UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 04
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
April 2009
User:Pestolence
Pestolence (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None Required |
For making this page. A definite crit 2 which serves absolutely no purpose, as admitted by the creator. We don't need spam like this on the wiki. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:08, 29 April 2009 (BST)
Not vandalism - so far, but if it continues I'd consider it spamming -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:41 29 April 2009 (BST)
Not Vandalism - As Boxy. Linkthewindow Talk 22:40, 29 April 2009 (BST)
I just noticed this case, and I'd like to apologize for this. It won't happen again. --Pestolence(talk) 23:03, 29 April 2009 (BST)
User:Roorgh
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning retracted |
Roorgh (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Posting personal information about another user on the wiki. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:28, 28 April 2009 (BST)
- Not voting since I'm involved, but that's so wrong it's laughable. Linkthewindow Talk 22:34, 28 April 2009 (BST)
- If Linkthewindow has taken offence at what I've written (being that he's the 'victim' of this) then I'll take whatever punishment he sees fit. What I wrote though was clearly nonsense, with the only factual part being the format of the SSN and that Linkedthewindow likes UrbanDead. I couldn't have made it look any more wrong if I'd looked at Linkedthewindow's profile beforehand (which I didn't think of doing). --Roorgh 23:31, 28 April 2009 (BST)
Sorry, my internet died. Warning retracted. But it wasn't obvious, in fact I thought you were probably referring to the other person you were arguing with. Anyway, don't threaten to reveal R/L details, don't even pretend to reveal them -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:47 29 April 2009 (BST)
User:Ian Bane
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
Ian Bane (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Warned for editing another users user page. Still one edit off a perma. -- Cheese 21:22, 20 April 2009 (BST)
User:Venomclaw
Venomclaw (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None required |
Not sure if I got this request right, but Venomclaw edited Kinch Heights Radio Freq (and following edits) and News, edited Radio Freq list only (it seems) because his zombie group is teh rocks. I'm new and not sure if this is vandalism, but I think something should be done here - this is not the way to edit stuff. btw, i'm not associated to Kinch Heights in any way, it just stroke my mind when i posted news for NecroWatch. If this is the wrong way to report this, please talk to me how to do it the right way. Thanks. -- -Alka Selzer- [ Talk - Map - Stuff ] 22:54, 17 April 2009 (BST)
- Just so the sysops know, I talked to him about the correct procedures before this case was put up and has since not made any questionable edits. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:04, 18 April 2009 (BST)
Apparently he belongs to a survivor group, and I think the talk that DDR had with him is enough to give him an idea of what to do. Seems like newbish mistakes, so Not Vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:08 18 April 2009 (BST)
User:NiggerCheese
NiggerCheese (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permabanned |
Epic Vandal spree. Permaban -- Cheese 15:42, 17 April 2009 (BST)
- [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and the mother of all server-screwups. Seriously, check that last one >=[ DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (BST)
User:Rottingwurms
Rottingwurms (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Spamming a suburb page. --Johnny Bass 17:31, 13 April 2009 (BST)
User:Jimcrazyguy
Jimcrazyguy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
Replacing SA' page and Morbious's page with inane text. I blocked him for three minutes so he wouldn't do anything while I cleaned up the damage. Checkusering him now. Linkthewindow Talk 02:05, 12 April 2009 (BST)
- Blanked two pages since then. Permabanned as a pure vandal alt. Linkthewindow Talk 02:10, 12 April 2009 (BST)
- This too, just before I banhammered him. Linkthewindow Talk 02:14, 12 April 2009 (BST)
- He's also been editing under the same IP as Sockem. Main warned. Linkthewindow Talk 02:10, 12 April 2009 (BST)
- I should really check vandal data before I warn these guys. He qualifies for a week ban. Linkthewindow Talk 02:26, 12 April 2009 (BST)
- I was going to change one of your duped links to this edit but I'm not feeling so bold tonight, so I've added it here. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:10, 12 April 2009 (BST)
User:SparklyBones
SparklyBones (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
This. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:19, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- Stuff reverted. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:20, 8 April 2009 (BST)
Vandalism, I'm holding off on a punishment to see if he's stupid enough to keep it up though.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:29, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- Nothing else since this report, so just a warning.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:44, 9 April 2009 (BST)
- Don't forget to update the Verdict template, Angel. I'll do it for you this time. --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 12:36, 10 April 2009 (BST)
- SA didn't actually warn him yet. Anyway, warned now. Linkthewindow Talk 13:33, 10 April 2009 (BST)
- Don't forget to update the Verdict template, Angel. I'll do it for you this time. --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 12:36, 10 April 2009 (BST)
User:Charlotte Billingam & User:Kasei & User:Boxer & User:Lolol
Charlotte Billingam (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | All Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | 3 warnings with a permaban for Lolol |
Kasei (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Boxer (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Lolol (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Starting at Boxer, he added the PH Extermination banner to the PH page, here, added the PH themselves to the list of people supporting the PH Extermination, here, they're also the only two edits by that account.
