UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 05

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:

• A link to the pages in question.

Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.

• The user name of the Vandal.

This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.

• A signed datestamp.

For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.

• Please report at the top.

There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.

If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.

Before Submitting a Report

• This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
• Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
• As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
• Avoid submitting reports which are petty.

Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works. Sometimes assuming good faith and speaking with others can avoid a lot of drama, and can even help newbies feel part of this community. Administration Notice If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment. Administration Notice Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.

May 2009

User:Nubis

Nubis (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

As Midianian's Nubis A/M case, only it's vandalism not misconduct. See here and here. --xoxo 06:53, 5 June 2009 (BST)

User:Iamlegend

Iamlegend (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Stuff. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:49, 3 June 2009 (BST)

IP check request. Seems to be an alt of Beelzebub. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:06, 3 June 2009 (BST)

It does not match, because he's been using proxies for a while now. It's still safe to say he's an alt, and gets the perma.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:09, 3 June 2009 (BST)

User:Iscariot

Iscariot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

At this point UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct#User:Suicidalangel and #User:Suicidalangel can pretty much be guaranteed to qualify as harassment, even if you ignore the aside comments outside of these areas. Iscariot knows enough to know neither one is the case and he made them simply for the sake of disrupting the wiki; Bad Faith. Enjoy. --Karek^maps?! 14:25, 2 June 2009 (BST)

So. Whats up fellow sysops team?

First things first. This isn't spur of the moment-based-upon-me-getting-A/VBd-and-A/Md so much, but rather the culmination of many months of seeing this shit go on.

Iscariot is a blight upon our community.

Any good he does or has done is outweighed by far by the bad he contributes to our fair (well, somewhat fair) community. Just about every post is degrading towards the sysops team, and many more of his posts are degrading towards newbies and veteran users too. He causes trouble and disrupts normal wiki process, and is unwilling to fix problems he sees in the wiki infrastructure simply because he doesn't have to and it will give him a chance to cause trouble with said problem until it is fixed.

Simply look through his contributions. I literally closed my eyes and scrolled down the list with my scroll nub on my mouse picking out 20 random edits. You know how many of them didn't have to do with harassing the sysops team? 3. Do you know how many of those three didn't harass another user in any way? 1. That edit was on his user page, changing the colours of something.

One single edit. On his user page. 19 edits that were harrassive (this needs to be a word). Why do we let this continue?

When Iscariot first came to the wiki, his behavior was pretty decent, and I actually liked a lot of his contributions from his early days. But soon after he came here, he developed this severe paranoia complex, coupled with a hate mission against the sysops team. Since then, his edits have mostly been shit. That's all you can say really.

This page contains quite bit of evidence of his bullshit, but honestly, just look through his contributions. There is no use keeping him around if this is the way things are going to be.

I move that we take a vote to remove Iscariot for 3 or more months, or a perma-ban. His behavior and actions more than justify this. If he doesn't want to act even semi-civil (hell, that Zombie Lord guy that every one is complaining about? Look how he acts when he's not insulting Pesatyel. Rather good and decent. Whats izzy's problem?), then why should he be allowed to stay?

I don't care so much about the harassment against me specifically, I've dealt with bigger trolls elsewhere, but it's more than just me.

3 or higher. That seems like the only course of action he's going to leave us. Most of the sysops team has agreed that Iscariot is a problem in one way or another, in one place or another. Some don't think that he has done explicit enough vandalism to punish him, fine. But what we all need to realize is that we don't have a civility policy. And by the guidelines "System operators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, system operators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it" we have the power to make this decision. There is no policy, and until then, we have to make a choice on a case by case basis. All of the sysop team needs to come out here, think about it and make a decision based on whats the best for the community, not whats the best for our images. Not whats best to end the drama quickly. If this turns in to a massive shit storm, whatever. It'll happen eventually, we should fix the problem now. Iscariot needs to be removed. He needs to learn a lesson. He's not untouchable, he's not the voice of the community, he's not a martyr for a good cause. He's a problem, and he can be taken care of. The entire community needs to see that just because their isn't a civility policy, doesn't mean we aren't going to step in if it's required. Something should have been done ages ago, so we need to do something now.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:16, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Ban He has been given way too many chances. He has not been hounded by the sysop team in any way yet he still attacks them on many (often pointless matters) and he by his own admission contributes nothing. He clearly seems unhappy here and there is no reason he should remain. I submit everything documented on here which should be more than enough to show a history of abuse.

If the sysop team can not remove the biggest blight in the community then A/VB might as well be deleted. Pissant little page edits that are reported as vandalism are nothing compared to a career hostile troll. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:44, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Against - A user shouldn't be forced out of the UDWiki against his will, unless through the vandal escalation system. Iscariot is no doubt a pest to the community, he is a parasite that does nothing except irritate the sysops where he can, when not just editing his own userpages. But that is exactly what Iscariot is- nothing.

I have always refused to believe that a normal user cannot make it by on the wiki without being bullied by him. In my recent experiences, I have gotten by with him on a non-aggressive level by simply ignoring him when possible- and engaging with him on a professional level, when he bites. He accepts it, and moves on. Of course, there will always be users like SirArgo who justify his antagonism and fuel him further, but that is exactly what we are doing now.

