Other discussions

Are the Mods Online

So gage, are you always the one to report these alts? It seems that way. Hmmm...Jjames 05:35, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Honestly, they aren't hard to catch if you stalk recent changes.--Gage 05:47, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Oh, ok. I guess it's no more likely to be you than any other asshole.Jjames 05:51, 27 September 2006 (BST)

And say they were me; why would I revert my own vandalism every time? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of said vandalism?--Gage 05:51, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Well you have been on the whole "These alts are all obviously jjames, let's ban him." So I figured one of those bunch is doing this to get me banned.Jjames 05:54, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Thinking the alts were you was my doing you idiot. --CaptainM 06:19, 27 September 2006 (BST)

How so? Gage brought a VB case against me and i argued I was the fake karlsbad, you fucking moron.Jjames 06:26, 27 September 2006 (BST)

IDIOT, PAY ATTENTION. --CaptainM 06:39, 27 September 2006 (BST)

It's not like you're some Svengali and gage and the crew are you puppets. They can come to their own wrong conclusions. it's nice of you to try and piss me off so you can get more attention though. You're a special little princess.Jjames 06:47, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Does it really take demeaning people to bring up your low low self-esteem? --CaptainM 07:03, 27 September 2006 (BST)

I'm merely responding in kind to your attitude. If you're going to follow me around with your cunt bleeding all over the place, don't get offended when I throw tampons at you.(metaphorically)Jjames 07:51, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Mmmmmmm, bleeding cunts and tampons.... --CaptainM 08:18, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Is anyone gonna stand up and stop this flagrant abuse of the VB and moderation system? I mean, yeesh, it drags on and on and on with no one stepping in. I haven't been one to stand with the mods in the past, but damn, someone do something and make this bullshit stop. There must be something that can be done. --Zod Rhombus 18:48, 27 September 2006 (BST)

3pwv

3pwv said:

It has been fun while it has lasted but I don't have time for this anymore so I am announcing that I am leaving the UD wiki and probably the scroll wars wiki forever, or at least for a long, long time. Couple things to say though before I leave, 1 get that signature policy past or something else that would be effective or this wiki is doomed if someone else comes along, 2nd watch out for annoumous proxy users and third if you ever come accross a perstant vandal that uses AOL then you should fear them (I only used open proxies). Thats all so I guess I will see you guys either on SW or a long time from now. Your long time V, 3pwv.

Hmm... well I'm done here, I was asked by 3pwv to do this and I have. - Jedaz - 12:43/21/11/2024 05:15, 23 September 2006 (BST)

I'll miss you, 3pwv. --Gold Blade 05:32, 23 September 2006 (BST)

He was definitely more personable than PQN was, I'll give him that much. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 10:02, 23 September 2006 (BST)

Indeed. His death should be a little less painful. Just a little.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 10:09, 23 September 2006 (BST)

Blue Blade

[[1]] Hmm. I just remembered this case...suspicious...--Gold Blade 23:21, 26 September 2006 (BST)

Vandal Banning policy discussions

Archiving M/VB

Xoids talk page

Do you think we should start to archive M/VB? The purging might have been a good reason back in February, but now it's just a burden to search the history. Lots of precedents are set on that page.

Oh and I only noticed this today. Damn I laughed hard. --Brizth ^{M T} 20:08, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Archiving would be nice, it's getting pretty big. --Rueful 19:38, 12 September 2006 (BST)

Previously, it was just deleted, what Brizth is saying "instead of deleting crap when it gets too big, why not archive it so we can find older cases?". –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:17, 13 September 2006 (BST)

Yes, it'd be an idea. I never really saw why it wasn't the case before. Lazy mods? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:17, 13 September 2006 (BST)

Sounds good, I'll take this conversation to the Vandal Banning Talk Page so it's a bit more public and has more input on how it should all be done ect. - Jedaz - 12:43/21/11/2024 14:57, 17 September 2006 (BST)

So what do people think about having this as standard practice? I think it'ld be helpful, but the only question is how really. Probably the easiest way is just to do it the same as the suggestions talk page archive. But I'ld like to see what other peoples thoughts are on this. - Jedaz - 12:43/21/11/2024 15:04, 17 September 2006 (BST)

You know, I made {{Quote}} for a reason. Cyberbob Talk 15:07, 17 September 2006 (BST)

I must have missed the memo =P - Jedaz - 12:43/21/11/2024 15:11, 17 September 2006 (BST)

Mod-to-mods: suburb reports

Is anyone else tired of seeing suburb reports on the vandal banning page? I'm not talking about XYZ vandal vandalizing a suburb page. I'm talking about "X changed the status from Y to Z, and it's really Y." Given the inherent flaws in assessing suburb danger levels (no perfect view of the entire suburb at all times) and the subjective nature of what "dangerous," "safe," etc. mean, I move that we dismiss all "danger report changed" vandalism reports unless the change is truly vandalism, and instead direct the reporter to arbitration. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 03:06, 31 August 2006 (BST)

I don't care if my vote really doesn't count, but I've been for this for a long time. Along with redefining the danger level rules. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 03:08, 31 August 2006 (BST)

I agree. Any of these complaints can hardly be called vandalism. Come to this page if some guy deleted your report, not if he contests it. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:12, 31 August 2006 (BST)

If someone says "The Noob 501st Ranger Marine SEAL UNIT has just cleared out the whole Big Bash from 'suburb 1'." that's vandalism. But if someone makes a report where there are zombies saying there are no zombies it isn't. Double standards FT-fucking-W? --Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt!} 04:07, 31 August 2006 (BST)

Ok. Listen now. Everytime there is an edit conflit in the Danger Report status, use the subrub DangerReport talk page. When i built this system i said to discuss things there. People rarely do it, and they even created a new page to discuss the ridleybank drama. Sheesh. --overlord hagnat ^mod 04:34, 31 August 2006 (BST)

Vandal Votes

May votes produced by permabanned-vandals be stricken by users when they are encountered in policies and suggestion on which voting has not yet ended? If so is any special notation required? --Max Grivas ^{JG,T,P!,Bob06!} 07:55, 30 August 2006 (BST)

I have your answer here.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:58, 30 August 2006 (BST)

For policies I'd say yes because they arn't going to be affected by them, but with the suggestions I don't think it's worth the time or effort to do so, but if you want to put in the effort then don't let me stop you. In most cases with the suggestions they are either one way or another, one vote doesn't usualy make much of a difference. When you do strike out the votes though just say "Perma-banned vandal vote struck" or something to that effect, and don't forget to sign it as well. - Jedaz 08:01, 30 August 2006 (BST)

I would say absolutely yes. Someone who has earned a permanent ban has lost their right to participate in this wiki, and that includes the voting processes. Strike the votes when you find them, make a note of why, and sign it. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:21, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Question

The Lord God wonders if it is policy to leave a warning in place for a custom title that has not been removed from God's userpage by a moderator, and is infact the Lord God's signature. -- (The Lord God) † ^Pray 05:25, 16 August 2006 (BST)

If you permit me to answer your question, your warnings were placed when your signature was different to your User page title so they have a reason to be. A Moderator had no need to change your custom title himself as the policy that rules over these issues explicity allows any user to change it. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 05:30, 16 August 2006 (BST)

The Lord God still contends that "The Lord God" is not far enough from "God" to be against the policy. The signature only solidifies the case for removal of this warning, though both are in no way valid at this point. The Lord God simply wonders why others have not been penalized as he has, and senses some theophobia in the Moderation staff. -- (The Lord God) † ^Pray 05:48, 16 August 2006 (BST)

If you think that "The Lord God" is not far enough from "God" to be against the policy it's just your oppinion, and there's still your talk page's custom title. It has been ruled that it is against the policy and I personally agree with the ruling. Probably when I ask you "wich others?" you will cite Banana Bear4 example: he changed his signature to his actual page title even before the policy was enacted, so it was permitted; you changed your User page's title after changing your sign and no one is stalking you with vandal reports now. The only thing that I could warn you not to do is to customize any of your page's titles any further as it could be seen as vandalism or as an abuse of the policy (face it, we can't change our sigs every week). --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 06:02, 16 August 2006 (BST)

The Lord God points out that the current title of his userpage is the title he recieved the second warning for. It seemed like you were thinking that the current title was put up after the cases, though the Lord God could be wrong. It's happened before, heck he had to flood the Earth to cover up that shit. -- (The Lord God) † ^Pray 06:28, 16 August 2006 (BST)

You made the title legal when you changed your sig, and that was after the second warning was delivered. Seems pretty logic to me. If you're saying "but when I was warned the second time no one changed the title", my guess is that it wasn't done because no much time passed and the vandal report that made you to be warned for was still pretty active. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 06:35, 16 August 2006 (BST)

The Lord God cannot fathom the double standards and doubletalk associated with these two vandal reports and following warnings. The lack of title removal shows a clear lack of caring about the title's nature or placement, rather the only problem they had was that it was being used by the Lord God. -- (The Lord God) † ^Pray 06:40, 16 August 2006 (BST)

I think thew only way to prove that is for you to make a vandal report on someone else with a custom title that doesn't follow the policy and see how mods act. As I said, very little time passed between your 2^nd warning and the change of your sig (in fact, approximately 1 hour), time that you invested pretty energetically to contest both warnings, so I can understand the mods defending their decissions and forgetting about changing your user page's title; action that, I must repeat, could have been carried by any user and not necessarily by them. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 06:48, 16 August 2006 (BST)

The Lord God does not believe that the solution to policies being violated by moderators is to try and get someone else wronged by them. -- (The Lord God) † ^Pray 07:01, 16 August 2006 (BST)

I meant that that was the only way to prove the point you made. If you really think that you have been wronged, take it to Misconduct, but your case is really weak. As I said, only you and yourself think that mods did wrong... and maybe Kiki LottaBoobs too =P. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 07:07, 16 August 2006 (BST)

The Lord God thinks there are a few more. Were it brought to public view, there would be a massive uprising akin to the Crusades. The Lord does not however think that an arbitration case can make a moderator remove an unjust warning. Only an inner voice of reason and honor can do that, which seems to be lacking. -- (The Lord God) † ^Pray 07:15, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Problem. Possibly Major

Unsure of something, I went and asked ~~the fountain of all knowledge~~ Wikipedia. What I asked + the response.

There are a lot of users who will need to be unblocked, then reblocked for the correct amount of time because of this. It's a pain, but if anyone is wondering WTF I'm doing, that's why. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:43, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Banned User Template

I added Template:Banneduser to put on the top of the userpages of people who have been banned from the wiki- any objections? --LibrarianBrent 06:29, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Not a mod, but is this really necessary? It seems more a way of saying "BEAT DOWN!" than a helpful notice ;). --Lucero Capell 06:31, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

It is worth noting that as a general rule, banning Vandals is more about limiting their damage rather than punishing offenders. I think it may be useful for people wondering what's going on to be able to see whether someone has been banned, but perhaps the notice is best placed in their Talk page, rather than directly on their user page. -- Odd Starter 07:34, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I think it should be placed at the top of both and removed when the ban expires. --LibrarianBrent 01:04, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)

What is Vandalism?

I'm considering putting on this page a list of what can be clearly called Vandalism, and I'd like some input from the community.

Wikipedia:Vandalism is a good place to start, since we tend to borrow a lot of procedure from them, but This is not Wikipedia, so we should probably come to a consensus on what we consider Vandalism, and what isn't.

My views:

Vandalism is malicious in intent. There's no such thing as "accidental vandalism".
Malicious Vandalism should include such things as Redirection Vandalism and Move Vandalism, as well as Vandalism of page content.
Created pages that clearly exist for the sole purpose of insulting a group or person should probably be considered Vandalism, though I'm sympathetic to the argument that it shouldn't be.

That's a start, anyone else wish to chime in? -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 01:01, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Is there anyway we can limit people to 1 edit per min? That would limit the effectiveness of the recent attacks. --Technerd 19:50, 1 April 2006 (BST)

Not a bad idea, but it would also limit the effectiveness of people trying to fix mass vandalism. Last night I was fixing pages at a faster rate than one a minute.--Mia Kristos 21:24, 1 April 2006 (BST)

Would altering offensive images/templates to still carry the same message but be less hostile count as vandalism? Technically, it's a "good faith edit to improve the wiki", and templates/images are not "private property" like Group pages are.--The Fifth Horseman 09:50, 20 June 2006 (BST)

I would say that would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, simply because it's incorrect to assume that any edit that makes something "less hostile" is necessarily a good faith edit. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 18:11, 20 June 2006 (BST)

I just have to say, its not a fine line on whats bad faith and whats not. Its mre shades of gray. I really think that, with the exception of obvious vandalisim and adbots (that stuff), I really tink there should be somesort of voting system,. --Gold Blade 22:13, 15 September 2006 (BST)

I really tink that somesort of voting system would be rilly stoopid becaz not everywon is a mooderator lol. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 22:56, 15 September 2006 (BST)

And that is what the problem with the voting comes down to: Idiots who vote Bad Faith because they can. Thanks for the example Bob. --Gold Blade 22:57, 15 September 2006 (BST)

How about only respected members of the Wiki can vote, like if you have been on the Wiki for X amount of time you can vote?--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 22:59, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Not bad. How about something similar to mods, so you need vouches, but it only works for that? --Gold Blade 23:02, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Ya, but the requirements are just "Good Behavior, and time" And then read what fellow Members say about you in their votes?--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 23:11, 15 September 2006 (BST)

How about you let moderators do their job and stop interfering where you aren't wanted, Gold Blade? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 23:11, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Whats wrong with trying to help? --Gold Blade 23:12, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Nothing... until you cross the point to where although the sugestion "May" work in principle, and "Might" be a good idea, those of us who actually deal with the problem on a day to day basis get cranky. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 23:35, 15 September 2006 (BST)

What Conndraka said, with this addition: the point at which you start encouraging members to be back seat moderators is the point at which you piss us off. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:05, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Theres a difference between what I said and back seat modding. --Gold Blade 00:06, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Sorry, something as sensitive as vandal banning is not a process that will be opened to votes by the community. Any other questions? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 03:53, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Owned. Nice one Bob. Cyberbob Talk 04:48, 16 September 2006 (BST)

I was just wondering. Where do the rules say you can't say what you think, as long as it's constructive? --ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 05:01, 16 September 2006 (BST)

As long as it's constructive? Nowhere. But you're delusional if you think a non-mod user's, with a history of vandalism no less, opinion (not saying evidence; just opinion) is going to be really taken into account on such pages as Misconbitration (which you've also attempted to influence) and Vandal Banning. Sure, you're allowed to comment, but it isn't going to influence the mod's decision. Cyberbob Talk 05:16, 16 September 2006 (BST)

First off, theres no such word as Miscontribation, it's Misconduct. Second, I am not the only one with a vandal history as you epecially should know. Third, Not once have I done anything on Misconduct, you and Xoid NOT get reprimanded for trying to ban me. Look up the case in Misconduct under Xoid. The first line I say, is I would like this case to be dropped. Next line: Bob Hammero: Great! Although it doesnt work like that. Furthermore, the person who started BOTH misconduct cases was 3page. Fourth, since when does a regular users opinion not get taken into account on M/M and VB? I seem to be able to recall a particular case that you might also remember... --ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 05:23, 16 September 2006 (BST)

You know damn well what Misconbitration is; it's a portmanteau of "Misconduct" and "Arbitration" usually used by users who are sick and tired of the frivulous bullshit cases started by troublemakers like Amazing or 3page. Now, onto the rest of your crap…

You have a history of vandalism, a history of being a pain in the arse just because you feel like it, you have a history of butting in with comments lacking even a modicum of insight, you have a history of abusing pages with a proxy, and you have a history of trying to stretch the line as far as humanly possible. Occasionally, you may come up with something insightful, but I've yet to see it. ∴ your opinion, on the whole, counts for jack shit. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:45, 16 September 2006 (BST)

And yours should count more to me because...--ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 18:27, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Er, maybe because a) he's right, b) he isn't the one with the vandalism record a mile long and c) he doesn't piss off three quarters of the wiki population with his very existence? Cyberbob Talk 18:45, 16 September 2006 (BST)

What difference does that make to me? If you can convince me why it would, I will sell my computer. --ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 18:47, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Why what would do what? Cyberbob Talk 18:50, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Why his opinion should count for more, and those reasons, coming from another moderator, aren't going to work.--ĢΘζđ ЫǺđє 18:54, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Wait, what? Jesus Christ, do you even read your comments before submitting them? You're making precisely zero sense. What reasons? The reasons Xoid's opinion should count for more? And then why they aren't going to work? What? The? Fuck? Cyberbob Talk 18:56, 16 September 2006 (BST)

My god. With a stupidity tumor as big as yours, I'm amazed you know how to log on, much less at how on earth you become a moderator. --Gold Blade 19:01, 16 September 2006 (BST)

You know what? I really cannot be fucked replying to you anymore. You just...I'm lost for words to describe you. I give up. Cyberbob Talk 19:02, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Thus does the gold washed sword of righteousness defeat the cold grasp of tyranny, one finger at a time. --Gold Blade 19:08, 16 September 2006 (BST)

You haven't proven me wrong. All you've managed to do is to reply me into submission. Quantity over quality seems to be your plan of attack. Cyberbob Talk 19:10, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Hardly. If I had come up with piece of crap arguments then about a hundred people would be swarming me. All I see is a pathetic attempt at denial that I am correct. I commend you for your attempt, but not your foolishness. --Gold Blade 19:12, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Alright then, smart guy, show me some proof of unfairness, that didn't happen to you - since everyone knows how objective you are when it comes to your punishments. Show me where mods have been biased. Show me where we've gotten away with things we warn/ban regular users for. Cyberbob Talk 19:16, 16 September 2006 (BST)

I found something very interesting Jedaz. I have exactly zero doubt that if I had done the exact same thing, I would have gotten banned. And this has happened before. Gage got a warning for removing a suggestion that was almost Spamminated, but was off by 1%. Well, dumb guy? --Gold Blade 19:31, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Your doubts don't count for shit unless you actually do that - you can't know for sure that you would've. Me, I'd say that you wouldn't have. Gee, I wonder if you'll believe me. If Gage had been let off, that mod wouldn't have been doing his duty. We can't let people off just because they did only vandalised "a little bit". It's either vandalism, or not. If it falls into the former category, you get warned. Some things don't require bad faith to be punishable, Gold Blade. If you went and blanked my user page because you honestly thought it deserved to be, do you think you should be let off? Do we let murderers off for killing someone who, in all honesty, probably deserved it? No, we don't. Cyberbob Talk 19:36, 16 September 2006 (BST)

You are so easy to trick into revealing the truth. You just said it yourself: it doesnt have to be bad faith to be vandalism. Well, excuse me for misinterpreting the rules, but I assumed that vandalism was an edit undeniably made in bad faith. You. Are. A. Moron. --Gold Blade 19:42, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Let me reiterate: some things don't require bad faith to be vandalism. If you went and blanked my user page (I'm repeating myself, I know, but you won't get it if I introduce a whole new scenario) on the basis that you truly thought it deserved to be, should you be punished? What if you blanked every user's page on the wiki, because you truly believed they deserved to be? Cyberbob Talk 19:45, 16 September 2006 (BST)

And yet, there is a difference. Now, if I blankes the suggestions page because I honestly thought it deserved it, it would be different than if it was in good faith. In good faith means "you are trying to improve the wiki". Now, I might think it deserves it, but I wouldn't think it is improving the wiki. Oh, and you are stupid. Gage did get let off. Go read a Monopoly instruction manual. --Gold Blade 19:50, 16 September 2006 (BST)

If you honestly thought it deserved to be blank, that counts as having improved the wiki as a whole. Gold Blade, I don't see anywhere in your arguments except for your last comment that you said Gage got let off. I don't memorise every single vandal case that goes through M/VB, so back off. Cyberbob Talk 19:54, 16 September 2006 (BST)

No, you fail to reconize the difference. Plus, you obviously don't care that much about wether you do the right thing or not. --Gold Blade 19:56, 16 September 2006 (BST)

I'm going to leave it there, since your last comment did far more damage to your "case" than I could ever hope to do. Night. Cyberbob Talk 19:59, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Let's see what some other people think of this, shall we? --Gold Blade 20:00, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Wow. I am sensing some serious Anger and loathing. As a third-party observer I have something to say to both of you, to Gold Blade: Quit Bitching and just go on doing what you do, if you do then those "Scheming" Mods might let their guard down and slip and leave some dirty evidence for you. And Too Cyberbob240: Quit waving your nose in everyones face! If you stop doing that then everyone will be unable to have a good case against Bias on this Wiki. You both should just. Shut. Up. And. Quit. Whining.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 21:23, 16 September 2006 (BST)

Removing requests.

