UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 08

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

August 2009

Buzz Killington

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

Check User shows pretty conclusively that this is an alt of one of the 2 Special crowd being used to try and artifically influence the Bureaucrat Promotions outcome. Banned. Cyberbob Talk 03:01, 29 August 2009 (BST)

Well you're wrong. See if you bothered checking this whatsoever you'd see 2 Special has 2 members (weird, huh?) and we both voted differently. Since i'm the only one who voted boxy you're saying i did this. Unless you're saying nick sockpuppeted for someone different to whom he voted for? Poor detective skills there bob.--x o x o 05:25, 29 August 2009 (BST)

Not me. That leaves... oh wait - an innocent bystander! lolololololol.--Nallan (Talk) 09:01, 29 August 2009 (BST)

HAHAHAHAHHA lolirl --x o x o 09:16, 29 August 2009 (BST)

tbh, this still isnt a proven sockpuppet. I'm of the inclination to say somebody jumped the gun? The account is dodgy, yes, but smells a bit of a quick trigger finger?--CyberRead240 12:54, 29 August 2009 (BST)

The evidence for far outweighs the evidence against. Cyberbob Talk 13:00, 29 August 2009 (BST)

Not particularly, the evidence for you having an interest in it because the person COULD be a puppet of a group you despise is pretty strong too. I am just saying, I think you jumped the gun and you should have let someone else handle the banning, and just posted the person up for Vandalism. It just reeks of ruling with a personal interest.--CyberRead240 13:11, 29 August 2009 (BST)

I don't agree about personal interest, but I agree there isn't enough evidence to prove sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry isn't bannable or even strikeable. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:13, 29 August 2009 (BST)

It is suspect though, but it could have at leased undergone some sort of discussion or investigation into it, that way we may have been able to find the proof we sought. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:15, 29 August 2009 (BST)

Exactly, the evidence doesnt support the decision to permaban so quickly. I mean, if it is so certainly a sockpuppet, wouldnt it be worth pinning it on somebody rather than saying "its in this city, so its one of them, banned". I know we are a small town but it could have been a multitude of people. You know as well as I do that many UD players, current or former, listen to us talk about the wiki. Any one of them could have joined, known who boxy was and voted. It is just a permaban without sufficent evidence. Letting the sops vote would have been better.--CyberRead240 13:25, 29 August 2009 (BST)

Bans are reversible with a single click (actually like two or three but whatever). If other sysops have a problem with it (thinking ones other than DDR since he is a candidate for being the person behind it) they're more than welcome to get something started. Like I said on the crat promotion page: I hope I'm wrong, I just don't think I am. Cyberbob Talk 13:32, 29 August 2009 (BST)

I'm fine with that, though the longer the user is banned, the longer you risk being banned yourself if brought to a successful misconduct case. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:53, 29 August 2009 (BST)

I have no problems with that. Cyberbob Talk 13:56, 29 August 2009 (BST)

So you are saying you are confident (see:cocky) enough that you wont be found guilty of misconduct if a case was put forward? Is this because you feel you haven't broken any rules, or is it because you feel you can manipulate on wiki stuff via other avenues? Because from where I am sitting, this person has been banned for a day, you have shown little regard for them and for your banhammer powers by saying you could remove the ban in one click, as well as saying you feel what you did was entirely legal, calling someone a sockpuppet of another user, without actually naming a user. The precedent you have set is, any IP from the same town as another IP is a sockpuppet. You cant say "its coz ur in smal town lol" because without actually naming and banning a user who was pulling the strings, you have just banned (no, permabanned) a user without the full measure of proof. You threw the banhammer down on a personal issue, without enough evidence besides "they are from the same area" I think someone has to pull the strings for it to be a sockpuppet, otherwise the puppet wouldnt move. So go on, name the puppet master or admit you have abused your powers.--CyberRead240 19:07, 30 August 2009 (BST)

So i take all this to mean bob that the IP is from read/ddr/nick/many other people's town? If so why exactly am i 50% of the people you accused as being the user? What the fuck have i got to do with this? If it came from the IP of another user please make an a/vb case against them.--x o x o 06:08, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Don't worry found answers on Talk:A/BP. I'm blamed because '2 Special' means everyone from bbk including ddr and you don't know who did it and are just naming names for dramas sake, cool.--x o x o 06:15, 30 August 2009 (BST)

