Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Discussions moved from the vandal page

20 October

Jon Pyre

22 hours...? It's close, but I'm going to have to allow it. Jon Pyre recieves a warning. Cyberbob Talk 10:04, 20 October 2006 (BST)

You are warning him for suggestions 22 hours apart? What are we the Nazi party or something?--Gage 14:59, 20 October 2006 (BST)

It is the second time he has done so. It may be a bit Nazi but he has been told. Pillsy ^FT 15:03, 20 October 2006 (BST)

If it was his first time... I doubt he would've been warned. But since he had been told specifically not to do it before, I have no other choice. Cyberbob Talk 15:04, 20 October 2006 (BST)

(from UDWiki:Vandalism) On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". Was he acting in bad faith? 22 hours? You can't prove to me it was. I don't care if he had been warned for this, he was obviously close enough to be considered within the rules. You did have another choice, you could have told Funt Solo to quit his witch hunting and bitching over technicalities and use your moderatorial disgression *gasp*.--Gage 15:30, 20 October 2006 (BST)

Look. I don't believe any violation of this rule is in bad faith. But the community said "less than 24 hours", so that's what I'm going by. Like I said; he's already had his chance. Like I also said; if this was his first time, I wouldn't have warned him. Cyberbob Talk 15:35, 20 October 2006 (BST)

This is totally ridiculous. I want a third mod opinion.--Gage 15:39, 20 October 2006 (BST)

I am no mod, but this IS ridiculous. He is not abusing the system, he is not being a vandal, and by applying the rules of the wiki in such a Nazi-like fashion, all you're (Bob/Funt) doing is discouraging users from being active and trying to contribute to the wiki. End the witch hunt and apply the rules with some sense of discretion (as Gage seems to be trying to do here)--Steele Glovier 16:04, 20 October 2006 (BST).----

Do you think I enjoy this? I don't want to see Jon banned or warned any more than Gage does. Jon had his chance. He was told not to do it, and to be more careful. He didn't listen to said advice, so now he's paying for it. You know, I've really had it with all this fucking whining. The community voted in this fucking rule. And now I'm being blamed for following it? Back the fuck off. Why vote in a rule prohibiting actions that are only very rarely bad faith; then turn on the first mod who acts on it? Cyberbob Talk 16:09, 20 October 2006 (BST)

Sorry Gage, but I agree, rules are rules, and he broke the rule you started.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 16:12, 20 October 2006 (BST)

I mean, fuck, Gage, is it 24 hours or isn't it? Pick one and stick with it, please. Cyberbob Talk 16:14, 20 October 2006 (BST)

Here's my spin(I have not looked at the edits yet so be advised in advance):I am opposed to total legalism and beleive the rule should be interpreted to mean in a given 24 hour period. Second Did he actully post the second after being explictly told not to? Because if he did that would indicate bad faith, but if he did so unknowingly and was instructed afterword, then its an honest mistake and no real big deal. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 17:19, 20 October 2006 (BST)

I believe that it would be much easier to do this by the calendar day instead of 24 hours, but if we must enforce this on a 24 hour basis we have to give a few hours leeway. I don't expect someone to check their watch and timestamps on previous suggestions every time they want to make a suggestion, but only to ask themselves "Have I made a suggestion today?" If the answer is "No" then they should ask themselves "Was my last suggestion about this time yesterday?" and if they answer is "Yes" then they are in the clear. I would define "about" as 24 +/- 4 hours. anything less is just being an asshat.--Gage 17:33, 20 October 2006 (BST)

If you want the rule to be +/- 4 hours, I'm happy with that - but it should say that, so there's no confusion. Comparing me to a nazi is ridiculous inflammatory hyperbole. Also, I'm not on any witch hunt - I don't take things personally on the suggestions page. Now, in this case - look at the history. A couple of days ago, Jon Pyre posted two suggestions on the same day. The rule was put in place specifically to stop anyone from doing that. I told him of his mistake, but he just replied something along the lines of "So what? I'll just change the timestamp." So I reported him, as I would anyone who did the same thing. Xoid then told him, explicitly, that it was one suggestion per 24 hours. His claim (in this case) that he didn't realise is therefore ridiculous. He does realise. He just doesn't think it applies to him. This for me, is "if you let one person do it, then..." Well, then, maybe no big deal. If you don't want the rule upheld, then remove it from the page, or clarify it. But please, don't start with the name-calling because someone refers to the rule that you (Gage) claim to have written. I'm quite tickled by your supposition that it's somehow common sense that anything less than +/-4 hours is "being an asshat". Very scientific. I take it, Gage, that anyone who doesn't quite follow your train of thought is just "an asshat", or "a nazi", or a "[witch-hunting bitch]". Is that right? To summarise - if you don't want people to follow your rules, then don't fucking well write them. --Funt Solo 17:55, 20 October 2006 (BST)