I'm considering simply deleting the vast majority of served and inactive requests here. I'd consider archiving them, but I'm not sure it's really needed. After a vandal's been banned, there's really no need to keep the request up, and if we have warned/banned the user previously, we can check this is the case on their talk page or the block log.

However, I thought I'd let other people have input before I do this, as this is a pretty big change. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod | W!} 01:52, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

We should probably remove them but archive previous warnings and bans of users. --ALIENwolve 03:00, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, the block log doesn't keep warnings and people often delete them off of their talk pages--I'd rather not have to search through a history every time to see what level of ban they get. I'd say keep an archive by username of all warnings and bans, wihtout all the arguing and reports and stuff, just the hard data. I can set it up with what's on the page now if everyone else agrees with the idea.--'STER-Talk-Mod 19:25, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Works for me. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod | W!} 10:56, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Alright, I've started work here. Can't do the whole thing today, I'll keep working.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:49, 16 Feb 2006 (GMT)

The data page is now up to date and old data has been flushed here. Please add data to the page as users are warned or banned from now on.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:44, 17 February 2006 (GMT)

I purged the page again, leaving last two weeks there. It had some 160 reports, dropped to 44. I hope people have been keeping UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Data updated. The latest full page can be found in history. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 16:27, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Reporting Multiple Accounts

I attempted to use sub-sub-sections because I was too lazy to comment on each one of those incidents, but it appears to be a little confusing since the sub-sub-sections look just like the sub-sections. Feel free to organize it better. --Lint 19:15, 19 February 2006 (GMT)

Warning Template

Is anyone using a fixed-wording paragraph to warn people, out of interest? Should we maybe have an official one anyway? It'd save time, and would be good to have something calmly neutral to reach for when people are being infuriating... --Spiro 23:21, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Ban Duration

When did the trend for "infinite" duration bans start? Isn't this a bad thing if a vandal was using an IP address from their ISP or university, that could be reassigned to a genuine wiki user weeks or months later? --Spiro 07:25, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I believe the IP ban is only for 24 hours. Both the ban duration and how long wiki remembers the IP. Though I'm not sure about this. Mediawiki documentation on the subject is quite scarce. --Brizth ^{M T} 07:34, 28 April 2006 (BST)

It is a point - I'm still of the believe that the highest ban level should be a year - if a vandal is so persistent that they stick around for that long, well, even an infinite ban might be too short for them. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 13:45, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I was banned for 48 hours and my co-worker (who is on another floor, another server, but with my same company - Octi 1)had his wikiprivleages removed for 48 hours as well. they accused us of being the same player and using the same computer. I think banning the IP is stupid because co-workers/students/roomates/etc, all get accused of being 1 player --Legend X

Learn to indent properly.
IP addresses are automatically blocked at the moment.
Tough luck. Stop vandalising pages, and people using the same IP address won't suffer.
This is the whole reason that IPv6 is meant to come in. Until it does, STFU. It's a technical limitation that cannot be overcome.

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:24, 1 July 2006 (BST)

Alt Bans

I propose that when an alt of a user is banned the main is warned. Otherwise what will stop someone from making many vandal alts? This way, the alt is banned and the main is warned--Admiral Ackbar ^{U! WTF} 02:55, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Agreed. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 03:19, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Likewise. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 03:25, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Ditto. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:11, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Yeah,Banana Bear 05:14, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Agreed. --Bob Hammero ^T•W!•U! 05:15, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Bandwagon Vote! --Karlsbad 05:20, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Yep. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 08:41, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Sounds perfectly reasonable. MaulMachine ^U! 21:22, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Well, traditionally, we don't make a difference between alt and main. It's not accounts that get banned, it's users (and this needs to be the case, or else there's issues as noted above)If you look in UDWiki:Moderation/Guidelines we make a note that circumnventing bans with alts means the alt gets banned for the next step up (and so on and so on). If we identify that a person is vandalising with an alt, it's not like we give each alt a separate warning list - we already do treat them as if they were the same person. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 05:31, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Awesome!-Banana Bear 05:56, 30 May 2006 (BST)

I actually can't find anything like that in the link you provided, am I blind or is it not there? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:13, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Hmm... There is the whole escalating bans set, but you're right, there isn't actually anything on M/G that explicitly says so. We have noted in other places though that while users can have multiple accounts, most systems on the wiki will treat them all as a single user. Perhaps it might be a good idea to explicitly state this... -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 06:55, 30 May 2006 (BST)

The provisional guidelines need some work. Apparently, until I fixed it, we were to delete pages that people asked us to protect. Something a tad screwy there. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:00, 30 May 2006 (BST)

As you saw with Haha/Newbienice, Newbienice vandalised a bit, was warned, then made an alt account to continue his vandalism. The alt was banned, yet newbienice only had 1 warning. There's a problem here--Admiral Ackbar ^{U! WTF} 07:59, 30 May 2006 (BST)

I was using a bit of initiative. As Newbienie vandalised, he was warned, but as this was obviously an alt purely for vandalism, I banned the alt. It was quite plain that the alt was only there to vandalise and circumvent any bans.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:05, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Still, perhaps stronger measures are warranted for that kind of flagrant ban evasion. MaulMachine ^U! 21:22, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Check Every Vandal

Currently with CheckUser function, we have the ability to determine a user's IP address. I suggest that when an account is banned for any vandalism, a Check is made on the IP address to confirm that the account is not an alt. This means that all vandals are IP checked for hydra head accounts that might concurrently exist at the time of their first infraction. This should be a small check after a vandalism warning or ban is leveled. Thoughts? --Kiki Lottaboobs 04:30, 9 September 2006 (BST)

I suppose that that's already being doing, mods can correct me if I'm wrong. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:39, 9 September 2006 (BST)

I think that's the general practice already. Some mods forget, and some can't be bothered, but I think that's pretty much what happens overall. Making it a part of proceedure may become tedious, however, so I'm leery of that. In essence? Not too sure of whether it should be done for every vandal, but certainly a good idea for most. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 04:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Adbots

Lalala. Lets keep an score on who banned the most adbots ? The counting starts today. --hagnat ^mod 01:09, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Score

Moderator	Bannings
The wonderful Adbot banning competition
since 20 may	reported	unreported	Total
Brizth	0	11	11
Xoid	7	1	8
Vista	4	2	6
Hagnat	4	1	5
Odd Starter	0	3	3
Nubis	2	2	4
Cyberbob240	3	0	3
The General	1	1	2

Moved from main vandal banning page

Blocked by moi. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 04:24, 31 May 2006 (BST)

Xoid, next time you can go to the bot contributions page and delete all pages the bot has created (pages he only edited you might only rollback them). This kind of pages doesnt need to go through the Speedy Deletion page then. --hagnat ^mod 00:21, 1 June 2006 (BST)

Azk hit the main page here but I reverted it. -Banana Bear 01:54, 1 June 2006 (BST)

Blocked. Please name the right user next time, names are case sensitive as you well know. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 02:17, 1 June 2006 (BST)

I know now. Sorry for the mix up, I'll get it right next time. -Banana Bear 02:22, 1 June 2006 (BST)

L111 and Booby

Just noticed these adbots did not seem to have been reported.

Vandalisms being this and this, respectively. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 23:45, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Both are already banned. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 23:54, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Alright, my bad. I assumed that if they'd been reported/banned, they'd show in the list of adbots just above. Guess not, though. Mind cluing me in on how to tell in future? --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 23:56, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Well, mostly Special:Ipblocklist and block log. Generally we (or at least I) don't report banned adbots here or anywhere else. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 00:00, 24 May 2006 (BST)

...Huh. Strikes me as being more than a touch confusing to report some vandalism but not report others (except not always), but still have directions on the Vandal Banning page to report them here. Personally, I'd much prefer a consistent system. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 00:11, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Generally, Vandal Banning is so that people can inform a sysop of a vandal that needs banning. If a sysop is already aware of the vandal and has already banned them, there's no real need to place it here. That's the general logic, anyway. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 03:17, 24 May 2006 (BST)

No, I understand that part of it, but my point is that it's confusing for other users, because then they have no way of telling whether the vandalism has been dealt with or not. This then leads to confusions of the sort that started this thing in the first place. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 06:52, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Other moderators have reported it here in the past. If you don't feel like reporting them here, just make a permanent link to the block log and the IP block list. (Although some users will be confused by them. Unsuprising since some users are barely familiar with basic formatting.) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 02:59, 24 May 2006 (BST)

I'm afraid you've lost me. Are you replying to me or Brizth? --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 06:52, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Brizth. I had to write that message in a hurry, so I didn't make sure it was placed correctly. (Now fixed.) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:22, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Alright. Butting out, then. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 08:36, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Discussions moved from the vandal page

26 September

Gage

It is clearly bad faith for you to rule on this since you have bben taken to aribitration for calling me scinfaxi. I was told to take these to vandal banning, so I did. He listed one person who never called me scinfaxi and one who has already been banned. For you to call this anything other than bad faith is clearly misconduct.Jjames 03:50, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Misconduct? Arbitration? Been there, done that, and you've still not affected me in the slightest. Are you going to cite a page edit as well to what this case is about? My ruling is my ruling, and no failed arbitration case effects the fact that Gage reporting people who have done the same action as you are reporting is vandalism. Disagreeing with an editor which has brought a failed arbitration case against them is not bad faith or misconduct on THAT FACT ALONE- which I submit since you can't be bothered with actually submitting any logic into your arguement. I can understand that you are busy at the moment bringing cases against half the wiki, however, so I can wait. --Karlsbad 03:59, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Here's the link. [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal_Banning#Gold_Blade}

As for the misconduct. You can't compare me going to vandal bannig at hagnat's insistance the same as listing a person who never called me scinfaxi and one who is already banned. Besides, it is misconduct to rule on a case that mirrors our arbitration case. Which, by the way you didn't win. You were told to stop calling me scinfaxi. You have no business postin gon this issue. If it is so clearly not vandalism, wait for an uninvolved mod to rule it as such.Jjames 04:09, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Didn't win /= Never ruled upon, so you are right. And Misconduct from a person of your stature will obviously be considered with the full depth and veracity which it deserves. --Karlsbad 04:10, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Way to admit your obvious bias against me. My reputation has nothing to do with the facts of this case. Any unbiased moderator would realize that.Jjames 04:13, 25 September 2006 (BST)

I am not admiting anything, I am only stating the obvious- that a case from a user will always be treated as the case should be treated. And to wit; what facts? I submitted that reporting a vandal is not vandalism- you do not own the page or the right to report people for ~~ridiculing~~ calling you Scinfaxi. And if a mod agrees with me, will you take them to Misconduct for agreeing with me as OBVIOUSLY they are biased against you as well? --Karlsbad 04:27, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Jokes? I was being completely serious. I want these vandals brought to justice as much as you do.--Gage 03:22, 25 September 2006 (BST)

gage? The first time I ever even said Jjames or Scinfaxi was that thyme. I wasn't "admitting" anything... --Gold Blade 03:24, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Shutup Scinfaxi. --CaptainM 03:24, 25 September 2006 (BST)

That sounded like an admission of guilt to me 0_o. Sorry, my bad.--Gage 03:25, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Warned. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:53, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Any arguement that will go towards precident here? --Karlsbad 05:06, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Karlsbad already ruled on this one hagnat. Double jeopardy anyone?--Gage 05:45, 25 September 2006 (BST)

False Hagnat

Funny how jjames stopped posting right before this started. Is it related? --Zod Rhombus 05:52, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Well, I don't know, but the template says Template:ImportantInfo And secondly, another identical alt did the same actions, then halted, and five minutes later Jjames posts. --Karlsbad 05:57, 25 September 2006 (BST)

That is an attack template. It's clearly bad faith.Jjames 06:03, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Its the truth. Funny that your actions cause you to have no credibility, considering that Rev. Bubba Flavel WAS your sockpuppet. --Karlsbad 06:05, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Get the fuck over yourself.--Gage 06:04, 25 September 2006 (BST)

No, I readily admitted that he was my alt and never broke a rule with him. You are being dishonest and clearly violating the rules of the wiki.Jjames 06:08, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Admiting a sock puppet is yours does not preclude it from being a sockpuppet. --Karlsbad 06:09, 25 September 2006 (BST)

It is an invalid comparison. I never used my alt to break any rules.Jjames 06:25, 25 September 2006 (BST)

But that does not change the fact that your alt is an alt.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:54, 25 September 2006 (BST)

I'm not quite sure of the issue here. Rev. Bubba Flavel hasn't broken any rules (or voted on anything), so that's not the problem. IF there isn't any definitive proof of somebody's ownership of an account (in this case I'm assuming it's Cyberbob250), nothing can be done. Cyberbob Talk 14:06, 25 September 2006 (BST)

18 September

MrAushvitz

Moved from M/VB:

Is their anyone else now that is actually interesting?--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 01:04, 19 September 2006 (BST)

What do you mean? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 01:07, 19 September 2006 (BST)

I mean someone having a sense of humor.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 01:08, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Um, clarification please?

The shotgun suggestion was originally submitted by Aushvitz on the 17th. He then submitted a revision of that suggestion on the 18th, and then a new suggestion. It seems to me that he submitted one revision and one new suggestion on the 18th, which is as per the rules.

Is Gage intending to imply that if a revised suggestion is submitted on a different day from the original suggestion, it counts as an "original" suggestion? Because that's definitely not what I voted for, and as you can see from the policy discussion surrounding the proposal, it's not what anyone else voted for either. You are allowed to submit one revision of any suggestion, and one new suggestion, per day.

I don't particularly care if Aushvitz is banned or not but I want this clarified please asap. I hope I just missed something..... Rheingold 02:45, 19 September 2006 (BST)

You get 1 revision on your one suggestion. It is clear.--Gage 02:52, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Wrong. That's why in the policy discussion the numbers of revisions and suggestions were treated separately. Please don't make up rules that aren't in the actual guideline. Rheingold 02:53, 19 September 2006 (BST)

The "revision" is your original suggestion for the day. The policy was created to keep people to 1 original idea a day. He posted 2.--Gage 02:56, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Bullshit, no he didn't. He posted a revision of a suggestion from a previous day. Yet again, nowhere in the rules does it state that the revision you submit must be a revision of a suggestion you submitted that same day. In fact, the way you interpret the rule, to submit a revision after 24 hours have passed would constitute an entirely new, original suggestion!? Allow me to repeat: that's bullshit. This isn't just about Aushvitz, other suggesters - who are contributing positively - are affected by your retarded witch-hunt so think carefully before you make up rules. Rheingold 03:02, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Frankly he should have been banned long ago for breaching a different section of Rule 12, the one saying that it's an abuse of the system to remove suggestions to prevent Spamination. Why don't you submit a VB request on that? Rheingold 03:04, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Did he not put two different suggestions on the page? In two different templates? What does it say again? OH YEAH - Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day. - he posted two. case closed.--Gage 03:10, 19 September 2006 (BST)

No, he put a NEW SUGGESTION and a REVISION. That the revision was not a revision of his suggestion that day is not illegal according to ANYTHING in Rule 12. In fact Rule 12 makes a very strong distinction between revisions and original suggestions. Try reading it. Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is considered abuse of the system. Conversely, removing a revision of a previous days' suggestion and then posting a new suggestion is legal, as long as those are the only two posts on the Suggestions page that day, because you are posting ONE REVISION and ONE SUGGESTION.

Whatever man, I just want Hammero to rule on this. So please let's leave this alone until he can read it. Rheingold 03:19, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system. - yeah, he removed a suggestion to post a non-revision suggestion. Your logic fails you.--Gage 03:21, 19 September 2006 (BST)

No, he removed a revision to post a suggestion. Just because his revision happened on a different day doesn't make it a new suggestion.

According to your logic, if I wait more than 24 hours to post a revision, it counts as a new suggestion and I can't post anything else on the Suggestions page that day. That is NOT THE INTENT of the voters on the policy discussion, as Bob can check for himself by reading the link I posted. Rheingold 03:23, 19 September 2006 (BST)

First, please behave civilly on this page. If you have an issue with a ruling, please discuss it maturely, and refrain from unnecessary drama. Please do not use this page to debate whether or not the Moderator was correct. State your questions, and then wait for a response from the Moderator. Thank you. Here is my reading of rule 12 of the suggestions page:

"Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day." In other words, the basic intent of the rule is to keep authors from making multiple suggestions on the same day.
"This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision." This means that an author may remove a suggestion in order to post a revision of it, not a different suggestion. If the latter were allowed, anyone could remove as many suggestions as they wanted under the claim of revision and post as many others as they wanted.
"Suggestions may be revised once per day at most. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted." This means that the most activity a suggestion author can have in one day is posting a suggestion, removing it, revising it, and reposting it once.
"Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system." In other words, you may not remove suggestions on a regular basis simply to avoid having them removed for you.
"Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system." In other words, removing a suggestion in order to add a different suggestion that is not a revision of the original is not allowed.

By this interpretation, my ban of MrAushvitz was justified. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 03:27, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Ok Bob.

I see two places where I don't follow your logic.

First: you say If the latter were allowed, anyone could remove as many suggestions as they wanted under the claim of revision and post as many others as they wanted. This is exactly why caps on number of revisions were discussed separately from caps on number of original suggestions, in the policy discussion I linked. The consensus in the end was to allow one suggestion and one revision. Nowhere in the discussion, and nowhere in the final policy, was it ever stated that the revision need be a revision of the original. Indeed, policy suggestions like "3 suggestions and 2 revisions per day" would make no sense under that rule.

Second: you say "Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system." In other words, removing a suggestion in order to add a different suggestion that is not a revision of the original is not allowed. I'm sorry, but the two underlined bits aren't the same thing at all. If I submit Suggestion A and Suggestion B v2.0, then I am breaking the rule as you rewrote it but in no way am I breaking the rule as written. Suggestion B-2.0 is not a "non revision suggestion." It's a revision - a revision of a previous day's suggestion.

Thirdly, see Policy B in the preliminary discussion (again, check the link I gave you). As you can see quite clearly, no one at the time was thinking that revisions would be related to suggestions, they were just thinking of # revisions and # suggestions.

Whatever, this is a good opportunity to revise this before Gage's little band of Inquisitors strikes again. Rheingold 04:08, 19 September 2006 (BST)

First: I am not interested in reading the discussion, only the final policy. The deliberation that led up to the wording of the final policy is irrelevant; it is only the text of the policy that we are considering here. The policy clearly states that "each author should not make more than one suggestion per day" (no more than one unique suggestion per day), and "this limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision," which I interpret as meaning that an author may remove a suggestion in order to repost that same suggestion in revised form, one time per day, supported by the statement that "suggestions may be revised once per day at most." The reasoning behind my interpretation is as follows: if I propose suggestion A, then remove it to revise it, then propose suggestion B, then remove it to revise it, then propose suggestion C, .... You see where I'm going with this.

As you may be aware, the United States Supreme Court serves to interpret the Constitution, because parts of the Constitution are vague. Similarly, parts of our policies are vague, and part of a moderator's responsibility is to interpret the meaning of those vague parts. That is what I've done here.