I've unblocked the account until this issue is resolved. We can reblock when/if it is determined that the account is a sockpuppet.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:17, 30 August 2009 (BST)

I didn't really want to get involved with this case, given the vote, but if no one else is going to, I'll say that there's not enough evidence for a vandalism ruling, although there is enough to make the actual vote suspect enough to not allow it to be the deciding vote in such an election. Not vandalism, at this stage -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:19 2 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Innocent until proven guilty. -- C h e e s e 09:41, 3 September 2009 (BST)

As part of the apparent completion of the Misconduct case that accompanied this, I'm closing this case as Not Vandalism from Buzz Killington, though his initial vote will remain struck from the election that the account voted on. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:43, 5 September 2009 (BST)

LEGENDARY MEDIC

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

For continuing to recreate various pages for his group and user page in the main namespace despite them being deleted several times and being told no fewer than 4 times by various users to stop it. A warning might get him to listen. -- C h e e s e 22:29, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Ugh... It's annoying yes, but for now I've reverted his edits on his user page, and given him a one-last-warning on his talk page... Just leave the case open for a couple of days and see what he does, I think. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:39, 28 August 2009 (BST)

He's been editing for a couple of days without such troubles... So I'm closing this. Just keep an eye on him though. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:26, 31 August 2009 (BST)

BlueSpurt (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Warned for wiping DDR's talk page. -- C h e e s e 17:05, 27 August 2009 (BST)

BlueSpurt

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For getting butthurt when the first two votes of his suggestion were kills, so he attempted to game the system by altering the timestamp so he could legitimately post a new suggestion in the same day, which was this.

As I'm involved, clarification please. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:45, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - I don't know whether he did it because of any butthurt or not but it's still screwing around with the system. Cyberbob Talk 00:48, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Well, it directly "attacked" myself and Devorac, who voted the kills. Don't know why Boxy was included, maybe Box gives him a hard time on DS. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:50, 27 August 2009 (BST)

ahahaha I didn't actually read it beyond the time it was posted. That's awesome. Cyberbob Talk 00:55, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Lol. I'm actually wishing I voted keep now. More power!!! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:56, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Either way, I've closed voting on the second one because it's a multi. And Warned. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:53, 27 August 2009 (BST)

You warned the wrong person. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW}

03:15, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Thanks for that. I love making stupid mistakes. Don't ask. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:17, 27 August 2009 (BST)

A bunch of users voting by proxy

Verdict	Vandal proxy alts
Action taken	Permaban

--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 01:43, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Ooh, thanks for reminding me about these - I meant to ban them before when I posted on the talk page but forgot. Banned. Cyberbob Talk 03:55, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Rambo voller

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

The fact that his suggestion has attracted several new users, all with very similar signatures and most with no other edits other than to place their votes for that suggestion has me and a lot of other people to cry out 'Sockpuppet!'.

What's more alarming is that both Rambo voller's and Trollstrollingtrolls' signatures lead to User:Your_Name. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 20:55, 20 August 2009 (BST)

I've run the IP checks on all of them and, while there are some similarities and some of them seem to come from the same area, the similarities aren't enough to rule this as vandalism. I'd guess the reason both Rambo voller's and Trollstrollingtrolls' names lead to User:Your_Name is because they were probably looking at guides on how to do custom signatures and didn't realise that they were supposed to replace "You Name" with their own account name.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:10, 20 August 2009 (BST)

I've sysop spaminated that suggestion. At best this is meat-puppetry, but I think we can be pretty sure that it is indeed sockpuppetry. Check out the timestamps on the last 3 keep votes. All of them have been handwritten, and they all fail to capitalise the A in August, or leave a space after the comma in the date. Extremely unlikely that 3 individuals would vote one after the other in such a way -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:41 20 August 2009 (BST)

Agreed. I hadn't noticed the handwritten timestamps and on those grounds it is safe to assume that these are indeed sockpuppets. At any rate, even without the sockpuppetry, it seems to me that this edit where one of the accounts moved Whitehouse's vote is definitely vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)