Kasei vandalised the PH page here, here and here to change it to STARS' favour.
Charlotte Billingam blanked half the PH page and replaced it with "We like it up the ass :) Because we're gay PKers hooray!", here and then removed the rest of the page here. Also, on an unrelated page, she vandalised the page even further after Lolol had finished by adding this
Finally, Lolol vandalised the Blue Aegis Group page, here, here, here and here.--Ryzak Black 17:50, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- IP check turns up nothing so they get one escalation each. Vandalism -- Cheese 18:50, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:Sgt Raiden
Sgt Raiden (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Blanking a community page. I reverted the vandalism and waited to see if he was attempting to add a news item and pressed a button in error, no report has been forthcoming.
It's not like I called this an age ago or anything.... -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:22, 7 April 2009 (BST)
Vandalism and warned. --ZsL 04:53, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:Iscariot
Iscariot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None required |
For consistently breaching the guidelines for submitting vandal reports as shown here. The user's most recent report was in breach of at least 3 of these: 1) He made no attempt to assume good faith and contact me on my talk page in an effort to iron out the problem. 2) He has an ongoing personal dispute against me and as a result this belongs on Arbitration rather than here on Vandal Banning. 3) The report is rather petty in nature as the user could just simply reverted the edit in question and provided a coherent argument rather than dragging it to VB. And possibly 4) To my knowledge my edit was in no way a bad-faith and I am pretty sure there was precedent a while back for Keep votes to be taken as justified purely for being Keep votes. However I see that Axe Hack has restored the strike so I am willing to admit that I was wrong in this instance and will take this on board for future cases of this nature.
This user has repeatedly ignored these guidelines despite numerous requests from the administration team, showing that he believes himself above the rules that most other users follow quite happily. Being a dick may not be against the rules but filling admin pages with petty reports purely to advance his personal agendas is well within the realms of bad faith.
I would post on the user's talk page to try and sort this out with him, however due to his continued hostility towards administration team members it would more than likely be deleted and apparently a misconduct case would be brought against me. Either way, I believe Iscariot's edits to this page are disruptive and create drama where none need occur. -- Cheese 00:15, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Quoting Cheese on a below case: "There is no policy making that box law". --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:19, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- I see you aren't reading again. I was referring in that case to the box containing the request to keep extraneous chatter to the talk page. In this case I refer to the actual guidelines for submitting a report. That is an entirely different kettle of fish. A kettle of fish that you keep seeming to forget about. -- Cheese 00:21, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- There's no differences between those boxes, both are attempts to force into precedent something that has never been voted into policy by this community. If you believe that one is worthless, then all must be worthless. So either you vote vandalism on the below case or you already knew this case had no merit and you are bringing it in hope I get banned.