One last point: please take your drama elsewhere. It is not welcome on this page. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 04:19, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Would it make more sense to have something a little more fluid. A month banning for a 1-over infraction seems pretty darn harsh in my opinion. Punishment doesn't fit the crime or something. I can understand like, 12-over being really bad, but maybe the guy was just over-creative one day. I don't think the policy works in that respect. --Steele Glovier 16:31, 19 September 2006 (BST)

If you strongly feel that way, come up with a policy along those lines. Cyberbob Talk 16:35, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Not a bad idea, I'll have to do some research first though--Steele Glovier 18:33, 19 September 2006 (BST)

You could make a policy that says that this case is overruled and Mr Aushvitz is unbanned with a clean record. Lakeside 18:40, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Har har, maybe a policy that allows mods to ban users in accordance to the gravity of the vandalism.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 18:44, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Well that is my point. I've got something up now, which keeps the 1 suggestion a day but allows multiple revision etc. I'll have to wait till tomorrow to handle the banning suggestion (which I will do as well).--Steele Glovier 18:48, 19 September 2006 (BST)

You all seem to be missing something important here. I didn't arbitrarily ban MrAushvitz for a month. I banned him for a month because, by the moderator guidelines, that was the next ban length in store for him. He already had two warnings, a 24 hour ban, a 48 hour ban, and a 1 week ban. The next ban length is one month, followed by one year, followed by permanent. Is a one month ban for a relatively small infraction harsh? Yes. MrAushvitz should have thought of that all the other times he had less severe punishments. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 23:27, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Here is what Rheingold is saying: He followed the rules because he submitted a suggestion. Keeps by the rules. Next day, he removes it and posts a revivion. Check. Same day, he puts up a non revision suggestion. Nowhere does it say that the revivsion has to be on the same day. So lets see: Sept 17th, one sugestion. Good on the seventeenth. Sept 18: Posts a revision of the previous suggestion. Also puts up a new one. On the 18th: One suggestion, one revision. Seems good to me. It can't be made simpler. He followed the rules. What else can be said? --Gold Blade 00:00, 20 September 2006 (BST)

To Bob, what I mean't by he's humorous is that he actually interesting, what I mean is that he, unlike people like Gage, You, and others, is that he is actually funny, to be honest some of the "Jokes" that you make just pass over my head, not saying they are smart jokes, saying they are inside jokes.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 00:08, 20 September 2006 (BST)

What else can be said? How about reading how I have already responded before you respond yourself. I am not reconsidering my decision. I have reviewed this case multiple times now, explained more than once why I ruled the way I did, and discussed it with other moderators to ensure that what I said made sense. This case is closed. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:28, 20 September 2006 (BST)

I read it thoughroughly, bob, and I thought that perhaps you needed it drilled, hammered, and stapled into your head to get it. Besides, you're wrong. You get 2 warnings, then a day, then a week, month, then a year, followed by another year, and another, etc. not a permaban. Read M/G again. Nowhere does it say anything about a permaban. --Gold Blade 04:43, 23 September 2006 (BST)

8 September

The Fifth Horseman

Moved from M/VB:

I do not take you for a fool. And yes, I quite feel like starting an arbitration case on the subject. Akule has intentionally added false information specifically concerning my person. Removal of that content was fully justified. If he instead simply said something like "Thanks to the constant harassment campaign led by Cannibal Corps and La Liberation De Yagoton, The Fifth Horseman has left the game", it would be completely correct and I would not bother with removing it. As it was, however, Akule has decided to post false content claiming my account to have been frozen (which it was not). His accusations of zerging have not been proven either. --The Fifth Horseman 11:51, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Many consider zerging and mutli-abuse to be tantamount to the same thing, and the second was proven once. Whether you still do is not really open to debate since you say you aren't even playing the game any more. Then again, if you really have quit, why are you still around? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:01, 8 September 2006 (BST)

I quit, I changed my mind. Happens.

While it is true that I have _once_ violated that "separate existence" rule, it is a hugely different thing from the constant on-purpose zerging that I am accused of (particularly by people creating zerg accounts to "prove" me guilty, vide "the sixth horseman", "the fifth horsemen" and "the sixth horsemen"). None of the alt characters I posessed at that time has been active since, as I was also expressely forbidden by the group leader to create any new accounts unless I also abandon my current one.

Claims of my account being frozen due to some supposed zerging are not only completely baseless but also unproven. That account is fully capable and in fact currently active. If any of the CC members posess actual unfalsified proof that my account has been banned for zerging of any sort, they are most welcome to present it. Of course, the fact that my account is fully active denies validity to any "proof" they'd drag in. --The Fifth Horseman 13:31, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Which would only give you a clear cut case if you took it to arbitration. While the other two were probably made for that purpose, I don't believe the The Sixth Horseman was created to make you look like you were zerging, I think it was made to mock you. Regardless, this is not the place for an in depth discussion. If you wish to respond, just do so on my talk page. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:59, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Guys, shut it. Take this to someone's talk page if you want to continue arguing. Cyberbob Talk 11:45, 9 September 2006 (BST)

I already said to take it to my talk page if it he waned to respond. Are you fuckin' blind? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 14:58, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Oh. No need to get all nasty now - I couldn't really summon up the energy to read it all. Cyberbob Talk 15:02, 9 September 2006 (BST)

TFH, go play Neopets. Probably more for your level. --Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt!} 23:15, 8 September 2006 (BST)

28 June

Bonefiver

(moved from Vandal Banning page)

Like, What. The. Fuck?! He vandalised a user page. Vandalism = warning. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:08, 28 June 2006 (BST)

True. --Karlsbad 09:14, 28 June 2006 (BST)

The rules we use is a little bit more complicated then that xoid. User pages are the sole property of the particular user. So normally only if the owner of the user page disagrees with the edit it can be called vandalism. But because it's quite regular that the owner of the user page is in no position to either agree or disagree (because he has left the wiki or is banned, etc.) we assume bad faith and usually give a warning. Even then it still depends on the edit itself, the user doing it and the moderators assesment of the situation. Karlsbads' handling was perhaps a bit too prudent but your reaction lacks nuance.--Vista 12:11, 28 June 2006 (BST)

You lack common sense — he vandalised a user page, and Bonefiver has been around long enough to know better. I'm frankly sick and fucking tired of your "go soft on them, even when they have deliberately done something wrong" approach. I'm not going to assume good faith for an edit that reeks of bad faith, especially for a user who has failed to give even the slightest hint of reasoning behind his act. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:21, 28 June 2006 (BST)

And I'm fucking sick and tired of your both you lack of understanding of the rules and your selfrightious asshole routine. If you ever learn to read without coloring everything in you dipshit, you'll have noticed THAT I NEVER SAID THE WARNING WASN'T CORRECT. But both your lack of anything resembling moderacy or a working abilaty to see past your own fucking stale mentality of WARN EVERY FUCKER ON THIS PAGE! prevent you from doing that appearently. Reread the comment again you dense fuck. And next time you want to go What. The. Fuck?! Make sure that you actually know what you're talking about. go fuck yourself.--Vista 12:51, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Get off your high horse and stop assuming that you told me something I didn't already know.

"The rules we use is a little bit more complicated then that xoid. User pages are the sole property of the particular user. So normally only if the owner of the user page disagrees with the edit it can be called vandalism. But because it's quite regular that the owner of the user page is in no position to either agree or disagree (because he has left the wiki or is banned, etc.) we assume bad faith and usually give a warning. Even then it still depends on the edit itself, the user doing it and the moderators assesment of the situation."

Well excuse me for already knowing that, and assuming by you pointing out the bleedingly obvious that you were implying I did not. Especially the last sentence, I know damn well that it is up to the moderator's assessment of the situation, and I disagreed with that assessment. What of it?

"But both your lack of anything resembling moderacy or a working abilaty to see past your own fucking stale mentality of WARN EVERY FUCKER ON THIS PAGE! prevent you from doing that appearently."

Rich. Even from you, rich. I've argued against people being warned over frivulous bullshit more than once. While I have said that it's ridiculous that people get let off over obscure technicalities, I have still worked before to convince other moderators to do just that — let them off on the technicality. I've even done that before myself — letting some douche off on a technicality. For the simple reason of consistency in the application of the rules, if nothing else.

I judge each case as it comes by, and while I have expressed my disdain for some the rules, no matter how ridiculous I consider them to be, I have still abided by them in all cases bar one. Hopefully, you've managed to put two and two together and realise that despite being outspoken I follow the rules to the best of my ability and judge each case on a case-by-case basis.

You say I have no moderacy and you are dead wrong.

"Karlsbads' handling was perhaps a bit too prudent but your reaction lacks nuance."

I lack tact? Or subtlety? Jeeze, who would've guessed? Perhaps it is because of the fact that some people are fucking thick that I get tired of being polite, or are you forgetting the two-and-a-half fucking hour circular logic fest you subjected me to at 3 in the morning? If you had of been clear, and perhaps, got to the fucking point, then maybe Cyberbob wouldn't be bald right now — he already tore out all his hair in frustration over your utterly inconceivably thick skull. (Cyberbob wants those hours you callously stole back, by the way.)

Maybe you can't quite grasp the fact that you are often less than clear in what you are trying to say…

"And next time you want to go What. The. Fuck?! Make sure that you actually know what you're talking about."

… would certainly seem to indicate that to me. (This is certainly no isolated incident: you regularly make less sense that Dubya himself). You said that the warning that Karlsbad gave was justified. The warning that Karlsbad decided on giving, after I questioned him deciding to retract it. Then you say that I don't know what I'm talking about? I know fucking well that I wasn't being polite — it was just that I was utterly incredulous that Karlsbad made the choice to drop it at first as this was a clear cut case of vandalism to me. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 14:06, 28 June 2006 (BST)

First, what does "a bit too prudent" mean? Secondly; you don't have to defend me, Vista. Xoid was speaking of my handling of the case, which I will defend right now; I chose to redact at first because I knew that Crossbow was if not Bonefiver's friend at least a person of confidence and I was assured that he would appeal it. However I should have (as Xoid mentioned) not assumed that Crossbow would have to begin with. I realize I was in the wrong for redacting at first; this is why I corrected it. Vista- you can defend the process as strongly as you wish, and your words would have been fitting if Xoid was attacking the process, because the Process is a Thin-Skinned Princess. I, however, was the target and therefore do not feel the need to defend me; I am more than capible of defending and explaining myself. And if this skrum isn't about M/VB, then take it to talk pages, okay? --Karlsbad 20:14, 28 June 2006 (BST)

the perhaps a bit too prudent bit was there to explain that yes, there maybe was a possiblity that the best course was to let the warning stand as xoid thought but that I didn't think so. And I didn't think I was defending you nor did I though I was. I simply thought that xoids statement was too simplistic and as such muddling the process. In hindsight I could have created a more carefully worded message that didn't mention you or your decision in that way but I was at work and didn't have the time to do so. And after his response I was just too pissed to care. At no point did I believe you needed defending and if I gave that impression, sorry, didn't mean to.--Vista 23:26, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Feel like answering Xoid's reply, Vista? Or don't you feel you can? Cyberbob Talk 08:19, 29 June 2006 (BST)

See my talk page. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:59, 29 June 2006 (BST)

1 June

Denzel Washington

Related issue: I'm of the opinion that The Fifth Horseman's edits to my rewrite ruined the NPOV I was trying to achieve. Anyone else agree with me on that? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:29, 2 June 2006 (BST)

What kind would that be? --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 13:30, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Check the history, diff comparision. It went from being completely neutral to being biased. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:33, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Hmm... you may be correct there, Xoid. However, what can we do about it? It's all too far in the past for a Vandalism case... isn't it? A case has already been made for an edit after Horseman's on that paragraph; can we still report him? --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 13:38, 2 June 2006 (BST)

If you read the talk page, he wasn't trying to be malicious, so I don't think that reporting him is the way to go. I'm just wondering if I'll get support if I revert to my version — I don't want to get accused of vandalism without backup simply because the starting section is finally NPOV. If a moderator decides to give them carte blanche, then I won't even bother. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:41, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Um... I don't see why not... but I'd still recommend someone else's opinion. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 13:43, 2 June 2006 (BST)

I'll wait then. Hell, I even pointed out to him that it was better for it to be left out; by including that it opens the door for the other side to do the same. At least it would on Wikipedia, around here "owners" of their page get far too much leeway, to the point people are afraid to fix things because of the sheer number of vindictive users. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:48, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Rueful & Scinfaxi

Well I just can't help being drawn here by an underemployed douche. There is no merit to this report and Amazing should be punished for filing a false vandal report. He is clearly aware I didn't break any actual rules. Of course, I'm open to monetary compensation for my hurt feelings. Scinfaxi 05:55, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Watch it. While Amazing's report is invalid, and whilst I may support your griefing of Amazing due to his group's inane polcies, this page IS community property. I'll let you get off with a tongue lashing this time. Do not abuse the leeway you have just been given. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:07, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Oh come on, read some of the comments made by Amazing on this page. Anyways, Amazing knew he had no case when he posted this. He should be punished for abusing the vandal banning page. Scinfaxi 06:10, 2 June 2006 (BST)

This report was obviously made in bad faith. Amazing is clearly aware that no posted rules were broken in this case. If he has problem with existing rules, this is not the place to post them. I demand punishment (I'm lighting my torch as we speak)! Scinfaxi 06:13, 2 June 2006 (BST)

LokiJester

(In reply to Jimbo Bob's statement regarding the hilarity of griefers being the ones getting vandalized.)

Reaction, meet equal and opposite reaction. You'll have fun together. -- Amazing 04:39, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Mmm, spiced ham. Delicious. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 04:40, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Thought you might like to know why Griefer groups suffer bad behavior. Well, if you want to make more comments on my note as opposed to the case, take it to the talk page. -- Amazing 04:42, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Mmm, hypocrisy. Delicious.

And if you don't want people to reply, you should try not talking to them. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 04:45, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Okay, moved. Guess you can't respect the page. You replied about my comment, not anything pertaining to the case. You didn't even address the content of my post. Fail. -- Amazing 04:48, 2 June 2006 (BST)

I'd have to say that you are wrong on this one Amazing. You can't take the moral high ground by saying "they deserved it". They may be ASSes, (hehehehe), but the same courtesy and rules that protect your group's page from vandalism protect theirs as well. You only do yourself a disservice by giving the impression that you condone LokiJester's behaviour. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:00, 2 June 2006 (BST)

I was saying why people vandalize their pages so often. Nothing more. I don't have to condone bad behavior just to point out why it's occuring. -- Amazing 05:04, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Well, given that the great majority of the vandals come from your group and the most you've said about that is "you've got it coming to you", I'd have to say that you do in fact appear to condone it. Which, of course, makes it even more gut-bustingly hilarious than usual when you talk about how you just wish so much that people would respect the wiki.

Anyway, if there's one thing I've picked up, it's that getting sucked into another one of your little flamewars would only be a colossal waste of time. Done with this now. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 05:22, 2 June 2006 (BST)

The true hypocrisy lies in saying I'm the one misrepresenting what YOU said. -- Amazing 21:15, 3 June 2006 (BST)

	SPELING LOL
	Yuo fayl Englesh? That's unpossablle!

--Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 21:17, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Templates are just another way of saying "I have nothing smart to say." ... Hey, someone should make that into a template, actually. But yeah. Forgive me for giving you guys advice. "Don't be QUITE as nasty in your text, and people might stop wanting to change it." - Take it or leave it, but it's just advice. -- Amazing 21:25, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Templates are just another way of saying "I have nothing smart to say." You've made more templates than anyone else on the wiki. MaulMachine ^U! 21:29, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Get real. You and I both know I was speaking as to the usage of templates in a discussion. -- Amazing 21:31, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Actually, in this case using a template was just another way of saying "I have nothing to say... to you". As noted, I'm done with arguing with you. The template was just 'cause I so rarely am presented with such a perfect opportunity to use a template I love. A picture is worth a thousand words, y'know. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 21:50, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Mmmm. Saying to me that you have nothing to say to me - and making note that you had previously stated you were done here. Pretty neat. Yeah, I'm done too now. -- Amazing 22:36, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Hey, when you beg me so plaintively for a response, I can't help but give in once in a while. I'm a victim of my own generosity. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 22:57, 3 June 2006 (BST)

27 may

Mattiator, AGAIN

Created this user in an obvious effort to get me in trouble for using it as my signature. Note the time difference between "A Bothan Spy"'s only contribution and Mattiator's "report" of its existence here. Blatant case of impersonation. --A Bothan Spy^{CDF - WTF - U!} 17:27, 27 May 2006 (BST)

not only have mattiator moved in bad faith when he created this account, but he also went to bob's talk page to brag about it. This is a clear case of reverse-impersonation, where a user creates an account with the same name another user uses to sign. For that, mattiator should receive his first 24h ban. --hagnat ^mod 17:35, 27 May 2006 (BST)

I wasn't going to mention this in case it started some sort of drama-war, but Mattiator also left some pretty rude comments on the talk page for one of my templates. --Bob Hammero ^T•W!•U! 19:36, 27 May 2006 (BST)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Mattiator&curid=4867&diff=265356&oldid=262252&rcid=267772... THERE IS A GOD!--Admiral Ackbar ^{U! WTF} 19:32, 27 May 2006 (BST)

mpaturet? editing user pages, doesn't matter whose, is vandalism.--Vista 20:03, 27 May 2006 (BST)

He is banned though. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 20:04, 27 May 2006 (BST)

So?--Vista 20:09, 27 May 2006 (BST)

That was my point entirely. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 20:10, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Cwissball

Vandalized page. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 14:54, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Probably newbie mistake. He added ASS to the list but removed it, probably after noticing Assault on Stupid Survivors already on the list. Probably accidentally removed the others at the same time. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 15:24, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Should note that an ASS member who was not following anyone else's suggestion might like to remove groups ASS may not appreciate. -- Amazing 18:31, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Amazing, this is the exact sort of comment that starts wiki-spanning flame wars. Cut it out. --A Bothan Spy^{CDF - WTF - U!} 18:37, 27 May 2006 (BST)

I don't know if ordering someone to keep silent in vandalism cases that affect them is something you should be doing. Besides which - I have a talk page, and thats where that sort of comment goes. -- Amazing 18:39, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Amazing, shut up. This is an obvious case of trolling. Do not try to hide beinhd the veneer of lending us your insight; the "Group X might remove stuff that they don't agree with." accusation can be leveled at all and sundry. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:47, 27 May 2006 (BST)

.... Hahaha! Ooookay, Xoid. I'll be sure not to mention someone removing enemy groups from another page in the future. No wait, I won't. Your attitude is very out of place. I merely mentioned that Brizth or whomever might like to take a look at what groups were removed. That is all. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to prevent drama, whereas you're just inciting it with your piss-poor attitude in responce to my tame as Hell, short as Hell, peaceful as Hell notation. If anyone has anything to say TO ME, use my TALK PAGE. I commented on the case. You are commenting on me. If you don't want to use my talk page, then in the words of Xoid, "shut up." -- Amazing 18:51, 27 May 2006 (BST)

*sigh* And here we all go again. --A Bothan Spy^{CDF - WTF - U!} 18:52, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Please stop cluttering up the page and futhering drama. Use my talk page. -- Amazing 18:54, 27 May 2006 (BST)

I like how my notation is "Crud" though it was in regard to the case. Vista, they were commenting on me. The Crud was all theirs. Thanks for removing a valid comment on the case from the main page. -- Amazing 18:54, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Amazing I've laballed excessive discussions on the vandal banning page "crud" before. the page is for reports not discussions. I don't care who is doing it. I only care that the page isn't meant for it. when there is an extended discussion I simply remove everything except the report, the final discission and other moderator comments that have direct influence in the discission. all other comments no matter how valuable or not get transported. This to avoid restarting the discussion on the wrong page again--Vista 19:05, 27 May 2006 (BST)