He has also edited Boxy's user Page here --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:32, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Yes, noted. And on those grounds I believe it is safe to say warned.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:02, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Something about that edit to Boxy's page tells me that he'll be back. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 05:18, 21 August 2009 (BST)

AnonSantlerville (3)

Verdict	Proxy alt
Action taken	Permaban

I looked this account's IP address up and it turns out to be a proxy. Banned as a vandalising (see below) proxy alt that has contributed literally nothing of value, so I guess it satisfies the 3-edit rule as well. Twofer! Cyberbob Talk 12:34, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Beavers tell me that he's not one of them too, so you can add ~~impersonation~~ to your list. Linkthewindow Talk 13:22, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Actually, he never claimed to be a Beaver, AFAIK. But, to set the record straight, Beavers say he's not a Beaver. Linkthewindow Talk 13:27, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Of course they are going to say that, it means nothing. He is just an alt of a random user. The alt has nothing to add to his name bar some meaningless, grieving edits. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:47, 17 August 2009 (BST)

He's also been involved in some nice, clear TOS violations on the Dead Bunnies page. Not mentioning the porn, he uploaded a personal image of one of the Bunnies, taken from the facebook page. Linkthewindow Talk 13:51, 17 August 2009 (BST)

The Dead Bunnies claimed he was a beaver. One of the pictures linked to by Anon was [[1]], and we simply asked bumrocks if he remembered anything about it. AnonSantlerville posted it 11/08/2009 and as the zombie trixxxy was only created on 27/07/2009 so it was a recent event. bumrocks told us the target was Jack Heins and as the screenshot says you were killed it was either Jack Heins supplying the screenshot to AnonSantlerville or AnonSanterville is Jack Heins. Either way it clearly pissed him off when we called him Jack :-) As this entire drama has unfolded before any of us have seen any of it, is there any way to see this 'personal' photo that was uploaded? or was it clearly just another of his immature stunts? --Roorgh 16:30, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Turned out to just be a random picture taken from the Internet - ether way, even threatening or pretending to reveal personal information is pretty serious. Linkthewindow Talk 22:11, 17 August 2009 (BST)

A bit of investigation by DDR on IRC finds that this account wasn't actually a proxy, but that still doesn't invalidate the fact that it still should go under the three-edit rule, as it's obviously a account purely to troll. If another sysop wants to overrule this, start a vote, please. Linkthewindow Talk 14:25, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Uh, yes it was a proxy. I looked it up and it's listed on one of the proxy/spam databases. Cyberbob Talk 14:37, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Meh. I was just regurgitating what DDR said on IRC :/. Linkthewindow Talk 14:40, 17 August 2009 (BST)

I thought it was a joint conclusion ;) but w/e. Doesn't affect the ban. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:39, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Alan

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24h Ban

Replacing content with a single line. - User:Whitehouse 21:59, 16 August 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - That would be a 24 hour ban. -- C h e e s e 22:12, 16 August 2009 (BST)

Banned for 24 hours - Linkthewindow Talk 22:12, 16 August 2009 (BST)

Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiink. =( You stole my hammeree. -- C h e e s e 22:14, 16 August 2009 (BST)

Shakey60

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24h ban

[2]. Shakey you bad boy. Come to beer bingo this tuesday. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:40, 16 August 2009 (BST)

how the fuck can you prove it was me--Shakey ^BBK 11:41, 16 August 2009 (BST)

I'm a pro now. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:52, 16 August 2009 (BST)

at wat--Shakey ^BBK 12:02, 16 August 2009 (BST)

being like boxy. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:15, 16 August 2009 (BST)

Vandalism Linkthewindow Talk 12:11, 16 August 2009 (BST)

FOR WHAT I WANTED JED WTF--Shakey ^BBK 12:12, 16 August 2009 (BST)

Firstly, Jed isn't a sysop, hence why he's not listed. Only sysops are eligible to run for crat spots. Secondly, for using an obnoxious amount of <big> tags, which is shitting up an admin page, and vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 12:19, 16 August 2009 (BST)

NO U--Shakey ^BBK 12:42, 16 August 2009 (BST)

