smart enough to not use the same IP twice when voting through proxies but is so dumb that they will use a repeat IP on their most visible account, one they know is being regularly checked? I don't think so Boxy.--Karek^maps?! 02:49, 16 June 2008 (BST)

User:MisterGame

Is it can be warnz tiem nao? --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:42, 9 June 2008 (BST)

for what ? you should provide links or a better explanation about what vandalism the user should be warned for. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 17:47, 9 June 2008 (BST)

Are you talking about my sock puppet thing? Because if I was supposed to warn that account too I spaced it. Sorry. I don't think I crossed all of my i's and dotted my t's this time. :/ --– Nubis ^NWO 18:04, 9 June 2008 (BST)

Yes, this guy gets a warning. Two votes from the same IP addy. Here's the second, from the account that Nubis banned below -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:08 10 June 2008 (BST)

Well, actually he's up to his 3rd escalation, so a 24hr ban -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:12 10 June 2008 (BST)

User:Nemesis Omega

Sock puppet account of Mister Game. Permabanned--– Nubis ^NWO 15:34, 9 June 2008 (BST)

User:0.o

Early morning page blanker, I gave a temp warning but it still neeeds to be handled offical - Vantar 12:21, 9 June 2008 (BST)

Five edits, all vandalism, upgraded ban to perma. Seriously, its in A/G --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:15, 9 June 2008 (BST)

User:Jarid

Actively vandalising the Imperium page. -- C h e e s e 19:18, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Then blanked it and then went after another Imperium page. I've banned him for 2 hours to cool him off while I reverted everything. -- C h e e s e 19:22, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Make sure you record the data, Cheese, and make it clearer when you've already warned them yourself, and are just reporting your actions -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:18 10 June 2008 (BST)

User:SporeSore

Posting a Humourous suggestion in the main suggestions system. Suggestion. Violation of suggestions rule 10 which defines such actions as vandalism. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:58, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Warned - and all 3 of his previous standing warnings were eligible for striking under the guidelines -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:29 6 June 2008 (BST)

User:Tselita

Impersonation.--x o x o 10:30, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Her actions here really bother me for two reasons. First, you have two options on your talk page: Delete conversations or Leave them. You can not cherry pick phrases from someone's post and keep those. Second, she responded to his altered post. It is well known that you can't post something inflammatory then edit your post after someone responds to make your first post seem less aggressive.(she's basically doing that to Grim) She responded to his entire post which she then altered. If she is going to respond a reasonable adult would understand that the entire context of the post matters. He was posting in an official manner so if his post contained a rambling story about how life on the farm is like this sock puppet allegation it should all be left intact. (Nothing says we have to be brief) She's been told not to alter conversations on her talk page. The manner and attitude in which she presents his comments are clearly bad faith. Personally, I consider her last appearance on this page as vandalism and think this should be the second warning. It isn't impersonation, but it is a bad faith edit that is vandalism.--– Nubis ^NWO 11:58, 5 June 2008 (BST)

I agree, and will warn her. Don't delete parts of posts, and then respond to it all -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:54 5 June 2008 (BST)

Its not the first time she has deleted huge sections of my post and then posted a completely incorrect summary that puts words in my mouth, as this does. She did it three times already. The fourth she just deleted my comment out. here. Relevant diffs are here, here, here. The only reason i didnt report her for those was i wanted to give her enough rope to hang herself. I see that she now has. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:59, 5 June 2008 (BST)

What? Do you want me to warn her again or something? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:00 5 June 2008 (BST)

Boxy, to be honest she has been told twice before not to alter people's posts. She was told on the talk suggestions page and then again on her page. This is her 3rd offense and she doesn't seem to be stopping. I believe the term incorrigible applies. It makes it worse that he was posting in an official manner that was actually addressing something "good" for her. I can understand a childish edit on a sysop warning. When the sysop is saying something like we found the allegations against you to be baseless and the user still edits it that seems to be a bigger problem. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:13, 5 June 2008 (BST)

