UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 07

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

July 2009

User:A11an0n

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Editing a group page without the owner's permission. Linkthewindow Talk 07:39, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Warned. --Cyberbob 08:14, 31 July 2009 (BST)

User:Ian Bane

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permabanned

All edits were vandalism, perma under the 3 edit rule. -- Rooster Dragon 15:50, 26 July 2009 (BST)

User:Rddr

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Just spotted this gem. And here's the precedent. --x o x o 14:09, 26 July 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - the precedent case was as much to do with "shitting up admin pages" as it was impersonation, while this comment was on a user talk page. Also, signing "it was totally j3d" makes it extremely clear that it wasn't in fact j3d signing -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:48 27 July 2009 (BST)

And me signing Nallan12:45 5 July 2008 isn't obvious it's not a real sig? It was clear to anyone who saw that signing that it wasn't him, the whole timestamp was a link!! --User:J3D12:53, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Not as obvious. And two things, barring the "shitting up admin pages" dealio, you knew it was impersonation, yet rddr seems kind of new whenr it comes to wiki policies and shit. But I still think that rddr needs a warning, whether it's official or not.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:59, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Actually i was drunk at the time and it's unlikely the thought of it being vandalism crossed my mind :P But since when was 'he knew it was vandalism, she didn't' relevant? If you break the rules you should be warned, i don't like this trend towards oh, they've only been on the wiki 3 months it's okay for them to impersonate. --x o x o 03:18, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Lucky then that's not the reasoning behind the rulings then. --ϑϑℜ 03:48, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah coz it's so easy to rebut a reason for a ruling when you give such a detailed one. --x o x o 04:17, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Lucky he's gotten an unofficial warning all the same.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 04:28, 29 July 2009 (BST)

So is the unofficial saying 'this would be vandalism if you were more experienced and will be next time you do it' or 'if that edit didn't say "it's totally" this would be vandalism' ? --x o x o 04:30, 29 July 2009 (BST)

I dunno i didn't actually read it. :s.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 04:49, 29 July 2009 (BST)

neither :| --x o x o 04:50, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As Boxy, pretty much. Linkthewindow Talk 12:00, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism --ϑϑℜ 03:48, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism --Cyberbob 08:01, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Kinrane

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

lolamirite--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:18, 25 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism -- Linkthewindow Talk 03:00, 26 July 2009 (BST)

Warned - --ϑϑℜ 03:23, 26 July 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob240 (3)

Verdict	Withdrawn
Action taken	None Required

For this edit which he makes it look like Kevan is directly commenting on the Community Sysop Demotion policy. The rule in question is impersonation. You can see that Cyberbob linked to the actual policy that Kevan quoted on. He put the out of context quote at the top of the page in order to "allow people to draw their own conclusions", but didn't mention it pertained to a completely separate policy. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 20:46, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - the quote had been discussed down the page, putting it into context. Not including a link is a mistake, rather than bad faith or impersonation. Point out the link and context yourself, or take him to arbies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:41 21 July 2009 (BST)

Despite the fact that he just put the quote at the top of the page, completely out of context to "allow people to draw their own conclusions"? Which conclusions did he want people to draw, and shouldn't he, a sysop, know these rules better than anyone? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 22:45, 21 July 2009 (BST)

see the talk page

He quoted Kevan accurately. This is not impersonation. If you have a problem with where he put this quote, move it to the bottom of the page, where new comments have been going. If there's a dispute about that, use arbies, that's what it's there for -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:53 21 July 2009 (BST)

Read the quote when it was here and tell me what you think a random user would think when they stopped by that policy's discussion. It's the same thing now when they scroll down and see that quote taken out of context, on it's own subheading entitled "Kevan's Quote". If you didn't read the chain of replies that discusses it in a completely different subheading, you would come to the conclusion that Kevan made a comment on the Community Sysop Demotion Policy, and Bob was just passing it along to people. Bob's been on the wiki for how long again? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 22:59, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Quoting a comment and warping its meaning in an argument is just a matter of perspective, it isn't impersonation. You should be taking the initiative to prove him wrong on the page which the quote is placed. --ϑϑℜ 22:57, 21 July 2009 (BST)

How about I remove that subheading then, because the discussion already had bob's link to Kevan's quote, and that subheading is just meant to sway decision to bob's point of view by using Kevan's quote out of context. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 22:59, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I'll withdraw the case, as per here and as per this edit. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:50, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Thank you. God it's great when things can be settled without super huge arguments. :D --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:54, 21 July 2009 (BST)

This occurred on my policy discussion's Talk page, and I don't accept the withdrawal. I re-submitt the case, if necessary. Just because he reverted the edits does not negate the fact that they occurred, that has never been how A/VB worked before, vandalism is vandalism. --WanYao 14:09, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Then resubmit it, because the case is already done. Give it up Wan, he didn't do anything wrong. At this point you're just trying to cause trouble for no reason.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:09, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Seeing as he posted that to my policy discussion, I have a right to comment on this case.

It's widely accepted that altering Talk page headers and moving quotes around, etc. etc. is vandalism. What cyberbob did amounts to the same thing, it has the exact same effect and impact. Meanwhile, taking one single element out of many that had been addressed in the discussion, then sticking up in the title section of the Talk page... that was clearly imposing his own will and his own bias on the discussion, putting his own opinion etc. at the very top of the page, out of context, and where it clearly did not belong. And to do this on a policy discussion, to boot... wow. It amazes me that anyone could see this as anything other than bad faith, it really does. As Akule asked, how long has bob been on the wiki? He knows better... --WanYao 14:03, 22 July 2009 (BST)

So, what you're saying is "he tried to impose his own will on a page". Your point is? The quote was fully intact and not altered in any way, so it wasn't impersonation. If you don't like where he put it, move it to somewhere better but don't come crying to us just because he did something you don't like. BTW, Not Vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:06, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Wow. You guys are that determined to "show me up" that you can't understand how isolating and highlighting a piece of text out of context... then putting at the top of a page... you can't comprehend how that disturbs or influences the debate, you think it's harmless and innocuous and in "good faith"??? Wow. You take the cake, you really do. How's that job at the Ministry of Truth pay, anyway? --WanYao 16:24, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I think that influencing or disrupting a debate isn't in itself vandalism. You yourself were seriously disrupting the debate with your inability to read others posts. Did I bring you to A/VB? No. Just because it disagrees with you does not make it vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:40, 22 July 2009 (BST)

*cough*--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:02, 22 July 2009 (BST)

It's not about the disagreement. It's taking one phrase from that discourse, isolating it and highlighting it as the "front page story" of the Talk page. Why do you think advertisements use big bold letters at the top of pages? or newpapers use headlines? But... this is hopeless... --WanYao 00:10, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Taking one phrase from the discourse an putting at the top of the page without linking to the original source was definitely a bad idea, but it wasn't vandalism. If you had a problem with him putting it there, you were free to move it or complain (which you did). As Boxy says, this was an editing dispute, not a case for A/VB. Anyway, the quote has now been moved lower down the page and thus the problem has been solved. Any further discussion on the matter is pointless.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:04, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism You can quote me on that on anypage you like, as long as you don't alter the quote and correctly cite the source. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:11, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Already Decided but I still want to add...Not Vandalism for the love of Zombie Jeebus... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 17:11, 22 July 2009 (BST)

User:Suicidalangel

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

For this vote with an admitted sockpuppet account (evidence and confession can be found in here). Doesn't matter whether SA didn't vote with his main account. He created and voted with a sockpuppet. This is bad faith from anyone, but it's even worse coming from a 'Crat, who ought to know better and from whom the community has every reason to expect better. --WanYao 19:23, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Provided he did not vote with his main account, editing with an alt is not actually against the rules. While it is, perhaps, bad form for a 'Crat to be doing this sort of thing in order to prove a point, it is not vandalism. I would ban the proxy he used but the checkuser records have since been wiped.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:29, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As General. I'll ban the proxy now (someone checkusered the alt at the time so the IP's in the log.) Linkthewindow Talk 00:55, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Not VandalismAs long as the Sock is not used in conjunction with the main it is not Vandalism. Its more or less achieving the same effect as using an alternate signature. and yes I know there are differences but as lo9ng as the sockpupet wasn't used to achieve an unfair representation (i.e. 1 user 1 vote), its ok as far as I am concerned. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 11:14, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Bad faith? Bad faith would have been me voting with both accounts. The fact that I didn't vote with my main account should MORE than show that the entire thing was in good faith to show a user why meatpuppeting is bad. Of course I don't expect you to listen, what with the "the sysops are takin' over teh wiki!" attitude you've had of late.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:38, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Sockpuppet =/= meatpuppet. Sheesh. --WanYao 17:12, 21 July 2009 (BST)

No shit. But there you go again with small little pickin's at someone's argument while ignoring everything else. You really are being a lazy cunt lately, you know that right?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:11, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob (2)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

For shitting up an Admin page with completely frivolous, petty personal vendettas. Specifically:

These "deletions" requests were made immediately after [this edit] -- which clearly shows that the deletion requests were made in bad faith, as a means of trolling other users, and most certainly not in the interest of "improving the wiki". --WanYao 05:24, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Hey man I'm just trying to be consistent here. You don't want consistency? --Cyberbob 05:28, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Edit conflictTo add more to this case: Bob used a non exsistance criterion to have the images deleted faster, [1], and this edits clearly shows he only put the images up to piss people off and is not taking his job seriously at all, [2].--SirArgo ^Talk 05:31, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Proof of the conflict of interest he made by putting these images up [3].--SirArgo ^Talk 05:32, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I'm dead serious about the images on A/D for your information. --Cyberbob 05:33, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Edit conflcitFor those who don't know, a joke on his talk page that he did not like saw him deleted two images and citing them as "pornographic" and he started this tirade out of anger. Also one last link, [4], admission of his intent to only stir up drama by putting these images up.--SirArgo ^Talk 05:37, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:46 17 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism --ϑϑℜ 13:41, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism And for the love of God..I haven't seen this many torches and pitchforks since I don't know when. Must be doing something right to get this many people pissed. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 14:07, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism --– Nubis ^NWO 14:34, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Not VandalismMr. Angel, Help needed? 22:50, 17 July 2009 (BST)

NOT Vandalsims even for abob this smells funni. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krazy Monkey (talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 July 2009.