I went and looked at the rules as posted. It says per day, not per 24 hours. Feeling that it need some definition I added some clarification that should handle the situation. Yes someenterprising person could make two sugestions a few minutes apart on either side of the 00:01^*, but it should maintain the intent and in general the aplication of the rule. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 20:42, 20 October 2006 (BST)_{-edit- That is if they had not made an edit in the previous 24 hour period. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 20:44, 20 October 2006 (BST)}

I'd very much appreciate if the warning was reverted and I apologise for wasting everyone's time. --Funt Solo 21:11, 20 October 2006 (BST)

My thoughts exactly. Done.--Gage 23:28, 20 October 2006 (BST)

Funt, it's mindnumbingly simple; If you don't want someone punished for breaking a strict legality rule, don't report them.
Gage? You wrote the rule and tried to crucify Aushvitz over it. It was only through great difficulty that that I managed to convince Hammero that it was an honest mistake. The same cannot be said of this circumstance.
Conn? It was already ruled that it not a calander day; Gage brought Mr. A up for vandalism for two suggestions made within a 24 hour period. We don't get to pick and choose which rules to follow because they do not suit us. If that were the case I'd already have instituted that a host of stupid rules would be no longer valid; like the "escalating ban" one (there is simply no excuse for mandatory sentencing). –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 02:41, 21 October 2006 (BST)

In that case, I'm reinstating the warning. Gage, that high horse is not for you. You just don't have the intellect to pull it off, m'kay? Cyberbob Talk 02:45, 21 October 2006 (BST)

Gage just informed me that this was not the same case as the one I ruled on earlier. Which dolt moved the entire case from M/VB? Please, report to the firing squad.

OK, after looking through this case I can see there is a technical violation of what is usually a strict legality rule. Rule 12 doesn't allow room for interpretation on the frequent removal aspect (bolded), but there is room for determining whether the intent was malicious for the rest of the rule.

Rule 12:

Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day (i.e. in a 24 hour period beginning at 00:01 BST). This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions may be revised once per day at most. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system.

Considering a two hour difference I'm inclined to write this off as an honest mistake. Warning retracted. Someone else can do it; it's too fucking late for me to deal with this shit. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 20:14, 21 October 2006 (BST)

Done.--Gage 20:16, 21 October 2006 (BST)

11 October

MrAushvitz

WELL, IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU WANT IT. --Funt Solo 17:53, 11 October 2006 (BST)

You both have a point, some of us should probably lighten up and get some Bran.. and I should cut down on the italics, and bold etc. I mainly do this because a lot of voters tend to skim over a suggestion without reading it, and I find italics come in handy as an eye catching feature. But bold and italics, can be annoying. Mainly I just want the final product to look all neat and presentable (even if some of my suggestions are shit, or considered to be shit.) I apologize to Funt for being annoying.. wish my suggestions were half as good as his. And gage has warned me so I'll behave myself, well, a bit more anyways.. we can't have any miracles until Christmas Sorry all. --MrAushvitz

17:59, 11 October 2006 (BST)

BRAN! Things would move more smoothly on the Wiki if we all just had enough Bran!

Don't kill me, just trying to give us all a laugh.. I'll cut down on the emphasis points. --MrAushvitz

18:03, 11 October 2006 (BST)

Bah, I find myself being a bit of a drama-knob. I'm giving myself a 24-hour ban from the wiki. --Funt Solo 18:02, 11 October 2006 (BST)

Ah just beat me with this stick.. you'll feel better. --MrAushvitz

18:03, 11 October 2006 (BST)

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

	Important to remember!
	Jjames aka "John James" has a long history of Sockpuppets.

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. [1] 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)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive2

Discussions moved from the vandal page

20 October

11 October

MrAushvitz

26 September

Gage

False Hagnat

18 September

8 September

28 June

1 June

Rueful & Scinfaxi

27 may

26 may

15 may

Navigation menu

Search