Vandalism what a hilarious guy this is.......... he's just so hilarious Cyberbob Talk 12:57, 16 August 2009 (BST)

Thankyou, I am glad that you think so, I work so fucking hard on this wiki.--Shakey ^BBK 13:00, 16 August 2009 (BST)

Banned for 24 hours. Linkthewindow Talk 13:10, 16 August 2009 (BST)

AnonSantlerville (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Impersonation that I managed to pick up on entirely by chance. Warned. Cyberbob Talk 15:38, 15 August 2009 (BST)

AnonSantlerville

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Looks like porn to me (diff.) Despite the fact that this was a comment on a talk page, I'm still removing it as it's obviously a bit past "borderline." I'll revert it if the case is found to be not vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 14:27, 15 August 2009 (BST)

Holy God. Vandalism, warned. I'm deleting this image as an act of vandalism, I've saved it onto my computer incase anyone wants to kick up a stink in the future. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:36, 15 August 2009 (BST)

No argument here. Cyberbob Talk 14:39, 15 August 2009 (BST)

Reading Link's description, I thought it would be something a bit more debatable. I sure was taken off guard. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:44, 15 August 2009 (BST)

Super Nweb

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For an old edit that seems to have somehow slipped through the net. [3]. Zeug has clarified on my talk page that it wasn't a wanted edit. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:50, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Vandalism Cyberbob Talk 04:09, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Vandalism and warned. Linkthewindow Talk 09:52, 12 August 2009 (BST)

J3D (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

For adding the sysop template to his user page, when he isnt. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 18:42, 10 August 2009 (BST)

My opinion is that we can probably count this as bad faith because there's no good reason for claiming to be a sysop when you aren't. My ruling is for vandalism. However, given the lack of precedent, I will leave this for a while to allow the other sysops to comment.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:10, 10 August 2009 (BST)

See talk page Cyberbob Talk 04:52, 11 August 2009 (BST)

As General - there's really no reason as to why it should be there, and having a sysop template on a non-sysop user page will only cause confusion and drama. Vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 22:16, 10 August 2009 (BST)

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Moderator. Why should this be anything other than a need for arbies? The Moderation template hasn't been accurate for a long time now and J3D can put whatever he likes on his userpage. Are you saying the fact he is active means he has no right to leave it there among all the inactive sysops who still have theirs? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:16, 10 August 2009 (BST)

They didn't actually add it to their pages after they were demoted, though, so you can't say for sure whether they simply forgot about it. J3D has actively created a situation whereby he may be misconstrued as a sysop. That's the difference. Cyberbob Talk 23:24, 10 August 2009 (BST)

All J3D would have had to do is just add this when he was a sysop and leave it there then, because of "historical" value? And then it's all right? Unless there is a standard format for this template where all ex-sysops must have it stripped from their page upon demotion, what jed did is just poor form. Not Vandalism. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:35, 10 August 2009 (BST)

No, leaving it there is poor form. Actively going and adding it is on the same level (as I said below) as posting a bolded "ruling" on A/VB. Should we go and unbold every ruling made ever by people who aren't sysops anymore? Of course not, but that wouldn't make one of them trying to make a ruling now any less vandalism. Cyberbob Talk 23:39, 10 August 2009 (BST)

No, because bolding a ruling is exercising Sysop abilities which don't belong to the regular user. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:37, 11 August 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - I would count this as the same sort of thing as bolding one's own "ruling". It's passing yourself off as a sysop, which I believe counts as impersonation (thanks for the link Whitehouse, I was having trouble framing my point). Cyberbob Talk 23:24, 10 August 2009 (BST)

Poor form but not vandalism. As DDR. -- C h e e s e 00:52, 11 August 2009 (BST)

Bob had this for how many years and it was okay? I was a sysop so by your (very dodgy) argument i still have just as much right to have it there as he did.--x o x o 01:34, 11 August 2009 (BST)

I believe I already explained the difference between forgetting to remove it and actively adding it. Cyberbob Talk 03:09, 11 August 2009 (BST)

The problem is, to the community, as the ones being deceived, there is no difference. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:35, 11 August 2009 (BST)

I know that - I'm talking about intentions. Cyberbob Talk 04:46, 11 August 2009 (BST)