My comment was a notation about the case. Following comments were notations about me. I can see how you'd get confused, but let's not remove other people's first comments about the main report in the future. -- Amazing 01:43, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Jimbo and I, the leaders of ASS, would never condone deliberate wiki vandalism. It's the kind of thing that's more likely to get someone onto our enemy list than our member list. I'm currently renovating the Darvall Heights page, and if you take a look at my changes so far, I doubt you'll see anything particularly pro-ASS, or anti-anti-ASS, so don't worry about that. I can be perfectly impartial when I need to be (and again, this is like drawing the line between in-game roleplaying and wiki fighting). If you should have any concerns about my work on that page, please let me know. --Bob Hammero ^T•W!•U! 19:45, 27 May 2006 (BST)

I made it clear in my original comment (very clear, purposefully clear) that I didn't think anyone else from ASS was involved or condoned vandalism in any way. -- Amazing 01:43, 28 May 2006 (BST)

I didn't catch that, but cool. Actually, this guy has asked to join our group, so we'll be asking him if he intentionally did that or not. --Bob Hammero ^T•W!•U! 02:23, 28 May 2006 (BST)

26 may

Mattiator

See edits on prev day suggestions. He put his stupid template there and made it look like I posted it. I am displeased --Cinnibar 01:41, 26 May 2006 (BST)

A quick check of his edit history shows he dropped that template on a number of other spammed suggestions in prior day suggestions as well --Cinnibar 01:48, 26 May 2006 (BST)

he's been warned already for the use of that template, But if any of the timestamps are later then his warning he'll recieve another one.--Vista ^W! 01:52, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Can you just ban him already? He's on this page more than the trolls that chase Amazing. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 01:53, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Yeah. It's really taking away my spotlight. </joke> -- Amazing 01:55, 26 May 2006 (BST)
Today he recieved his two warning. We don't ban people outside due process, next vandalism would trigger a ban, so lets hope he learned his lesson.--Vista ^W! 02:27, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Should all the other ones he dropped be cleaned up/reverted as well? --Cinnibar 01:59, 26 May 2006 (BST)

yeah, that whould be best. It is vandalism, just vandalism he already recieved a warning for.--Vista ^W! 02:25, 26 May 2006 (BST)

I've taken care of the template on all the pages except his user page. Including the one linked to above it was on three different pages. - Velkrin 04:58, 26 May 2006 (BST)

You mean after all this stuff he still isn't banned for good? Sonny Corleone ^WTF 18:04, 26 May 2006 (BST)
Sonny, we don't ban any user for good. We've well established rules here, which we are obliged to follow. And your calling for blood is not productive by any means. If you don't have anything to add to this report exept these sort of comments, please refrain from commenting at all.--Vista ^W! 19:06, 26 May 2006 (BST)

User:Grog with a gun

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ARed_mafiya&diff=262673&oldid=260958 Vandalized this guy's page. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 00:06, 26 May 2006 (BST)

That was done just to spite them because, if you read the iamge, and go to http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/LoSH#Current_Eradication_Efforts you can see that they have been vandalising way more than I. I will remove the image and comment on the red Mafiya page though. --Grog 00:12, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Not your job to "spite" people. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 00:27, 26 May 2006 (BST)

I know, my mistake, i'm quite new to using the wiki and i'd forgotten about this Vandal page --Grog 00:33, 26 May 2006 (BST)

warned both --Grog and Antonio360--Vista ^W! 01:09, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Can i just make the comment that this could well be the same person that caused The Red Mafiya to get a warning not that long ago? simply using a different user account to the same effect of disruption with other groups wiki pages? --Grog 14:24, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Got any proof of that? It'd help. --A Bothan Spy^{CDF - WTF - U!} 14:31, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Unfortunately the only stuff i can prove is what I posted in Losh's wiki - though that does include a screenshot, complete with GMT time of when i did the changes so that it was back to how it should have been. And as these changes were done by Antonio360 and were made so that everything proclaimed User:Red_mafiya as an amazing group and LoSH as crap - then the obvious can be deduced. --Grog 14:46, 26 May 2006 (BST)

their contribution histories certainly cast doubts. Unfortuneatly nothing solid at this point. However should at a later date your accusation proof true. their Vandal data will be merged ofcourse, with all the consequences implied.--Vista ^W! 14:54, 26 May 2006 (BST)

I shall keep an eye out then. --Grog 14:56, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Mattiator

For a seperate incident: blatant ignorance of the "be polite and respectful" clause of the rules of voting spam. Even if it was his suggestion, I'm doubting the picture of the dog relieving itself was in good faith. --TheTeeHeeMonster

I have moved this to a new case in order to avoid confusion. Anyway, warned.--The General ^{W! Mod} 22:13, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Personaly, I think this is a good idea for all of the ridiculous suggestions, because thats what they are. I think this could be useful for telling people what we really don't want to see. Mattiator 22:16, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Then put it through voting on the talk page. Don't jump right in and start adding it to suggestions. I am also informed that it was your suggestion. Also, does this mean that you know that you suggested something that people really don't want to see?--The General ^{W! Mod} 22:27, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Mattiator

Not entirely sure if this counts as impersonation, but I figured better safe then sorry. He voted on this but then he changed his signature to read Keven. [2] The text-link of his signature will still link to his page, but the name displayed is obviously not his. I'll let you mods decide. - Velkrin 20:54, 25 May 2006 (BST)

I'm going to err on the side of warning the annoying idiot. Warned.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:21, 25 May 2006 (BST)

I'm not sure but don't lots of people do this (change what their name looks like) e.g. Cyberbob240 changing his name to "A Bothan Spy" or "Greedo"? Just checking, and isn't impersonation when someone goes Kevan as opposed to Kevan? Mattiator 21:33, 25 May 2006 (BST)

There are no actual users named "a bothan spy" or "greedo." there is, however, an actual user named kevan. impersonation, from dictionary.com: To assume the character or appearance of, especially fraudulently. If you sig makes it look like you're kevan, you're impersonating him.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:52, 25 May 2006 (BST)

I agree with 'STER on this one, you gave the impression that you were Kevan and that is impersonation. --The General ^{W! Mod} 21:57, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Only as a note, i have already asked Cyberbob to stop using multiple nicks on his signature, which he agreed to. --hagnat ^mod 02:05, 27 May 2006 (BST)

I'm sticking with A Bothan Spy, upon learning that Greedo belongs to Saromu. HOWEVER, when A Bothan Spy becomes old I will be changing my sig. You have been warned. --A Bothan Spy^{CDF - WTF - U!} 02:10, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Lucero Capell

Right here. There was a vote to remove my links (and only my links) from the main page. Vote failed. Lucero removed the links anyway because he didn't like the vote result.

Clear-cut vandalism. He was a part of the voting process and knew the result. He still moved to delete the links, knowing full well that he was not supposed to. Furthermore he discussed this on the talk page, and made no move to revert his own edits, which would have shown good faith in light of being told he was wrong.

Furthermore, it's pretty much antagonization in spite of an Arb Case in which we basicall agreed to stop bothering eachother. -- Amazing 18:22, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Wether or not the vote failed is up for debate because as far as I know only the suggestion page uses the 20 votes minimun. The arbitration case is not in effect as the relavent article timed out. I'll look into the links case. but at the moment it's good faith untill further notice.--Vista ^W! 18:38, 25 May 2006 (BST)

I did not say it is a violation of the case, I said this was done in spite of a ruling that basically said we needed to change our treatment of eachother. I don't think 'make good-faith edits' has a time limitation. It's not good faith because under no circumstances was a clear majority found in that vote, plus Lucero decided he was going to remove the links even though a moderator said otherwise, I believe. To me, it's a pretty clear case of ignoring the lack of an overwhelming majority, AND the word of a moderator in order to simply cause "harm". Bad faith at its best? Dunno how much more clearly "do not remove the links" could be laid out.

It would be a very different story had Lucero replaced the text after he had a moment to think about what he was doing. Instead he let it stand, which shows that he is in no way willing to accept the vote's results or the moderator's decision. -- Amazing 18:42, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Sorry amazing, but lucero is innocent here. actually, it was my fault. I saw Lucero removing the links from the navigation page, then went to the talk page and added the 'vote failed' lines... AFTER their removal. I had some time discussing the issue with Lucero in the IRC, but got lazy (blame my flu) and forgot to add a note about it, or even having the links back. We need to discuss this a little, but as i see it, all three pools failed. --hagnat ^mod 19:36, 25 May 2006 (BST)

I have my doubts, as far as I can see the only place that has a 20 vote requirement is the suggestions page. but I'll catch you later about it as that has nothing to do with this report.--Vista ^W! 20:18, 25 May 2006 (BST)

... Ugh. I said he was showing bad faith by leaving it deleted instead of listening to the Mod and following the vote. If it was good-faith, he would've corrected it after reading the post. He did not. Vandalism. Not gonna press it, but I think it'spretty clear. -- Amazing 01:50, 26 May 2006 (BST)

As I see it, the points have been argued. Drinks all around! I went ahead and re-removed the links from the template, as per the vote. --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 04:17, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Guess I'll revert the vandalism and we'll probably have another revert war on our hands due to the lack of warning a Vandal. Perfect. -- Amazing 04:33, 26 May 2006 (BST)

How can I be a vandal for upholding a vote? --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 04:37, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Simple, you're not upholding a vote. I really thought we had ended this, but it looks like you're right back on the Anti-Amazing Vandal Train.™ -- Amazing 04:38, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Excuse me, I'm not the one calling names already. I *am* upholding a vote. It was a simple majority, everyone who cared voted. The wish of the community was clear. ... Where's the problem? Oh, right, it's you. --04:39, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Names? Haha. Ooookay. Take it up with the Mod. You're vandalizing and you're actually aware of it. Do everyone a favor. Save the drama and stop now. -- Amazing 04:42, 26 May 2006 (BST)

I do believe the mods have already said I'm not a vandal. I'm not the one creating the drama here, Amazing. Realize you're wrong and sit down. --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 04:45, 26 May 2006 (BST)

As a good citizen of the Wiki, I will revert every case of vandalism I see. -- Amazing 04:46, 26 May 2006 (BST)

As a good citizen of the Wiki, realize you're the one vandalizing and stop. --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 04:48, 26 May 2006 (BST)

When the Mod's decision is somehow erased from the history of the Universe, I'll be wrong. Until then you are continually vandalizing the Wiki and will be warned. -- Amazing 04:51, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Take it to ~~Wikigate2~~ arbitration if this is gonna be an edit war. -Banana Bear 04:54, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Yeah... Then you and your ilk can furrow your brows and complain about the Arbitration case. I think not. This is vandalism, and as such should be reported here. -- Amazing 04:57, 26 May 2006 (BST)

First off what do you mean about "my ilk"? Is that bigotry I smell, I hope not. Secondly, arbitration is for edit wars, be brave, don't let whining drive you to cowardice! Walk Tall Amazing! -Banana Bear 04:59, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Arbitration really isn't suited for this. We held a vote, the votes were counted, the outcome is clear. An arbitrator has no business telling people who voted what to do. --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 17:18, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Yes, I am bigoted against bears. -- Amazing 21:06, 26 May 2006 (BST)

On the deletions page, Template:Gankbus, was deleted with only sixteen votes, there's no set rule for votes on the main page as far as I could tell, these edits were good faith. Not everythings personal. -Banana Bear 04:41, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Check the Mod ruling on the votes. Now point out the rules before the Mod made them. -- Amazing 04:42, 26 May 2006 (BST)

First off, make more sense, I think what you mean is that Hagnat stating it failed meant that it had failed, however, howevere this is incorrect. Mod's have been, thus far, simply user's who enforce the will of the community, one user doesn't make rules. We can just follow the leaning of the community, if two thirds of the community leans one day, BAM mandate!-Banana Bear 04:51, 26 May 2006 (BST)

I wonder... If I spoke in complete gibberish, would it then "make sense"? Something to ponder. -- Amazing 21:06, 26 May 2006 (BST)

I suggest a compromise. The UD Avatars link can be removed (I'll build it up some more and sumbit for a "replace" vote.) but the UD Profile Database link stays. It "Lost" by two votes, hardly a majority. I can easily call in people to vote and overturn that in a heartbeat. This is my compromise. UD Profile Database link says. UD Avatars link can go for now. If that's agreed to by Lucero, I will drop this case. If not, complete disregard for a compromise when he's clearly in the wrong will show Lucero's bad-faith edit nature without a single shadow of a doubt. -- Amazing 05:24, 26 May 2006 (BST)

So this is you trying to wrangle a "win" out of something you clearly lost? I think not. Both links were voted to be removed, both links should be removed. No bad faith about it. --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 17:17, 26 May 2006 (BST)

I'm certain there is a "policies must have a minimum of 20 people vote on them before they can pass" rule around here somewhere. In which case, Amazing would be in the right on both counts. I could be wrong though. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 17:48, 26 May 2006 (BST)

the rule of "policies must have a minimum of 20 people vote on them before they can pass" is only valid on the suggestions page and was made especially for the suggestions page. It has no juristicion on any other part of the wiki. In fact there is no rules or history supporting votes about at all links on the main page, So all result are open to interpretation. The page is protected for know untill the tempers have stalled and edits-wars are not likely to resume. then we look at what we're going to do about it. Untill then, this subject is closed.--Vista 19:48, 26 May 2006 (BST)

What should be done is a vote to decide how many votes are needed in voting. Then the votes will be resubmitted. Until then neither link would be removed until such a time as the issue of "how many votes" is covered. If it goes without clarification, users like Lucero will go with whichever interpretation they wish in order to achieve their removals. All one needs is two votes (maybe ONE as far as he's concerned) more on the "remove" side, and he'll run with it. The right thing to do is leave my links on the page (Both, since Lucero refused to be an ethical person and turned down my compromise) and put them in for a NEW vote later when voting rules are established. Otherwise he's taking two piddling votes, which could be combatted by me asking two friends to sign up and vote, and he's calling it "the will of the community." -- Amazing 21:06, 26 May 2006 (BST)

"since Lucero refused to be an ethical person" ... HAHAHAHAHAH. Amazing, you've gone off the deep end (saying it as if you haven't already, I know). That was not a compromise. If it was, I'll offer you one: Amazing, as a show of good faith, I will let you keep the links in your user page after they are removed from the front page. If you don't take this compromise, you are evil. And god hates you.

The fact is that we voted on it. You just don't like the results. --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 21:30, 26 May 2006 (BST)

The Mods disagree with you on this. The Amazing-Bashers agree with you on this. You and I both know you're just being difficult because you want to cause aggrivation. Two votes is not a majority, and does not represent a clear will of the community. Therefor, your reasons for deleting are very clearly in bad faith, and you are a vandal.

Let's do everyone a favor and both of us shut the fuck up and leave it be as is. I offered to let you remove one link though the Mods disagree with you and the vote is questionable. You turned it down, so you get nothing. Move on and spare everyone the drama. -- Amazing 21:40, 26 May 2006 (BST)

The mods do not disagree with me on this, and furthermore, it makes no difference whether they do or not, they have no more "power" on that page than you or I. The people that do have power on that page is the community. And the community exercised that power. --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 21:47, 26 May 2006 (BST)

It should be noted, also, that "majority" simply means "more than half". The margin is irrelevant. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 21:54, 26 May 2006 (BST)

It should be noted that what you've pointed out is moot since the margin was not declared irrelevant by anyone before the vote. Therefor it can be considered relevant just as easily as you can consider the opposite. -- Amazing 00:37, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Provided one suspends all logic and common sense, yes. Regardless, I don't care enough about this to get sucked into your flamewar. If you've got something you're just dying to say to me, use my talkpage. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 01:42, 28 May 2006 (BST)

guh-wah!--Jorm 22:46, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Shall I link an image of a rabid toll woman? -- Amazing 00:37, 27 May 2006 (BST)

ZOMG I just realized! We are so off topic! It is clear Lucero was acting in good faith, he was doing what he, and many others myself included, feel is the best interest of the wiki. No bad faith, no vandalism, I think we can agree that his intent was nothing if not benevolent. -Banana Bear 01:24, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Acted in direct opposite of a Mod's declaration - Bad Faith.

Did not retract his edits upon further discussion - Bad Faith.

Reverted to his (at LEAST questionable) removal - Bad Faith.

Started an Edit War in which he had QUESTIONABLE reason - Bad Faith.

Did not involve Mods or Discussion when his edits were revered - Bad Faith.

Claims he will continue to do this - Bad Faith.

Lucero deserves a warning, at the very least. -- Amazing 01:28, 27 May 2006 (BST)

The mod had no jurisdiction in that area and has since admitted he could be wrong - Not bad faith.

Edits are still correct - Not bad faith.

Mods still have no jurisdiction - Not bad faith.

I will continue to uphold the vote - Not bad faith.

Still not going to be warned - Not bad faith. Though I might say, you engaged in said edit war as well (as well as claiming you will continue to do so). --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 01:57, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Eh, lie all you want. Also, it was three Mods (so far) that genrally stated their disagreement with your actions. -- Amazing 18:23, 27 May 2006 (BST)

	Cry More Please
	Aaaaawww… Does someone need a hug? What about a blankie?

--jorm

Consider your trolling Nowiki'd. Warn me for it. Anyway, the crying was the initial vote to remove the Evil Amazing links from the main page. -- Amazing 18:23, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Removing nowiki tags. Stop vandalizing. --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 00:27, 28 May 2006 (BST)

	Cry More Please
	Aaaaawww… Does someone need a hug? What about a blankie?