Wait/ HOw'd I magnage for # ainstaeads of C h e e s e 03:18, 19 July 2009 (BST). =D lol. pp C h e e s e 03:18, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Cause you fail. A/DM now. ;) --ϑϑℜ 03:52, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

For submitting numerous Vandal reports which clearly fall under the category of "petty" (the guidelines clearly state: "Avoid submitting reports which are petty", see above) All you need to do is scroll down to see the evidence. This is not only a form of spam and an abuse of the A/VB page, it also arguably falls under the Sysop Misconduct category of "excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki"... but we'll leave this simply as an A/VB case for the moment. --WanYao 16:08, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I'm very specifically going to cite the following cases as "petty":

WanYao[5]
HonestMistake[6]

While technically, by "the letter of the law", these could be considered vandalism cases... A few important things have to be kept in mind.

a) as far as i know, it's not actually policy that posting to vandalism cases you're not involved in is vandalism
b) even when it is vandalism, it's normally only in the case of repeated and very disruptive cases. that is not the case here
c) cyberbob is making an obvious point of ban-hammering people for clearly petty abuses -- which have been in direct response to perceived abuses by cyberbob himself... the conflict of interest and apparent abuse of power is obvious, no?

cyberbob's actions are not in good faith, are an abuse of A/VB and therefore constitute vandalism. --WanYao 16:16, 16 July 2009 (BST)

The boxes above which cite A/VB courtesy have been changed. Users may now no longer comment on cases which aren't theres. The talk pages are to be used. That is what all these cases have been about. --ϑϑℜ 16:22, 16 July 2009 (BST)

please note that this is in fact untrue.... the box has been beefed up to say "should" it still does not say "must". --Honestmistake 16:26, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Big shoutout to my homeboy Boxy.... I TOLD YOU SO --Cyberbob 16:30, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I'd also like to add the following cases as evidence:

cases against J3D[7][8]
case against hagnat[9]

In both cases, the user's "offense" was to post a very short comment. The comments were not offensive or disruptive in any way, shape or form -- nor do they appear to be part of a "grand scheme" of admin page disruption.
Normal procedure in the past has simply been to move these comments to the talk page. If the problem continues, then warnings are handed out. If anyone is "shitting up" the A/VB here... it's cyberbob. The procedure has never been --- and never should be -- to just hand out bans willy-nilly, for minor infractions. That is the very definition of petty. --WanYao 19:49, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - Plain and simple. As I said below these cases are petty as fuck and there is no rule against them posting on the page. That box is nothing without an approved policy to back it up and any more of this abuse and it goes to Misconduct. -- C h e e s e 21:13, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Shut the fuck up Cheese, this literally has nothing to do with sysop powers and the cases below are in no way "petty as fuck". I would have made them for literally any other uninvolved user making those comments. --Cyberbob 01:15, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism And there SHOULD be a rule. Until there is one it falls within the venue of the4 sysops to Judge. If Bob doesn't have enough support to rule vandalism then they'll get 'turned easy as that...Unnecessary comments need to GO. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:27, 16 July 2009 (BST)

And until there is a rule, this is spamming and therefore vandalism. Be objective and stop encouraging him. -- C h e e s e 22:29, 16 July 2009 (BST)

further discussion on the talk page. --ϑϑℜ 14:33, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I say it's about time for another soft warning for bob. Just because you're a sysop doesn't mean you can now use the admin pages to play with people. That case against Hagnat that you brought was idiotic, and you've just gone on from there, digging a bigger and bigger hole -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:53 17 July 2009 (BST)

I don't think any of the cases I've brought have been incorrect on their own merits (otherwise I wouldn't have made them), but yes this could definitely have been handled a lot better. *shrug* I'm too tired to try and argue any further than that. --Cyberbob 07:58, 17 July 2009 (BST)

SW - As Box. --ϑϑℜ 13:42, 17 July 2009 (BST)

While technically, by "the letter of the law", these could be considered vandalism cases then they are. And bringing them up is Not Vandalism.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:36, 17 July 2009 (BST)

nv petty cases are petty, and petty cases made as a defense against petty cases are also petty. And unneeded.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:49, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Finished with 3 votes to Not Vandalism as opposed to 2 for soft warnings and 1 to vandalism. --ϑϑℜ 02:10, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Hang on, shouldn't "soft warning" and "vandalism" be counted as the same thing for the purposes of the tally? BTW, I also vote for a soft warning.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:35, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I was going back through this and thinking the same thing, actually, because yes, it is technically a punishment. --ϑϑℜ 14:41, 19 July 2009 (BST)

User:WanYao

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Exactly the same thing as Honest, for the same reasons. --Cyberbob 15:57, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Refer to the Talk page, cybertroll. You're not benefitting the wiki. You're power tripping and being a petty asshole, doing nothing but blatantly abusing your sysop powers. The fact that the rest of the team doesn't see this is sad..... --WanYao 16:03, 16 July 2009 (BST)

awesome! --Cyberbob 16:04, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - The box above can't hold water because it doesn't demand user co-operation (as revealed by Honestmistake in the above case). Wan is not a repeat offender in any way, etc.

I would like you to consider this a soft warning though Wan, we want to keep the main admin pages as clean as we can. Please only comment in the cases you are involved in, I'd appreciate it for now. --ϑϑℜ 16:46, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism As DDR --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:55, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Seriously? Petty as fuck. While we do VB folk for excessive posting on the main page (excessive being the important word here) this is just bullshit and reeks of an epic power trip. Until this box is voted on and has an approved policy document relating to it then this case is just spam and it's poster should be here as opposed to the person reported. -- C h e e s e 21:14, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism, but barely... I'd have to go back a couple of months worth of edits to get even close to excessive with Wan. Agree with DDR..Soft Warning at most. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:30, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - but as DDR. Linkthewindow Talk 00:41, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I'll close this with a fairly supported idea that you should just get a soft warning. It looks like you've cooled off now in terms of adding to other cases, please keep it that way. --ϑϑℜ 03:59, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Uh... what on earth are you talking about? "cooled off"?! "adding to other cases"????! I made one comment on a case I wasn't involved in... on one case... it amounted to two words... Frankly, even a soft warning is absurd considering that I made a single 2 word comment... And why aren't you applying the same standards of scrutiny and discipline to certain other users, huh? Very, very good question..... --WanYao 04:16, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Because you are not a repeat offender and thus these cases are treated differently. This is not vandalism as decided by the sysop team, the others are still in waiting. Maybe if you're unhappy about your soft warning, my birthday is in a couple of weeks. Get the images ready. --ϑϑℜ 04:19, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism I am tired of scrolling through the whining of people that are not sysops, the victim, or the suspect in A/VB cases. There should be no extra comments on this page. Unless they are adding a link to a precedent that might have been overlooked by those involved there is nothing worthwhile that they can add.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:40, 17 July 2009 (BST)

User:Honestmistake

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Ho ho ho. Normally I probably wouldn't bring this case because apparently the done thing is not to do so until people are repeat offenders but Honest pretty clearly knows exactly what he is doing so. --Cyberbob 15:44, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Yup I knew exactly what I was doing... that comment should have been on the talk page. Doesn't change the facts that both cases against J3D were nonsense and should have been thrown out as borderline harassment! It also doesn't change the fact that the newly worded "sysop request" box above was never voted on and never intended to be used the way Bob is using it right now. Warn me, Ban me... I really do not care. This place is fast becoming a bad joke ruled over by people who probably don't even play the damn game anymore and have forgotten that being a sysop is not supposed to be a promotion to give them authoritas, its supposed to be a voluntary position to keep things running smoothly. --Honestmistake 15:52, 16 July 2009 (BST)

To keep things running smoothly when trolls such as yourself insist on commenting and arguing on matters that you aren't involved in? Now, how do you expect them to do that when you start creating pointless drama and arguments? It's only done if the offenders (YOU in this case) are called out on it. You are not helping your own case here.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:46, 17 July 2009 (BST)

No its never done here for what I posted. I called Bob out on an action that he himself now admits was badly handled. He is admitting that mainly because i called him out on it and Wan chipped in to support me. There is a vast difference between trolling and what I did and even you must see that. --Honestmistake 15:09, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Sigh. Vandalism as per precedent of J3D's last two cases, Honest of which is a worse offender than J3D. --ϑϑℜ 15:49, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I wouldn't call this case so similar to J3D's two - IMO those were vandalism based mainly upon his immense track record of posting inappropriately on the main page whereas this is more vandalism because of how in-your-face Honest was about doing so. --Cyberbob 15:55, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Honest has already gotten his borderline cases and polite (non sysop) warnings in the past, the closest I remember of which was the edit war you had with him a few months ago about this very 'box'. Now, thanks to his martyr rants, there isn't much good faith that can be found in this case. --ϑϑℜ 16:10, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Ah right, I forgot about those. Don't mind me. --Cyberbob 16:10, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Hmm, that was found to be out and out "Not Vandalism " as was the only other case that I remember being brought against me here. I have never received a vandal warning (soft or otherwise) and in fact the only warning of any sort was for posting on someones user page instead of their talk page waay back when i was still new here. Or put another way.... kiss my arse and get your facts straight,and prove that my pulling up a very dodgy ruling is "Bad Faith"!--Honestmistake 16:16, 16 July 2009 (BST)