This looks like vandalism to me..... It may be her talkpage but you either delete the whole post or none at all.--Seventythree^Talk 14:42, 5 June 2008 (BST)

If he had just posted the stuff about the failed allegation that I'm a sock puppet and left it at that, I wouldn't have bothered to do anything. But he decided to post both an official sysop comment as well as a non-sysop bunch of psychological mumbo jumbo about what sort of 'Flame Warrior' (tm) I am, as a personal attack. So unless sysops are in the habit of making personal attacks, that was not an official sysop action. Not that I'm surprised that Nubis would have written this up - Grimch is the Goons' favorite sysop, and Nubis claims he's a Goon himself on his own page. Yay, more harassment from the Goons. I'd so like it if someone for a change put -them- up for vandal banning or at least gave them a warning for posting offensive and harassing messages on my user page. --Tselita 16:47, 5 June 2008 (BST)

You clearly know where the A/VB page is. Report them yourself. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:43, 5 June 2008 (BST)

No, i dont want her to be warned again (She cant be anyway, you cant recieve a warning for anything done prior to the most recent warning. We have plenty or precedent to support that), im just piling on extra evidence in case some other sysops who are, shall we say biased against me decide to try and claim it isnt vandalism. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:33, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Fine, I just deleted his entire post. Next time, don't mix official sysop and unofficial sysop stuff and I wouldn't have to bother to, Grimmy. Either you're posting as a sysop, or you're not. --Tselita 16:26, 5 June 2008 (BST)

I was posting as a sysop the whole time, just not with the entire you are in trouble thing. You are also extremely lucky you removed that defaming summary from your talk page or id have nailed you with another report. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:36, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Grim, you're full of crap. You even said in the post it was 'semi-official'. If it was official you wouldn't have had to write that. Because half of your post was psychobabble talking about what sort of flame warrior I am. Get your head out of your butt and realize that you either need to post as a sysop or not. You can't have it both ways, much as you'd like to. --Tselita 16:38, 5 June 2008 (BST)

And by the way Grim you have absolutely no clue what the word defamation means apparently. Go to law school then call me. You've been caught in a lie by your own words. You claim here that you were posting as a sysop the entire time, but in the post itself you say it's only 'semi-official'. Schizzophrenic much? How about doing something about the Goons who regularly post on my user page with stuff about 'labias' and wanting to see pics of me? Nah... you wouldn't do something like that. That would actually make sense. Keep on trying to call me a vandal for defending my own home page instead - that makes a whole lot more sense (sarcasm) --Tselita 16:40, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Semi Official, As a syop but without the administrative matter backing it up, except insofar as cleaning up that sock puppet allegation. You and I apparently have different definitions. That doesnt mean im a liar. You can, of course, continue to spit bile if you like. Oh, and the reason im not doing anything about it is because being a jerk isnt vandalism, and if it were you'd be just as guilty as the rest of us. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:45, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Semi Official. So Why should I need to keep your UNofficial insults which you mixed in with your OFFICIAL sysop comments on my user page? I shouldn't. Yeah, maybe I should have just delete the whole thing but if you bothered to just make one official comment, and one unofficial comment, I'd have just deleted the unofficial comment instead of having to cut and paste. So now I've fixed that by just deleting what you said entirely. Oh and I didn't say you're a liar. You're just grossly misinformed though and not that bright - it's different if you were a liar. Then you'd be saying things you know to be wrong. You're saying things which you think are right, but are wrong. And no, you're not doing anything about obvious harassment because you are biased and would never do anything negative to your 'fan club' from Something Awful, no matter how stalkerish they get. --Tselita 16:52, 5 June 2008 (BST)

They werent intended as insults. They were intended to be an accurate description of how your discussion tactics are percieved by a number of people and a commentary on your behaviour, as well as telling you that you are at least partly, in actuality mostly to blame for your predicament, and giving you a little advice on how to extricate you from said predicament, thus allowing the drama level to drop a touch on this wiki for the first time in weeks. Your insistence on calling it an insult merely serves to strengthen the points i was making in that post, and your refusal to accept responsibility for your part is worrying, to say the least. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:58, 5 June 2008 (BST)