Have it your way. :) -- Amazing 01:46, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Wouldn't have it any other way. :) --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 04:56, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Come on guys... while you've been away the rest of the wiki's had a drama-free period. Can't you just fucking forget your problems with each other and leave each other alone? At first it was amusing (sort of), but now we've tasted clear skies, it's really gotten old. There's no more (or there shouldn't be) any more tolerance of this shit from other users. It brings everything else to a standstill while you guys clog up pages with massive, circular arguments that dredge up every single wrongdoing since the dawn of time. Grow up, and learn when your input is required, and when it isn't. Amazing, your two cents wasn't required. If you'd just shut up sometimes, things would go your way a whole lot more often. Banana and co., you weren't even involved in the original vandalism case. You just saw a golden opportunity to piss Amazing off. And you know it. --A Bothan Spy^{CDF - WTF - U!} 01:52, 27 May 2006 (BST)

You got a point Bob, this has gotten out of hand, I'm out, whatever, everyone spoke their piece. Also, Bob, >:( -Banana Bear 02:23, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Moving to remove me and my contributions from the Wiki, either through the failed Ban vote or the failed link removal vote, will not be something I'll stand by for. Next thing you know, all of my pages will be up for deletion. "Ban vote failed? Oh, well let's try to take all his shit off here." -- Amazing 18:23, 27 May 2006 (BST)

If you had let someone else handle Lucero, instead of taking him on yourself (and setting the stage for a lengthy argument with other trollers drawn by your scent), it would have still gone your way, except without the drama. You don't have to do everything yourself. When you do decide to enter into a discussion, don't make it into an argument. Believe it or not, it is possible to discuss opposing views with people you don't like with at least a modicum of civility. --A Bothan Spy^{CDF - WTF - U!} 18:29, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Well.. I have a very limited circle of pages I keep track of, including the main page of course, and any vandalism I see, I revert. Doesn't matter who does it. I guess the way I see this is "Amazing reverting vandalism that happens to be against him" whereas others probably see it differently. I've reverted quite a few things over time that affected the pages I watch, but weren't associated with myself. That said, perhaps I should stop giving people the chance to let my revisions stand, and just report them for vandalism without giving them a chance to stop what they're doing. -- Amazing 18:37, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Frankly, whether you stand for it or not makes no difference. Both votes passed (though everyone questions the validity of the ban vote), you just don't like it. The fact is that people had valid reasons for both removals of the links. Your putting them back was the vandalism in this case. In any case, I've already been cleared of wrong-doing, so that part of your case is ka-put (just like every other time you've tried to get me banned). --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 00:27, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Both votes failed, you just didn't like it. -- Amazing 01:40, 28 May 2006 (BST)

I think Vista already ruled on this issue. -Banana Bear 01:49, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Somebody

Sweet juicy vandalism, right here. PK-day is for war, not love! --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 20:37, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Warned.--The General ^{W! Mod} 21:07, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Rogue

This user has vandalised the user page of Timbob multiple times--Admiral Ackbar ^{U! WTF} 03:27, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Damn! You beat me to it! I was just about to report this exact same guy for the exact same thing... --Greedo^{CDF - WTF - U!} 03:31, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Technically there's no vandalism since he is a known PKer, those are his accounts, that's his e-mail, his profiles, and etc. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 03:32, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Except I don't think you're supposed to put another user's email up on the wiki w/o permission--Admiral Ackbar ^{U! WTF} 03:34, 23 May 2006 (BST)

Then why put it in your profiles? Sonny Corleone ^WTF 03:37, 23 May 2006 (BST)

I asked Timbob if he wants to file a case against Rogue for his edits. This monthly history wipe thing leads to some confusing cases, and i dont want to risk warning someone based on something that we could be wrong about. As i see it, it is vandalism. But the info could have been in Timbobs page before, thats why i am not risking here. Second opinion, anyone ? --hagnat ^mod 03:49, 23 May 2006 (BST)

I say wait until Timbob get's on to say if it is or not Sonny Corleone ^WTF 03:51, 23 May 2006 (BST)

I tend to agree --Sirens^{T RR} 03:52, 23 May 2006 (BST)

I reverted Timbob's page. It wasn't a matter with monthly wipe, as you can always see the last edit, no matter what (meaning that Rogue created that page just today). It seems Timbob has been vandalising Final Resistance's page, and was reported (here) and the info can be found on vandal data, after I fix that page (somewhat broken at the moment...) So anyway, I'll leave it to Hagnat to decide what to do :) --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 10:43, 23 May 2006 (BST)

He'll try and get me banned, he hates me, I'll accept a warning with or without his asking though, I won't do it again. All I did was copy\Paste his profile though.The other edits were correcting spelling and grammer, it was all the single edit.--Rogue 06:17, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Dont worry Rouge, since I can see this has clearly been very emotional for you I do not wish to take this any further. No need to thank me by the way. Love cpt timbob :-x —The preceding unsigned comment was added by timbob (talk • contribs) No timestamp, no linking name. Bad boy.

does Timbob wants to warn Rogue or not ? I am very in the mood of warning him, twice if possible, since he doesnt like my color choosing. ^{MU HU _HA HA}</joke> --hagnat ^mod 01:38, 25 May 2006 (BST)

15 may

Don D Crummitt

Left a rather nasty comment on my User page. Linkage: Here --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 17:13, 15 May 2006 (BST)

~~Irony, Definition; the edit summary is entitled Harassment Policy - Second Draft. Might not be worth a true warning, but is definately worth remembering next time he comes around.~~ Scratch that, check This. Way to graduate to Troll-dom, 'tardo --Karlsbad 18:23, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Number 2

Number 3

Number 4

You tell me –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:22, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Number 5

And again. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:26, 15 May 2006 (BST)

I call 24! Anyone willing to go a week? --Karlsbad 18:25, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Perma-ban. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:26, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Number what, 7? I love how he acts like him calling himself a newb is going to stop us from banning him. Looks like my 24 horse is dying down the strech, don't it? --Karlsbad 18:35, 15 May 2006 (BST)

And people wonder why I started Project UnWelcome. Dipshits like him are the reason. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:38, 15 May 2006 (BST)

I believe that a permanent ban is acceptable. -Wyn ^(talk!) 18:46, 15 May 2006 (BST)

warned--Vista ^W! 18:41, 15 May 2006 (BST)

A permanent ban is only available against addbots and alts of banned people, the moderater team must also lump in all bad-faiths edits made before their action, so people can not be banned without a prior history of vandalism. a vandal edit after 18.43 made by him will be considered a different case and is grounds for another report. if he continues temporarly protecting Bobs talk page is an option--Vista ^W! 18:57, 15 May 2006 (BST)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Vista&oldid=246853 did people miss this one?

No it was made after I gave him the warning. I am however not pressing charges.--Vista ^W! 19:03, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Hell, if he stays quiet it'd be as good as a perma-ban. --Karlsbad 19:06, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Not sure if Vandalism should be the vandalized party's call. Since this is a bit of a community effort to keep watch on this sort of thing, I don't know if it's necissary for you to agree with the report, much less file it. Am I wrong? -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 19:25, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Not completely, Vandalism should never be only the vandalized party's call. There is nothing wrong with filling a complaint in good faith ever. But you do know that a user has certain 'ownership rights' on thier userpage. underwhich they can allow and disallow certain things. Other people posting under it, etc. So if people made the complaint and the owner says it isn't vandalism, their opinion whould be the one that counted as long as it didn't go against any other rules or arbitration rulings. As he only breached the rules of ownership rights that last edit the owner (me, in this case) can choose to allow it. But there is ofcourse a reasonable time limit on it of course for it to be valid, you can't say after half a year that you allow a edit act which recieved a warning at the time. When users who idled out or are away, and thus cant wave rights the vandal banning goes through normally ofcourse anyway.--Vista ^W! 19:39, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Well, I had no idea about the next 6 edits! Must have been while I was asleep... --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 21:58, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Rasher

Instead of replying to a reasonable assertion of Wyn's, a user who he has insulted and had issues with in the past, he chose to edit the Wyndallin's reply here: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Moderation/Vandal_Banning&diff=246396&oldid=246328 While minor, I believe that it shows a greater philsophy of vandalizing the wiki and there should be another warning and possibly a public display of "learning how the heck to reply properly without coming off as an unstable prick" (personal idea) Karlsbad 13:34, 15 May 2006 (BST)

I'm pretty sure he did that in part to create drama and to see what the moderators team respone whould be. and that that is the reason why it's so minor. Next round in the drama fest. It does qualify as impersonation and as he hasn't made one edit that can be qualified as improving the wiki the last week or more he recieves another warning as it is part of patern. and is thus banned for 24 hours.--Vista ^W! 14:42, 15 May 2006 (BST)

I'm pretty sure you're an idiot and I was making a joke about what Wyn said (editing comments as "Thought Police"). I changed" European-originating" to "western" (which is the proper term) to poke fun at what he's saying. Rasher 23:51, 16 May 2006 (BST)

So you do admit you willfully vandalized, and you realize why you are punished for doing so. Congrats for catching up with the Classy on your own. --Karlsbad 23:57, 16 May 2006 (BST)

So you admit you're an idiot and will probably be featured in the Darwin Awards? His post was about 'EDITING OTHER PEOPLES DISCUSSIONS, WHICH IS ALSO VANDALISM'. You can say his edits were in good faith, or whatever, but mine clearly had no malicious intent as I was correcting his verbage. How are you going to draw your new, arbitrary line on editing discussion? Rasher 00:37, 17 May 2006 (BST)

When no one has any reason to trust you to edit ANOTHER USERS post in a discusion, it is not a good-faith edit no matter what you do. Editing other users discussions are accepted to be good-faith when it is a grammer issue, and even then it may still be considered vandalism if the original editor belives you altered the meaning of the post while doing so. You changed entire words, which is vandalism, and the reasoning behind the report and subsequent banning is that no one trusts you to do it in the first place.
P.S. I don't plan to die of my own stupidity, but thanks for the warning. --Karlsbad 00:53, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Nobody "trusts" me? How can i "trust" Wyn? Who the fuck is he? How is deleting words better than correcting grammar? Rasher 02:01, 17 May 2006 (BST)

How much trust a person is accorded is measured again their contributions to this wiki. Wyns edits have generally been percieved to enhance the quality of this wiki as has Karlsbads' edits. As you seem to have no positive edit history behind you, you are thus accorded less trust inside the structure of this wiki. The rules of conduct on talkpages and changing comments are well established. You are right that you were dealt with more stricktly then an user who has a positive edit history. And I noted it as such by saying that it was considered part of a pattern. Changing comments is considered bad-faith. But has exceptions, like spell-checking and formatting for readabilaty by users who are considered a reasonable thrustworthy editor. Not only does your current edit history exclude you from filling the qualifications as an editor, your edits actually changed content. European-originating cultures is a correct term, the western cultures are actually a sub-division of them as there are cultures originating from Europe who are decidedly not part of the western culture. Just because content in posts is usually that hard to correctly indentify let alone change without altering the meaning we have the harsh rules we have on editing comments. We give out warnings under those "impersonation" rules on a case to case basis, And we make a judgement call on the users history how likely that edit was good or bad faith. Your history made a good faith edit very unlikely and thus a warning was given. If you want us to be able to rule this sort of edit as good-faith, I urge you to incorperate more constructive contributions to this wiki--Vista ^W! 09:02, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Wow. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - U!} 09:11, 17 May 2006 (BST)

14 may

Rasher

Ensuring vandalism gets reported. As you can see he made a bad-faith edit of this page, probably in the hopes that I would be warned/banned by someone who didn't check his info. -- Amazing 01:47, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Any further actions like this one will render Rasher a warning, as said by Vista. --hagnat ^mod 01:52, 14 May 2006 (BST)

-_- -- Amazing 01:55, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I was informed by Vista that if I wanted anything done about it, it would have to be reported. You're saying that nothing is going to get done, even though it was reported. Bien fait. -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:57, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I've already banned you so I'm not sure what else they can do. Also, I'm not sure how reporting actual vandalism is "bad faith". You removed legitimate discussion from the CDF discussion page that was not inflammatory, offtopic, or in any way bad faith, and you know it. Reporting me for vandalism fits with your character, and accordingly is unwarranted. Bans to everyone that reads this! Rasher 03:43, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Rasher, shut up and stop clogging up this page with your crap. I have half a mind to ban you because of your blatant disregard for this wiki.--The General ^{W! Mod} 06:47, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Due to his continual bad-faith edits here Rasher has recieved a warning as seen on the case 2 down--Vista ^W! 13:13, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I love you guys. No seriously. I'M DRUNK! No really! I'm drunk! Anyways, this is stupid. How about we agree to just not be placed on any page that would bother the community in general. Scinfaxi 00:17, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Or you could just stop being retarded. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:19, 15 May 2006 (BST)

I make life more interesting, earth needs me. Scinfaxi 00:25, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Could you take a break from making the wiki interesting and learn how to correctly reply? Or are you too caught up in the rush from waiting to re-use a joke again because you can't think of anything new and interesting to add? --Karlsbad 06:55, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Nah, earth has about 5 billion of you. That's excess. Now take your pick: We can either throw you in volcanos, or you can be sex slaves for all the lonely porn stars. I know it's a hard choice, but you'll have to make it. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:41, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Wait whatRasher 03:13, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Delta flyer

Check it out here (it's the "Marty the Party" thing in the trophy list). What's weirdest is that I have no idea what he's even referring to. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 01:00, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Third time he's done it too. He was reported and warned earlier on on this page. --Lucero ^{U! T} 01:09, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Third? Really? I only see one prior report. Regardless, I'll be delighted if this results in an actual ban for once. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 01:14, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Marty the Party is his PKer alt. He doesn't like being PKed in response. MaulMachine ^U! 03:33, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Second warning given. If he does it again, he'll be banned.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:40, 14 May 2006 (BST)

13 May

Amazing

He's been banned (see discussion page) and continues to make edits. Even worse, he continues to remove my non threatening, non off topic discussion off CDF discussion page. It's obvious that this is PROOF he deserves a permabanning. Rasher 16:37, 13 May 2006 (BST)

According to Vandal Data, Amazing hasn't been banned. If he had been, his username wouldn't be available for him to use. --Sirens^{T RR} 17:34, 13 May 2006 (BST)

I think he's referring to his proclamation here that Amazing is now banned from the wiki. In which case, I support giving Rasher another warning immediately. -Wyn ^(talk!) 17:57, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Then report him.--Vista ^W! 18:02, 13 May 2006 (BST)

How exactly does one go about properly reporting lying? Are false reports actually vandalism? -- Amazing 22:56, 13 May 2006 (BST)

I fail to see how lying on a vandal report could be considered good-faith, just report it how you would report any vandalism and we'll decide.--Vista ^W! 23:10, 13 May 2006 (BST)

This is all completely beside the fact that Amazing vandalized my legitimate, non threatening discussion on a talk paged DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR ANTI AMAZING GROUPS. Rasher 00:01, 14 May 2006 (BST)

"Another" implies that there was a first one. Furthermore, this isn't false. Finally, how could a "false report" not be "reported"? Rasher 00:00, 14 May 2006 (BST)

You have twenty-four hours to actually link to some evidence that Amazing vandalized a page under even partial control by you. If you put said evidence up within this Vandal Banning report, I won't place you here myself. As it is, there is no linked evidence to rule on. -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:50, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Can we make a 24 hour style webisode like 24? Can you call me Jack Bauer? Also, you arent a mod so I hereby ban you. Anyway, http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Crossman_Defense_Force#Comments_from_the_Peanut_Gallery ...it even says right now "you can just delete Rasher's comments". I'm not linking the histories individually. Rasher 02:15, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Um. Alright. Personally, I see nothing wrong with simply deleting or blanking, instead of archiving. There are two different mod stories at this point; one is that it's vandalism, and two, that it's acceptable if the page belongs to you. I don't really see anything wrong with what he's doing, even if he's specifically targeting you. -Wyn ^(talk!) 03:41, 14 May 2006 (BST)

It's a discussion page where I attempted, in good faith, to have a "discussion" with members of a group formerly aligned with my own about topics related to CDF, Amazing, and the other party (The Faggots). He removed the comments, and rather than reposting them himself on a separate talk page, he "deleted" (archived) them. This is vandalism. It's a DISCUSSION page, not an actual topic page, and I made no edits to the actual page. Removing discussion is vandalism. Rasher 03:47, 14 May 2006 (BST)

It wasn't the appropriate place for discussion between two groups, neither of which were the group that the page belonged to. Your conversation got archived to end it so you could restart it in a more appropriate location. Tough beans. If it's such a problem, you could always, you know, start where you left off. Or would that interfere with putting Amazing on the Vandal Banning page? -Wyn ^(talk!) 03:57, 14 May 2006 (BST)

You're not a moderator, and I have no idea who you are or why you're fellating Amazing. I'm not going to make this any clearer. Rasher 05:53, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Oh but don't you see Rasher, any and all trusted and valued members of the wiki should eventually become Moderators if they invest themselves for long enough in the community. Therefore you should treat anyone who speaks as logically and clearly and precisely as Wyn as a potentional Mod canidate and treat their views as as valid as any other. I understand that you may wonder why you yourself do not have your views respected, but I think that that is because no one in their right mind would ever consider anyone as immature, arrogent, or asinine as you are as EVER being promoted to a Moderator. --Karlsbad 10:07, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Your comments were bad-faith and thus rightly removed. Your history with amazing is well known.--Vista ^W! 13:18, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Vista: You're either a moron or you're illiterate. My comments were directly addressed to The Faggots concerning the details of the agreement Amazing proposed. Let me understand your logic: Amazing is allowed to "make corrections" to our pages, and if we report him, nothing is done. You can look at the history of vandal banning to see the multitude of bullshit hes propogated through the GANKBUS page. When we try to discuss, in good faith, topics clearly related to all parties invested in a page, he deletes it and theres nothing we can do about it? Thats your position? Go fuck yourself. Rasher 17:23, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Just quit your trolling, go whine somewhere where I don't have to read it.--The General ^{W! Mod} 17:56, 14 May 2006 (BST)

The removal of your comments on the CDF talkpage were, considering your history with that group and certain users, justified. Your report of them clearly bad faith, the way you did so obviously vandalism. --Vista ^W! 18:20, 14 May 2006 (BST)

And even without your history, the removals were allowed. Read the policy documents concerning group pages. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 18:32, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Good faith edits only relate to groups that take UD way too seriously. No sense of humor is allowed here and you must be over-sensitive at all time. Edits will not be judged on a case by case basis, but rather interpreted based on the posters history and the biases of the wiki thought police. Seriously though, the edits were made in good faith and this is obviously part of the wiki purges the moderation team is starting. I think that needs a template! Scinfaxi 20:46, 14 May 2006 (BST)

You're just plain annoying, did you know that? I've heard people say in private that they think you're more useless than Amazing. (No offense ment to Amazing). Why don't you just shut the feck up? --Sirens^{T RR} 20:54, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Useless? Nah. I do manage to keep the wiki informed of in-game goings on related to a few things. Oh yes, and in the case you didn't notice Mia, most of the GANKBUS and the Faggots are college students who do this to keep themselves entertained. I can't spend everyday of my life sipping shitty Smirnoff alcohol. Seriously though, we're way too intelligent for the thought police to guess the intentions of everything we post. A "good faith edit" cannot be determined solely on the basis of who made it. Scinfaxi 22:25, 14 May 2006 (BST)

This is my impression of Mia. "Check it out guys I'm drunk! No really, I'm so drunk! Wooo! You see, you see! Look, give me attention! Look, I spelled Amazing like Amazin'. Woo, I'm so drunk! I'm definately drunk! PLEASE GIVE ME ATTENTION!". Scinfaxi 22:27, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Screw Private, I personally have said as much in public; scinfaxi = nothing. --Karlsbad 22:21, 14 May 2006 (BST)

That hurts. That REALLY hurts. My vagina. But you know what? If you think we're nothing, which you obviously don't, then simply ignore us. We don't screw up community pages and fueding is kept amongst ourselves. If you have no sense of humor (or are just a dumbass), then don't read what we post! Scinfaxi 22:29, 14 May 2006 (BST)

You are right; it isn't that I think you are nothing, as you obviously continue to exist even though no one wants you here. So therefore, you must be LESS than nothing, as you take up oxygen and bandwidth without contributing ANYTHING. --Karlsbad 23:12, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Seriously though, we're way too intelligent for the thought police to guess the intentions of everything we post Seriously though, you're not. I have to be impressed with somebody exclaiming his intelligence as college students? Silly ego you have there if you think that's something special.--Vista ^W! 22:35, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I'm not saying I'm a genius Vista, I'm just saying I'm smarter than anyone I talk to on here. And most Dutch people (joke, but I'm going to wait for Mia to call me a racist again). As far as my ego, I can't help it, perhaps its my incredibly oversized penis. If you don't enjoy the information or dialogue we contribute, then simply ignore it. The only way we get on public pages is MAINLY because someone else is reporting us. Our edits are not all over the wiki or anything. Scinfaxi 22:40, 14 May 2006 (BST)

while I agree that your edits are not all over the wiki or anything they have almost always been annoying and skirting vandalism, And sometimes they were just plain vandalism. You want to have fun at the cost of other users, Well don't whine then when dealing with the consequences of that.--Vista ^W! 22:55, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Note to anyone reading this: Unless you're having mental diarrhea and putting what you think straight onto the Wiki, policing the edits made by users is not being Thought Police at all. It's actually policing your actions. And furthermore, censorship - in limited cases - is accepted by the majority of European-originating cultures. It's why we have anti-slander/libel laws, and in some countries, laws against using obscenites in public. -Wyn ^(talk!) 06:50, 15 May 2006 (BST)

Jahanian

Major vandalism on carrytheredflag's user talk page Here--Mpaturet 00:27, 13 May 2006 (BST)

He blanked the page and replaced with a whole lot of insults. Ive reverted to the last good edit. However, since i dont render verdict on vandal bannings... --Grim s-^Mod 00:31, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Ach, just give him a warning. --hagnat ^mod 00:39, 13 May 2006 (BST)

He's warned--Grim, what are you talking about?--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:06, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Grim doesn't render verdicts on vandal cases. --Sirens^{T RR} 02:09, 13 May 2006 (BST)

...Why?--'STER-Talk-Mod 02:57, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Centaurs. -- Amazing 03:06, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Oh. WTF, then.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:18, 13 May 2006 (BST)

NO! IT HAS BEEN CONTAMINATED! WE NEED A NEW TRADEMARK!--Mpaturet 03:50, 13 May 2006 (BST)

12 May

Rueful

This one's pretty straight forward. -- Amazing 00:45, 12 May 2006 (BST)

What ? Aw, i see now. Just revert it yourself for now. And, rueful, do not overwrite this picture again. I will rule on this later, have some business to do now. --hagnat ^mod 00:51, 12 May 2006 (BST)

I think it's pretty much a shoe-in warning. This is also a violation of an Arbitration Ruling, very soon after it was made. -- Amazing 00:54, 12 May 2006 (BST)

After reading the arbitration rule on Wikigate - Amazing vs. Rueful, i clearly see that Rueful violated two wiki rulings. The first by vandalising an image used by a user, group or policy to promote their objectives. The second by violating the ruling on the said arbitration case. Thus, Rueful receives TWO warnings. And, allow me to question this: does you guys finally grew tired of griefing Amazing and are now trying to get banned from the wiki ? All you guys have to do is ask. --hagnat ^mod 02:23, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Read the arbitration decision hagnut, it deals entirely with comments on user/group pages, which I did not violate. Changing that image was a good faith edit and an attempt at humor, I'm distressed to see that it was received so poorly! -- Rueful 02:34, 12 May 2006 (BST)

I saw the edit. Thats a load of **** --Sirens^{T RR} 02:38, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Sidenote: Templates, or Pages (Other than personal talk pages) created by either party that exists (or may be perceived by a mod) as existing exclusivly to antagonize the other party shall not be created by either party. Uploading the edited image created a history page, therin creating a page exclusively to antagonize me. One could argue that this part of the ruling applies to the image without even considering the history page, but I can forsee the responce to that and have decided to point out the previous facts. -- Amazing 02:43, 12 May 2006 (BST)

How does a bloodshot eye antagonize you? I didn't put a beard on the house or anything that might relate to you personally, unless you have some kind of chronic(LOL) bloodshot eye syndrome. Do your eyes really look like that? -- Rueful 03:02, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Rueful, see point 2 on the ruling. Rueful is not to comment on any page where Amazing is considered an invested party(i.e. Amazing's User page, or any group of which Amazing maintains an active membership in wether he has posted recently on that page or not).

