UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2011 12
This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.
Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting
In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:
- A link to the pages in question.
- Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.
- The user name of the Vandal.
- This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.
- A signed datestamp.
- For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.
- Please report at the top.
- There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.
If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.
If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.
Before Submitting a Report
- This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
- Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
- As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
- Avoid submitting reports which are petty.
Vandalism Report Space
|
Spambots
Spambots are to be reported on this page. New reports should be added to the top. Reports may be purged after one week.
There were a bunch of spambit-looking account creations on the 17th, these are the live ones at present.
- HaroldBeaman (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
- HallieKetcham7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
- AlexanderNoyes7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)--Cheese 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked a large surge of bots -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- YasminLashbrook (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- LoganDos626 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Both done DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 09:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
December 2011
User:Star wars invasion squad
| Verdict | 3 Edit Rule |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
I let him slip the first time 'cause I thought it was just a newbie error, but he did it again. Vandalism. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I am here to take this wiki over and make it the swtors back up wiki surrender now or face biowares vandal squad i will wait for your response before my next attack--Star wars invasion squad 04:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Bring it on. Ze SS is sworn to defend ze Reich till ze last breath. Generaloberst 9:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
One, two, three, four vandal edits I've counted so far. The first two were before this report, the third is what began this report, and the forth was after the report. The above comment he left there should probably explain his motives clear enough, and as such, I will be perma-banning him as per the 3 edit rule. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 04:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Generaloberst (3)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
Harrison must be doing something right, cause he seems to have just baited oberst into reuploading something apparently malicious over the header image used exclusively on harrison's pages. Vapor reverted. Can't see the image revision anymore, hoping the sysops can or Vapor can tell us all what bastion of good-faith was uploaded over Harrison's original image. logs. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was a lovely little black squiggle, in a white circle, with a red background. I think it was called a "Swapsticker" I can restore the images if you so wish? --Like Moss and The Dude..... 23:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Swastika. I reverted and Ross deleted the revisions. Vandalism. ~
23:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC) - How you mean baited? Generaloberst 9:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Obvious vandalism is obvious, warned -- boxy 02:41, 14 December 2011 (BST)
User:Son_of_Sin
| Verdict | Not vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
Making an archive page of a page not his, after his posts got deleted Includes posts signed by me. Also look at the comment he added when making the archive; obviously bad faith.
Harrison has gotten a soft warning for doing something similar.
Though I warned him before he did it that I would make a case if he did it, so it's pretty much vandalism.
But of course it will be voted not vandalism again. Generaloberst 17:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not Vandalism It's his userspace. Harrison received a soft warning for creating a Combat 18 archive. In fact, during that case, he was told he could do that if he made it in his own userspace. Wanna stop shitting up A/VB yet? ~ 17:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- ha ha@you warned me ...i'm not a bitch, warnings don't scare me ...no offense to the Ops, but if they ever ban me, i won't make any alts...once i'm banned, i'm banned for good if i'm guilty of any allegations ...anyway, you deleted the convo from the page you control ...and i added the convo to my userspace ...i'll remove the convo if you admit to zerging & being cornholioo's nawty nazi (if you aren't corn)...deal? →Son of Sin← 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Not vandalism - the precedent you brought up is irrelevant, because Harrison created a page in the Combat18 area, not editing one of his own pages, as SoS has done here -- boxy 04:31, 13 December 2011 (BST)
User:Spiderzed
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
deleting my post off another user's talkpage
Let me guess what will be said now: "He was simply helping Harrison out, Harrison would've deleted it anyway, that's not bad faith"
Though I can remember Cornholioo couldn't make people stop posting on his talk page unless there was an arbitration over it. Though there is no arbitration in this case. Harrison should be the one making a case. Until that moment it's just posting and he should simply be the one deleting my post. Not that this will change your mind, it will be not vandalism anyways, unless a nazi does it. Generaloberst 11:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'll vote vandalism against myself the minute Harrison disallows this one revert. I very strongly doubt that he does. -- Spiderzed█ 23:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- See? They always have a shit excuse. Now it's ok as long Harrison is ok with it. lol. Thad has also never said that he had a problem with me resizing the images on his page and I was warned for that as well. This really makes no sense. Generaloberst 11:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly? Your likening this to Cornholioo bringing people to a/vb over talk page spam is what makes no sense. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS)