God, just take the warning, and move on Tselita. It's no big deal. And don't worry about whether posts are official or not. It's your page, delete anything you want (including my warning). Just don't go pasting bits of posts in and replying to only what you want to. Just delete, and move on.
Unless you need the attention... if that's the case, carry on -- boxy ^{talk • i} 17:01 5 June 2008 (BST)

I just want them to stop already and leave my page alone. They can bother me with the spam war, mockery posts, whatever on the rest of the wiki - not on the user page. That's all. --Tselita 17:03, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Well deleting, and then insulting them while pointing out the deletion (in bolded text, no less) isn't going to achieve your goal. That's the one thing that will get them to continue -- boxy ^{talk • i} 17:06 5 June 2008 (BST)

And report you for vandalism under impersonation if you do it wrong. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:08, 5 June 2008 (BST)

As you can see, Grim takes pride in his ability to taunt people into vandal banning trouble. It's an art that a few around here specialise in. The more emotional you let him get you, the better he enjoys himself -- boxy ^{talk • i} 17:12 5 June 2008 (BST)

Sounds like a textbook definition of 'griefer' --Tselita 17:24, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Actually boxy, thats more of a Sonny/Cyberbob thing. If i really wanted to do her for vandalism i would have reported her when she first did it, instead of when she did it to this case. Its a rare day when i taunt someone into A/VB. In actuality, i believe i have yet to actually do it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:13, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Don't break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back, Grimmy. --Tselita 18:15, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Setting aside the matter of my upper body flexibility, i wasnt patting myself on the back, i was merely defending myself from a false accusation from boxy. It had nothing to do with you. And you wonder why people dont like you much. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:29, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - As 73 said. You either delete the whole post, or you just leave it. Don't edit the bits out that you don't like. -- C h e e s e 17:47, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Right, I deleted the entire thing instead now. --Tselita 18:14, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - I quietly applauded your adopting the policy you did on your talk page, but when you summarize other peoples posts (thus forcing people to dig through the page history to check the accuracy of said summarization) rather than simply deleting them, you magnify the drama factor and sysop work load that already seems to collect around you, rather than decreasing it. Swiers 18:51, 8 June 2008 (BST)

User:Gunney

~~Warned~~ him since there are no other contributions and he did it again after I reverted it.--– Nubis ^NWO 01:57, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Upgraded to perma--– Nubis ^NWO 02:09, 5 June 2008 (BST)

User:Heads or Tails

Page wiping pages belonging to Escendo Numerus. Perma. -- C h e e s e 14:46, 4 June 2008 (BST)

User:O.o

Three page wipes, and out. Permban -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:58 4 June 2008 (BST)

User:Mutant Dog

Permad while actively blanking the SillyLillyPilly page. All edits reverted. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:24, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Um, he's got quite a few earlier, somewhat constructive contributions, meaning he's got to go through the escalation system -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:51 4 June 2008 (BST)

You are, regrettably, correct. Unblocked and Warned. I stand by my earlier decision to ban him however, as he was actively vandalising a page on this wiki. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:31, 4 June 2008 (BST)

You haven't warned him. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:46, 5 June 2008 (BST)

I did it -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:03 5 June 2008 (BST)

User:WanYao

Yup, I'm reporting myself for vandalism for these edits [3][4] Consider it a "pre-emptive strike", because I fully expect some Goon or wiki prig to charge me with Vandalism. I'm beating yous all to it.

My rationale for moving the suggestions is as follows. The suggestions are clearly humourous and have no potential as serious game-mechanic implementations -- the latter is my understanding of what the page is intended for. While amusing, they nonetheless shit up the already crowded Suggestions Help page with suggestions that have no real potential for development or implementation -- and are thus IMNSHO not good faith edits on that page.