- I see you aren't reading again. I was referring in that case to the box containing the request to keep extraneous chatter to the talk page. In this case I refer to the actual guidelines for submitting a report. That is an entirely different kettle of fish. A kettle of fish that you keep seeming to forget about. -- Cheese 00:21, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Also the irony, did you attempt to contact me on my talk page? Isn't this petty? And no, given your past continued reverts to pages involving me it was not a case of simply re-striking the vote as you have demonstrated previously that such leads to edit wars where you are involved. I was attempting to resolve the issue without needless drama, perhaps you have neglected to assume good faith? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:06, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Also the irony, did you attempt to contact me on my talk page? Isn't this petty? And no, given your past continued reverts to pages involving me it was not a case of simply re-striking the vote as you have demonstrated previously that such leads to edit wars where you are involved. I was attempting to resolve the issue without needless drama, perhaps you have neglected to assume good faith? --
Not vandalism. Your edit may not have been bad faith, nor really vandalism in it self, but those guidelines are rarely followed. Rarely. Sonny used to get away with getting users actually banned without having to do anything but be himself and post here. What would you have gotten, at most a warning? If you want Iscariot to follow it, or anyone for that matter, make sure it's enforced consistently.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:32, 7 April 2009 (BST)
(another 1-1 can we get some closure here?) Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 23:03, 8 April 2009 (BST))
Not vandalism -- boxy talk • teh rulz 05:18 9 April 2009 (BST)
User:Krazy Monkey
Krazy Monkey (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None required |
Unstriking an unjustified vote. Claims in his edit summary "Unstriking, Keep votes have been shown to be justification in themselves", this is patently untrue as evidenced by the voting rules template. All votes require justification, although alternative voting standards have been discussed, nothing has reached a consensus. Accordingly this is an attempt to subvert the established process and prop up a suggestion by disregarding the community consensus about voting. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:33, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Iscariot has a point this time, either all votes should be justified, or none by the current guidelines. I'm thinking that if you don't pull something like this again we can just let this go with a warning, preferably soft. It's really not fair to let keep voters get away with not justifying their votes but not kill or spam voters. Are you agreeable as tho shit outcome Mr. Cheese?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:22, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Not Vandalism. I disagree on the justification guideline, a keep vote is a vote justified in its own merits. there is no need to vote keep:I like this. when Keep will do. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:25, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Then there is no need to have to justify a kill vote. Same idea, different outcome.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:27, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- I disagree. A Kill is going to have a reason behind it and if that reason can be handled in a latter revision then it should be discussed whereas a keep indicates an acceptance as is. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:36, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- A Keep would have to have a reason behind it too! Dear lord that I don't believe in, please tell me why there can be a straight acceptance when voting keep, but no straight nonacceptance when voting kill? There is no difference between just liking something and just hating something. Sure, you can ask for a reason why that person hates it, but you could also do the same for them liking it too!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:42, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Perhaps this is a regional/national perception difference. I understand where you are comming from, but I find there to be an inherent difference between a like and a dislike of something. In my area if one looks at a piece of Art (lets say a Pollack) And the observer likes it, its considered good enough that the observer likes it, however if the opposite is true and the observer doesn't care for the work they are expected to critique the work (i.e. explain why they don't like it.) I Understand that you seem to be more of the Movie Critic line...(I liked for the action et al) I simply disagree. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:56, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Not so much as a regional thing just opinions. I think that if someone who doesn't like it should have to justify that dislike, then someone who likes it should have to too considering that their justification would be just about the same length as a kill voters "I don't like it", at the least. I just really don't think it's fair that one day I can vote keep with a smiley face and then a few weeks later vote kill with a frowney face and then have the kill vote struck out because of lack of justification. Or with any kinds of votes. Justification should be a strongly asked for thing for the author, not a requirement. There's enough people here who would give their justification without being forced to that those of us who don't want to can be fine.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:48, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Perhaps this is a regional/national perception difference. I understand where you are comming from, but I find there to be an inherent difference between a like and a dislike of something. In my area if one looks at a piece of Art (lets say a Pollack) And the observer likes it, its considered good enough that the observer likes it, however if the opposite is true and the observer doesn't care for the work they are expected to critique the work (i.e. explain why they don't like it.) I Understand that you seem to be more of the Movie Critic line...(I liked for the action et al) I simply disagree. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:56, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- A Keep would have to have a reason behind it too! Dear lord that I don't believe in, please tell me why there can be a straight acceptance when voting keep, but no straight nonacceptance when voting kill? There is no difference between just liking something and just hating something. Sure, you can ask for a reason why that person hates it, but you could also do the same for them liking it too!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:42, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- I disagree. A Kill is going to have a reason behind it and if that reason can be handled in a latter revision then it should be discussed whereas a keep indicates an acceptance as is. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:36, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Then there is no need to have to justify a kill vote. Same idea, different outcome.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:27, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Not Vandalism. I disagree on the justification guideline, a keep vote is a vote justified in its own merits. there is no need to vote keep:I like this. when Keep will do. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 01:25, 7 April 2009 (BST)