- How does that make no sense? Doesn't it make sense that posting there is just posting, unless there is a case? And if posting is just posting Harrison should be the one deleting it, not Spiderzed. And now don't come up with something like "Spiderzed can do that as long as Harrison is ok with it" because they convicted me too while Thad had never said he wasn't ok with it. But anyway, you guys always talk your way out of something, always and always. When someone edits my posts, when someone deletes my post, it seems like it's all ok. Then when I edit someone's post it's vandalism. I wonder why... Oh wait I know. Generaloberst 00:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Um, when did I say any of that? I said your comparison to corn was stupid. Cause it is. Stop projecting, TIA DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was not. In Corn's case there were no special special circumstances, so posting was just posting, which is the case here too. That said, it wouldn't be any differend at all when I started deleting a random person's post of a random person's talk page, which would obviously be vandalism. Thus, "He was simply helping Harrison out, Harrison would've deleted it anyway, that's not bad faith", since, like in Corn's case, there are no special circumstances whatsoever. The ability to think logically, DDR. Generaloberst 11:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Um, when did I say any of that? I said your comparison to corn was stupid. Cause it is. Stop projecting, TIA DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- How does that make no sense? Doesn't it make sense that posting there is just posting, unless there is a case? And if posting is just posting Harrison should be the one deleting it, not Spiderzed. And now don't come up with something like "Spiderzed can do that as long as Harrison is ok with it" because they convicted me too while Thad had never said he wasn't ok with it. But anyway, you guys always talk your way out of something, always and always. When someone edits my posts, when someone deletes my post, it seems like it's all ok. Then when I edit someone's post it's vandalism. I wonder why... Oh wait I know. Generaloberst 00:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly? Your likening this to Cornholioo bringing people to a/vb over talk page spam is what makes no sense. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS)
- See? They always have a shit excuse. Now it's ok as long Harrison is ok with it. lol. Thad has also never said that he had a problem with me resizing the images on his page and I was warned for that as well. This really makes no sense. Generaloberst 11:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Not vandalism - Harrison has made his wishes clear, by reverting all of Generaloberst's recent edits to his talk page. If he complains about Spider helping him out by removing your spam, then I will reconsider, but this is clearly a good faith edit -- boxy 05:36, 11 December 2011 (BST)
- Thad never complained when I resized his images and that was vandalism too. Bias (again). Insta demoting. Death by gassing. Generaloberst 11:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
-- boxy 11:06, 11 December 2011 (BST)
- Thad never complained when I resized his images and that was vandalism too. Bias (again). Insta demoting. Death by gassing. Generaloberst 11:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
you are kidding right? stay the hell off my talk page. spider was definitely making a good faith edit. and that goes for anyone else that notices that this trash posting on my talk page.. please remove it. i should not have to be subjected to swastikas and anti Semitic hate speech on my own talk page.--User:Sexualharrison07:46, 11 December 2011 (bst)
- Near a church in my street there is a Davidstar too. I don't want it there. But it still is there. What am I going to do about that? Generaloberst 11:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Tanuki
| Verdict | Not vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
Ok don't get me wrong on this one. I love the idea of this group. Though it's not allowed to reveal personal information. This person published the usernames and passwords of 'members' of his group. Is that allowed? Bio-Mimetic Android Infestation Removal Corps Generaloberst 16:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think you'd be hard pressed to prove he didn't just make every one of those accounts. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's impossible to prove he didn't make those accounts. Though, it's also impossible to prove he did. If I had your pass, how are you going to prove that I'm not the original creator the account? How am I going to prove that I am? Generaloberst 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Have you actually checked though? Of course, I haven't, but in the Zerg-proving profession there are telltale signs, like the accounts being made all on the same day, etc etc. having said that, like Axe said on the talk page on the group, it's a Password thing. Did people ever get into trouble for talking about Password's password, cause if they didn't, I don't really think this could be any worse. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, you can't prove it are his accounts, not even if they were all created by the same user. In theory, the logins can be hacked off someone else's computer, a nice story could be added, and posted here on the wiki. Seems like the perfect way to publish someone else's password on the wiki and getting away with it. We will never be able to know for sure, and even if there's a 1% possibility that what I said is the case I think we shouldn't take any chances. They can be someone else's, they are on the wiki, so delete them. Simple. Generaloberst 11:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is with pretend nazis and censorship? They can be but we make a calculated judgement call that they aren't. Of course they aren't. Besides, if accounts are stolen, it's a matter between the user who owns the account and Kevan. It's their business and theirs alone, not ours. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, you can't prove it are his accounts, not even if they were all created by the same user. In theory, the logins can be hacked off someone else's computer, a nice story could be added, and posted here on the wiki. Seems like the perfect way to publish someone else's password on the wiki and getting away with it. We will never be able to know for sure, and even if there's a 1% possibility that what I said is the case I think we shouldn't take any chances. They can be someone else's, they are on the wiki, so delete them. Simple. Generaloberst 11:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Have you actually checked though? Of course, I haven't, but in the Zerg-proving profession there are telltale signs, like the accounts being made all on the same day, etc etc. having said that, like Axe said on the talk page on the group, it's a Password thing. Did people ever get into trouble for talking about Password's password, cause if they didn't, I don't really think this could be any worse. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's impossible to prove he didn't make those accounts. Though, it's also impossible to prove he did. If I had your pass, how are you going to prove that I'm not the original creator the account? How am I going to prove that I am? Generaloberst 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Not Vandalism It's a zerger, but that isn't wiki-punishable. -- Spiderzed█ 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Look, you're only Sally because you're saying that you're Sally. There's no one that can prove you actually are Sally. If I hacked your computer and got Sally's password, and posted it here on the wiki claiming it's me, do you vote Not Vandalism then as well? Generaloberst 11:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
i'm no tech expect but Kevan knows who's who right? even if you use a proxy, cookies are saved on computers right? different IPs can be traced back to 1 computer, no? speaking of public passwords, i googled Urban Dead passwords and found this site (it's not a virus link): bugmenot anyway, disclosing any (true) information (passwords to anything, home/work address, real name, etc) about another player without their (public) consent is/should be against the privacy policy. →Son of Sin← 00:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah Kevan knows, and only Kevan, since only he can link IPs on Urban Dead to IPs on the wiki. So unless Kevan tell us, we can't be sure. That means it's Vandalism until Kevan tell's us it's him. Generaloberst 00:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
NV - I guess. God knows what's going on there -- boxy 04:33, 13 December 2011 (BST)
User:Sexualharrison (2)
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warned |
This is pretty much blatant. Don't get yourself in trouble because someone else is a moron. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- really? the revert wasn't enough karek? god you're an asshole. how do you know I don't have an alt in Nazi Zombies? --User:Sexualharrison22:40, 8 December 2011 (bst)
- Harrison I actually even asked on the talk page if I'm allowed to edit the page, after which Ross said no. We know you've read those comments since you've replied there too... and then you still edit the page. Everyone here knows that you got the sysop's sympathy but seriously, how dumb are you? It's gonna be hard for them to talk you out of this at least. Generaloberst 23:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unless I've gone daft Boxy reverted it. He also should have been the one making this case as it turns out. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 23:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, maliciously editing a group page, however rubbish the page itself is, is Vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Not Vandalism It isn't a group page and the group Nazi Zombies really don't have any claim to it . Not until they take some steps to make theirs. Its just some joke someone made to get under cornhole's skin. Guess it worked. A simple edit revert would have sufficed. Hasn't there been enough bs vandal cases today? ~ 02:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant when the page edits were clearly intended to be a personal attack against the one user who has actually done everything that he should and could to try and claim the page for use in regards to an actual existing group, one that's even documented on the talk page. As for whether or not it's a group page; it's linked to that group via stats.html which is the ultimate decider of content, it's relevant only to them. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- No its just a joke page. The edit was just a joke. You're looking to far into it. ~ 04:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's an actual group on the stats page with that specific name. Creation of the original page actually itself qualifies as impersonation under your argument as it's intentionally bad faith. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I had to trawl back for this one a bit. But I remember that Misanthropy made a joke about Wotan's Templar's page too, and that was unanimously voted Vandalism. Spiderzed still has the page in his userspace. I won't reply anything further on this case. I've proven my point that you guys are biased as hell, but the extensity of your moral sickness is starting to make me miserable. Seriously, you guys would even be able to defend the statement that the sky is green rather than blue. Generaloberst 12:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's an actual group on the stats page with that specific name. Creation of the original page actually itself qualifies as impersonation under your argument as it's intentionally bad faith. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- No its just a joke page. The edit was just a joke. You're looking to far into it. ~