The Malton Watch is a group/policy (i still dont know exactly what it is) created by amazing. Seeing how you and amazing had (and probably still have) disagreements, you were not meant to do any joke with that group, especially by overwriting the image this group uses. --hagnat ^mod 03:17, 12 May 2006 (BST)

Think of it as user-driven arbitration that concerns in-game as well as out, wherein things not fitting into the current Moderation categories may be pointed out, discussed, and possibly moved upon. -- Amazing 05:08, 12 May 2006 (BST)

I'm going to give you a warning in your shoe. In fact, I hereby ban you. Amazing has been banned from the wiki. Rasher 01:46, 12 May 2006 (BST)

11 May

Waiting for Grim S for pies--Vista ^W! 22:33, 11 May 2006 (BST)

The Pies shall be Custard.--Grim s-^Mod 22:35, 11 May 2006 (BST)

How many paces?--Vista ^W! 22:37, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Ten should be sufficient. *picks up a pie*--Grim s-^Mod 22:38, 11 May 2006 (BST)

*picks up a pie* one...--Vista ^W! 22:39, 11 May 2006 (BST)

...two...--Grim s-^Mod 22:41, 11 May 2006 (BST)

...three...--Vista ^W! 22:43, 11 May 2006 (BST)

...four...--Grim s-^Mod 22:44, 11 May 2006 (BST)

...five...--Vista ^W! 22:44, 11 May 2006 (BST)

...six...--Grim s-^Mod 22:47, 11 May 2006 (BST)

...seven...--Vista ^W! 22:47, 11 May 2006 (BST)

...eight...--Grim s-^Mod 22:49, 11 May 2006 (BST)

...nine...--Vista ^W! 22:50, 11 May 2006 (BST)

...ten! *turns to throw pie*--Grim s-^Mod 22:51, 11 May 2006 (BST)

*turns to throw pie*--Vista ^W! 22:52, 11 May 2006 (BST)

*throws pie at Vista*--Grim s-^Mod 22:53, 11 May 2006 (BST)

*throws pie at Grim s*--Vista ^W! 22:55, 11 May 2006 (BST)

*gets hit in the face with a pie* Mmmm... Custard... --Grim s-^Mod 22:56, 11 May 2006 (BST)

*gets hit in the face with a pie* brh!... Apple... you cad!--Vista ^W! 22:58, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I could have sworn that was custard! --Grim s-^Mod 22:59, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I knew I should have asked for secundants... O well, *shambles off to eat one of the spare custard pies...*--Vista ^W! 23:02, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I hereby declare the duel drawn and ended. Let the pies be eaten. *licks pie off his face* --Grim s-^Mod 23:13, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Hear! Hear!--Vista ^W! 23:15, 11 May 2006 (BST)

...The above has got to be the funniest thing I have seen on the wiki in awhile... --Sirens^{T RR} 23:04, 11 May 2006 (BST)

What in god's name just happened...MaulMachine 21:05, 13 May 2006 (BST)

We went a whole day without a vandal report! It would have been a shame to leave this heading totally blank. --Sindai 21:26, 13 May 2006 (BST)

10 May

Scinfaxi

WHAT THE F***?! In my book, that qualifies as racism, and considering Scinfaxi's recent history, I don't feel it should be taken lightly. Since the Wiki has no policy for this ( >.< ) I feel it should be considered vandalism as it's far from "Good Faith" --Sirens^{T RR} 19:25, 10 May 2006 (BST)

That would be a joke. Geez you people are sensitive! Can I please NOT be on the vandal page. I like the moderation staff and all, but this is way too much. Note I did list an actual reason. This is my one allowed response by the way. Scinfaxi 19:27, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Joke or not, given the circumstances it was highly inappropriate --Sirens^{T RR} 19:32, 10 May 2006 (BST)

What? I just don't like Australians, chill! Scinfaxi 19:41, 10 May 2006 (BST)

That's another joke by the way. You need to get some sun and thicken your skin Mia, cause' really it's not THAT big a deal. I actually LOVE Australians. It's the Dutch I really don't like. Scinfaxi 19:43, 10 May 2006 (BST)

You love Australians, do you? I'd hate to see how you treat people you don't like... --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 09:04, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Damn clog wogs (JOKE!). Scinfaxi 19:48, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Jesus Mary and Joseph. First, it's not racism, it's nationalism and the two are very different. Second, it's obviously a joke. Please, please, please, GET A FUCKING GRIP and stop trying to create drama for no fucking reason at all.--Jorm 20:51, 10 May 2006 (BST)

If it's a joke, why is he objecting so vigourously to having it struck out? --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 22:43, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I'm not seeing where he objects to it being struck out; I'm seeing objection to being called a vandal for it. Lucero objected to it being struck out, and last I checked, Lucero != Scinfaxi.--Jorm 23:17, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Cute. First, Nationalism has nothing to do with hating people for being from another country. Secondly, Racism or not, it's almost exactly the same thing, and if anyone's going to hate anybody, it should be for being a prick, not where they're from. Third: I was NOT starting Drama, which you're doing a pretty good job of. Please stop. If it isn't Vandalism, state your opinion and move on. Your trolling is unneeded and unnessesary. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:20, 11 May 2006 (BST)

So, stop with the bullshit. No one believes you were morally offended; you were just looking to create drama and continue some sort of "me in the spotlight" drama-whore bullshit. Calling a joke "racist" when it obviously isn't is inciting drama. Stop it. You're not impressing anyone. No one cares. The fight over this *vandal report* has generated more drama than the *original comment* did and that should tell you something. So: here is my opinion, and I'll move on: it isn't vandalism, and you are being a drama-whore. --Jorm 00:24, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Excuse me?? Who are you to say whether or not I'm acting on my morals. Racism, General Sterotyping, and Almost all things along those lines REALLY piss me off. So guess what? If Cyberbob wasn't offended, that doesn't matter, because I was. But that's not even the point, because as Lucero points out, we don't have a policy for offensive material.

Now YOU Stop. All you're doing is making the situation worse. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:48, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Exactly. I don't care if you throw it out, but it's not vandalism. Did I REALLY offend you bob? Scinfaxi 23:36, 10 May 2006 (BST)

As far as I can see, it's a joke. No harm, and he's said that he's not nationalist or racist. He hasn't, however, denied being a communist. I say we cover him with tar and roll him around in some feathers, then chase him out of the wiki. --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:37, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Even if it weren't a joke, there's still no grounds for a warning. We turned down the Policy on Talking Happily with Hugs and Stuff. --Lucero Capell 23:39, 10 May 2006 (BST)

This has nothing to do with the Happy talking with hugs policy. It has to do with Good Faith edits, thank you very much. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:20, 11 May 2006 (BST)

If it has to do with good faith edits, then please state so more clearly. As it is, you're making it sound like you reported it because it is offensive (which is NOT reason enough to report it) and I evidently was not the only person to read it that way. --Lucero Capell 03:38, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Personally, I thought "I feel it should be considered vandalism as it's far from "Good Faith"" was VERY clear. --Sirens^{T RR} 03:44, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Well, everyone else didn't seem to get that picture. Especially when you start with "WHAT THE F***?! In my book, that qualifies as racism, and considering Scinfaxi's recent history, I don't feel it should be taken lightly. Since the Wiki has no policy for this". Still sounds like you're talking about racism to me. --Lucero Capell 03:48, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Geez, Mia. What are you, the founder of the Australian Anti-Defamation League or something? There's absolutely no reason why anyone should be even mildly offended by this - and if you want to talk about "Good Faith edits", take a look at all the useful productiveness that has come from you taking this from a casual, obviously unserious comment and dragging it into Vandal Banning. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 00:50, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I noticed that too. What I'm seeing out of this is the following:

User A, who has gotten a lot of heat for thier shite makes a highly offensive comment about User B, who has, in fact, been trying to clean up.
User C gets offended and determines that it was a bad-faith edit, and as such, makes a vandal report.
Users D though whatever, instead of simply saying, "I don't see this as vandalism," descend on User C like a pack of wolves, thus kicking up tons of drama where there didn't have to be any.

By the way, I DID try to talk to a few of these people about this through private media. It didn't work out quite as well as I'd hoped (I think I was blocked), and thus, here we are. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:57, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Initial nitpick: I'm pretty sure you need a "User A" in there somewhere. Substantive stuff: if you want people to respond calmly, you need to initiate things calmly. Shouting "WHAT THE F***?!" and making allegations of racism hardly qualify as "calm". --Jimbo Bob _ASS 01:08, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Ug. Thanks for pointing out that typo. I need a break. Okay, you're right, the "What the F***" wasn't nessesasry, but I dissagree about the accusal of racism. Joke or no, that's what I saw it as, and even now, even if it is a joke, that's what I STILL see it as. --Sirens^{T RR} 01:18, 11 May 2006 (BST)

All right. Well, about the "racism", then. One, that term applied here is simply technically inaccurate. Racism refers to prejudice based upon major regional phenotypes, and last I checked Australian was still a nationality (I suspect that this is where the "nationalism" mislabeling originated). If you want to seem reasonable instead of coming off as at least a bit of a drama-whore, you'd do better to go with a less spectacular, more accurate description like "I find this offensive", or "This seems like stereotyping, and I find that offensive". Second, I don't see why you (or anyone else) should find that comment offensive. It's not like he was using any kind of national epithet (think "mick" and the like), or playing into any national stereotypes or anything like that. Yes, he's ascribing a negative attribute to Australians, but he's doing so in a way that seems to me to be comparable with saying something like "I don't like those Spaniards - they're plotting world domination!". It's obviously unserious, and I think equally obviously harmless.

Whoo, I really got going there, didn't I? Anyway, hope that explains things okay. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 01:35, 11 May 2006 (BST)

It doesn't matter whether or not a person can see why someone would be offended by that. The fact is that I DID find it offensive. Would it make you feel any better if I told you my parents were born in raised in Austrailia? At any rate, I looked up racism. You're right, I used the wrong term (Though I'm sure one could see Austrailians as a race of people from Austrailia). "Prejudice" is what this would be. One moment while I change the initial acusation--Sirens^{T RR} 01:42, 11 May 2006 (BST)

No, that wouldn't make me "feel any better", and it wouldn't make your complaint any more valid either. The bottom line is this: I don't think it was offensive (and I know it wasn't THAT offensive), and you need to grow a thicker skin. If hearing people trash-talk, however jokingly, the land of your forefathers makes you bristle, that's perfectly fine. I'm a little touchy about that kind of thing myself. When you cannot let it go, to the point where you feel the need to try and get the user who did it banned, that's not fine. I'm honestly sorry if that comes off as harsh - from what I've seen of you, you're generally an alright kinda gal - but it is nevertheless true. If somebody ticks you off like that, contact them via their talk page or something, and then drop it regardless of their response. I've had more than my share of drama, and I can promise you it's not worth it. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 01:57, 11 May 2006 (BST)

First, my parents didn't come from Austrailia. That was an example. I get touchy anytime someone says someone from group X is a Y type of person. And I will not get a thicker skin simply because no one should have to put up with this crud.

Second, I DIDN'T report him because he offended me. I reported him for what I felt a bad-faith edit, or more accurately, for something I felt was uncalled for, and totally unnessesary in that area. If he had said it on Cyberbob's talk page, I probably wouldn't have cared.

Third, a good deal of the community seems to have a misconception that reporting a vandal will result in a ban. It DOESN'T in cases like these, even if they are considered vandalism. The User gets a warning, and if that user has enough warnings, THEN they get banned. Even then it's not a permanent ban. It's a 24 hour ban, UNLESS the user has recieved prior bans, and by that point, the user in question is probably more than deserving.--Sirens^{T RR} 02:12, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Finnally, addressing the bit on drama, I don't like it either. I was hoping that I could report what I saw to be vandal thinking - once again wrongly, perhaps I'm more naive than I'd like to admit - that if the community dissagreed, the worst I'd deal with is "I don't think this is vandalism". Did that happen? Heck no. Instead, someone, somewhere decided, "We can't simply dissagree with her, she hasn't sucked my dick enough. we have to BURN this bitch." I don't want to say that's true, but that's how it's appearing. --Sirens^{T RR} 02:12, 11 May 2006 (BST)

You absolutely need to get a grip and set down the persecution pipe. If it feels like I've been riding you about your drama shit, well, maybe you should cut down your drama. But I'm not riding just you, and I think several people here can attest that I've gotten sick and tired of vandal reporting and arbitration in general and am coming down on everyone about it. Why did I lay into you? Because a) you used an emotionally charged, demagogue-ish term ("racism," when it clearly wasn't), b) it was obvious that the report existed only because you hadn't gotten enough comments for the day, and c) this is the third or fourth time you've done something like this and then gone "oops! who, me?"

As far as your comment about "I think I was blocked via other means": I told you that I was at work and didn't have the time. And then, I said to you exactly what I said here, followed by "And now I'm done with the discussion.". And you logged off in a huff. Follow that with a bunch of sniping and insinuations that that I'm pissed because you haven't fawned over me or anything, and well: fuck. you. I find that highly offensive, and I think it's a bad-faith edit. But you know what? I'm not going to report you to vandalism because the punishment does not fit the crime and I certainly don't feel the need to run to mommy or daddy whenever someone gets mean.

I regret ever suggesting you apply for mod-ship. You can't seem to comport yourself in anything approaching a rational manner (I don't care much about civil - just consistent) or take any level of criticism at all.--Jorm 04:00, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Gonna go point-by-point with you here. First, where your parents did or did not come from is irrelevant. What I said about needing to let things go still applies. It's cool you want to stick up for other people and all, but try to reserve it for cases where they actually need it. Second, if I recall your post correctly, you felt it was bad-faith because it was offensive. Given that, I'm not sure I see how the distinction you're drawing there makes any kind of sense. Also, your distinction between Scinfaxi saying what he did as a comment attached to his vote, and his hypothetically saying it on Cyberbob's talk baffles me. Why would that be any different? Third, in Scinfaxi's case, had he been ruled against in the case you brought, he would have been banned. By bringing that report, you were trying to get him banned. Trust me, I've accumulated enough experience with Vandal Banning to understand how it works. Finally, to repeat an earlier point as you seem to be repeating an earlier complaint, if you want people to respond calmly, you have to speak to them calmly, and that's all that there is to it. The persecution complex really doesn't look good on you. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 02:42, 11 May 2006 (BST)

When you put it that way, I suppose there isn't really a distinction between the two. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not doing it simply because I don't like it. I'm doing it because it didn't belong there because ti was offensive. As far as the distinction I make between the moderator page and anywhere else is this: In my opinion, the Moderation and Policy pages should be handled in a manner that's as civil as possible. Trolling and other useless comments get in the way of getting anything done. Finnally, no, I wasns't putting him up for vandalism to get him banned, regardless of how many warnings he has. I was simply putting him up for vandalism. If he has enough warnings to get himself banned, that's his fault and his problem, and has nothing to do with me. --Sirens^{T RR} 02:59, 11 May 2006 (BST)

With regards to offensiveness: You still haven't explained how what Scinfaxi said was any more offensive that the hypothetical "OMFG SPANIARDS" scenario I outlined. I'd appreciate it if you did so. With regards to your comment on how "In my opinion, the Moderation and Policy pages should be handled in a manner that's as civil as possible": You're perfectly welcome to hold that opinion. Where you go wrong is when you attempt to enforce that opinion as wiki policy. Violating the established policy of the wiki is vandalism - violating the personal principles of an individual user is not. If you think that Scinfaxi (or any other user, for that matter) attaching non-useful/potentially flame-inducing comments to votes on Moderation and Policy pages ought to be vandalism, feel free to suggest that in Policy Discussion. As of right now, however, it is very clearly not vandalism, regardless of what your feelings on the subject may be. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 03:36, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I did suggest that. It seems there's more people on the Wiki that enjoy trolling than there are people who don't. Also, because I have to point it out again, it was not good-faith, which IS vandalism by Wiki policy. --Sirens^{T RR} 03:44, 11 May 2006 (BST)

"I'd appreciate it if you did so"... but apparently you're not gonna. As for the rest of it: He recorded a valid vote on a page specifically made for voting, and attached a comment which was also entirely permissible, as apparently you already tried to make this a wiki policy and were specifically informed that no, that's definitely not vandalism. That's practically the definition of good-faith. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 03:56, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Jimbo, humor doesn't make it a good faith edit. Just an observation. It provides nothing useful. That's why it's bad faith. Not because it's ZOMG RACISM!!1!!!!eleven!11!1 -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:00, 11 May 2006 (BST)

You're right that humour does not necessarily make something good faith, but it certainly doesn't make it bad faith. People should be allowed to attach comments to their votes whether they're particularly useful or not. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 01:06, 11 May 2006 (BST)

This sounds pretty bad, but somehow I'm not surprised that such a comment came from Scinfaxi... and yes, I am moderately offended. I'm not raging mad, but a little angry. An apology, followed by Scinfaxi removing the offensive comment (and maybe a warning), would be enough for me. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 08:38, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Well, actually, I personally would be more offended with the edit being some kind of attempt at explination of a vote against rather than the comment itself; it implys that, not only does Scinfaxi not want you to be a moderator, but he doesn't feel like being decent enough to give a reasonable and concise explination and instead leaves a flippent reply. But I don't think that it is a vandalization, but I don't think it is a valid vote either; I'd rather have it crossed out and disregarded, but I believe that Kevan would do that anyway. --Karlsbad 08:59, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I don't particularly agree that that's offensive, but I'm not gonna try and play thought-police here. You've got a right to take Scinfaxi's comment however you want to. Regardless, I believe firmly "offensive" does not necessarily mean "vandalism". I'm not gonna play thought-police, but I don't much care to see other people trying to, either. If users have problems with each other, they should try to find a way of dealing with them that isn't reliant upon brute force from the mods - both for the sake of the culture of the wiki, and to keep the mods' workload from becoming insurmountable. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 09:01, 11 May 2006 (BST)