Actually Iscariot is right. We've hashed this issue out in the past, keep votes need justification too. I mean most everything he says there is so wrong but the basic premise is right, the striking is 100% justified and claiming anything else is pushing rewriting the accepted status quo because you haven't taken the time to look into it. --Karekmaps?! 03:19, 9 April 2009 (BST)
So, as this hasn't been closed, Cheese, don't be unstriking unjustified Keep votes unless you do the same for spam and kill. Not Vandalism and Karek's statement sums it up best.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:47, 9 April 2009 (BST)
User:MisterGame
MisterGame (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
I am hearby creating a petty case against myself. The empty beer bottle told me so. AnD BeCauSe iTs a SilEnt pROtest agaiNts bORedom.--Thadeous Oakley 20:35, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Spamming up admin pages Vandalism Cheese WTF!RandomSysOp? - Vandalism struck, actually posted by User:MisterGame -- Cheese 20:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)
You forget impersonation. --Thadeous Oakley 20:35, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Self admitting right there >.> Cheese WTF!RandomSysOp?- Vandalism struck, actually posted by User:MisterGame -- Cheese 20:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)- Irony.--Thadeous Oakley 20:37, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Blatant Vandalism. Also impersonated a sysop by ruling on this page combined with regular impersonation by pretending to be me. I think it's a 2nd warning because he's due a de-escalation but I gave him a temp ban of 20 minutes to give me a chance to fix the page up without him popping in and messing it up. -- Cheese 20:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- In actual fact he's very lucky as he's back to a single warning now. Warned -- Cheese 20:57, 6 April 2009 (BST)
User:Cyberbob240
Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None Required |
Creating petty cases to harass users he has a history of constant disagreements with.--xoxo 14:30, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Cyberbob 14:35, 6 April 2009 (BST) - good job fagmeister you seem to have missed the part where I gave both those chucklefucks their due warning on their talk pages before bringing it to A/VB Cyberbob 14:36, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- First the guideline suggests "discussing the edit" and second, your warning means squat as you were wrong to remove the comments in the first place.--Honestmistake 14:43, 6 April 2009 (BST)
I don't remember any really conflicting history between Bob and Mid. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:18, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Oh yeah, neither. Sorry my mistake. And i can't think of any ill feelings between bob and honest either! Sorry for wasting your time!! --xoxo 01:30, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- No, really, if there has been any conflict between Mid and Bob, then please tell me as I missed it. No need for sass mister, as I didn't rule or anything. I know there is animosity between Honest and Bob, I just don't remember any between Mid and him. Is there?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:39, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- thanks for edit conflicting me ;
- I was going to suggest looking at any edit I made to any admin page in the last month or so, you will almost always find Bob making an insulting remark aimed at me. Before he jumps in here i will freely admit to responding to most of them, what can I say in my defense... he is an effective troll!--Honestmistake 01:35, 7 April 2009 (BST)
Interesting that Suicidal would actually consider this being vandalism when I tried to not have to bring Honest and Midianian to A/VB by warning them on their talk pages that if they did it again I would report them. Obviously my interpretation of the box was wrong (I must have missed the memo on that one as no sysop has ever had a problem with me moving comments to the talk page) but to call the cases "petty" is fucking stupid. J3D is going fishing here, nothing more. 
Cyberbob 05:03, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Its not just petty its clearly bad faith as there is no way that you didn't know what the accepted standards for this page are (and pretty much always have been) For fuck sake you even played a major part in the discussion that led to the toning down of the old notice. Knowing what you obviously do you were clearly just being an ass to amuse yourself and a warning that you are going to report as vandalism something that you know is not vandalism is anything but an innocent mistake. --Honestmistake 18:56, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Wrong, I've been moving comments for weeks and nobody's said anything about it until now. As for the conversation, we aren't all fucking elephants. How am I supposed to remember every little detail in the history of every part of the wiki on top of the stuff I need to do IRL? Cyberbob 23:21, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- 2 long established users pointed out in plain english why you were wrong to remove their comments, both of us were polite in doing so and you persisted in ignoring our request that you stop moving the comment. You actually moved my comment something like 10 times over a period of over 2 hours.... perhaps one of those occasions might have been enough to jog your memory?--Honestmistake 00:41, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- Wrong, I've been moving comments for weeks and nobody's said anything about it until now. As for the conversation, we aren't all fucking elephants. How am I supposed to remember every little detail in the history of every part of the wiki on top of the stuff I need to do IRL?
Oh and I don't have enough contact with Midianian to comment on whether or not there was a pre-existing animosity there. There might be some on his side, I don't know. Cyberbob 05:03, 7 April 2009 (BST)
Based upon the fact that Bob has been moving just about every inane comment (And sometimes by accident a sysop ruling :P) from here for such a long frickin' time, I'd normally rule not vandalism. But being that it's Honest on the name of one of his reports makes me want to reconsider...
Not vandalism anyway, on the fact that Cyberbob is just being a little over-zealous on his following of guidelines (Which aren't rules in this case and aren't required to be adhered to).
Now, a bit of replying to some of these comments.
- Honest, he was not wrong to remove any non-sysops/accused/accuser comments. He was entirely within the rules and actually helping out more than harming in the long run. He's been doing this for awhile as I said. I don't want him to stop doing it altogether either, because some times it's really helpful.