So you care more about what J3D was trying to do, than the actual problem it creates? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:21, 11 August 2009 (BST)

Intention is the primary factor which determines whether or not an action was bad faith. --The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:21, 11 August 2009 (BST)

Bob please don't lie. You cannot pretend you didn't look at your userpage for the best part of 2 years and failed to notice you had a sop template there.--x o x o 07:55, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Actually I pretty much literally did. The sysop template is right in the middle of a heap of templates which I have barely glanced at since the last time I edited them. Cyberbob Talk 08:03, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Well, I was going to say not vandalism, until I noticed that he had already replaced the moderator template with the ex-moderator template back in January. To put it back again now, is impersonation. More drama for drama's sake, so vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:00 11 August 2009 (BST)

See talk page Cyberbob Talk 04:52, 11 August 2009 (BST)

Actually i put it there not for dramas sake but coz i thought it was funny and because if a trusted user of the wiki had had the template on his page for around 2 years between modships it must be kosher. I was sure i couldn't have been the only user to have noticed it in that time. Interesting how no one bothered to even mention it on his talk or bring him here for it but when i do it, hey its a free for all. I don't like conspiracy theorists much but you've gotta admit the evidence is compelling.--x o x o 08:12, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Make a policy that says i can't lie on my talk page and then call me. I've been putting lying templates on my pages for years and until then i didn't know it was against the rules.--x o x o 00:26, 12 August 2009 (BST)

second paragraph of this policy. By using the sysop template you are impersonation to be one --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:56, 12 August 2009 (BST)

See talk page Cyberbob Talk 04:13, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Vandalism As boxy.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 10:39, 12 August 2009 (BST)

4 > 2. Can someone please issue a ruling on this and call it a day ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:52, 12 August 2009 (BST)

No, count: 5 > 2 --

Thadeous Oakley

18:43, 12 August 2009 (BST)

I totally forgot to count boxy's ruling. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:56, 12 August 2009 (BST)

But he even bolded it this time! And can we please wait 2 more days, i have contacted some of the less active sysops over this and they are planned on coming on at some point and voting not vandalism.--x o x o 01:04, 13 August 2009 (BST)

So what you're saying is you're basically trying to meatpuppet A/VB? Cyberbob Talk 01:08, 13 August 2009 (BST)

Well, that or you're trying to draw this out so you can have your current warning struck (2 days to rule on a case when they've shown the capability to answer emails? Really?). Either way - it's gaming the system and it's not on. If these inactive sysops ever do show up in sufficient numbers they can overturn the ruling, but until then warned. Cyberbob Talk 01:17, 13 August 2009 (BST)

lolirl.--x o x o 02:03, 13 August 2009 (BST)

J3D

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

enough is enough. I am tired of seeing 2 cool propaganda all over the wiki where such group has no merit for being cited. Its not even funny! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 18:42, 10 August 2009 (BST)

Not sure you can really count this as vandalism. A/VB isn't intended for page editing disbutes. Revert it and take him to arbitration if he continues. If you can demonstrate consistent and widespread spamming then I will change my ruling but at present Not Vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:05, 10 August 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - This is a case for arbies. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:10, 10 August 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As DDR. This is the exact sort of thing Arbitration is there to handle. Cyberbob Talk 23:17, 10 August 2009 (BST)

User:NorseGod

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

[4] and [5]. Perma'd as per the 3-edit clause of the Guidelines. --ϑϑℜ 11:17, 9 August 2009 (BST)

User:The Colonel

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Warning Retracted

This piece of art. Basically he replaced an image on a page which was not his, with the same image only with a drawn dick over it.--Thadeous Oakley 10:23, 7 August 2009 (BST)

Warned. Cyberbob Talk 11:20, 7 August 2009 (BST)

On the contrary, he is helping in making the event much better than the other years. He has permission to edit that page. --Haliman - Talk 20:41, 7 August 2009 (BST)

I demand 2 things, 1 this to be stricken I'm helping run the fifth of November this year, I showed Mega and he approved everything. 2: Thadeous Oakley to find the nearest thing of bleach, and swallow it. That is all. I don't hold anything against Bob he's just doing his job before knowing all the facts. --

Timmah!