And... I have reported myself not to shit up this page, but to set a precedent of sorts regarding posting suggestions intended to troll the Suggestions Help page -- specifically ones that belong in Humourous Suggestions. If I am guilty of Vandalism, however, I accept that, albeit begrudgingly... and understand the kind of ship being run here.

Thanks for your time! --WanYao 18:37, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Don't put yourself up for cases. Trust me.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:56, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Fuck Me--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 19:02, 3 June 2008 (BST)

vandalism, but for creating such a petty report against yourself. In my POV, there was no vandalism in your edits, as it was more of a humorous rant than a suggestion. If you think your edits are vandalism, then dont edit. And since i am sick and tired of the goons yelling misconbitration over my name, i'll wait for another sysop to rule on this case before issuing any de facto warning --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 19:58, 3 June 2008 (BST)

I don't consider my report petty, per se. Or, if it is petty, that is a reflection of -- and a reaction to -- the current state of this wiki... I also did not consider my edits Vandalism, but I fully expected that someone would; therefore I took the initiative. In order to highlight two seperate, but IMO related problems: a) SA Goon spam/trolling and b) a sysop team that seems powerless (or self-disempowered?) to anything about that, or about the other asshattery that Administration pages are being used for -- by a lot of people, not merely Goons. If making this point gets me a Vandal Warning, I accept that "punishment" with appreciation and bear it proudly. Again, thanks for your time!! --WanYao 21:39, 3 June 2008 (BST)

The actual removal of that crap from the suggestions talk page was not vandalism, but bringing it here is just inviting people to shit up the admin pages. If you really feel you need to explain your actions preemptively, use the vandal banning talk page. Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:00 4 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism because you brought it to us as vandalism, no one knows your actions better than you, in the future don't purposely waste our time. Not to mention Rosslessness has a nice little ol' case that sets the precedent that Talk:Suggestions is indeed a valid place for developing humorous suggestions.--Karek^maps?! 04:13, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Got a link to the suggestion in question there? Because I'd like to bet just about anything that it wasn't a suggestion about introducing pictures of other wiki user's mums, involved in sex acts, into the game... those "suggestions" are nothing but escalating trolls, making fun of other users. It was funny the first time or two, but it was obviously starting to get out of hand -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:37 4 June 2008 (BST)

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we were allowed to alter basic facts of a case and escalate them above what they really are. None of that reply had anything to do with the actual case.--Karek^maps?! 13:02, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Which part of my reply doesn't have anything to do with the case? This is what I was referring to, WanYao's second link where someone trolls the suggestion talk page with "yo momma" insults disguised as suggestion development. None of those he moved to the humourous section (moved, not deleted), were put there for development, they were completed suggestions put there so that people could have a laugh. If that's not something that should go in the humourous suggestions section, I don't know what should -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:50 4 June 2008 (BST)

Let me make this clearer.

WanYao said:

because I fully expect some Goon or wiki prig to charge me with Vandalism. I'm beating yous all to it.