If you guys actually vote this as not vandalism I will actually think the worst of the wiki right now. Are you fucking kidding me. annoying 12:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought that a quick revert would have been enough, as long as it wasn't repeated. But seeing as it's been reported, vandalism. The page was up for deletion, so it shouldn't have been changed anyway, and it was just trolling -- boxy 13:34, 9 December 2011 (BST)
I have mulled over that case for a while. Harrison absolutely shouldn't have done it, but it is a first-time infraction under heated circumstances. I think a Soft Warning would be the right thing for now, with a stern reminder to not violate teh rulz while trolling. -- Spiderzed█ 23:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- He did do it before actually. Generaloberst 11:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Warned -- boxy 04:37, 13 December 2011 (BST)
User:Generaloberst (2)
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
Shitting up the V/B page?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS 
LOE ZHU | Яezzens 18:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Lol you mean taking Thad's shitty advice out of context and starting a case on hisself. Yeah, that is pretty much shitting up an admin page. It's happened before. ~ 18:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- First you insult me in the case below and now you call my comment shitty for no apparent reason. I told our resident nazi tool that resizing images does not constitute impersonation. There have been plenty of cases where people used obnoxiously large images on discussion pages which break the format, mess with the conversation and are generally a pain. Fixing these images to suitable size is considered good-faith. That he then takes it completely out of context is his own idiocy. Enlighten me, how is it "shitty"? --
Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- First you insult me in the case below and now you call my comment shitty for no apparent reason. I told our resident nazi tool that resizing images does not constitute impersonation. There have been plenty of cases where people used obnoxiously large images on discussion pages which break the format, mess with the conversation and are generally a pain. Fixing these images to suitable size is considered good-faith. That he then takes it completely out of context is his own idiocy. Enlighten me, how is it "shitty"? --
Not Vandalism. Not for a single case at least. If he continues spamming the page with cases against himself, I will change my mind. -- Spiderzed█ 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Jetzt wirst du degradiert werden. ;) Generaloberst 21:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Meh --Like Moss and The Dude..... 19:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Not Vandalism - As Spiderzed.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 00:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Not Vandalism, None yet? [[User:Generaloberst|] 15:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks generaloberst 17:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Generaloberst
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
Editing another user's userpage. Let's see what this does. Generaloberst 17:55, 08 December 2011 (UTC)
- In my defence, this. Let me guess what you guys will say now... "It's allowed to resize other users images, but only on the talkpage! Outside of that it's considered vandalism!"
- Come on, I'm just around playing with this wiki, it's amazing. Generaloberst 17:57, 08 December 2011 (UTC)
Picking on Thad? You really don't understand this place. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 18:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"It's allowed to resize other users images, but only on the talkpage! Outside of that it's considered vandalism!" Again, it's Thad's call. That was pretty stupid by the way. ~ 18:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Impersonation accussation. Resizing images is not considered impersonation, there is plenty of precedent to back this up. End of story." Seems like the sysops don't completely agree with eachothers. I won (again). Generaloberst 18:13, 08 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thad's not an op. Plus he's kind of an idiot. ~ 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd second that. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 18:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- If what you say is true - that it's the decision of Spiderzed (or Thad in this case) - then that rule is stupid, because that means the rules of this wiki differ per talk page/userpage and vandalism is becoming an easy mistake. Not everyone on this wiki is a sysop; we've got 10 sysops for a reason. Furthermore, if Thad is going to make a problem of this in this stadium then he's indeed (as you said) a huge idiot. Because he has just stated "Impersonation accussation. Resizing images is not considered impersonation, there is plenty of precedent to back this up. End of story." Generaloberst 19:01, 08 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd second that. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 18:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thad's not an op. Plus he's kind of an idiot. ~
- "Impersonation accussation. Resizing images is not considered impersonation, there is plenty of precedent to back this up. End of story." Seems like the sysops don't completely agree with eachothers. I won (again). Generaloberst 18:13, 08 December 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism, you yourself acknowledge intent. Now can we all please stop being idiots for the nazitroll?--Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- You guys really make no sense. A former sysop says that it's never vandalism, the next sysop says it's only vandalism when the owner of the page thinks it's a problem, and the 3rd sysop says it's just vandalism.
- And then, Karek, if intent means vandalism, why didn't harrison get the an infraction too? Or are you saying that he "accidentally edited the page"?. Seriously of all the 10 sysops out here like 4 are active, and 3 of those are dumb as hell.