Talk

22:08, 7 August 2009 (BST)

more on the talk page --ϑϑℜ 02:12, 8 August 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism, he looks to be part of the group, and so has ownership rights to the page. Obviously guilty of bad taste though -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:19 7 August 2009 (BST)

Huh. I did consider the possibility that he was involved with the event or had permission but I couldn't find anything to show it. Was permission given off-site? Cyberbob Talk 03:03, 8 August 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - He had permission from Hal. --ϑϑℜ 02:21, 8 August 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - although I don't blame Bob for warning him in the first place - I had to look to find evidence of his involvement (and that should always be checked by the person reporting the case anyway). Warning struck. Linkthewindow Talk 03:05, 8 August 2009 (BST)

Where was it? I thought I looked everywhere. Cyberbob Talk 03:06, 8 August 2009 (BST)

5th_of_November/2009#User.27s_Running_it. Linkthewindow Talk 03:07, 8 August 2009 (BST)

Ugh. I checked the talk page, the talk pages of everyone I could find that looked like they were in charge but not the bottom of the page itself. That's really depressing. Cyberbob Talk 03:11, 8 August 2009 (BST)

User:EllenUNO

Verdict	Spambot
Action taken	Permaban

Looks like advertising to me, the only original part of that is the signature and link at the end. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:38, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Could be adbottery but I doubt it, it is probably a real person, so I'm ruling Vandalism. Thanks for removing it too, Boberton. --ϑϑℜ 03:45, 5 August 2009 (BST)

I'm calling this one as a well-coded Adbot. Cyberbob Talk 04:41, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Simply copying the first paragraph or two from the main page, and pasting it onto the talk page, and then slapping an advertising link on the end... adbot (or an extremely poorly coded human). I permbanned it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:32 5 August 2009 (BST)

User:BlueSpurt

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

Changing the listed frequency for Creedy. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:33, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - please talk to him, and if that doesn't work, use arbies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:23 4 August 2009 (BST)

It could be someone thinking that the listed is editable and pickable by anyone (which is technically true). Given that they seem to be a newbie, that looks even more like the case. You really should check with the users before bringing them here. (Edit conflict. You god damn cubes. >:/)-- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 09:26, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - he's a newbie, this could be anything as simple as him entering Creedy in-game and noticing that a different radio wave was mistakenly being used, and changed it to suit. There's nothing to say he wasn't trying to just help out. --ϑϑℜ 10:27, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - pretty much as DDR. Remember to assume good faith. Linkthewindow Talk 12:24, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - "Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works." Cyberbob Talk 12:28, 4 August 2009 (BST)

User:Justinbronze

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

This could be a simple newbie mistake, or he's outright deleting kill votes on his own suggestion. But I'll leave the judging to you people.--Thadeous Oakley 17:41, 2 August 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism. This could have been solved with a question on his talk page rather than coming to A/VB. "Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits." Cyberbob Talk 17:50, 2 August 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism. It was a mistake, caused by my mediocre skills with computer coding. I screwed up the coding, which must have accidentally deleted his vote. My humblest apologies. --Justinbronze 23:29, 2 August 2009 (BST)

Even though the outcome has been pretty much decided I'm am still "officially" withdrawing this case for what it's worth but mainly to comfort Justin. Also, Justin, please note that by bolding Not Vandalism it looks like your ruling on this case. Only sysops can rule on cases so please unbold that part.--Thadeous Oakley 23:34, 2 August 2009 (BST)

Don't worry Thad, nobody will accuse you of being a bully. Cyberbob Talk 03:28, 3 August 2009 (BST)

Well, maybe Boberton. But that's all! Cyberbob Talk 03:40, 3 August 2009 (BST)

I'd do it too.-- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 04:29, 3 August 2009 (BST)

Case closed as Not Vandalism/Withdrawn. --ϑϑℜ 02:31, 3 August 2009 (BST)

User:Sevatividam

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Just spotted this lovely bit. Delta isn't the vandal on that page. He was trying to fix everything. --Haliman - Talk 17:53, 1 August 2009 (BST)

Warned. Cyberbob Talk 18:11, 1 August 2009 (BST)