You're going to want to unbold that. --Cyberbob 16:18, 16 July 2009 (BST)

You have pulled up nothing, and it is getting you into trouble. You know how this will end. --ϑϑℜ 16:25, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Unbolding means actually removing the bolding? All you did was add italics. --Cyberbob 16:26, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I also put it in quotes... never mind the fact that it is clearly not a ruling if you read it because it explicitly refers to another case which was found to be guess what! --Honestmistake 16:54, 16 July 2009 (BST)

If I were you I would stop reminding everyone that you've had your chance before and learned nothing from it. --ϑϑℜ 16:56, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Which Chance? Just because you keep saying it does not make it true. I have never been found guilty of vandalism and never been warned in reasonable fashion that what I have commented has been vandalsim or would be if done again. If you are doing that now please say so and provide eviodence of where I have overstepped the "qualitative" mark. --Honestmistake 17:04, 16 July 2009 (BST)

K fine. What you have done here is vandalsim because this following eviodence demonstrates why you have only commented here to shitstir. This is the worse ruling I can remember. It's a total abuse of the system which, until this week, has always been regarded as a polite request that took a hell of a lot more than the substance of these 2 cases to result in a warning. Oh look, you are adding nothing to a closed case and abusively throwing your opinion into the case. And yes, I do expect my A/VB case for this but frankly i couldn't give less of a shit. Bring it on Bob, I know you've been itching to for ages. Admitting that you know the consequences of what you've done? One cringes to think how quickly you turned around to start defending yourself instead of just taking like you insinuated that you would. --ϑϑℜ 04:17, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I said i didn't give a shit if Bob brought a case because i knew he would not have a leg to stand on. My comment was directly relevant to the case in that was a direct protest at his asshattery. --Honestmistake 08:28, 17 July 2009 (BST)

My god, you don't give up do you? 1.You didn't SAY that. If you meant it, tough shit because it's not how we interpreted it and that's your bad, not ours. 2. What you said was not relevant to the case and just because what you said it is relevant to the case does not mean it was needed, what you claim basically gives any user free reign onto the main VB page because what they say "related to the case" regardless of how terrible their comments are. You admit it was a disruptive comment, you have repeated your flawed points consistently in this case and you obviously have nothing new to say. Shut the hell up and please wait for another sysop to confirm this. --ϑϑℜ 15:41, 17 July 2009 (BST)

For anyone interested to look, you will find both the cases mentioned above in April and Decembers logs. You might also want to read the pretty funny case against Bob in decembers log too... its a case for doing just this sort of thing but on a much, much grander and more abusive scale (it was also ruled not vandalism!) --Honestmistake 16:25, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Thanks for finding the evidence I need, Honest. You've had at leased one close case regarding this, and your persistence in this matter has cause a lot of trauma on a few occasions. Regardless of the box above and its worthlessness as a tool of enforcement, the edit for which you were brought here for was just too far for someone who has been under the scope for this before. --ϑϑℜ 16:49, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Are you really saying that because someone (Bob actually) tried to get me on this before that I am automatically guilty this time? I was found to be not guilty by every sysop who cared to comment last time.... thats unanimously in favour of it not in fact being against the rules. Bob was accused about 3 cases further up of making petty cases and was also found not guilty, does that mean he too is a vandal for being involved in similar cases before?--Honestmistake 17:00, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It is true that I have always disliked that box and it is true that I have always taken a stand when some over zealous dick has tried to abuse it... It is also true that i have always found to be either correct or at least to be well within reason to object. Even Grim agreed that what you two are doing was against the spririt of the dam thing and that its only purpose was to keep "pointless" garbage and trolls of the page. I am neither trolling or without point regardless of what you might think. --Honestmistake 17:00, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Yep, this is pretty much what happens when you reply to Honest. It just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. --Cyberbob 17:07, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Hmm, that looks awfully like needless chitter chatter that should be on the talk page... --Honestmistake 17:08, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Seriously? Petty as fuck. While we do VB folk for excessive posting on the main page (excessive being the important word here) this is just bullshit and reeks of an epic power trip. Until this box is voted on and has an approved policy document relating to it then this case is just spam and it's poster should be here as opposed to the person reported. -- C h e e s e 21:10, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism As much as cheese seems to be against it, its time we start getting a little more professional around here. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:55 17 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism Personal attacks, baiting, and commenting on cases that you are not involved with are pretty clearly bad faith. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:42, 17 July 2009 (BST)

unless of course its done to illustrate exactly how fucked up the case was. My post was not trolling, it was a simple statement of how i saw the facts. In any case not even one of those things is against the rules, we have no civility policy so personal attacks are supposedly fine. there is no rule that says that posting on A/VB without direct involvement is vandalism either... That leaves baiting, by which i guess you mean a form of trolling, that clearly is not against the rules because it is common across the whole damn wiki! --Honestmistake 15:09, 17 July 2009 (BST)

In fact, screw that... "commenting on cases you are not involved in' is not even murkily "Bad Faith" Try pulling your head out and reading the situation. =There was not even one ounce of bad faith in what I did. Bob was wrong; pure and simple; what I did was what I thought was right, ie not let Bob pull such a Bullshit action as VBing someone for a perfectly legitimate comment. This is not a personal fiefdom and when any user; thats ANY user see's it happen they should be free to make that point if they feel the need. --Honestmistake 15:15, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, and you can do it. On the god forsaken talk pages. Vandalism because the talkpage is there for a reason. To discuss shit.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:43, 17 July 2009 (BST)

4-2 in favour of vandalism, Warned - --ϑϑℜ 01:09, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I would like to dispute this ruling... when exactly has anyone ever been found guilty of vandalism for a one off offense here? At worse this would be a soft warning as i have never ever received any sanction whatsoever for posting here. I say again that my post was in good faith and done to highlight the travesty of the 2 vandal escalations (since revoked) handed out to J3D. My post was a direct response to a bad ruling... that ruling has since been upheld as bad by a majority of sysops meaning that my protest was not just reasonable but also upheld by the very people that are now saying i have no right to complain about it, despite the fucking rules saying that i can! Get a grip people, even Bob has agreed that he went about this in the wrong way so how can my protest be seen as vandalism??? --Honestmistake 01:39, 18 July 2009 (BST)

You are falling upon deaf ears. You know this is entirely considerable as vandalism and if you don't, you are seriously deluded. Let's just say this, now you can say you've had an offense here before, so stop whingeing. You got not vandalism last time because the sysops were so pre-occupied with negating the fallout from the mess that they just wanted everything wrapped up so quickly. Similar thing happened here today, except you weren't so lucky as to escape this time. What you did was vandalism. Read the comment you were brought here for, consider it from a sysop's perspective and tell me it doesn't warrant a warning based on shitting up the pages with disruptive content.

Would I be wrong to assume you will claim to do this and still dispute the ruling? *sigh* again, tough shit, deal with your impulsive behaviour and get over yourself. --ϑϑℜ 02:08, 18 July 2009 (BST)

there was nothing impulsive about my comment. I fully considered the fact that certain sysops might consider my actions to be vandalism and i was willing to run that risk because i believed, and still do, that i was right. The judgments against J3D were wholly wrong and no one with half a brain could possibly come to any other conclusion. My protest comment was made with full knowledge that it would be listed as vandalism and i knew that such a ruling might be made. However, I still regard it as stupid in the extreme that my protest against a bad ruling that has since been overturned can be regarded as vandalism. I repeat for your benefit DDR that there is not, and never has been a rule against posting here (Bob may have changed it to suggest that there might be but that does not make it fact) What I did posted was an antagonistic but wholly valid protest against an unjust ruling... if that is vandalism then you can expect more of the same next time you try to pull such shit. I say again there is no rule toprevent me or anyone else posting what we feel to be reasonable comments in any case here If that is not the case then how could you find Wans case to be not vandalism when he did essentially the same as me? --Honestmistake 02:21, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Oh yeah and "the sysops were so pre-occupied with negating the fallout from the mess that they just wanted everything wrapped up so quickly.' HAHAHAHAHA... I dont think so... the case was clearly not misconduct and was ruled as such, your suggestion otherwise is full of shit and you know it! --Honestmistake 02:25, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I never said it was in relation to the Misconduct case. You are beginning to get onto my nerves Honest. Just give up. You are shitting up the admin pages. Alot. --ϑϑℜ 03:21, 18 July 2009 (BST)

And because Honest asked me to re-evaluate my decision, I did. Re-Vandalism, because I'm really getting tired of everything that everyone else keeps putting on this page. If you haven't been able to tell Honest, it's not just your comment's here that I don't like, it's just about all of them. Precedence isn't against this charge of vandalism, as users have been given punishments for this, even for the ones that aren't really repeat offenders. The page rules are there to make it easier to make a case, report on it, and subsequently carry out the charge, whether it's vandalism or not. Following the box would actually be in-line with that interpretation of the rules. Hell, I went all the way through arbies to get Mistergame to stop posting on the main page, because even if it's entirely related, unless you're showing evidence, and saying a ruling is bullshit because of this this and this is not evidence, your post can go on the talk page. It's one link away, and is read all the same. Always has, always will be. Now shut the hell up with the martyr shit, it's not becoming of you.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:20, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Fine, someone issue my damn warning (could I have it on my user page?) and be done with. I've made my point and there is no reason to argue further --Honestmistake 17:04, 18 July 2009 (BST)

You've had your warning already, if you want to move it to your main user page, that's up to you -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:00 19 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah I had already posted when I realized. CyberBob has already moved it for me too, I wanted a sysop to do it rather than risk more drama and figured he was by far the most appropriate choice.--Honestmistake 00:25, 19 July 2009 (BST)

User:Dfdsf

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

2 counts of impersonation: [10] and [11]. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:42, 16 July 2009 (BST)

These two edits make up 100% of their contibutions thus far. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:42, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not an alt. Warned. Linkthewindow Talk 12:45, 16 July 2009 (BST)

With a note that one more vandal edit will lead to a perma (three edit rule.) Linkthewindow Talk 12:45, 16 July 2009 (BST)

User:Lolwat64

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

I will demonstrate that Lolwat64 is a sock puppet and that there is precedence for banning sock puppets for vandalism.