- Also I forgot to say this: Ne bis in idem, in English: "No two convictions for the same crime". You're right that this action of me was intented; to proof that this wiki's sysops are biased and to make the Administration page of this wiki lose credibility as a whole. Though, if you guys are going to say Vandalism for the reason you just gave, Karek, then there are going to be two convictions for the same thing, since the above case is about the same thing; acknowledged intent. But alright, convict me twice, it will only be a double win for me. Generaloberst 23:09, 08 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note that we are actually ruling "Not Vandalism" on the case above.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- ^this. Or, rather, you inherently bring a very legitimate case against yourself since you know your intent better than anyone. Spamming escalations tend to not include self reports because we typically auto-escalate for self-report spamming. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seen that you guys are again being inconsistent (both between cases and between eachothers), i'll explain what to do. Either vote both cases vandalism for said reason (which Karek just simply repeated) or vote them both not vandalism, which for you guys means chosing for your credibility or your hate against nazism. Then make the same choice with Ne bis in idem; chose for your credibility (vote not vandalism) or your hate against nazis (vote vandalism). If I were the sysop I wouldn't convict someone two times for the same thing (I would've deleted the case above), and either voted this one + harrison's vandalism or not vandalism, I would've been consequent, whether the people involved were Jews, nazis, or both.
- ^this. Or, rather, you inherently bring a very legitimate case against yourself since you know your intent better than anyone. Spamming escalations tend to not include self reports because we typically auto-escalate for self-report spamming. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note that we are actually ruling "Not Vandalism" on the case above.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also I forgot to say this: Ne bis in idem, in English: "No two convictions for the same crime". You're right that this action of me was intented; to proof that this wiki's sysops are biased and to make the Administration page of this wiki lose credibility as a whole. Though, if you guys are going to say Vandalism for the reason you just gave, Karek, then there are going to be two convictions for the same thing, since the above case is about the same thing; acknowledged intent. But alright, convict me twice, it will only be a double win for me. Generaloberst 23:09, 08 December 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, since harrison's case was voted not vandalism, I decided to do the same thing as harrison did to see if you guys would say not vandalism when a nazi did it too (in steat of a Jew). Though, I beforehand knew that the verdict was going to be vandalism. This only adds to my point that the administration of this wiki has no credibility. In steat, I'm getting away with max 2 warnings and a de-escalation after a month of good behaviour. Seems worth it. User:Generaloberst 11:47, 09 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not getting this: So you messed around with images on another users page? Unless you have permission, I'm pretty sure that's considered vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 00:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can see that you're not really getting this! Did you actually read the other comments here? First read then open your zionist trap. Take a look at the case of sexualharrison below. He did the same thing and it wasn't vandalism. Do I really have to explain this to you? To a sysop?! Oh my fucking god. Even the sysops on this wiki are dumber than a bag of hammers. Generaloberst 00:22, 09 December 2011 (UTC)
- Essentially, it isn't impersonation to reduce the size of obnoxiously large images on a talk page. However, vandalism is defined as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". Resizing obnoxious images is an attempt to improve the wiki; shrinking a reasonably sized image to miniscule on some else's user page in order to prove a point is not. Hence, what you did is vandalism and what he did isn't.