Zaphod is not part of this discussion, especially considering there are other things going on with that user, as you can full well check to see, if they come back that's a different case entirely than the one being presented here that is his(Wanyao's) vandalism. Zaphod's contribution could be considered as vandalism, and, arguably, should not have been preserved, but to compare that to Gardenator's suggestion is just pure foolishness, so it comes down to the question of Gardenator's suggestion, which is what the case has been about from the very start as can be seen in the above quote, to throw Zaphod's suggestion in the bunch, which is the second link, when it's obvious it isn't relevant to the case beyond being mentioned in it is pointless feel good about ruling Not Vandalism mumbo jumbo. WanYao removed a suggestion put there as a basis for satire and humor, a suggestion that wasn't hurting anyone, was amusing quite a few people, wasn't causing problems, and was only an issue for Tselita who has proven that she takes issue with anything he does anyway. It was put down there, by someone who doesn't know the suggestions system like the back of his hand and wasn't added to the easily missed Humorous section, it wasn't suggested to the real suggestions system just left on Talk:Suggestions, a place where it actually had more relevance and is full well within the rules of the suggestions system for him to have done that, there's all of that, then there's the fact that WanYao reported himself for vandalism, which is something that I know I've taken a hardline stance against in the past and I know you've done the same, most all current and regularly active sysops have, in fact, warned new users that experienced users will be punished with a vandal escalation if they do it and have informed users that don't know better what the procedure will be if they do it again, WanYao has been around long enough he knows better, he says it's bad faith it's bad faith, no if ands or buts about it and to rule opposite what is equivalent to both an admission of guilt and abuse of the warnings system on this wiki is contradictory to a lot of the precedent set by everyone involved in this page for, pretty much, the last 3 years.--Karek^maps?! 15:35, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Both suggestions were moved, both suggestions were included in this report, and while the first link wasn't as bad, it was part of the escalation of humourous/insulting "suggestions" being place on a page that is full enough already. Suggestions are constantly moved off to other pages because of the huge length of that page, and moving Gardenenator's suggestion to a more appropriate place was in no way bad faith.
And no, WanYao did not describe his actions as bad faith... quite the opposite, what he really said was "I also did not consider my edits Vandalism, but I fully expected that someone would". At worse he was foolish for bringing this to the main vandal banning page, rather than the talk page, and shitting up this page gets soft warnings.
Basically, users should be free to move obvious, and intentionally humourous suggestions to the humourous suggestions page instead of allowing the suggestions talk page to be cluttered up even more. What is the humourous suggestions page for, if not for this? You are basically ruling that placing content into an even more appropriate location, dedicated to such content, is bad faith vandalism. Quite a precedent -- boxy ^{talk • i} 16:07 4 June 2008 (BST)

No, I'm being consistent. And if you weren't trying to get him out of it because you seem agree with the edit you'd see that, you remember how I say there are times where faith doesn't factor into it? This is one of those. He made a questionable edit, there are no two ways about it, the fact that we are having this discussion at all is proof of that, he then reported himself for vandalism, even if his intent was to help he's committing vandalism in filing the report at all and is wasting everyone's time, the proper response when a knowledgeable user does that has always been an escalation.--Karek^maps?! 01:36, 5 June 2008 (BST)

A warning for making a superfluous vandal report... well, I'm not too concerned if that's all you are ruling (I wouldn't do it in this case myself, due to differing circumstances, but can see how it could be a valid ruling). Just as long as we're clear that intentionally humourous stuff can be moved off the suggestions talk page without it being vandalism. Of course it's better to ignore it, or have a giggle (because the drama just isn't worth the hassle), but if it starts to cause drama problem itself, or take over the page, then it's much better being moved to the correct place, which is the humourous suggestions page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:19 5 June 2008 (BST)

Firstly, Rosslessness' suggestion wasn't exactly a humorous suggestion. It might have had humorous effects, but it wasn't humorous in itself. Secondly, the parody-suggestions did not seem to be on the page for development (which is what the page is for, not for presenting them). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:40, 4 June 2008 (BST)

The point is that it's for both types of suggestions, to say that humorous suggestions that will cease to exist on that page aren't allowed would be creating an exception to that rule that specifically alters how Talk:Suggestions works in regards to cycling humorous and normal suggestions, similar things are frequently done with suggestions that the submitter has no intention to move beyond discussion and is actually a tool for introducing an idea but keeping options open in the future in regards to suggesting.--Karek^maps?! 13:02, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I don't know if it's you or me, but I can't understand what you're trying to say :/. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:33, 4 June 2008 (BST)

I'm saying that we frequently allow people to suggest suggestions to Talk:Suggestions and leave it at that and that we shouldn't create some second new standard for Humorous suggestions, not everything that goes to Talk:Suggestions needs to be followed through with.--Karek^maps?! 13:37, 4 June 2008 (BST)