First, I refer you to this old reference threatening to ban sock puppets.

Second, there is precedence for actually banning an obvious sock puppet, even when check user does not reveal the user to be an IP clone. As in this case

Finally, I will show that Lolwat64 is a sock puppet. It was created for the sole purpose of voting against a guide. In fact, since making its one and only edit on July 7th, it has made no further contributions to the wiki.

It is clear that Lolwat64 was created as a false online identity to vandalize a vote. In support of this claim, I ask you to consider the circumstances surrounding the vote. The voting on the guide turned into an argument over meatpuppetry after a couple of votes were struck and unstruck. Following this, Lolwat64 appeared, as did its subsequent vote a mere 16 minutes later. It is an obvious "fuck you" to the voting process and to other users who were attempting to edit in good faith.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 09:06, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Check User returns a unique IP address that as far as I can tell is not a proxy. At worst this user is a product of meatpuppetry, which is heavily ironic. --Cyberbob 09:10, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Well... it did when I ran it back when the vote in question was made. It appears as though the data has been wiped since then. --Cyberbob 09:11, 16 July 2009 (BST)

1. The IP of the user isn't showing. 2. The 'sockpuppet' that was banned was not banned for being a sockpuppet. He was banned because he went on a vandal spree with his only 3 edits. The problem with this is there is nothing against a user doing something like this, unless we can prove then and there that it is a sockpuppet. Now it's too late for an IP check so there is nothing we can do. Sorry. --DanceDanceRevolution 09:14, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - No trace of the user on checkuser (which isn't surprising - it gets purged pretty quickly.) Secondly, the case you pointed to (this) is a completly different context. The alt wasn't banned for sockpuppetry, it was banned for vandalism under the three edit rule. Unless there's any further evidence, then I'll have to vote not vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 09:12, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I see your point that the Omega123 case was in a different context. Still, it was submitted under the premise that Omega123 was an obvious alt of someone committing vandalism (circumventing a ban). Also that case shows it is fairly easy for someone to thwart "check user". Actually a google search turns up hundreds of such programs that fit the purpose. Finally, I'd just ask you to exercise some common sense. You will never find a more obvious case of sock puppetry. True, it can never be proven, which is exactly why you must use your judgment. If you can't rule vandalism here you will be creating an awful precedent that any malicious user can have free reign to ruin any vote they want through sockpuppetry. Shall we open the gates?--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 17:36, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Don't use the 'common sense' concept. There is nothing in policy that we can do to a user like this because they haven't committed any vandalism, we can't link them to any user, and if we could, it would have to be a) a banned user or b)someone already voting on that review. If it isn't any of those two, then he is doing nothing wrong, even as an alt of another user. So even if we use our judgement to conclude that he is an alt, unless we decide he is an alt of someone already voting on that review (which we most definitely wouldn't), then we still couldn't do anything. And Omega was submitted under the premise that it was a sock of another user, but not because of that. It was submitted because it was engaging in vandalism, and that's why it was banned. --ϑϑℜ 03:55, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Come on DDR, I know you're smarter then that. Or maybe I did a terrible job of making my case. I'm saying that Lolwat64 is someone already voting on that review. And of course, they were smart enough to not use the same IP address. So you can't prove it and you must use... common sense. Let me ask you, does your gut tell you that Lolwat64 is a legitimate user, or do you think that someone was upset that I was "meatpuppeting" and so they decided to be "heavily ironic" and create their own sockpuppet? --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 16:56, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Actually no, asshole, it wasn't someone who had already voted. Wanna know something funny? It was me. And guess what? You're allowed to have a sock puppet account, and vote with it as long as you don't use your main to vote on the same thing. Guess what I didn't do? Vote with my main. I made an account, went through a proxy and voted, just to show you that your calls of meat puppeting could have easily been used against you. So, I was totally within the boundaries. Also "It is an obvious "fuck you" to the voting process and to other users who were attempting to edit in good faith." Hilarious, considering that you threatened, and went ahead and tried, to meat puppet your guide in. el oh el hyposcrisy?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:08, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Thank you for coming clean and then calling me an asshole. This demonstrates how easily a vote can be subverted and how willing you are to lay a landmine for others and then become righteously indignant about it. I'm satisfied it wasn't vandalism in that case. And I never made any threats or did anything sneaky.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 23:31, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Saying you will get people to vote on it is in itself a threat, just a very well mannered and civil one. Glad you didn't go and get a shit ton of people to vote for you, I'd be pretty pissed then. So you and I done with this little situation for ev's?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:52, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Sorry to interject, it's important, but votes made while using a proxy are invalid. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:17, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Perhaps, but I have the strong feeling that SA was taking the piss, leading us back to square one- no proof it was made by a proxy, etc. --ϑϑℜ 14:56, 18 July 2009 (BST)

No, really, it was me. You can ask Boberton, because I told him about it right when I was doing it. Hell, I even have it's log in info. Also, I've voted here through my main by proxy plenty of times, no ones said anything before, why should it matter now? If you have to use a proxy to edit the place, as long as it isn't disruptive or vandalism, it shouldn't really matter. But if someone else gets that proxy in trouble, and it's banned, tough shit right?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:48, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Open proxies should be automatically banned whenever discovered, however their contributions arn't automatically reverted unless vandalism is suspected. There is no need for their use here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:56 18 July 2009 (BST)

Yes suicide, I'm convinced it wasn't vandalism now, and I'm totally done with seeking corrective measures. I have a few complaints but I'll air those on your talk page and in the discussion area here.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 18:01, 18 July 2009 (BST)

User:Kakashi on crack

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Editing my comment. I'd only ask for a soft warning not to edit other user's comments. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:07, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Simple Vandalism, and warning. Rules are rules. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:52, 16 July 2009 (BST)

User:J3D (2)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Not using the talk page, again. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:28, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - Asking for an IP check is hardly contributing (we do know how to do our jobs), and with his recent warning for the same offence I would have thought he would have enough sense to lay low for a bit. --Cyberbob 09:19, 16 July 2009 (BST)

~~Vandalism~~ - Sorry J3D. You just can't do this after being warned once, you knew this'd happen. --ϑϑℜ 10:02, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not all vandalisers are IPed and i had a suspicion i knew who this was. Not to mention i fit the involved in the case part, in case you've forgotten bob while you were arguing about something or other i was out there on the front line reverting vandalism. Honestly if that sort of comment isn't allowed by the guy who did the reverting of the vandalism then there is seriously something wrong here...--x o x o 14:12, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It's been nearly a day since this case was brought, and over 5 hours since the last time a sysop made a ruling (a number of other sysops have made edits in this timeframe). Banned for 24 hours. --Cyberbob 15:26, 16 July 2009 (BST)

For the record: Not Vandalism. This is a power trip and it needs to stop now. -- C h e e s e 21:17, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Furthermore, I've unbanned J3D and request further input on this case. -- C h e e s e 21:22, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Downgraded to warning btw. -- C h e e s e 21:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Even in the box's strictest form, there was nothing to say that J3D couldn't contribute to this case. Struck my earlier warning. --ϑϑℜ 05:08, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Further downgraded to not vandalism. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krazy Monkey (talk • contribs) 14:24, 17 July 2009 (BST).