- Note that I'd be perfectly fine with you resizing the antisocially large image the sexualharrison also posted on Spiderzed's talk page.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The General, you are just sucking this stuff out of your thumb. Just like the others. You hadn't even looked at sexualharrison's case and are making this stuff up on the spot. You know it, and I know it. For that reason I don't even have to reply to the content of your last message, but I will. 1. It was only "obnoxiously large" because you said it was. There are no guidelines for images on this wiki that defend your previous statement of either my image or harrison's being respectively "obnoxiously large" or "antisocially large". 2. Even if there were I'm pretty sure that my image can be considered to be "miniscule" now after harrison resized it. 3. Four sysops have given their opinion on this case now, and every one of them comes up with differend arguments, though every one of them has voted 'against' me. Does this wiki still claim sysops are unbiased? To me that seems a lot like you guys are simply making stuff up. I sincerely hope the real life judges aren't ever going to be that way. Those are going to be funny lawsuits... between executioner and convicts. Generaloberst 01:55, 09 December 2011 (UTC)
Oberst, the fact you are arguing against this only proves you are just either a dumbcunt or a tryhard who naively thinks he can wikilawyer his way out of anything against people who actually know the rules. PS. You may be both of these. annoying 12:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, maybe I shouldn't have said anything for my point to be proven. If you actually got my point. But I will explain again if your intelligence requires that. And they don't know the rules, or they would come up with the same reason why something is vandalism or not. Oh, and with my IQ is nothing wrong, it's 130. Generaloberst 12:34, 09 December 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism - making an edit to another's user page to make some stupid point, and then deliberately being a jerk by reporting it here to troll the community -- boxy 12:34, 9 December 2011 (BST)
- Warned -- boxy 12:38, 9 December 2011 (BST)
- Boxy, did you just delete my post + remove it from history? Isn't that vandalism? Anyway, "Making an edit to another's user page to make some stupid point"? Why don't you delete the case above this one then? It's about the same thing. Unless you're as biased as the others are, of course. "Stupid point"? I guess as a bureaucrat it's pretty 'safe' to have your sysops be biased while not making a big deal out of it. You - as a bureaucrat - should be demoted for that instantly. You're right, though, that maybe I should simply have laid back waiting for the helpless fools to proof my point here. Dumbfuck. Generaloberst 12:53, 9 December 2011
- I don't know what you're babbling about with the history... but anyway. Yes, you were trying to make a stupid point, because you didn't like the outcome of your case below, against harrison. That case was not vandalism because the intent of resizing the image was to make the talk page more readable. You had no ownership rights to the page in question, so as long as he didn't misrepresent what you had said, or go against the wishes of the owner of the page (spiderzed), harrison was within his right to make the image a reasonable size. You, however, went to someone else's user page, and messed around with template images that were already an appropriate size, and then reported yourself here. You intended to make a scene, because you didn't get your way. That is bad faith editing -- boxy 13:28, 9 December 2011 (BST)
- "That case was not vandalism because the intent of resizing the image was to make the talk page more readable." How do you know what the intent was? You're simply assuming it. Bias.
- "You had no ownership rights to the page in question, so as long as he didn't misrepresent what you had said, or go against the wishes of the owner of the page (spiderzed), harrison was within his right to make the image a reasonable size." Neither did I go against the wishes of the page owner. In fact, the page owner even said that he thought resizing images is never vandalism. Inconsistent.
- "You, however, went to someone else's user page, and messed around with template images that were already an appropriate size," Where are the guidelines that tell us when imagines are an appropriate size? Nowhere. You're, again, simply assuming it. Bias.
- "and then reported yourself here. You intended to make a scene, because you didn't get your way." Wow! I'm glad you're able to read my mind! I made this case because I wanted to prove (as I've said a couple of times already, I'm really glad that the bureaucrat is able to read the comments as he should) that you guys are biased, which I did. Bias.
- "That is bad faith editing" If that's (partially) why I got the infraction, then I suggest you wrap up the case above here right now or resign your position as bureaucrat. Ne bis in idem. No two convictions for one crime. But I know you won't. Inconsistent.
- Saying that you're carrying out your duty as a bureaucrat well is a bit off in this case. You're biased, inconsistent and clearly haven't got the slightest idea how lawsuits work. Now fuck off before I gass you. Generaloberst 14:28, 9 December 2011
- Thanks for your input -- boxy 01:06, 10 December 2011 (BST)
- I don't know what you're babbling about with the history... but anyway. Yes, you were trying to make a stupid point, because you didn't like the outcome of your case below, against harrison. That case was not vandalism because the intent of resizing the image was to make the talk page more readable. You had no ownership rights to the page in question, so as long as he didn't misrepresent what you had said, or go against the wishes of the owner of the page (spiderzed), harrison was within his right to make the image a reasonable size. You, however, went to someone else's user page, and messed around with template images that were already an appropriate size, and then reported yourself here. You intended to make a scene, because you didn't get your way. That is bad faith editing -- boxy 13:28, 9 December 2011 (BST)
- Boxy, did you just delete my post + remove it from history? Isn't that vandalism? Anyway, "Making an edit to another's user page to make some stupid point"? Why don't you delete the case above this one then? It's about the same thing. Unless you're as biased as the others are, of course. "Stupid point"? I guess as a bureaucrat it's pretty 'safe' to have your sysops be biased while not making a big deal out of it. You - as a bureaucrat - should be demoted for that instantly. You're right, though, that maybe I should simply have laid back waiting for the helpless fools to proof my point here. Dumbfuck. Generaloberst 12:53, 9 December 2011
User:EmPathetic_Bill
| Verdict | Not Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
Uploading sexual profanity onto the wiki. Generaloberst 15:35, 08 December 2011 (UTC)
- i bet you are masturbating to this picture as we speak--User:Sexualharrison16:17, 8 December 2011 (bst)
- How old are you, to be honest? Generaloberst 16:21, 08 December 2011 (UTC)
It's just 2 dudes kissing. And the third...well I don't really know what the third one is doing. I assume he's just trying to get a better view. There's no nudity. It really isn't all that graphic, not like the extremely graphic scenes of death that Bankerdorf guy (or whatever it was) uploaded. Not Vandalism. ~ 17:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Does this mean I can't start that lesbian group I wanted?