I just don't think a suggestion belongs on the page if there is no intention of developing it (be it serious or humorous). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:01, 4 June 2008 (BST)

But see, that opens up the question of who decides that there's no intention to develop it. Historically on Talk:Suggestions that has always been solely in the hands of the author of the suggestion, everyone else has to wait the required and consensus set time limit of 7 days unless the author says there's no intent to further discussion.--Karek^maps?! 15:37, 4 June 2008 (BST)

I think I am allowed to post here since one of the two was made by me. If you read my suggestion, you would realize that while my suggestion may be humorous; it is no more humorous then say this gem. Did I mention you forgot to move one? If you can argue that a suggestion about removing a skill because of a newer weapon with very similar stats is humorous, then you are setting precedent for any user to move something say about ARTWORK PREVENTING ZOMBIES FROM RANSACKING BUILDINGS. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 22:00, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Artwork Preventing Zombies From Ransacking Buildings may be ludicrous, but it was obviously intended as a serious suggestion by its author. The two suggestions I removed were clearly of humourous intent. The difference is obvious. And, if I missed some that ought to have been removed, well -- sue me, I am fallible, ZOMG teh ska! is falling!!!! However, if the SA Goons feel waaaaah picked on and singled out... maybe it's a result of their behavior, which they ought to consider modifying if they don't like the perceived (N.B. "perceived"') "singling out" effect. And if said persons do not wish to alter their behavior, and the fact that it makes them stand out, then they have nothing to whine or complain about. More than 'nuff said, methinks. --WanYao 22:06, 3 June 2008 (BST)

"Artwork Preventing Zombies From Ransacking Buildings may be ludicrous, but it was obviously intended as a serious suggestion by its author." So only humorous suggestions that were not intended to be humorous can be placed on talk suggestions? How do you know that a suggestion was not intended to be humorous? Perhaps you have some mind reading ability? How many fingers am I holding up? --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 22:12, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Was your suggestion intended to be humorous? I assume so because it was far too accurate a parody not to be. Now ask the same of Tselita's crap.... was it supposed to be a joke? I doubt it and I doubt you believe it either because that would be crediting her with a sense of humour she probably doesn't have! I don't think what you did was really vandalism but I do think it was right to remove it once it had served its purpose, it was a good joke but that page does/should have a more serious purpose as an area for improving the game that brings us all here in the first place... In short let it go folks there has been no foul and no harm (YET)--Honestmistake 23:35, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Give it a rest, Gardenator, you're only digging your own grave with your absurdities. Anyway... fuck this. Slap me with a Vandal Warning or not, but I don't have anything further to add. However, take due note of how low this wiki has sunk in recent months. And I mean it was BAD before... --WanYao 00:25, 4 June 2008 (BST)

I'm digging my grave with one finger, can you guess which one? --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 04:25, 4 June 2008 (BST)

I'm not going to vote on this since I am a goon and there might be some conflict of interest. However, I will point out that this little gem: if the SA Goons feel waaaaah picked on and singled out... maybe it's a result of their behavior, which they ought to consider modifying if they don't like the perceived (N.B. "perceived") "singling out" effect. can easily apply to Tselita as well. Wan, it is clear what your intent was but in your defense you did move them as opposed to just delete them off the page. So I do give you credit for that. But please note that there isn't a civility policy on this wiki, but there are still vandalism and cycling policies. I'm not saying that you broke either of those, by the way.--– Nubis ^NWO 01:19, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - As Hagnat and Karek, don't make superfluous vandal reports. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:45, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Just stick the fething Vandalism template on my Talk page, okay? Can I stick it on my own Talk page and get this over and done with??? However... Before I go, I'd like to ask a very serious final question: How is me reporting myself "pre-emptively" for Vandalism ANY different than if SOMEONE ELSE had reported me? As I said, if I hadn't reported this, some "Goon or wiki prig" would have. And, as boxy argued, no -- I don't consider my edits Vandalism, I did not "admit my guilt" or any such thing. I merely showed foresight and initiative in beating a Goon zealot or a bored wiki prig to the punch in reporting my edits as vandalism... Technically, I was doing the wiki a service, making less work for everyone! Therefore, IMNSHO not a superfluous vandal report. And underneath the snarkiness and sarcasm, I am being very serious... But I must be punished!!! r00lz is r00lz... **bares his ass to the sysops for paddling** --WanYao 05:07, 5 June 2008 (BST)