- Next time I see a case of remove-replace between you two (Bob and Honest)it's a warning for both of you. That was ridiculous, one of you should have just let it go.
- From now on I feel there should be no vandal reports made on this topic unless it's outright spammy or noncontributing. If you're unsure about a comment, then leave it. It's not too big of a deal anyway.
Okay?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:27, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- If an edit war like this one looks like it's about to kick off I'll go to Arbies instead of continuing it. Having one side "just drop it" will never work as neither side will want to be the person to do so. Cyberbob 10:11, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- I should have just said arbies huh? Pretty much what I was meaning, but yeah. Also, thanks. The comment moving is generally helpful, but when you are scrolling through the talk for information and you see the same rather large comment there a dozen times or something like that, it gets a bit hard to find things in between. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:21, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- Originally I was deleting most of them (for the exact reason you mention) but DDR pointed out to me that Honest might decide to take it upon himself to start a case up against me over their deletion rather than movement. Which considering Honest's "character" (a term I use very loosely) was extremely plausible. Cyberbob 14:33, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- Bollocks, you 'moved' them all because you thought it would be more amusing.... you even stated that very fact on my talk page so don't try to play the martyr. Moving a lot of the SPAM that gets put on here is a very worthwhile and useful job but you were moving valid points for the hell of it rather than taking the effort to evaluate what was said. --Honestmistake 23:12, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- The amusement was a side effect you inept cunt. Maybe if you'd "taken the time to evaluate what was said" you would have known that. Now. I suggest that if you want this conversation to continue you either further it on this page's talk page or mine as it is getting to the stage where you are abusing your involvement in the case in order to shit all over it. Cyberbob 02:28, 9 April 2009 (BST)
- The amusement was a side effect you inept cunt. Maybe if you'd "taken the time to evaluate what was said" you would have known that. Now. I suggest that if you want this conversation to continue you either further it on this page's talk page or mine as it is getting to the stage where you are abusing your involvement in the case in order to shit all over it.
- Bollocks, you 'moved' them all because you thought it would be more amusing.... you even stated that very fact on my talk page so don't try to play the martyr. Moving a lot of the SPAM that gets put on here is a very worthwhile and useful job but you were moving valid points for the hell of it rather than taking the effort to evaluate what was said. --Honestmistake 23:12, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- Originally I was deleting most of them (for the exact reason you mention) but DDR pointed out to me that Honest might decide to take it upon himself to start a case up against me over their deletion rather than movement. Which considering Honest's "character" (a term I use very loosely) was extremely plausible.
- I should have just said arbies huh? Pretty much what I was meaning, but yeah. Also, thanks. The comment moving is generally helpful, but when you are scrolling through the talk for information and you see the same rather large comment there a dozen times or something like that, it gets a bit hard to find things in between. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:21, 8 April 2009 (BST)
Not vandalism Clear out this somnabiatch. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 23:05, 8 April 2009 (BST)
User:Honestmistake
Honestmistake (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None Needed |
As Midianian. Again requesting a soft warning. Cyberbob 13:51, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- and as I keep posting below:
- "If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 13:53, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Not Vandalism - There is no policy making that box law and, similar to below, I personally have found Honest's comments to be relevant to the cases being discussed. -- Cheese 20:31, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- thank you cheese but could i ask you (or someone else)to restore my comments? I no longer feel like disputing with Bob as it does nothing but feed his ego while , frankly, making me look a bit stupid for even trying!--Honestmistake 00:46, 7 April 2009 (BST)
Not Vandalism, as Cheese.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:18, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:Midianian
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None Needed |
Midianian (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Constantly posting comments on the main A/VB page despite not being in any of the three groups described in the box as being allowed to. He hasn't done it enough to warrant a case normally but in this case he has rather explicitly acknowledged that he is going against the box's message. Requesting a soft warning. Cyberbob 11:59, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- First, I wasn't "constantly posting comments", merely reverting your removal of one of mine. Second, as I've explained to Bob, the comment is pretty short, relevant to the case and a direct reply to a comment on this page. Third, nowhere did I say I'm going against the box's message, I even said to Bob that the purpose of the notice is not a blanket banisment of all not directly related commentary (the notice was even changed to reflect this, I'll dig up the discussion about it in a bit). --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 12:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- cool story bro Cyberbob 12:16, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- The edit, made by Karek (with related discussion here), has been eaten by the history purge, but you can see the original text of the box on this policy (compare with current text). The text was specifically changed from "strongly asks" to just "asks". I considered the request to post it on the talk page, but decided it was relevant enough to put on the main page. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 13:59, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- that was over a year ago brah. get with the times Cyberbob 14:01, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- that was over a year ago brah. get with the times