Bahaha DDR i love you and all but you need to get some of your own opinions rather than just jumping on the closest bandwagon rollin' on by.--x o x o 13:59, 18 July 2009 (BST)

You'd rather me stick by a decision that I deem a mistake rather than rectify it? How mature. --ϑϑℜ 14:03, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I'd rather know what made you change your mind. --x o x o 14:08, 18 July 2009 (BST)

The point is that you always either wait until other people have ruled on something to rule, or that if it turns out that a significant number of the more "senior" sysops disagree with a ruling you have made you almost always find a way to reverse it. --Cyberbob 14:11, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I dont' give a fuck how it looks to the fucking public, nor the sysops. You were the only sysop putting any sort of pressure on me to make any sort of ruling, so shut the fuck up. I did what I figured was right and admitted I made a mistake in my ruling. Big fucking woop. As for you J3D, you are the most immature little speck of shit I've ever met, IRL and internet. Don't ever think I feel proud for not pushing for your ban. --ϑϑℜ 14:19, 18 July 2009 (BST)

You don't give a fuck about how it looks to the public... shit, better not tell boxy! --Cyberbob 14:20, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Ummm, you did push for my ban dude. --x o x o 14:27, 18 July 2009 (BST)

See above pls. --ϑϑℜ 14:29, 18 July 2009 (BST)

J3D regardless of whether you're correct in this specific A/VB case or not (I really don't know) that is the best comment you've made, one of the best comments I've ever seen from anyone and I promise not to say or do anything vaguely antagonistic towards you for as long as I can remember to. Peace? --Cyberbob 14:11, 18 July 2009 (BST)

nv again semi-contributory.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:31, 17 July 2009 (BST)

And just for the record, should i ever have to serve a ban again i expect the amount of time i did here to be subtracted from it.--x o x o 14:52, 18 July 2009 (BST)

5 hours and 56 minutes, before anyone else considers doing it. --ϑϑℜ 15:00, 18 July 2009 (BST)

User:Ddrisfag

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Vandal spree. Permaed under the three edit rule. Linkthewindow Talk 14:51, 15 July 2009 (BST)

User:Hagnat (2)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Creating UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Bots. This is not an action that can just be done on a whim, it must be created through policy discussion first.-- Adward 14:28, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:30, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - this is the way it was done, before it was inadvertently changed when the system was changed to use the inclusion of monthly archives -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:34 15 July 2009 (BST)

Would you mind reading my response to that point before posting it literally everywhere? --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:34, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not the one spreading the drama to multiple locations -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:48 15 July 2009 (BST)

Drawde and Cyberbob just made it clear that they have no idea what vandalism is. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:47, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - But these things need to be discussed first. It doesn't matter if "that was the way it was done before" - before meaning a year ago, it still needs to be discussed as a year is a long time on the internet. And besides, is it really hurting anyone to get it discussed?

Voting not vandalism as Hag obviously didn't mean any harm with this but in future could everyone please start a discussion at the relevant talk page before making substantial changes to admin pages. It saves us drama and makes sure we've got consensus. For the record, I think we should stick with the current system, but that doesn't affect my ruling. Linkthewindow Talk 14:55, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism Holy shit, Bob. That's as bad as when Grim made the misconduct case against Karek for accidentally locking the pages while trying to format the "frames" originally. You can imagine after all of that drama and bullshit that that one section was overlooked and not added back. It was part of the page and there was no fucking POLICY DISCUSSION to remove it. Are you going to retro-actively Misconduct Karek for that, too? --– Nubis ^NWO 15:52, 15 July 2009 (BST)

While there are parallels to be made between the cases I don't think you can say that my motivations and Grim's are the same. All I want is to be able to say that there is no possibility of the manner in which we treat adbots on A/VB changing again in case we ever change the archival system again. I like what Hagnat did, I just don't like the way in which he did it. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 15:57, 15 July 2009 (BST)

fucking cunt! you know how to be completly counter-productive! You liked it, but want us to spend a whole lotta time discussing how we should be doing it ? Knoewing it will end up being implemented just like i wrote ? (cuz its basically how it used to be done, plus the 'delete-the-adbot-page' thing) You even named it for speedy deletion, instead of using it to discuss how to deal with bots! Fucking fuck bob! I am adding it back after my lunch break, and if you remove it again ill be reporting YOU for vandalism --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:02, 15 July 2009 (BST)

fucking cunt................................. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 16:07, 15 July 2009 (BST)

lollin pretty hard btw, you're too easy --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 16:08, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:07, 15 July 2009 (BST)

So where is the page discussing this change? I wish to enquire about changing it back to VB's original state. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Here. Linkthewindow Talk 03:00, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - It's common sense, we used to do it that way, everyone agrees it was a good idea and there was never a policy discussion to remove it in the first place.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:07, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Wtf bob? -- C h e e s e 21:45, 16 July 2009 (BST)

User:J3D

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Posting a comment on the main A/VB page that added absolutely nothing to the case. I don't think I need to put energy into arguing how intimately he knows not to do this, do I? --Cyberbob 04:04, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Lets Start Nipping these shall we? Vandalism. Bob, take care of the honors will you? Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:04, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Done. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 11:13, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Sometimes your ridiculousness defies words. --x o x o 12:24, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As my comments on the above cases. As this cancels out the ruling, I'd like a further opinion. I've removed J3D's ban due to the fact that this ruling has been called into question, thereby removing this escalation. -- C h e e s e 21:21, 16 July 2009 (BST)

You do know that me bringing the case counts as one ruling on its own, right? --Cyberbob 01:32, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Not true, if you choose to bring the case then you (as an involved party) no longer have the right to rule on it.--x o x o 01:51, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Bzzzt, wrong answer. Sorry! --Cyberbob 01:53, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I'm going to leave this case until tonight and if nobody else has touched it I'm going to put J3D's ban back on for the time he had remaining. You can take me to Misconduct for that if you like but I think you will find your efforts futile. --Cyberbob 01:50, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Nope. J3D's right, while you're the reporting user it it doesn't count towards a majority, particularly in a case such as this. And even then, DDR's voted Not Vandalism meaning it's 2-1 for not vandalism (even if we count you its 2-2) so re-banning J3D would be blatant misconduct. -- C h e e s e 18:39, 17 July 2009 (BST)

You're pretty daft: I clearly specified that "if nobody else has touched it I'm going to put J3D's ban back on". Did someone else touch it? Yes. I'm terribly sorry that my existence personally offends you Cheese but that doesn't excuse these little delusions of yours. --Cyberbob 18:55, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism. Honest's abuse of the box is the only one here that borders on vandalism. --ϑϑℜ 05:07, 17 July 2009 (BST)

nv, his comment was actually semi-useful for once. :D --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:27, 17 July 2009 (BST)

User:Hagnat

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Posting a comment on the main A/VB page that added nothing to the case. I think this is his first time so I guess a soft warning is all that's needed here. --Cyberbob 04:04, 15 July 2009 (BST)

yyeaahhh... you know these are only issued to frequent flyers, aight ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 05:16, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I'm kickstarting a return to the intentions of the box you yourself outlined. --Cyberbob 05:51, 15 July 2009 (BST)

The box was not supposed to hinder *all* duscussion, only the conterproductive ones. Even then, the box wasnt created to soft warn people, this was something grim started months later and which i and many others approved. And such warnings were always applied only to frequent offenders. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 12:16, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I see... so what you are saying is that you would rather an official warning rather than a soft one? That can always be arranged. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 12:43, 15 July 2009 (BST)

and btw, my comment added to the case and all spambit cases, while you issuing this soft warning did nothing. And i remember how when you didnt had psyops that you didnt liked to get soft warned for commenting on cases. Still, i am not surprised to see you issuing not one, but two of them --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 05:24, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not issuing a soft warning to you Hagnat - I'm making the case so someone else can? As for J3D, he's gone way beyond soft warnings but again I'm actually doing anything beyond posting the case. --Cyberbob 05:48, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Agreeing with Bob across the Board..Consider yourself warned with the banpillow as opposed to the banhammer. (Somebody want to make that official its 4 am my time and I might end up deleting the wiki...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:04, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Done. Hope I did it right but oh well. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 11:13, 15 July 2009 (BST)

(post hoc edit to clarify) Vandalism, but just barely. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:27, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - not even soft warnable. It was a constructive comment, expressing legitimate concerns with the way we're doing thing. Sysops creating pages that say "buy bystolic" or "buy levitra" seems to be giving the spambots undue air time (minus the links). They should be banned, and a note added to this page (at the top) and only left there for a day before deletion, simply for others to check (just like we used to do it) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:44 15 July 2009 (BST)

The adbot section of A/VB seems to have been lost during the change to monthly archive pages being template included on vandal banning, but they never used to be archived -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:50 15 July 2009 (BST)

If we "used to do it" that way where did ye olde template come from? --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 13:51, 15 July 2009 (BST)

My "used to do it" comment was in relation to the archiving of adbot reports, rather than the not creating pages just for the template, but most of them didn't have their product names as user names, so the indirect advertising issue didn't really come up. Still, what's the point in creating pages simply for templates, especially when you're advertising their products by doing so? Haggy may be a bit flaky at times, but he has a point here. It looks like these bots are created with these names so that even by being banned and us archiving the reports, they're still doing some good for their creators. The web-searchbots may even follow the diff comparisons we provide here and archive the spambot links in them, even though they've been reverted long ago -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:10 15 July 2009 (BST)

Hey, I've got nothing against doing it your way. I just figured the other way was the accepted one because otherwise the existence of the template doesn't make a lot of sense. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:17, 15 July 2009 (BST)

bots are created with these names so that even by being banned and us archiving the reports, they're still doing some good for their creators. The web-searchbots may even follow the diff comparisons we provide here and archive the spambot links in them, even though they've been reverted long ago -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:10 15 July 2009 (BST)

Web crawlers dont dig wiki diffs, IIRC, so thats not a issue. Anyway, i just re-created the bots sections (in a page for itelf) and added it to A/VB and this month archive. Hope it makes it easier to report adbots and to discuss how to treat them, since they are a problem for the whole wiki and its userbase --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:19, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Unfortunately you can't do that, at least not without mentioning it first. Sorry! --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:21, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Why not? It's reverting it to the way it was done before it inadvertently got taken out in the last change to the VB archive system. If you've got some sort of problem with it, let's hear it, but otherwise, why make a big drama fest over it? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:26 15 July 2009 (BST)

I want to clamp down on the fluidity of the system here by having it taken to A/PD. Otherwise this sort of thing could happen again. That's actually not the main point, though it is part of it. The main point is that people shouldn't be messing around with things without at least making a point of proposing it on a relevant talk page first and letting it be discussed. This is exactly the shit that got Hagnat into trouble on Misconduct so many times, I'm not going to sit back and let him keep on trucking. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:30, 15 July 2009 (BST)