That ruling is fucking bullshit. Wan reported himself for a vandalism in a case that could easily be considered vandalism, since he explained his actions as he knew he would get reported by someone else anyway how is this making superfluous vandal reports? Considering the amount of discussion it created (related to the actual report, not this spamming a/vb crap) it clearly wasn't an unnecessary report.--x o x o 08:05, 5 June 2008 (BST)

More importantly why is it that in the past a number of people have used this page to report themselves for vandalism as joke way to get a temporary ban while they finish coursework? I disagree thoroughly with a ruling of vandalism, but then I guess that as a non-sysop my opinion means shit and could arguably get me a warning for even posting it here!--Honestmistake 09:44, 5 June 2008 (BST)

I've made a superflous report against myself. Hell, I even got double warned for it. Precedent says that he should be punished. Oh, and the nurse here says hi. I have no idea who she is, but she says she plays UD. Whatever. I'm going to bed.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 08:02, 8 June 2008 (BST)-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 08:02, 8 June 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

Spamming Misconduct with petty cases just because I warned him in the case below. -- C h e e s e 13:48, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Not petty, go die in a fire. If anybody is being petty here I would say it is you. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:49, 2 June 2008 (BST)

I'd say misconduct... er, vandalism... but since he created a case against me i must wait for another sysop to come. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 13:51, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Wise decision. Good to see you're finally learning! --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:51, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - people need to be able to bring us to misconduct if they feel they have been wronged without risking vandalism charges -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:53 2 June 2008 (BST)

Amen. I'd like to point out one more time that those cases are in all actuality quite serious. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:54, 2 June 2008 (BST)

I disagree boxy, cyberbob know the rules (even the unwritten ones) and knows that such cases were petty and would prolly be ruled not misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 14:14, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Then let them rule. They've got to be a lot more petty than this before it becomes vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:23 2 June 2008 (BST)

I know for a fact that yours, at least, will be - or at least should if there's a shred of integrity remaining amongst the sysops. Krazy's is a little more ambiguous, but I firmly believe in it. How's the fascism working out for you? --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:15, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Last time i checked my leaders were either shot in the middle of nowhere by an angry mob, killed self with poison in a hidden bunker, or hanged as punishment for war crimes. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 14:32, 2 June 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

For continuosly shitting on administration pages, even after asked not to. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 11:43, 2 June 2008 (BST)

It was a joke with a good friend of mine. Lighten the fuck up. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:46, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Vandalism - You've already been warned a few times Bob. Seriously, stop doing it. -- C h e e s e 12:28, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Seriously - like I said. Joke with a friend. Also, given that I reverted all bar one of that guy's edits I think it could even be said that I am entitled to a say in the case. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:30, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Also, can I double check that we're using the same definition of "a few"? I could've sworn that it was at least three, perhaps even four. You seem to be using it as one - which is a usage I've never encountered before. Would you mind directing me to your dictionary of reference? --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:33, 2 June 2008 (BST)

You had been warned by me before you got warned by grim's. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 12:51, 2 June 2008 (BST)

What he said ^ -- C h e e s e 12:55, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Link plox. Also, keep in mind that you're basically cherrypicking what is actually a minor point of mine. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:56, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Also, Krazy - please stop shitting up A/VB with your spam. Don't make me have to remind you again. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:56, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Where is this spam that you are referring to? To my knowledge I haven't knowingly done anything of the sort. -- C h e e s e 12:58, 2 June 2008 (BST)