- The edit, made by Karek (with related discussion here), has been eaten by the history purge, but you can see the original text of the box on this policy (compare with current text). The text was specifically changed from "strongly asks" to just "asks". I considered the request to post it on the talk page, but decided it was relevant enough to put on the main page. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 13:59, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- cool story bro
Not Vandalism - There is no policy making that box law and I personally have found Mid's comments to be relevant to the cases being discussed. Any ruling of vandalism resulting from spamming admin pages is exactly for that. Contributing usefully to a discussion is not vandalism to my knowledge. -- Cheese 20:31, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Not Vandalism ^ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:17, 7 April 2009 (BST)
User:Ricci Bobby
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None needed |
Ricci Bobby (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
A really odd case. Appears to be an alt of User:Alex1guy, judging by these changes, filling out the original's userpage, signing as (possible) original user, and again, but then does dumb stuff like this and this as if he is a total noob. Maybe someone should go on a IP check and see whats going on here? I don't know if this guy knows how confusing it is for us to sign under his alt. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:09, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- And THIS. Like what is this guy thinking? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:11, 6 April 2009 (BST)
All IP's are falling into a very similar range, so it's probably fair to assume that Ricci Bobby is an alt of Alex1guy. I'll run them through a geolocater and see if that provides any hints. Linkthewindow Talk 08:16, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- Same ISP, same location. Looks like it's an alt. Linkthewindow Talk 08:18, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- I would also like to add, for the possibility of a future case, that the user is modifying others' danger reports one month after he was user-warned for it. I'm explaining it all to the user now. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:29, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- Thanks. Here's the prior vandalism case. It was over page blanking and removing comments. Linkthewindow Talk 08:39, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- I would also like to add, for the possibility of a future case, that the user is modifying others' danger reports one month after he was user-warned for it. I'm explaining it all to the user now. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:29, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Not vandalism - for the record -- boxy talk • teh rulz 05:11 9 April 2009 (BST)
User:Rosslessness
Rosslessness (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | 1 week ban (requested) |
Requesting a 1 week Self ban. I have work I should be doing. I hope you can cope. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:17, 5 April 2009 (BST)
- Done. Linkthewindow Talk 11:37, 5 April 2009 (BST)
User:Famke
Famke (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Perma |
Possible spambot. Only contribution is creating this: Dig Site, The which is about Runescape. External links to some 3rd party site related to it too. -- 
RoosterDragon 
15:41, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- Permabanned and page deleted. =) -- Cheese 18:08, 4 April 2009 (BST)
User:Allies_against_DK13
Allies_against_DK13 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Sockpuppet |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Main Warned |
Vandalized DK13's recruitment ad, alternate account of User:The shoemaker.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 05:35, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- link and link. It's worth noting that SA has temporarily blocked Shoemaker until another sysop comes and rules. Anyone got any more links to add? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:45, 4 April 2009 (BST)
Main (The shoemaker) warned. I'll leave the alt non-banned for now, as I guess this edit could be seen as non-vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 10:03, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- Actually, being that it consisted of the same stuff that he was saying while vandalizing, and according to this case where he left the same spammy warning on his userpage and it was deleted as a vandal page then Allies against DK13's edit to his talk page could be considered a continuation of his vandalism, thus negating the whole non-vandalism call. But I'm fine with the ruling. :) . Also, thanks for taking care of this guys. I was too tired.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 13:44, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- Yeah. I'll see if he keeps vandalizing once he sees the warning. He hasn't even made three edits yet, but it's still a vandal alt, I guess. Linkthewindow Talk 13:49, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- And he appears to have taken it in. Let's hope he stops naw. Linkthewindow Talk 13:19, 5 April 2009 (BST)
User:ANGUSMCSUCKSUCK
ANGUSMCSUCKSUCK (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
Warned for editing a group page and fucking about with an image upload which I've deleted and reuploaded because it went screwy on the revert. I did originally permaban him but I've decided to just issue a warning instead. -- Cheese 19:40, 3 April 2009 (BST)
User:J3D
J3D (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None Required |
For making 2 petty cases against me on A/M that involved me acting within my rights (deleting a scheduled deletion and banning MYSELF). Clearly this is a personal vendetta. This is harassment and violates this guideline from A/M Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops. --– Nubis NWO 11:40, 1 April 2009 (BST)
Is there a half-vandalism half-not-vandalism option?