He's putting back something that has been on the A/VB page for as long as I remember, and was taken out inadvertently. You don't need A/PD to fix a page up to the way it's supposed to be -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:37 15 July 2009 (BST)

You do if you don't want to run the risk of the same thing happening again. A little insurance goes a long way. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:38, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Lame. Litigation for litigation's sake. It has been clearly pointed out to you that the adbot section has long been a part of the approved and accepted A/VB system, and that it was inadvertently removed, without A/PD approval, and Hagnat is fixing the page back up to work as intended. Sure, talk about it if you must, but don't vandal ban Hagnat because he is fixing a page that someone else mistakenly altered -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:47 15 July 2009 (BST)

It has been clearly pointed out to you (fucking love that phrasing btw, really gets across that sense of "you are a CHILD" I shall have to remember it) that I support the system as Hagnat created it but no this is not "litigation for litigation's sake". I am trying to prevent the precedent from being created where anyone can go bulldozing through pages without asking anyone whether it's a good idea first - yes these things can be reverted easily (usually) but it's far easier for people to make at least a show of going through the proper channels in the first place. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 15:00, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Are you pulling that rule out of your ass ? Lots of new stuff are done without asking. That the whole point of a wiki, to be bold, create new stuff and tweak them later! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:27, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Don't quote Wikipedia at me, you twat. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:30, 15 July 2009 (BST)

being bold is not something new here --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:45, 15 July 2009 (BST)

So, boxy votes not vandalism and bob makes the case (and we assume that means he votes vandalism) and that some how became vandalism? That's a tie there, bucky. You can't just edit the box to say what you want... oh wait, that's what you are on about with hagnat... Or IRONY. Not Vandalism --– Nubis ^NWO 16:01, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Conndraka said it was vandalism, he just didn't bold it. Whoops, how embarrassing! --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 16:03, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Like I read anything that he says anyway. Also, it was buried in your shit storm of whining about policy, Iscariot. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:06, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Derp, it's hardly buried... got any other rabbits in there? --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 16:08, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Awww you called someone else Iscariot... How cute, that must be your insult of the season? I'm confirming this as Not Vandalism. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (BST)

User:Laura

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Adbotery? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:43 13 July 2009 (BST)

Surely there are no sanctions for a spam account just because it is run by a human and not a bot? Hmm. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:53, 14 July 2009 (BST)

If it's run by a person I would say treat it as any other regular user because humans (generally) know what warnings are. --Cyberbob 06:05, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Agreed, but if there's any more adbot-style edits, perma under the three-edit rule. Linkthewindow Talk 07:05, 14 July 2009 (BST)

If their only function as a user is to spam adds, then they are just as bad as the humans that employ the bots in the first place. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:40, 14 July 2009 (BST)

They've only made one edit. Wait and see. --Cyberbob 10:22, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Fair enough. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:23, 14 July 2009 (BST)

This is an odd case, I'm going to rule Not Vandalism and see if another sysop wants to step in for this one. She deserves the rights of a normal account and technically she wasn't spamming because she only did it to one page, just see where her second contribution takes her, I guess... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:58, 16 July 2009 (BST)

User:What_an_idiot_would_have_on_his_luggage

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Replaced two pages with ==12345== and their signature, they've no other edits besides those two replacements. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:10, 11 July 2009 (BST)

its now 3 edits, all vandalism. So thats a perma ban--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:11, 11 July 2009 (BST)

Wait, what? Contribs says only 3 edits. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 20:13, 11 July 2009 (BST)

All of which were vandalism. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:14, 11 July 2009 (BST)

Uh... I'm only seeing two edits: the MOB and A/VB replacements. What's their third? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:15, 11 July 2009 (BST)

Did I type 3? I meant 2. He's only edited 2 pages. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 20:16, 11 July 2009 (BST)

He edited MOB twice. You reverted it the first time, I reverted it the second, plus the vandalism on this page. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:18, 11 July 2009 (BST)

Actually rubbish it was 2, I'll un perma and issue the warning. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:19, 11 July 2009 (BST)

I'm guessing it might've been something like "User vandalizes MOB, Darth and Ross simultaneously try to revert, Ross gets edit conflicted and closed a tab or something and didn't realize that there wasn't actually a second vandalism of the MOB page." Heh. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:24, 11 July 2009 (BST)

Cause I'm fast on the draw like that. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 20:34, 11 July 2009 (BST)

2 edits, vandalism. Warned. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:25, 11 July 2009 (BST)

User:MisterGame

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24 hr ban

Posted on the A/VB main page when he's been involved in so many cases of this sort of thing that it's almost (but not quite) funny that he still thinks he has the right to in cases that don't involve him. --Cyberbob 16:14, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I have seen you move Jed's comments to the talk countless times, and he's more experienced then I am, could I sense some bias there? Also, this rule your talking about, is enforced very selectively by sysops, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Finally, I'm being asked not forced.--Thadeous Oakley 16:22, 7 July 2009 (BST)

If you think I am biased towards Jed you're even dumber than you look and act. As for the rest it's all literally the same tired old arguments that get trotted out every time one of these cases is brought up. --Cyberbob 16:27, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I said you moved his comments, without making a vandal case. But then again, you do whatever you like Bob.--Thadeous Oakley 16:41, 7 July 2009 (BST)

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. Change that policy into a forceful rule, or leave it. Also, you did the exact thing in Arb case where you were not involved in. --Thadeous Oakley 16:44, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I don't have to change it - there are numerous examples of people being escalated for posting on this page after being told not to (the word "asks" only gives you some leeway on the first few times, not full-on carte blanche). As for the Arbitration case I notice you never did link me to the place with that "guideline" you kept citing. Second time's the charm? --Cyberbob 16:47, 7 July 2009 (BST)

There are also numerous examples of people's comments not being moved to talk for various reasons.--Thadeous Oakley 17:00, 7 July 2009 (BST)

None of which apply to your particular comment I'm afraid (still no link I see... third time perhaps?). --Cyberbob 17:01, 7 July 2009 (BST)

My comment was on-topic. Just like Jed's comment here. Oh look, his comments are on the main page! But how can this be? He is not involved after all, and yet his comments aren't moved to talk nor does he receive a vandal case. Perhaps because sysops enforce this rule selectively?--Thadeous Oakley 17:07, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Speaking of arbies cases, I'd like to point out this litle bit in the case he already accepted (While I did not, it doesn't change the fact that he did):

- MisterGame is not to contribute to admin pages that don't ask for community input unless he is an involved party (the talk pages are still open to comment though). Admin pages such as A/D ask for community input (votes), while A/VB is discussed by sysops and involved parties only (reporting an A/VB case counts as being involved).

"Well at least I chose an good arbitrator...Fine, I'll accept your ruling Boxy.--Thadeous Oakley 23:08, 22 June 2009 (BST)"

Ho, look at that. Can't even follow a simple arbies ruling he agreed to. Just like I knew he couldn't. Hell, I doubt he even fully read it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:08, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Can't even accept a simple arbies ruling he agreed to by accepting arbitration in the first place. Hypocrite.--Thadeous Oakley 17:35, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Then again, the ruling was shit on the talking ban. This right here should be a perfect example as to why you should be permanently banned from using my talk page.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:44, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Still doesn't change the fact that sysops don't enforce this rule 100%. More examples of non-involved users being allowed to comment on the main page, here and here--Thadeous Oakley 17:20, 7 July 2009 (BST)

That still doesn't excuse what you've done and how it is wrong. You are specifically prohibited from adding to these pages. If you have a problem with other users doing it, then consider changing the guidelines. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:22, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Well, in light of the arbitration ruling, there is no reason why Mistergame should have been commenting on any part of Cyberbob's case, and hence this is vandalism. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:19, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Question What would your ruling have been without the arby ruling? Just asking.--Thadeous Oakley 17:22, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I would have ruled not vandalism, and I would have used this case as a basis incase Bob ever brought you here again for the same reason (in which I would have deemed what you had done the second time as vandalism). D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I would have handled this all myself by now, but since it's a 24 hour ban, I'd like a second sysop to come in and confirm/review this case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:14, 8 July 2009 (BST)

I'm abiding by the parts of the arbitration ruling I agree with and refraining from ruling.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 05:32, 8 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - As DDR. In light of the arbies ruling you shouldn't have been commenting on any case (see: "MisterGame is not to contribute to admin pages that don't ask for community input unless he is an involved party (the talk pages are still open to comment though). Admin pages such as A/D ask for community input (votes), while A/VB is discussed by sysops and involved parties only".) There's no reason why you shouldn't have been commenting on Bob's case - use the talk page. Linkthewindow Talk 05:48, 8 July 2009 (BST)

And banned for a day. Linkthewindow Talk 05:55, 8 July 2009 (BST)

Disregard that, got to check if he's eligible for a deescalation first. Linkthewindow Talk 05:57, 8 July 2009 (BST)

He isn't - his last warning was on the 26th of June which is less than a month ago. --Cyberbob 05:58, 8 July 2009 (BST)

Just checked. He's banned for a day (and stop edit conflicting me, people >:(.) Linkthewindow Talk 06:00, 8 July 2009 (BST)

Arbies violations are a day ban anyway. "As a note, by requesting an Arbitration, all parties are thus obliged to accept the outcome of the Arbitration. Not doing will be considered Vandalism, and such vandalism attempts will be treated as if the vandal has already received two warnings" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:43 8 July 2009 (BST)

Are you suggesting what I think you are suggesting? *begins adding multiplier* D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:02, 8 July 2009 (BST)

No, only that a 24hr ban is the minimum for a violation of an arbies ruling -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:07 8 July 2009 (BST)

And thats why I kept loling in irc. Because you guys kept getting flustered over if it was a day ban or not, when he was going to get one anyway. Was I wrong about promoting you and link? ;) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:51, 8 July 2009 (BST)

I was joking... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:07, 15 July 2009 (BST)

The discussion concerning arbitration punishments continues here.