You are correct McSnatherson/JimboBob, we shouldn't start playing the author intent and thought-police game. Rather, it would be best for us to remark on the pure uselessness of the edit itself; instead of suggesting a change that CyberBob could impliment and therefore improve his oportunity to become a moderator, Scinfaxi chose to create a flacid arguement that CyberBob could never change, as he is always going to be Australian. Therefore, the vote, and therefore the edit is useless and should be struck out. It isn't Vandalism, it is just a natural Scinfaxi-grade "contribution". Skip the warning, but strike out the vote. --Karlsbad 09:32, 11 May 2006 (BST)

As I said, an apology, a strikeout of the vote/a complete rewording of the vote ~~plus maybe a warning~~ would do me. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 09:04, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Yeah, that sounds like it'd be fair, to both of you. Edit: Wait... I think I may've just been inconsistent there somehow. Well, it's too late to figure it out now. I needs to get me some sleep. Later, y'alls. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 10:00, 11 May 2006 (BST)

*cough* --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 08:04, 12 May 2006 (BST)

...Oh, you waiting on me? Yeah, sorry. Basically my position is just that it wasn't offensive, definitely wasn't vandalism, but that if it really bothers people so much Scinfaxi should probably go ahead and delete/modify his vote, if only to avoid pointless dramas. 'K? --Jimbo Bob _ASS 02:21, 13 May 2006 (BST)

While I realize some of you have not completed the third grade like me, I think I should clarify. I gave a perfectly valid reason, touched up with a little humor. Offensive? Maybe, but it wasn't intended that way. I'm shocked no one thought I hated the Dutch! What if I decided to found a group to deter Canadian imperialism in Malton? Would that be offensive to you? It's really been blown out of proportion. Also, Karlsbad and anyone else who said I did not make a valid reason for bob not being a mod are idiots who can't read. My apologies to any Australians I offended, your country is beautiful. I just plain don't like those shifty eyed Tasmanians (prepares for wave of criticism from hyper-sensitive wiki users). Scinfaxi 02:13, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Before I turn into a seething b*tch again, I'd like to point out that the Vandal Report concerning this particular thing was removed - by me - and there is no longer a need to argue this. --Sirens^{T RR} 02:17, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Oh yes, and Mia, it's either nationalism or bigotry. It COULD be considered nativism in certain contexts. Scinfaxi 05:09, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Xoid

Follow this link for the change on my page done by xoid. It is a direct alteration of my own words, which comes under the wiki policy's 'sole ownership of user's talk page' rules. I would like to make a complaint about this unauthorized editing. He seems somewhat out of control, considering he doesn't appear to even me a mod.

Nope it doesn't come under the 'sole ownership of user's talk page' as user talk pages are mend to be used as a communication tool, the 'owner' does have extra rights over the page thats true. However your complaint in no way touches that particular rule at the moment. Your complaint comes it under the impersonation clause, and he's indeed not allowed to do that. on the otherhand seeing how you acted, you don't deserve a beauty award either, blanking pages of other users is extremely bad form, even if you had permission. I'm going to tell xoid not to do it again, but not give him a warning. And I want both of to take it more easy.--Vista ^W! 11:31, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Fat chance of that happening. He seems insistent upon putting forward his alternate reality. I could damn well have put him on here for vandalism, and instead I ask him "why", giving him a chance to get himself out of a possibly bad situation. Instead, he ignores that. And frankly, I don't see how this can be construed as impersonation. I didn't sign his name there, and neither did he. It was a statement heavily bolded above the heading. Really, what rational person is going to assume that he is calling himself ignorant of the facts, instead of this "xoid" who was flaming him adding fuel to the fire. If anything, altering that text would've made him look better in the eyes of anyone not going through the history.

I put my demands on his talk page, but I'll state them here in a less cuss-word infested form:

He removes his obvious goading.
He removes the blatant trolling I responded with after his obvious goading.
He apologises to the other user for breaching etiquette so badly, instead of informing him that it was extremely poor form to blank a talk page. Particularly when the issues on his talk page weren't exactly old.

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:36, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Oh now this is rich. Check out this edit. Claiming to be the same user. What's the UD Wiki's stance on multiple accounts? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:47, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Just to quicky answer few things: Multiple accounts are allowed, though for voting it's obviously one vote per user, not per account. If user blanks another account's page with the other, it's only his own fault if he is reported as vandal. But as a side note, blanking your own or your group's talk pages is not forbidden in any way, it's just bad form. Very bad in the latter case. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 18:21, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Scinfaxi

Not sure where else to put this. Looked up a photo of me on another website and uploaded it here for the purpose of ridicule. Past Moderator statements have clearly laid out the fact that this is not allowed. -- Amazing 04:33, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Oh fine asshole, I'll remove it. There, are you fucking happy? Note that the only reason I am doing this is to make a good-faith effort at reconciliation with you. Scinfaxi 04:37, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I might tend to believe that if you hadn't started with "Oh fine asshole". Well.. actually, no.. I wouldn't. I believe you see you've done something that is black-and-white 100% no-quibbles wrong and you're trying to avoid the hammer. But I'll take it. -- Amazing 04:39, 10 May 2006 (BST)

As of yet image has not been removed though Scinfaxi continues to use the Wiki. (Furthermore, if posting an image on the internet means you have no copyright, I'd like to see Scinfaxi go to disney.com and tell them that.) -- Amazing 04:43, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I removed it from the page in question, then deleted it. Unfortantely I'm not as fat as you (comment made in response to Amazing's behavior) and thus cannot do things as quickly on the computer. Scinfaxi 04:59, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Do you honestly think I care if I'm obviously violating the rules? Pssh. Absolutely not. This is EXACTLY why nobody likes you. Scinfaxi 04:43, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Eh, that's because you're a virginal little pussy with nothing better to do than troll, vandalize, and flame me. :) -- Amazing 04:44, 10 May 2006 (BST)

See, now how could ANYONE hate this guy so much as to make him an object of ridicule? Scinfaxi 04:51, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Scinfaxi. Master of the self-fulfilling prophecy. -- Amazing 04:58, 10 May 2006 (BST)

This page is not for fighting out arguments. Both of you will stop. And this does not get repeated in the future either, next report either one of you make there will be no more replies other then 1 rebuttal made by the other party.--Vista ^W! 11:37, 10 May 2006 (BST)

What the fuck? I haven't made any reports, I'm simply responding to them. Tell Amazing to get off his period and quit bitching. I took his fatass off the picture and replaced it with my former kitten that got run over (I hope you cry when you see the picture). My advice is that the moderation team simply ignore anything Amazing posts, that way we can all be happy. Scinfaxi 18:58, 10 May 2006 (BST)

next comment by you Scinfaxi on this report is bad faith, this page is not for flamewars. If you feel the need to discuss something you better use a talk page your still allowed on.--Vista ^W! 19:10, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Hmm, because scrolling down the page it seems like there are several disputes in progress. You really intend to say that my comments by default are bad faith? Ha! Well, you can ban me for posting on this but I REALLY don't think that would work. It's amazing how the moderation team will pander to Amazing. That's beside the point though. I took the picture down and replaced it with a much more attractive one. The original photograph only appeared on MY talk page, which is my domain anyway. I don't mind any moderator ruling on this subject right now. Scinfaxi 19:21, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I'll refrain from comment until the ruling, which I expect soon...? -- Amazing 04:59, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Yeah, he's a jerk for pointing out how much of a fatass Amazing is. It was his talk page though, and Amazing clearly mocks Scinfaxi on his own user page. Also, did I mention Amazing has an ugly beard? Now I'm very OBVIOUSLY NOT SCINFAXI, but I do think wiki jail is taking it's toll on him. Of course, he has spent a little time photoshopping the photograph in question to make it more entertaining (and he will be hosting it off site). Earsarewaxi 18:20, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Blatant alt of Scinfaxi. Banned. Email me if you think I am mistaken.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:08, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Furthermore, photoshopped images of me - wherever they are hosted - will be removed by me personally, regardless of reprocussions, assuming Mods don't intervene. -- Amazing 19:31, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Any photoshopped pic of you hosted here whitout your approval will be removed Amazing. But i fail to understand how you plan to personally remove the picture if he upload it on a free web hosting site, like imageshack or xs.to :\ --hagnat ^mod 23:15, 11 May 2006 (BST)

He can simply remove the link to it from the page. -Wyn ^(talk!) 18:10, 13 May 2006 (BST)

That, or I'd h4xx0r teh gibs0n. -- Amazing 00:56, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Scinfaxi

While i strongly believe Scinfaxi shouldn't be punished for the below case, i too strongly believe it is time for him to leave this wiki. Anyone that keep track on all the Zomg Amazing Drama !!1! will find Scinfaxi helping in one way or another to further any drama already settled, if not responsable in creating them.

Looking at his user contributions page one can easily see that Scinfaxi latest edits were all related to Amazing, probably to attack or tease him. The only contribution i see was his first edits on the Crossman Groove PD location page, but this page eventually grew up to an edit war between Amazing and Scinfaxi.

For his poor behaviour in this wiki in the latest months, and his lack of will to improve the wiki, i ask this wiki community to vote him out. --hagnat ^mod 03:59, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Ban Vote 2: This time it's personal! I'd like to see this, (only fair since it happened to me) but of course I'm the LAST person who would be taken seriously, now. I doubt anyone else will set it up in Policy Discussion. -- Amazing 04:02, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I'd be happy to get rid of him, but only if amazing goes as well. It seems that if both of those people left, there would be little to no drama left.--Bermudez 04:03, 10 May 2006 (BST)

There is already a vote on me in progress. You might want to voice this there, since your personal problems with me aren't the point of the post. -- Amazing 04:05, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I think I already have voiced it there, I just want to point out that if we are going to ban people for being useless trolls, Scinfaxi isn't the place to start--Bermudez 04:25, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Right back atcha. -- Amazing 19:34, 11 May 2006 (BST)

A page has been made here for voting and discussion on this matter. Please address comments there, as to save on space on this page. Thanks. – Nubis ^NWO 04:25, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Man. The absolutely last thing you want is for there to be a precedent of banning people for trolling, Amazing.--Jorm 05:41, 10 May 2006 (BST)

No, no it isn't. -- Amazing 06:16, 10 May 2006 (BST)

You realize, don't you, that you'd be the next person on that particular chopping block, right? I'm not saying that I think it should happen - I don't - just given the . . . flavor . .. of the bulk of your interactions with people, you'd be signing your own death warrant to spite one person. Just food for thought.--Jorm 06:43, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I am being 100% truthful when I say that, if people could be banned or have SOME kind of reprocussions for trolling, you'd never see me embroiled in drama again. Why? The trolls would be blasted out of the Wiki and I wouldn't need to consistantly defend myself, and wouldn't get aggrivated when it never.. fugging.. ends. -- Amazing 06:48, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Your response here though tells me that you percieve yourself to be a complete and total victim here, above reproach, when that absolutely is not the case. My very first interaction with you was to tell you that you should drop one of your vandal cases because it wasn't going anywhere and was only making you look childish and your response was to call me a "trolling asshole" - and I hadn't said anything remotely trollish to you. This type of response does not engender sympathy; quite the opposite. Did you ever think that the reason you may be targeted so often is because of the way you react? --Jorm 06:56, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I guess my response told you what you wanted to hear. I'm telling you what I believe the future would hold if that were the case. Anything more is simply your own words crammed in. Maybe you need to ask yourself why people should be allowed to 'target' someone on a Wiki in the first place. As for our interactions in which I was wholly unjust in calling you a troll, this is as far back as I can find so far. Feel free to remind me of what went down, however. -- Amazing 07:02, 10 May 2006 (BST)

It has apparantly long-since been gifted unto the Gods of the Wiki Purge. Your link there is something that happened long after. I do remember that someone - Odd Starter, I think - made a comment to the effect that you should pay attention to what I said as it was a good indication of your reputation on the wiki. As far as whether or not I believe that people should be able to "target" others on a wiki: I don't. I think people that do so are childish. But I also think that this is the internet, and people pee in the cornflakes of others. The mature thing to do is ignore it and move on, as reaction begets action. --Jorm 07:31, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I am against such action, banning users from this wiki without going to the already established procedure is not something I can agree to, If we continue to have the level of trolling on this wiki as we do now a far more approprate way of dealing is declearing any edits made by the party concerning pages of the subject, about the subject or responces to the subject, etc. bad faith and elligable as vandalism. that way if the person doesn't clean up his act he is banned with due process. in scinfaxi's case that whould mean: no edits talking to amazing, no edits talking about amazing, no edits on the CDF pages, no edits on Amazings user page. This is already at our disposal, and can be used with other users as well without setting dangerous precedents or adding new drama filled petitions. And has a 100% succes rate without limiting the user's constuctive editing possibilities.--Vista ^W! 08:14, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Not unless Amazing goes too. They are both equally responsible for the drama, thus, equal punishments. --Grim s 09:57, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I disagree. While Amazing is partly responsible for the drama, I think that if every one of his attackers just stopped attacking him, he would reciprocate. From what I can tell, nearly all arguments have been started by his attackers. Note the word nearly. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 10:03, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I'd like to note that in my personal experience with Amazing, this has emphatically not been the case, on both counts. First, every argument I've had with him that I can think of, he initiated. I'll admit GANKBUS/Scinfaxi seem to have been a bit more actively provocative in dealing with him (and they're pretty damn funny about it, too), but that doesn't change the fact that Amazing does have a record of stirring up drama where it could have been easily averted (Wikigate, anyone?). Second, I've been doing my damnedest to give civility a shot over on the Main Page talk, and at least in in my eyes he has not yet become noticeably less abrasive as a result. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 10:23, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Hmm... that's a good point. Maybe the main problem here is pride; neither side wants to apologise, as that would be admitting they were wrong... I think that if we were to cut the crap and get both sides (this includes you and me, Bob) to sincerely apologise and stick to the civility, maybe that would solve the problem. Which is another problem; I've seen countless apologies to/from Amazing, but only very few have been stuck to. The vast majority lapse straight back into arguing. I don't know. Just a thought. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 10:29, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Well, you're right that I'm not so much with the apologizing (to Amazing et al, anyway - I have apologized for letting that crap muck up substantive pages), but that's because I genuinely don't believe that I was in the wrong, not becasue I just don't want to admit it. With regards to sticking to civility, the recent arbitration ruling seems to pretty much compel that. Pretty much just as well, though, as I was getting about as sick of all this wiki-drama as it's possible to get. Hopefully now we'll be able to grief Amazing/CDFers in peace, without getting dragged into Arbitration all the damn time (yes, I know that sounds funny - and no, I don't care). --Jimbo Bob _ASS 01:00, 11 May 2006 (BST)

By the way, congrats on the reform or whatever I'm hearing about. You seem a lot nicer than I remember. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 01:01, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Since Scinfaxi's actions clearly merit a banning anyway, what is this discussion all about? Evidence has proved him to be either racist/regionalist or incapable of distinguishing the boundaries of good taste, insulting, exhibiting stalker-like behavior, etc. Ban votes are NOT official in this wiki at ALL, but for this fellow they don't need to be. Normal procedure has eliminated him, and we'll see if he reforms after his ban. --LibrarianBrent 01:38, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I'll submit myself for a banning if the rest of CDF is banned as well. Also, banning scinfaxi without banning Amazing is probably the dumbest thing any of you have ever come up with . This is PROOF that hagnat is a secret member of CDF and trying to get GANKBUS to lose the war. Rasher 20:03, 11 May 2006 (BST)

ZOMG. YOU KNOW ? damn damn damn. I was thinking my conspiracy with Amazing to take over the Wiki was really secretive. Damn you Rasher, for knowing too much. Now i will have to kill you so you wont tell everybody about my plans to take over UD and sell it to some bearded midgets from Iowa, who would use this wiki as a portal for their naughty scams. --hagnat ^mod 20:19, 11 May 2006 (BST)

For discovering your plan, I warn you. Twice. Double warnings. Well, actually I'll give you a Warning + a Warning.75. 1.75 warnings for hagnat. I'm also hereby banning all players from Iowa. Rasher 22:44, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Mattiator

Made Zerger corperation a page basically existing to whine about the fact that he was zerging and got busted.--Mpaturet 02:42, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Burn him! He's a witch! Sonny Corleone 02:44, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Sorry, but I have to say this. And? This isn't vandalism. If you're really concerned about it, report him to Kevan for promoting Zerging. --Sirens^{T RR} 02:45, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Remember TheGreatHumoungous? This is similar--Mpaturet 03:05, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Mattiator is free to create any group he wishes. If he mantain this group, and follow the rules of the wiki, there is no reason why we should warn/ban him and delete this page. Of course, Kevan will prolly have a different opinion on this, and delete all his zerg accounts. --hagnat ^mod 03:33, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Scinfaxi

Already warned for doing this, and was asked/told by me MANY times to stop. I'd appreciate a direct step to banning since he's obviously (from his own words) "immune" to warnings, and will never stop. -- Amazing 02:07, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Banning a user for what seems to be a good faith edit to anyone not incessently paranoid is a rather harsh punishment. – Nubis ^NWO 02:10, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Read the text just a little more closely. -- Amazing 02:23, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Originally my edits were in good faith but maybe a little rude at the same time. Of course, now I'm just being a jerk and making a point about proactively banning someone from posting on someone elses user page. I've got a few (or maybe one) more warning left before a ban anyways (probably). If I am banned, I think I have a twin brother with remarkably simular posting habits. You do too, right Amazing? Scinfaxi 02:37, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I dismiss hagnat as an arbitrator, and I refuse this vandal banning session. He he. Scinfaxi 02:42, 10 May 2006 (BST)

HA-HA-HA. --hagnat ^mod 02:52, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Though I tend to agree with that sentiment - Any mod action? -- Amazing 02:54, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I think this is all that's really needed to give Sci a perminent ban. Sometimes it's not Misconduct to go outside the guidelines when someone's abusing the wiki to this extent, as with spam-bots, Sci has absolutely nothing to offer the site, save taking up space with useless text - and best of all he knows this and is doing it on purpose. -- Amazing 02:48, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I bet everyone involved in disputes with you should get a perma-ban Amazing. There is nothing in the rules stating that you can permanently ban anyone from posting on anyone elses talk pages. The comments should be judged on a case by case basis. Oh yeah, and didn't you create an alt. after being banned you fatass hypocrit? Plus, whose to say my comments were abusive? I merely said I did not trust you around young boys below the age of consent, that's all! Is that a sensitive issue with you or something? Scinfaxi 02:54, 10 May 2006 (BST)

All I heard above was masturbatory moaning. Anyone else? -- Amazing 02:58, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Careful Nash, this is one of the reasons I don't trust you around young boys. That and the flammable contents of your beard. Scinfaxi 03:02, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Scinfaxi received a half warning. There is no point banning him just for this edit. --hagnat ^mod 02:58, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I'll get a little more creative with edits later tonight. Still, point me to the rule/guideline that says I can't make good faith edits to Amazing's talk page. Scinfaxi 03:02, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Ok. here is the link, first line, the definition of vandalism: "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki".. Seeing how you and amazing has a really long history of discussion and how you and him are involved in much of the drama that is somehow killing this wiki, i believe that you have no reason why to message Amazing, neither does Amazing has any reasons to message you, since probably nothing good will come out of this. I believe this should have been an arbitration decision made in the arbitration page, but, as for now, both Amazing and Scinfaxi are not allowed to message each other though their user talk pages. --hagnat ^mod 03:20, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Also, if you read this you will see that amazing owns any pages associated with his User: namespace. --hagnat ^mod 03:23, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Uhm. There's no such thing as a half-warning. -- Amazing 03:21, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Then it is a no warning. Scinfaxi just remains with his only warning that i gave him yesterday. This little edit of his is not worthy of a second warning, even though i asked him not to message you again. --hagnat ^mod 03:30, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Wow. This is nothing short of misconduct. I hesitate to bring a case, however. He's been warned for EXACTLY THIS, and you're ignoring another new case concerning the same thing. If that isn't misconduct, I don't know what is... -- Amazing 03:33, 10 May 2006 (BST)