Alright, here's the deal. I personally think that what you did with the image was the right thing to do and well within your rights and is actually part of your job. Jed probably shouldn't have brought the image case up as it was. But I don't agree with a sysop going and punishing themselves over a misconduct case. An actual decision should have happened. Now I know there was a bunch of talking and blathering going on, but all the same a punishment needs to be met out and decided by the rest of the team, not by the one under the scope.
That said, any other sysop plan to say anything on this case? I don't want to rule until I hear other view points.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 18:59, 4 April 2009 (BST)
- Seriously though, can we get some input here? It's been long enough for at least one other 'op to say anything about this case, and I know you buggers have seen it!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:17, 5 April 2009 (BST)
- Are you saying that I am not allowed to ban myself under any circumstances? Are you saying that I somehow have more authority over everyone else on A/M and that when I decide a course of action it is the final decision? You can't have it both ways. Either I have some kind of ungranted authority and can decide (but not vote on) my own Misconduct cases or whatever the hell I do has nothing to do with the actual case. You can't bitch at me for finally getting off my ass and making a fucking decision. There were only 2 questions in that case: Who is responsible for de-escalations and what is the penalty for screwing up a ban time? And what was stopping anyone from saying, "Nice ban, now here's your punishment." ?
- Why did we add the clause about harassment if we aren't going to use it to protect sysops? Why would it even ever be considered misconduct to ban myself? Seriously. And why would instantly going to Misconduct over a scheduled deletion ever be correct? Don't make policies that you are going to get in trouble for upholding. --– Nubis NWO 08:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- "And why would instantly going to Misconduct over a scheduled deletion ever be correct?" When the deleted page/image doesn't fit the description of the scheduled deletion. If you deleted, say, this image claiming it was porn, naturally you'd be brought to misconduct as soon as someone noticed it. J3D simply thought the image wasn't porn and acted accordingly. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 09:46, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- I'm saying you shouldn't try to preemptively try and decide your own punishment. It doesn't matter if it's override-able, you still shouldn't try and say "Hey, I'm just gonna punish my self like this, and because I'm the only one that's decided on what my punishment should be it's should probably be right. But go ahead and rule otherwise if you feel you should, but my punishment is probably the best course of action!"
- 'Cause you know, that's exactly what you did'. Sure, no one overrode it, but the fact of the matter is is that you shouldn't have done it from the start.
- No one said you shouldn't be allowed to ban yourself, but when you're trying to decide on your own punishment for your own case, then it's a problem. There's plenty of us to decide that for you, learn some fucking patience because the case wasn't even there for 3 days. But please do go on how we're all persecuting you because one user thought you fucked up. 'Cause it's not possible to think a sysops messed up without it being harassment amirite?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- Why did we add the clause about harassment if we aren't going to use it to protect sysops? Why would it even ever be considered misconduct to ban myself? Seriously. And why would instantly going to Misconduct over a scheduled deletion ever be correct? Don't make policies that you are going to get in trouble for upholding. --– Nubis NWO 08:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)
My problem is that I believe that the cases border (if not cross the line) on Harassment. However I also abhor the idea of dong anything that might prevent regular users from bringing legitimate cases against sysops. The fact the cases themselves were brought is understandable (although also just as obviously not misconduct imho.) Where J3d crosses the line is the language in presenting the case regarding the image edit. No we don't have a civility policy, but the statement "Can the lady reupload so we can finally get the buttons taken off the control freak?"indicates a specific intent when combined with the statements made in this case and the other indicate a bias against, and in this situation harassment of, Nubis. ergo Vandalism. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 19:56, 5 April 2009 (BST)
- Do you even understand what you're saying? You're trying to say that because he thinks Nubis should be in trouble for something it's automatically harassment? So, the next time you or I or any other op fucks up, and someone brings a case against us saying "Can someone please demote them for this serious fuck up", I can call it harassment and bring them down with me? Oh, of course as long as it's at least two cases amirite?
- You said it yourself, we don't have a civility policy, the statement wasn't over the line. Don't try to use that call this vandalism. Also, of course he's going to have a specific intent of bringing a misconduct case. The fixing of a perceived mistake on a syops along with a punishment, if needed.
- If Jed's getting a punishment for asking for a sysops to be demoted in the case, then how come no one else has ever gotten one for asking for a specific punishment?