Not vandalism --Like Moss and The Dude..... 17:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your tears are delicious. I took the picture from the Dutch nazi party flickr account from the page "group policies". Who are you to say that we should not celebrate dutch Nazi free love, after all its what old uniball strived for before he blew his head off as the heros knocked on his door. Also - HELLO SUCKHOLE !--EmPathetic Bill 18:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Not Vandalism. Like Vapor said, it is actually fairly tame. And on this high note, I declare the verdict. -- Spiderzed█ 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Sexualharrison
| Verdict | Not Vandalsim |
|---|---|
| Action taken | None |
Editing my posts. I know it's only resizing, but it is editing someone else's posts. And no, don't make this a "Soft Warning" this time like Cornholioo had with him, and also don't make it "Not Vandalism" like Corn had with The Colonel. I've done my homework well. Sexualharrison should know better. He's been around for a while. Besides that Corn has also been doomed several times for editing other people's posts or pages when he hadn't been around that long.
Have fun finding some stupid ass reason to vote this one "Not Vandalism" again one way or another and losing even more credibility than you guys already did. Hail. Generaloberst 15:05, 08 December 2011 (UTC)
- hate to break this to you retard. editing the the size of image in not considered vandalism. it is in fact what is considered a good edit. if you didn't agree with the change all you had to do was revert or change it back. fucking dumbass. prepared to lose yet again.--User:Sexualharrison16:08, 8 December 2011 (bst):::oh you are right about that. and you must used to be hunted. nazi bitch hunts are super fun--User:Sexualharrison16:16, 8 December 2011 (bst)
Impersonation accussation. Resizing images is not considered impersonation, there is plenty of precedent to back this up. End of story. -- 
Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's Spiderzed's talk page. He'd pretty much have to show up and say he had a problem with it to be even considered. He'd probably have more issue with it being filled with hate speech, I'm sure. Or SH for using his likeness for hatespeech. Not Vandalism unless Spider takes issue with it. ~ 17:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I love shitty excuses. Not Vandalism --Like Moss and The Dude..... 17:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Awwwww--User:Sexualharrison17:52, 8 December 2011 (bst)
User:Nmb910 (2)
| Verdict | Mulitple-Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | One Month w/o Perma |
For all of the alts below.
- Axe H4ck (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
- Axe H4ckz (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
- LolUMadAxe (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
- Johnsy Gerrits (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
- Nmb9I0 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
- NmbI90 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
- Liontamer20 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
~ 06:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Vandalism. One for each alt? ~ 06:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This one too:
Now I'm not gonna make a verdict here since my page was also vandalized here, so I'm an involved party, so I'm gonna sit this one out. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine if you feel like an involved party but I really don't agree. His vandalization of your user page was just a response to you doing your job as sysop. If we considered sysops involved during sprees like this then it would be very easy for a vandal to make every sysop "involved" by hitting every sysop user page. I don't think you have any personally vested interest in this case beyond the typical vandal alt response to having their alt banned. Unless you truly feel you can't make an unbiased ruling here, feel free to take part in the perma vote. ~ 14:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Guess you've got a point. His reaction was due to me doing my job. Vandalism be vandalism, then. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
They're pretty obviously alts of his, so he should get an escalation for each time he's created an alt to vandalise the wiki -- boxy 11:43, 29 November 2011 (BST)
Vandalism and an escalation for each alt. I think that probably puts him on a permaban vote?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 12:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism as boxy. 7 escalations at once should lead us straight from zero to permaban vote. -- Spiderzed█ 12:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It's almost 2 weeks later, time for rest of sysops to weigh in? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
4 weeks later. --Thadeous Oakley, after the comment was shortened from many lines to one line by the Helpful Little Gnome, sometime when 21:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC) occurred.