You're incorrect then Hagnat. Amazing owns his page, and may do with it what he likes, but you cannot proactively ban me from making good faith edits on his page. Also, if I'm not correct, wasn't there a ruling in a case involving Amazing about archiving comments made on talk pages? Doesn't a user have to do that? Hmmmm... Scinfaxi 03:35, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Read the pages i just linked here. People can do whatever they want with thei user: namespaces pages, even removing other people messages whitout archiving. This is considered poor form, but valid. You CAN NOT remove other people comments from talk pages of group or open articles whitout archiving them somewhere (something i failed to do in the past one time). --hagnat ^mod 03:42, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I'd like to point out, that disrespecting someone's wishes not to post on thier talk page is far from "Good Faith" --Sirens^{T RR} 03:43, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Comments should be reviewed on a case by case basis. You cannot reasonably judge the intentions of any poster before he actually says something. I really have no qualms with Amazing deleting anything I say, but I'm not going to be proactively banned from anywhere on the wiki (even if it is just a stone's throw away from Amazing's beard). There is no guideline or rule that says you can simply ban a poster from posting on someone's talk page (especially since it's a medium for communication). An edit is an edit, and should be judged on that basis. Who wrote it is irrelevent if it's content is not abusive or made in bad faith. Scinfaxi 03:53, 10 May 2006 (BST)

This is where you and amazing dont understand this ruling, and why you didnt received a warning even though i said you not to message amazing in my previous ruling. There is times were rules bend, and any law enforcement body just closes his eyes and let things go unpunished. By default, any edit of yours in amazing's talk page, or any amazing edit on yours talk page is to be considered vandalism. It is up to the user to bring this violation to this page, and is up to the moderation staff to decide if they are going to warn the user or not. --hagnat ^mod 04:15, 10 May 2006 (BST)

That's the point. You cannot simply say that "by default" an edit I make on Amazing's page is vandalism, since it's a medium for communication. Suppose we decide to end our fueding, would a message indicating this be "by default" a bad faith edit? Scinfaxi 04:33, 10 May 2006 (BST)

reread the statement scinfaxi.--Vista ^W! 12:18, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Mattiator

Posted this in clear violation of Suggestions Criterion 13: Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism and treated appropriately by moderators. If you want to post a joke suggestion put it on the Humorous Page. – Nubis ^NWO 01:56, 10 May 2006 (BST)

You forgot his dummies one. Im not going to rule on this (Prior promises), i will say, however, that its going to be bloody hard to rule that to be a good faith edit. --Grim s-^Mod 01:58, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Dummies could be seen as just a horrible suggestion, not necessarily 'satire, insult or comedy.' So I let it be. – Nubis ^NWO 01:59, 10 May 2006 (BST)

This idea is odd. It might be something made of satire, and if it this Mattiator should receive a warning, like any other who abuse the suggestion page. But, there is a chance that this is somehow a good suggestion: a suggestion page! Not for the game itself, but for the wiki. A page were people could suggest new features for the wiki, and we could vote on it. Some kind of policy voting, but for new features. That would be something i would have voted keep, even if it wasnt the right place to suggest :) --hagnat ^mod 03:03, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Previous movings.

Amazing

From The Editing Guide:

"While the rest of the page is allowed to be as biased and full of propaganda as the group wishes, the top section (known as the "definitional section", or "introduction"), must be written from a Neutral Point of View, ie a view that does not forward any particular agenda."

Amazing's edits do seem to be slanted, but they're not that far off from the truth, I feel. If it's such a major thing, it should be edited instead, with the specific guidelines that an independent, if not Amazing, is satisfied that it is NPoV. I would suggest very strongly that Amazing stop editing the page, and that ASS members edit instead of remove. -Wyn ^(talk!) 08:50, 3 May 2006 (BST)

We have edited it. Thanks for the link. --BobHammero _ASS 09:04, 3 May 2006 (BST)

My pleasure, anything to end the drama. Hope you weren't being sarcastic because if you were, I'll look the fool. -Wyn ^(talk!) 09:07, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Not at all. We appreciate your help, and we've edited the NPOV section to be actually neutral. If you ever want to start PKing, we'd love to have you join us. ;-) --BobHammero _ASS 09:11, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Could be fun. I'm generally opposed to it but when I max out both of my characters, I might get bored. You never know. -Wyn ^(talk!) 09:30, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Hey, my character used to be a really helpful survivor. Defending malls, barricading, healing, mowing down the zombies, the whole deal. Then I was maxed out, and just started collecting XP.... Before you know it, here we are today. Just keep us in mind. --BobHammero _ASS 09:37, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Of course. I'm honoured that you asked. -Wyn ^(talk!) 09:40, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Krazy Monkey

why does nobody use the talk page for discussion on cases, and whould anybody object if I moved everything to here?--Vista ^W! 19:11, 1 May 2006 (BST)

too late.--Vista ^W! 19:26, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Violating rule 13 of the suggestions page (Which is very clear on the matter):

Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered
vandalism and treated appropriately by moderators. If you want to post a joke suggestion
put it on the Humorous Page.

Link --Grim s-^Mod 19:25, 30 April 2006 (BST)

You don't have to report it here. Go ahead and warn him.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:33, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I'm sorry, I wont do it again, I put it in the wrong place. I use firefox and had the wrong tab open. I was about to move it but Mr Grim comes in acting all Modish and tells me off for an honest mistake. Then he said my idea was shit. Krazy Monkey 19:39, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I never said your idea was shit. I said "shit like this", which is a figure of speech, even if slightly vulgar. --Grim s-^Mod 19:58, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, looks good faith, i'm not going to warn you. Actually, I thought your idea was quite funny. Try and take anything Grim says with a pinch of salt, he's often right but he can be a bit harsh.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:51, 30 April 2006 (BST)

The rule states that "Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism". Thank you for completely undermining it right off the bat. As written, good faith does not come into play. People should read the rules and follow them. --Grim s-^Mod 19:56, 30 April 2006 (BST)

This is total overreaction and exactly the reason why I think codifying humorous suggestions as vandalism is a bad idea. The kid's sorry; let him go. Punishing people for shit like this just undermines the wiki community, makes them feel like they shouldn't even bother contributing, and creates bad blood.--Jorm 21:15, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Yes they should, but he's obviously sorry and I think a verbal warning is sufficient punishment for a first offence.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:59, 30 April 2006 (BST)

And i think that you, by doing so, have set a dangerous precident that undermines the very reason behind the rule being implimented. Now we have to let absolutely everyone go who says sorry and says they wont do it again. --Grim s-^Mod 20:06, 30 April 2006 (BST) Edit - Not to mention the fact that this precident has tro extend to every other clear cut vandalism case. So now someone like PQN can come in, blank a few hundred pages, promise never to don it again, apologise, and get away with it. Of course, im extending it to absurd lengths to make my point absolutely clear. --Grim s-^Mod 20:12, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Grim, I think that what makes this not a big deal is this. He posted a humorous suggestion on the serious suggestion page. I voted humorous, you voted vandalism, he moved it to humorous suggestions. He apologized too. If every vandal apologized and fixed their vandalism, wouldn't that make life easier on everyone? -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 20:16, 30 April 2006 (BST)

We've always been lead more trough the spirit of the rule then the letter of the rule. the spirit of the rule is to combat bad-faith suggestions. That, it still does. you take it to literal.--Vista ^W! 20:18, 30 April 2006 (BST)

With no action the rule is dead. The spirit of that rule was to prevent those things from being posted. The threat of such edits being treated as vandalism was held up to enforce that rule. Now that the rule has been broken, and the threat not carried through, the rule is now officially meaningless, and a deadly precident has been set. Thats what pissed me off. Not the fact that its this person in particular has gotten away with something (I personally bear him no ill will), its the fact that the rule is now completely meaningless, and may as well be removed from the page, and the the fact that apologising and promising never to do it again is now a valid defense. A rule, if not enforced, is as if there was no rule at all. --Grim s-^Mod 20:31, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, so you are getting all worked up because I put a joke in the wrong place because the wrong tab on my browser was open. I meant to put it in humourous suggestions because I've already put some in there so I know where they go. I realised my mistake and set about correcting it. I have apologised and won't do it again. The next time you make a mistake, I'll go on about it for half an hour and we'll see how you feel. I know you are a moderator and have to "upholf the law" but I personally you're taking it a bit far. Krazy Monkey 20:34, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Grim, remember that the rationale for vandal banning is one of damage limitation, not punishment. We don't punish users for vandalism, we just warn/ban them to limit the damage. We certainly don't punish users for punishment's sake. At any rate, you may want to remember that all vandalism offenses are still predicated on the idea that a person is deliberately doing it, not mistakenly doing it. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 23:44, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I do not for a second buy into the argument put forward by the accused that it was the wrong tab. Why? Because he used the suggestions template instead of the humourous template. The humourous template is right at the top of the humourous page. When he looked at that page it would be one of the first things he would have seen. He had to scroll down a ways to get his mits on the suggestions template, and right down past the rules (So its more than reasonable to expect him to have looked at them, even in passing). He also had to scroll down to the bottom of the suggestions page and click the edit tab of a suggestion on which he had already voted (Keep, then changed to kill in a seperate edit), scroll down past all that, and insert his suggestion using the suggestion template. There is nothing accidental about that. --Grim s-^Mod 02:17, 1 May 2006 (BST)

It's entirely possible he was on the wrong tab, which was scrolled down past the header. He copies the template, scrolls to the bottom without paying attention to the text, and edits the past suggestion header using the small "edit" link and posts his suggestion below it.

Don't be so paranoid. -- Amazing 03:35, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Well, the simple solution would be to see if he does it again. If he does it again, you've proven your case, and he can clearly be punished. If he doesn't do it again... Well, it doesn't prove anything, but it does show that clearly no punishment was required. Assume Good Faith, Grim. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 06:16, 1 May 2006 (BST)

But this begs the question; what if he does vandalize again in the same manner, e.g. Put another Humorous Suggestion into the Suggestion section, does he get warning number two? If so, there is no reason for him to fear a warning at all and the entire wiki would be served best to have it given to him, as it would provide motivation for him and others for more precise wiki-editing, especially on the "front porch" of the suggestion section. Therefore, I think that KrazyMonkey should recieve a simple warning, with maybe an expiration date of, say, three months? --Karlsbad 07:18, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Nice to see a Mod worse than me. Wonder how long his pass will last. -- Amazing 20:29, 30 April 2006 (BST)

If you have anything of value to add to this discussion, do so. If you feel like trolling, fuck off. --Grim s-^Mod 20:31, 30 April 2006 (BST)

No you fuck off! Zomg Modination. Seriously, though - If you can't take someone pointing out that you're a bad moderator, be a good moderator. This is my comment, and I think it applies since you're rabidly attacking someone for what looks like a mistake. --Amazing 20:36, 30 April 2006 (BST)

As odd as this sounds I agree with Amazing, not all of it but a bit. Grim, take a break, get yourself a cupcake, and maybe some prozac. There is a diffrence between vandalism, and making an honest mistake. If we go about following the rules with no exception we'd never get anyone new because we'd have banned them all. If we applied this strategy to real life a good chunk of the population would be in jail for jaywalking. Just because we don't outright ban someone the first time they break the rules does not inhibit a mod's ability to enforce the rules. This is not the American legal system, we don't rely on precedent for all our judgements. A good moderator knows the diffrence between when they need to warn/ban someone, and when they need to remind or point something out that the person may have missed. Velkrin 22:03, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I have to agree with the sentiments of the above detractors, the job of moderator is one which requires a certain amount of subjective judgment in cases such as this. No one is perfect, we all make mistakes. What happened here was just that, and I imagine if you had simply asked him to move it, he would have happily done so. Instead, in what I have seen to be common fashion, you felt it necessary to blow things out of proportion and cause unnecessary grief for all who take the time to read this page. Thank you for that. --John Rove 23:02, 30 April 2006 (BST)

If you can point out where in the above i actually acted as a moderator... If i was acting as a moderator i would have warned him and been done with it. I did not because i swore that i would not rule on Vandal banning cases, only smash flat active vandals and adbots. Believe it or not, i like my word to have some value. On here i am acting as a user, who is interpreting the rules differently to others, nothing more, nothing less. Just because i have a difference of opinion on the rules does not make me "wrong", nor does it make me any number of bad things you may be thinking (Or good things for that matter). It is the fact that this rule clearly defines the vandalism in the case that i am arguing thus. And it is because that entire definition for the page has been ignored that i am arguing this, and it is because the rule in its entirety has been disregarded on its very first test run that i am arguing this. You may have noticed that i am abiding by the current decision, even if i strongly disagree with it. Or you may not have... Oh well, i cant expect those sorts of things to be picked up by everyone. Personally im sick and tired of this, and i wont comment on the issue again. --Grim s-^Mod 02:17, 1 May 2006 (BST)

There seems to be a common misunderstanding between Mods and Users (occasially ones that aren't me!) concerning the fact that acting as a just another regular user does not mean you are just another regular user. You're in a position of fake authority on a website... STILL you (as all people controlling the quality of use for others) should really conduct yourself in a more reasonable and less threatening/bullying manner. Otherwise it just seems you're the same old troll, but in a new less-touchable position from which you rain down spite and hatred. -- Amazing 03:43, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Sigs On A Wiki, SOAW! If you actually read the points made rather than the signatures under them, you we would all have a far more enlightening time here. Have something to say otherwise? Take it to User Pages. --Karlsbad

Thats a widely misunderstood idea really. As per the wiki philosophy mods are not really in a position of authority, merely trust. As the guidelines say, "Moderator are provided with abilities beyond that of normal users on the expectation that these will be used to fulfil duties on the wiki that normal users are not capable of fulfilling. They are not provided on the expectation that Moderators are any "more worthy" or "more authoritative" than any other user. In short, a Moderator is to be treated as a normal user, with all the rights and responsibilities therein." --Zaruthustra-Mod 07:39, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Do Mods have to adhere to Arbitration rulings like a normal user? Anyway, this is a "have you cake and eat it, too" scenerio where it seems SOME moderators want to be above the "spirit" of acceptable conduct and still be considered "Normal Users" who can't be bothered about their poor behavior. -- Amazing 18:44, 1 May 2006 (BST)

When have you seen a mod demand more respect or authority for being a mod? I haven't. I have seen people respect moderator's opinions more than other user's sometimes, but that comes from the fact, that most people who become mods largely because they were trusted and respectd. Mod's are all still users. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 18:55, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Weather or not a Mod verbally demands respect does not relate to my statement. -- Amazing 19:04, 1 May 2006 (BST)

It's peoples own choice whether they want to give us more respect or not. Just as it is their choice whether they give a normal user more respect or not.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:12, 1 May 2006 (BST)

how about we move this to the talk page? discussions don't really belong here.--Vista ^W! 19:20, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Yes, this is getting ridiculously long.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:22, 1 May 2006 (BST)

But the text is getting shorter. Velkrin 20:45, 1 May 2006 (BST)

It's a built-in wiki mechanism to cut short long, drawn-out, and painful debates. --Lucero Capell 20:47, 1 May 2006 (BST)

I meant text as in sentence length, not lines. Regardless, this bit of the argument seems to be done with. Velkrin 05:09, 2 May 2006 (BST)

This case brings up an overarching issue. In my opinion, people are getting far too. . . "litigious" for a freakin' wiki. It seems every edit is considered vandalism or brought to arbitration, where it then results in pages and pages of discussion and trolling and name-calling.

I think we need less of this, period. We don't need more controls or rules or guidelines since all *those* do is provide people with ammunition to create more vandal reports and arbitration calls.

This case is a perfect point. It's a fuckin' *suggestions page* for chrissakes. It's not a goddamned constitution or holy book, and it's about a freakin' *game*. Games are supposed to be *fun* and players should be able to be involved without paying the Great Wiki Gods The Correct Obesience. The suggestions page is complicated and confusing enough to a new user without adding the threat of "wiki law".

One would assume that people are adults here. Adults don't let crap like template attacks get them; they ignore them, not report them as "bad faith vandalism."--Jorm 20:58, 1 May 2006 (BST)

As far as I can tell, this rule, and many like it, is literally insane. I see absolutely no reason why this wiki should be a dictatorship, and I don't think anyone else would really like that either. If anything, we need less bureaucracy, less obscure rules, and less drama. Rules like this are a waste of time and simply serve to complicate the wiki even further for new users. --LibrarianBrent 05:51, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Are we still going on about this? All I did was accidently put a suggestion in the wrong place. You lot are acting as though I've blanked the entire flamming WIKI. Sheesh.--Krazy Monkey 16:25, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Convo from Amazing vandalism report

(Moved due to extreme lack of relevence)

	Oh Snap!
	Someone just got served!

--Mpaturet 06:12, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Will you stop that? It's never been funny to anyone by fools. It clutters the page and is merely trolling through template. Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 06:16, 24 April 2006 (BST)

It amuses me, which seems to be a good enough reason for you to stick around on this wiki, judging from the amount of times you say "Continue trolling. It amuses me. Peons." and comments along those lines. Thus I feel justified in use of this all purpose template--Mpaturet 06:19, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I think I already said it amused fools, yes. Further comment should be on the Talk Page. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 06:28, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Oh is that what you said? I didn't understand what "It's never been funny to anyone by fools." meant, and I assumed you were just banging keys again. You know, I think you nearrly proved the hypothesis of putting enough monkeys in a room to write Shakespeare. Not that your posts have the literary value of The Bard, but you managed a nearly coherent sentence. Try using the preview button next time.--Mpaturet 06:33, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Apology

on 13 May, 2006, I got a little drunk and made some edits I shouldnt have to the wiki. The can be found here and here. At the time I was just trying to have fun, and wasn't thinkinh propertly. I have been told that tey were not right, and Iappologize for making them. --Sirens^{T RR} 06:08, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I would never have guessed you were/are drunk... :P --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 06:11, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I'm drunk! NO NO, REALLY! I'm so drunk! Look, I'm going to spell drunk without the r, dunk! I'm so dunk! Wooooo, I'm drunk! You see! Also, I'm sorry for those edits made when I was drunk. I mean really, I got so drunk I couldn't see! PLEASE, PAY ATTENTION TO ME! Scinfaxi 22:32, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I'm sorry, but I don't get to use getting drunk as an excuse, and you're not allowed to either. Please sit down and shut up. --Sirens^{T RR} 23:38, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Note for morons: Yes, I know he was being sarcastic. So was I. --Sirens^{T RR} 23:38, 14 May 2006 (BST)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2006 08

Other discussions

Are the Mods Online

Vandal Banning policy discussions

Archiving M/VB

Mod-to-mods: suburb reports

Vandal Votes

Question

Problem. Possibly Major

Banned User Template

What is Vandalism?

Removing requests.

Reporting Multiple Accounts

Warning Template

Ban Duration

Alt Bans

Check Every Vandal

Adbots

Score

Discussions moved from the vandal page

26 September

Gage

False Hagnat

18 September

8 September

28 June

1 June

Rueful & Scinfaxi

27 may

26 may

15 may

14 may

13 May

12 May

11 May

10 May

Previous movings.

Amazing

Convo from Amazing vandalism report

Apology

Navigation menu

Search