User:Cyberbob240

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Thoughts people? --x o x o 15:28, 7 July 2009 (BST)

If that isn't a fishing expedition I don't know what is. --Cyberbob 15:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Someone want to rule on this or not? --Cyberbob 01:29, 8 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism I suppose.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:32, 8 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - The precedence(s) that every noob like me was probably thinking of, in relation to that policy. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:55, 8 July 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - but only just. Bob shouldn't have struck the vote, but at the same time Giles had been warned on DDR's talk page over the issue. Bob wasn't acting in bad faith over what he honestly saw as a meatpuppet vote, but the precedent DDR linked to above pretty much says that meatpuppet votes shouldn't be struck. Please don't do it again Bob, or otherwise it'll be vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 05:53, 8 July 2009 (BST)

Given that bob knows that vote striking of meatpuppets has been ruled ruled to not be allowed in the past (he even complained to Kevan about how sysops were getting off for it), and the fact that the users involved have a long contributions history on the wiki, this was a very unwise edit. That said, Giles did specifically state that he was going to drum up support from his group. I would suggest that the best way to contest suspected meatpuppetry is through arbitration (or something similar), where evidence can be presented and openly discussed. In fact this whole case should probably be in a/a, being an edit conflict -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:32 8 July 2009 (BST)

Don't make this more than it is thanks. The voting is over, and the votes being unstruck did not end up affecting the outcome. I'd be happy to take this to arbies if a) the vote was on something more important than a guide that nobody will read anyway and b) the votes in question were the deciding factor. Neither of these things are the case here so please just rule on this case and be done with it. --Cyberbob 12:35, 8 July 2009 (BST)

Case finished- Not Vandalism. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:55, 9 July 2009 (BST)

Izumi Alts

Verdict	Vandal Alts
Action taken	All Permabanned

User:Martyr

Hey, look who's back to stir up more trouble. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:29, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Link said:

There was a fire in SA's apartment block, hence the lack of vote. Linkthewindow Talk 03:32, 5 July 2009 (BST)

You want a vote? Here's the start of a damn vote. If anyone says no to the vote, I cite Conndraka starting a vote on A/M where if at least one user asks for it, it's allowed to be started.

Continued permaban of izumi and any alternate accounts

Fuck letting her off in any way whatsoever. OH WOE IS ME THE ADMIN TEAM IS SO SHIT *makes tens and tens of vandal alts* *alts get banned* BAWWWW I'M SO HARD DONE BY --Cyberbob 02:29, 6 July 2009 (BST)
I don't want to discuss this, it is stupid. Unfortunately for Izumi, I don't have the "honor" to allow her to have her say as she honorably makes scores of alts to spurt out her "say", which includes begging us to listen to her opinion while she rants about how fucked we are, cries using flawed logic and then continues to do so after we use policy to ban her. My ears would be open to Izumi if she didn't use such an idiotic method of getting our attention. As far as I'm concerned, you had chances and you fucked them up, as below. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:59, 6 July 2009 (BST)
Giving in to threats of continued sockpuppet vandalism only encourages future banned vandals to throw similar tantrums. This is the legitimate way to contest a ban that you think is unfair -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:30 6 July 2009 (BST)
If we do this, we'll only be encouraging future vandalism. "I don't want to be banned - I'll created a million sockpuppets, annoy the hell out of the admins and the community, and hope they throw a vote to unban me!" Although I honestly know little about the circumstances surrounding Izumi's perma, I do know that creating sockpuppet accounts isn't the way to go about getting yourself unbanned. Especially when those socks troll active users, vandalize pages and generally be an ass. For the record, I wouldn't be against the unbanning of former vandals, as a "last chance," but not after they've created 50+ socks. Linkthewindow Talk 07:36, 6 July 2009 (BST)
As above. The thing that I find interesting is that even though we've banned her IP address she seems able to get around the block on that same IP address. =/ -- C h e e s e 14:49, 6 July 2009 (BST)
Not anymore, the IP was "blocked", but the option to only block anonymous users must have been checked, meaning that signed up accounts (the only ones we have on UDWiki) could still post. I unblocked the IP and reblocked it properly a day or two ago, which is why she's been using other proxies lately -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:35 6 July 2009 (BST)
Considering the continued disrespect for the rules....If she took a year and then came back and apologized maybe then...but not now. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:58, 6 July 2009 (BST)
Agreeing with Bob for the second time today.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:43, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Modification of izumi's perma ban in some way.

Unban her main account. As it is now, she has nothing to lose by vandalizing because her accounts are already ban on site so wtf difference does vandalizing something add to that? You can't say that "well, if she wanted to reform she should use her permaban evasion account to do good." That's really dumb. She has contacted sysops in a reasonable manner asking for a "pardon" with no results. Why not negotiate with her and try to solve this in a way that is less of a hassle for us all? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:12, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Viable options include: Lowering the ban to a definite amount of time (For example, 6 months), unbanning her main account but giving her a single chance until she's re-perma'd, keeping her current accounts banned but not banning any non-vandalizing alts we discover, etc.

Fucking discuss.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:04, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Vote concluded at 7 for the continuation of the ban, and 1 for the modification of the ban in some way. Her ban continues as is, with no chance of ever being changed unless a policy is instated that would somehow affect her ban. This sound good?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:34, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Doesn't matter whether it sounds good to us or the community, it's up to Izumi to decide whether she's been hard done by yet again. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:35, 7 July 2009 (BST)

You really think she won't? --Cyberbob 02:20, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Nup. Just saying. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)

(banned the account, by the way) --Cyberbob 07:20, 6 July 2009 (BST)

User:Renamon

Izumi alt. --Cyberbob 00:31, 6 July 2009 (BST)

User:Aloha246

Izumi alt. --Cyberbob 07:55, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:Wiki Crusader

Izumi alt. --Cyberbob 07:49, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:No_Escape

No one's forcing you to be a vandal, but you seem to be forcing yourself to be an idiot. (Izumi alt) --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:34, 5 July 2009 (BST)

(if you dignify serial vandals with even the most cursory of comments it only spurs them on no matter how "witty" you are) --Cyberbob 07:36, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:DiaperBob240

Izumi alt. --Cyberbob 07:25, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:DiaperBob

Izumi alt. --Cyberbob 07:23, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:Darth Izumi

Izumi alt. --Cyberbob 07:17, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:The Vandalizer

Izumi alt. --Cyberbob 06:31, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:Celestial Runeseeker

Izumi alts strike again! --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 05:22, 5 July 2009 (BST)

Banned again -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:31 5 July 2009 (BST)

Anyone against doing a manual IP block? I've checked her IP using this and it isn't shown as a proxy. Linkthewindow Talk 05:39, 5 July 2009 (BST)

~~Handled it.~~ It gave me the "...is already blocked" message so I guess either IPs are indeed blocked for the entire duration of the user's ban or we'll just have to wait until it wears off. --Cyberbob 06:41, 5 July 2009 (BST)

Your feeble bans are no match for the dark side of the force. Darth Izumi 07:15, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:LinktheDildo

And again. Linkthewindow Talk 05:13, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:Beautiful_Lotus

Looks like another one, from edits similar to below. I'm not quite sure what happened to "I'm done with your stupid wiki and its nazi moderators." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:58, 5 July 2009 (BST)

Altnes confirmed via checkuser. Linkthewindow Talk 05:07, 5 July 2009 (BST)

Truly, it has been proven now that Link and Boxy are merely trolls in management positions. How did it come to this? LinktheDildo 05:11, 5 July 2009 (BST)

How mature of you. Linkthewindow Talk 05:12, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:Boxy is a Sissy Girl

Hal can help! --Haliman - Talk 03:40, 5 July 2009 (BST)

Gone -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:46 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:Rectification

And again (Boxy got this one.) Linkthewindow Talk 03:29, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:Angelfood_Cake

And again (another Izumi alt.) Linkthewindow Talk 03:18, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:Messenger

See below - another Izumi alt. Linkthewindow Talk 02:57, 5 July 2009 (BST)

User:Neozumi

Got a suspicion that this is an alt of Izumi. I would ban her right away, but I'll wait for someone who knows the history of the cases more (unless she starts off with more vandalism.) Linkthewindow Talk 02:38, 5 July 2009 (BST)

Perma - it is indeed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:49 5 July 2009 (BST)

Can we just fucking let the permaban go on this one? I mean, Grim took over the fucking wiki and only got 6 months. All she did is be a pest and evade a ban for vandalism. I mean, this is fucking retarded. Let her make REAL mistakes and then deal with it. FFs, you put up with all these other troll fucks spamming the wiki and actually bothering and harassing people, but you draw the line at some crazy chick that just wants to be here? --– Nubis ^NWO 03:07, 5 July 2009 (BST)

As I said here, "Izumi has always been a "real" vandal, editing group pages, other people's posts, even after plenty of warnings, and then comes back after the ban and does the exact same thing again, and when she gets done for it, as she had to, she starts spamming the forum with dozens of alt accounts. She's not someone who we want back, given that the first bloody thing she did was vandalise the wiki again with throw away accounts. Don't encourage her, FFS" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:14 5 July 2009 (BST)