- Jeez Conn, if you're going to try and get a user that you don't like punished, could you use a thicker veil?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:12, 5 April 2009 (BST)
- You are the one that asked for input. 1st I don't have anything against J3d, and I think some of the things that has been done in effigy are juvenile at best, however... By Specific intent I mean not calling out a mistake by a sysop but rather calling out a specific sysop to be demoted and not entirely on the merits of this case alone but rather previous incidents as well which are clearly defined within the verbage of J3ds complaint. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 08:02, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- Oh.. and by the way... Demote him because of this serious fuck up is a whole lot different than demote him because HE is a serious fuck up. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 08:04, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- The end of your first comment doesn't make much sense. If you care to elaborate or retry to explain that it's be cool. Your second part on the other hand, yes there is a difference. But right here that does not matter. Whether Nubis is a bad sysops or not, the fact that Jed asked for his demotion in his request does not mean it's harassment. It's a punishment he thought fitting seeing some of said sysops past behavior.
- Please try to find another way to punish a user for trying to do what he thought was right. Whether I agree with what said user was thinking or not, he did what he thought was right and I respect his rights given to him as a member of this wiki and I will not infringe upon them.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- said sysops past behavior Exactly what makes it harassment. Each Misconduct case must be tried on its own merits with its own punishments as THAT CASE deserves. In the process of calling for Nubis' demotion he both uses language that outside this little domain would be considered blatant harassment (but has to be discussed here because of the lack of "policy") and calls for a punishment that far exceeds the boundaries of what said case would have resulted in. By the way...I'm getting a little tired of folks saying they want such and such out of misconduct cases. If it is judged to be misconduct its our job to determine what punishment if any. By the way the case stands at a 1-1 tie...Could we get a third voice in here so we can close this out one way or another. Too little sleep...Too Much caffeine...Post goes on forever...Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 23:01, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- lolwut? Please tell me where in any official documentation that it says that a misconduct case is to be judged on it's own merits? I see nothing in any policy or guideline saying that cases aren't not to be judged along with past behavior. I mean, isn't that kind of how Jed was demoted? The case was brought for one thing, but he was demoted because of that along with his past behavior? I fail to see how that can happen yet you say that each case should be judged on it's own merits. Also, whether you're tired of people requesting a form of punishment, it's not against the rules.
- And my last bit for now, Conn has a bit of a point. This case has been up for a while now, and him and I are the only ones who have ruled. Can we get a few more opinions on this one? More than one other preferably?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:53, 9 April 2009 (BST)
- said sysops past behavior Exactly what makes it harassment. Each Misconduct case must be tried on its own merits with its own punishments as THAT CASE deserves. In the process of calling for Nubis' demotion he both uses language that outside this little domain would be considered blatant harassment (but has to be discussed here because of the lack of "policy") and calls for a punishment that far exceeds the boundaries of what said case would have resulted in. By the way...I'm getting a little tired of folks saying they want such and such out of misconduct cases. If it is judged to be misconduct its our job to determine what punishment if any. By the way the case stands at a 1-1 tie...Could we get a third voice in here so we can close this out one way or another. Too little sleep...Too Much caffeine...Post goes on forever...Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 23:01, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- Oh.. and by the way... Demote him because of this serious fuck up is a whole lot different than demote him because HE is a serious fuck up. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 08:04, 6 April 2009 (BST)
- You are the one that asked for input. 1st I don't have anything against J3d, and I think some of the things that has been done in effigy are juvenile at best, however... By Specific intent I mean not calling out a mistake by a sysop but rather calling out a specific sysop to be demoted and not entirely on the merits of this case alone but rather previous incidents as well which are clearly defined within the verbage of J3ds complaint. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 08:02, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Not Vandalism on the grounds that there is no clear pattern of harassment or abuse in the data provided by the 'op who feels harassed, and there is no way to really call them petty when it's a difference of opinion in one case; which is why we review these cases. And in the other case, it's simply something accused user thought was wrong. He's apparently not the only one that thinks handling your own punishment in a misconduct case is wrong, and I'm sure others feel the same.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)
- How many do you want for a pattern? --– Nubis NWO 03:43, 8 April 2009 (BST)
- I don't want a number, I want substantial evidence of the supposed abuse. So he made two cases against you? Iscariot has made 3. Midianian has made 3. Hell, unless I missed something in the VB archives, he hasn't even made a vandal report against you. Just those two misconduct cases. If you're going to use numbers as a clear and substantial pattern of abuse, then please remember to file the reports against those who have made more cases than what you're using as a base.
- Would you like to go back to the "The cases themselves are the harassment" argument? I can repeat why the cases wouldn't be harassment if you really need me to.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:05, 8 April 2009 (BST)
To give this some much needed closure, Not Vandalism. -- Cheese 18:25, 13 April 2009 (BST)