Permaban Vote (User:Nmb910)
For
- Its seems it's between the choice of banning this user for a year or just going straight to perma. I'm going to go ahead and vote perma in this case. First warning was issued a week ago and in hind sight another should have been issued for the Liontamer alts. User ignored warning and created a plethora of new alts while using proxy IPs. Looks to be a career vandal. ~ 14:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perma. Because if he is indeed Liontamer, which he indeed does seem to be, and Liontamer appeared earlier then him and was permabanned before Nmb910 joined the wiki, then it should very well be permaban evasion, no? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- This user's first contribution was in 2009. This is the main. We're voting on whether to ban him based on multiple escalations. ~ 01:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. I must have gotten confused in the flurry of alts this guy made. Lemme just retract this vote for now... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 02:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Against
- But only very slightly, and only because the user started his vandal career only recently. One month is plenty of time to cool down and become maybe, maybe a productive part of the community. However, just one more infraction (even during the perma vote), and I'll do everything to keep him off the site permanently. -- Spiderzed█ 16:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- --Like Moss and The Dude..... 21:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- This'll do for now -- boxy 11:48, 25 December 2011 (BST)
User:Axe H4ck
| Verdict | Impersonation/Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
He didn't make an edit yet, but one look, and I knew he was gonna impersonate me to vandalize Snoog4's pages. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Scratch that. My banning came a second too slow. He vandalized my page. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
| Verdict | Impersonation |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
Now this one, I was on time before the edit. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
| Verdict | Vandalism/Vandal Alt |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
I'm getting sick of this shit. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
| Verdict | Vandalism/Vandal Alt |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
Yawn. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
| Verdict | Vandal Alt |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
Caught by Vapor before it could edit. Damn vandal punk. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Nmb9I0
| Verdict | Vandal Alt |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
And again. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
User:NmbI90
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
Did the same edits as Liontamer18 and 19. I can't confirm that Liontamer and Nmb are the same person since the IPs aren't matching. In light of this, I think we should also reconsider the vandalism case against Nmb910 below. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Liontamer20
| Verdict | Ban Evasion |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
See Liontamer18 and 19 below. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Nmb910
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Warning |
For this. MO matches Liontamer. --VVV RPMBG 08:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Check user does not show Liontamer and Nmb910 being the same person. In fact, their two locations are on opposite sides of US. There's a question I would like answered and made clear before I make a verdict for this case, so I've asked Snoog4 whether or not he authorized this edit or not. I shall make a decision when Snoog answers, or if Nmb910 heavily vandalizes the page like Liontamer. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 09:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- ...It seems I may have unintentionally caused a bit of drama...He should have just answered yes or no to my question...Nmb910 gets a Vandalism verdict from me. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 16:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism -- Spiderzed█ 17:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism and warned. ~ 14:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
We should reconsider this case. See the case above against NmbI90. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I repeat. We should reopen this case in light of the new vandal alts with a similar name. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep, open her back up and count each vandal alt as vandalism. I count three so far. All proxies, too it seems. ~ 06:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm almost certain the impersonators are him also. Protected Angel Wings (as well as my user page) due to excessive vandalism. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Rotting Joe Cochrane
| Verdict | Ban Evasion |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
Check user confirms it to be Johnny Rotten from a few reports below. Permabanning on grounds of ban evasion. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Liontamer19
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
Edits have been rolled back and permabanning as a vandal alt. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 07:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Liontamer18
| Verdict | Vandalism |
|---|---|
| Action taken | Permaban |
Neither edit appears to be in good faith. --UroguyTMZ 17:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- All edits rolled back. IPs suggest either that Liontamer can travel from Las Vegas to Chicago in 4 minutes, or that he operates on proxies. Recommend a Perma as vandal alt. -- Spiderzed█ 18:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I second the perma motion. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Permabanned. -- Cheese 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
What's up with these permabans? It's called 3ER for a reason guys and we've always strictly applied them as such, and proxies are banned separately from accounts. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Vandal Alts are perma'd, however. ~ 16:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Archives
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