What he said ^ --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:01, 2 June 2008 (BST)

link now stfukkthxbai --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 13:23, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Read the rest of what I said now stfukkthxbai --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:24, 2 June 2008 (BST)

I would like for Crazy to reconsider his warning in this case. At most it should be another soft warning. It wasn't flaimbaiting or anything, just a bit of joshing around. Sure, bob does it too often on these pages, but seriously... a warning for a little miscontribulation joke? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:37 2 June 2008 (BST)

It is a petty edit and not worth a warning unless of course you don't want everyone else to make such comments? Either all none relevant comments are allowed or they are all not allowed... having an unfixed rule means that every time a sysop enforces the rule he can be misconducted for bias and every time he lets it slide he opens himself up to the same accusation and case. --Honestmistake 16:49, 2 June 2008 (BST)

So, what ya saying is that i should soft-warn you now for posting this comment on a vandal report in which you have no relation at all to avoid being accused of bias ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 17:34, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Not really, as a member of this community for far too long I think I have a vested interest in voicing a sensible opinion of a case like this! Bobs comment was pointless; in fact it was a joke and that realy should not be on this page... however until such time as all such comments are "soft warned" or worse then none should. As a member of the community i kinda expect my opinion of something that affects everyone to be regarded as relevant and thus i post it here.... if its a more general comment then i put it on the talk page where i feel it belongs! Point is though that you can't warn some users for comments and ignore similar crap from others nd expect to have it get by without complaint.--Honestmistake 00:22, 3 June 2008 (BST)

User:O.O

Blanking pages. 10 articles blanked. Permabanned. Right?--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 08:17, 2 June 2008 (BST)

OMG IMMA TAKE YOU TO MISCONDUCT MISTER --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:20, 2 June 2008 (BST)

User:Saromu

This asshole has vandalized my group's image practically everywhere. I'm getting pissed. Also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is pure vandalism. We are still in these suburbs, and there is no indication of us leaving.Ioncannon11 02:30, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Off to Arby's with you. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:42, 1 June 2008 (BST)

This is not an edit conflict, as arbies should handle. This is a case of vandalism and should be handled as such. He is griefing my group. Ioncannon11 02:49, 1 June 2008 (BST)

You believe the group tags should be there, he doesn't. It's the very epitome of an edit conflict. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:50, 1 June 2008 (BST)

No I'm playing garbage man and cleaning up the trash you dumped everywhere and forgot to pick up. Besides the fact that your group does not exist you posted it on over 10 suburb pages and never bothered to remove them when you "left", that's if your "group" was ever there. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 02:51, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Discussion moved to talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:08 1 June 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - arbies. Discuss it there, not on vandal banning -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:07 1 June 2008 (BST)

User:Blake_Firedancer

Reworking a major community page without prior discussion or consensus. This new edit hides new suggestions from those checking only the top of the page. As the page can become very large the whole point of the guidelines on there (as opposed to standard wiki practice of adding at the bottom using the '+' button) is so that new suggestions can be quickly viewed by users. This leaves the notion of the page open to abuse as retarded suggestions might not be noticed and their subsequent spamming will cause wiki drama. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:59, 31 May 2008 (BST)

Why the hell is this here? Just put it back the way it was, and use his talk page. Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:06 1 June 2008 (BST)

My bad. I just thought it'd be a good idea to 'mark' the ideas stemming from the latest UD update, before the standard 'week of trialing' for the new update had passed. It doesn't need to be permanent, and to be honest, what is on a website where everything is up for editing? Also, does it count that I became aware of my reporting only through happening upon this page via. a discussion on Nubis's talk page? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:28, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Iscariot, why did you report this? He was just trying to help. It wasn't like he blanked a page or anything. not vandalism but it feels silly even having to add that since it was clearly a newbie mistake and not really damaging anything at all. Besides, we add headers to that page all the time to break it up when the talks get to be insanely long and we need to break up the page.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:04, 2 June 2008 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 06

June 2008

User:Nallan, User:J3D and User:Sexylegsread

Navigation menu

Search