Really? May I ask how the fuck that is your decision to make? I demand a full vote with input from every sysop, NOT Boxy who has been on Grim's side since the beginning and refuses to even respond to me when I address him directly. How the hell does that constitute good moderation? That's just cowardly, he knows I have a point but how dare he be proven wrong, its easier to simply continue to ban me. If you want a real vandal, then that's what you'll get, but not until I'm sure everyone here has forsaken me. And SuicidalAngel has told me directly that he would hold a vote in my name, this was months ago, and I've received no update thus far. So here I am. Give me some form of decency or I'll simply keep coming back here to haunt you. Rectification 03:26, 5 July 2009 (BST)

It's not my decision to make whether Izumi is permbanned. It's clear policy. Izumi got escalated to a month ban by multiple sysops before Grim ever got involved. It was inevitable that she was going to chuck a wobbly and start creating alt accounts no matter which sysop had the job of giving her that month ban, and once that started it was also inevitable that she'd wind up permbanned. It's not any individual sysop that caused it, but rather Izumi's own flawed personality and lack of any form of common sense -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:30 5 July 2009 (BST)

There was a fire in SA's apartment block, hence the lack of vote. Linkthewindow Talk 03:32, 5 July 2009 (BST)

Okay Boxy, how many times must I bring this up? LISTEN this time! Really! Open your ears!!! WIKI POLICY, as you are so fond of upholding when it suits you, states that users are only punished for BAD FAITH. None of my alts accounts have committed any acts of vandalism other than existing. And they will continue to exist, regardless of your actions. I've got them piled up, just in case you IP ban my proxies; I've got well over 50 I haven't even used yet. So LISTEN this time: I have broken no rules of the wiki in over two years. Any reasonable sysop would consider that time served, especially for someone with no interest of causing any problems. Your red-tape BS is accomplishing NOTHING. Nothing is going to be harmed if I am allowed to return. I will keep to myself. I will NOT cause even a slight amount of drama. I've proven this time and time again over the last two years. So please tell, WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR YOU TO CONTINUE TREATING ME LIKE A VILLAIN OTHER THAN TO BE A POMPUS DICK? Think about it. Boxy is a Sissy Girl 03:38, 5 July 2009 (BST)

"None of my alts accounts have committed any acts of vandalism other than existing".

This is one of Izumi's contributions with a sock puppet. Clear cut vandalism to community pages with two seperate alts, and only 5 months ago. There are three options, either Izumi has a very short memory, is delusional, or is a flat out liar. The fact that we have a number of sysops that are prepared to actively "look the other way" on a clear and persistent vandal is unbelievable. If you don't want the job of banning this vandal's sockpuppets, then go to A/PD and create a policy to give her (specifically her) another chance, or head over to A/DM -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:22 5 July 2009 (BST)

Well, clearly the approach of banning like crazy is working. And I love how once again, anytime someone has an opinion other than yours let's just fucking tell them to go to A/DM. Very open minded of you there. I can see why you are so respected.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:40, 5 July 2009 (BST)

And I love how you ignored me telling you the solution. Put it to an A/PD vote, and if the community wants her back for one more chance then so it will be. But just sending the message that "if you proxy up, and cause enough of a ruckus, we'll just let you off because it's all too hard" is just going to encourage more of the same in the future, and is hardly fair to others who complied with their bans -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:17 5 July 2009 (BST)

I simply love how you are all for enforcing bureaucratic nonsense while ignoring the purpose they are supposed to uphold. Permabans are for getting rid of career vandals who edit purely in "bad faith". I can point out exactly where this is stated, if you like. I can also point out the little overlooked rule that says bans are not in place to punish users, which seems to be the case here, by the way, but to reform them, at which point they are, and I quote,welcome to return and edit the wiki. I have tried and tried to point this out in the past, but it has fallen on deaf ears. But at the very least, I will ensure that every user here knows, that the sysops here do not enforce the rules, but their own marshal law. If the community is fine with this, then so be it. But I suggest anyone who has a sense of honor calls Boxy's bluff and takes this to A/PD. If not for me then for the sake of the community, because a wiki is supposed to be a democracy, not a socialist hell. Renamon 00:27, 6 July 2009 (BST)

User:Jason 'Fock'n' Stafam

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	None required

Harassment of Calista Griffin.

Example1

Example2 Posted under a sock puppet

This Page provides context to the comments on her physical appearance. Someone was stalkerish enough to track down Calista's Real Life Myspace page, took the pictures off it and posted them on twitter Here (Link is now down as twitter suspended the account due to impersonation and harassment) --MoonShine 13:07, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - there is a limit to what they can reveal here, but petty little quips like this about someone's appearance, on their own page, don't hit the limit for me -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:47 4 July 2009 (BST)

User:Imthatguy

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24hr ban

Spamming people's talk pages with his "revolution". At the time of this report he's posted it on 16 different talk pages (check his contribs because I'm not going to post all those links). My memory on this is sketchy but I think the cutoff for this sort of thing being vandalism is 12 talk pages or something? --Cyberbob 05:16, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Just spreading the word.......... DOWN WITH THE CRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Imthatguy 05:18, 4 July 2009 (BST)

I was under the impression it was 20.--x o x o 05:39, 4 July 2009 (BST)

It is generally about 20, yes but, there's also the situational thing, so while most things limit to 20 for escalations blatant spam is still spam. --Karek^maps?! 06:48, 4 July 2009 (BST)

This isn't a ruling just an opinion, because I don't have the desire to check it out...BUT if all he did was post those on all the crat pages then its "Not Vandalism" but if he posted to other individuals as well as AND exceeded the usual spam level then it is "Vandalism". As Sysops we have to realize that this comes with the territory of being a sysop and if somebody wants to make a statement to all of us (no matter how many of us there are) then we've got to deal with it and delete/revert it off your/our talk pages if you/we are so inclined. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 08:50, 4 July 2009 (BST)

I agree with Conn, but he's also posted it on the following three: [12], [13] and [14]. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:53, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Plus the final straw here a community page, I'm saying vandalism because there is no good that could come out of this spamming. At leased for us power-hungry elitists, of course. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:19, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Funny how General Discussion is for thing such as what i posted --Imthatguy 01:29, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Sure I'll be fueling his fantasies by doing this, but spamming all the sysop pages, one community page, a few regular (non-sysop) user pages, and a newbie's page is vandalism. It's bad faith, and it's annoying. Linkthewindow Talk 10:56, 4 July 2009 (BST)

This will be a 24 hr ban, as he's got two escalations and isn't eligible for a deescalation. Anyone else want to rule? Linkthewindow Talk 11:00, 4 July 2009 (BST)

24hr ban - it was fine, up to the point where you started putting it on non-sysop pages, a step too far. If you're serious, make your point on General Discussion rather than simply spamming your template -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:35 4 July 2009 (BST)

User:MoonShine

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Posting a humourous suggestion in the regular suggestions area. I'm tempted to take DDR to Misconduct for voting Keep on it but we'll see. --Cyberbob 03:14, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - Suggestions deemed humorous are considered vandalism, simple. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:42, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Semi taken from talk page: From the notfunny template: "If you are unsure of a how a suggestion will be viewed by the community, it is recommended that it be placed on the Developing Suggestions page first, to gauge community support, and to improve it before being taken to voting."

As you'll see here i put it to discussion where it met near unanimous approval and i subsequently added it to voting. "11:38 AM DanceDanceRevolution: and you're going to get VB'd for that suggestion" this was the closest thing to a warning that it would not be taken seriously i received you will notice that it is timestamped at XX:38. the suggestion page in question was created at XX:33 at which point there was nothing and still is nothing on the discussion page saying it should be classed as humorous. --MoonShine 04:37, 1 July 2009 (BST)

I was edit conflicted on the talk page but I was about to confirm that I wasn't sure whether I had warned Moonie via IRC before or after the suggestion. Either way, it still means you shouldn't be surprised by this outcome. Sorry :( And regardless of being warned beforehand/afterwards, rules is rules. No humorous stuff in suggestions. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:46, 1 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not terribly surprised but i believe i should receive a warning or at most a 24hr ban which counts as a first warning possibly accompanied by a rewrite of the suggestion pages to prevent something like this happening again. I was serious and i followed the instructions to the letter. --MoonShine 04:54, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Er, why would you receive anything more than a warning? You do know what the escalation guidelines are, right? --Cyberbob 04:55, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Well DDR asked if he could give me a VB in IRC and *looks up* that's a fancy page title. Yes i do but i thought there was some fancy sysop-fu going on to escalate it to a ban --MoonShine 04:58, 1 July 2009 (BST)

ummmmm well you're wrong. I honestly don't know what could have given you that impression but yeah - it never happened. --Cyberbob 04:59, 1 July 2009 (BST)

I could have sworn I asked if I could give you the warning... But no, you won't be banned. We aren't barbarians, you know. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:00, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Ok fine i will accept my spanking/warning on the condition that is performed by Linkthewindow (preferably signed as jess) and the entry on my talk page makes reference to a paddle --MoonShine 05:16, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - What DDR said. We can't devalue the suggestion system (more) as most of that stuff is read by Kevan. As Gnome said on the talk page, rules are rules, and we don't want to dilute the quality of suggestions even more. Also, your discussion was obviously meatpuppeted. IRC rules, eh :P Linkthewindow Talk 05:20, 1 July 2009 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 07

User:J3D (2)

User:Hagnat (2)

Izumi Alts

Navigation menu

Search