Every user deserves the right to reform, and we all know 3 months isn't enough (nor would it make him reform, it would only bring him back more bitter than usual) but a perma is out of the question, for someone who isn't permabannable through VandalData. See here where we don't even respond to his idiotic rants, and we vote Not Misconduct/Vandalism on almost every piece of trash he throws at us (and usually the legit cases to, or so he would say). And how long could he go for? If we hate a user, we have the responsibility as members of the community, not sysops, to ignore him when possible and not fuel more drama. It is not to wait until we are sick of conforming and ban him. It's our responsibility and promise to the community.

He has minimal contributions and minimal influence on the wiki - let's keep it that way, not make him a real martyr.

I, however, am aware at one point the Sysops would have tried the technique of ignoring him in the past... As such, I'm not sure if the sysops can expect anything from me at this point, except to be the new sysop who is uncultured with the op's past with said user. But regardless of any justification I may try to use, my position is simple: unless I have a very large problem with a user, I will never vote to remove them from the community under these circumstances. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:36, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Thank you for your input. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:32, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Vandalism 1 week ban and voting for a perma-ban starting. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:45, 3 June 2009 (BST)

What in god's name? Couldn't you have at leased waited for the sysops (and Iscariot) to have a chance to offer some discussion on this page before forcing sysops into the vote? Was a few days' wait just too much for you? We have time on our side, but you still dived into banning Iscariot so he could be denied the chance of defending this all-important case (regardless of the shit he will say given the chance). I am ruling Vandalism on this case, but I am unbanning Iscariot and subsequently considering this case open until the other sysops get their chance to offer input into this case. Regardless of the ruling and your rights as a ruling Sysop, If you ban Iscariot again, I will send you to A/M for pre-emptively banning a user solely to prohibit them from defending their own perma-ban case. There is no other reason why you should be rushing for the end of this VB case so hastily. Please, Nubis, I am not doing this because of my stance on the vote, I merely beg you to wait for some more input and discussion before we throw ourselves into the act of voting. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I agree, this is being far too rushed. I'm not decided about the permaban myself, but the whole thing is ridiculous. Iscariot has not commented on this case a single time as of yet, and is now being denied the chance to defend himself like any other user. Iscariot, during his psychobabble, often talks of "Not being given a fair chance". You'll only be proving him right if he isn't given a chance to speak. As I said, I'm not sure on the permaban, I don't really like Iscariot's wiki actions, but give the man a chance to defend himself like anyone else.-- Adward  15:31, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - if I messed with anyone's sig template, let alone Iscariot's, I'd be expecting a vandalism/misconduct case, even though I would be fairly confident that they wouldn't be successful -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:25 3 June 2009 (BST)

Thanks for your input -- Boxy 15:25, 3 June 2009 (BST)

VANDALISM

(Sysops Only)

VANDALISM

1. – Nubis ^NWO
2. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (BST)
3. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 08:45, 4 June 2009 (BST)

NOT VANDALISM

1. -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:25 3 June 2009 (BST)

See Misconduct

Perma-Ban Vote

(Sysops Only)

FOR

1. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:45, 3 June 2009 (BST)
2. --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:46, 3 June 2009 (BST)
3. But only because he shows no sign or desire to really work with the sysops, within the established system. He continually claims he has some sort of community consensus to turn and burn on the sysops who have to spend more time dealing with complaints about sysop behavior and guidelines from him than other responsibilities to maintaining the wiki. He has used the pages of the wiki to harass and cause harm (even if that harm is considered annoyance by some) And whereas Harassment is against the established T.O.U. He needs to be gone unless he can indicate some type of willingness to adjust the offensive rhetoric. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 08:52, 4 June 2009 (BST)

AGAINST

1. --D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:49, 3 June 2009 (BST)
2. Permban votes come after the month ban, not at the one week stage -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:25 3 June 2009 (BST)

   That only applies in general vandalism cases. Here we don't have policy to back up and dictate what we do. His harassment is vandalism over a long period of time, and being that we have no civility policy we must decide what to do on a case by case basis. Don't cite policy or processes when there is nothing citable (should also be a word).--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:06, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   We don't have a policy on civility because the community has rejected them fairly convincingly in the past, so it's not exactly a policy vacuum. This wiki has a long history of tolerating people being asses on pages like suggestions, because it is a place where people's opinions need to be heard, even if it dents a few fragile egos. The only reason Iscariot is being considered for a permban is because of his admin page bullshit annoying sysops, and given that he's been escalated for that in the past, and no doubt will again in the future, there is no need to bypass any escalations just because a few sysops feel put upon. It's laughable that you should consider his cases against you to be harassment when it was you that initiated the whole thing by editing his sig page. You were within your rights to do it, but so should it be that Iscariot has the right to appeal against such treatment -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:26 4 June 2009 (BST)

   It's not just civility that's the problem, boxy. Those policies, the few there were, didn't make it because they were bad, not because people are perfectly fine with abusive and uncivil behaviour. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:38, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   Perhaps so. But it's not in any way a green light to ignore vandal banning escalation policy when uncivil behaviour is deemed vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:47 4 June 2009 (BST)

   The mere fact that there have been many attempts at a policy clearly shows that the users WANT one, but can't agree on much more than harassment is never right.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   It's laughable because when you actually read, I say I'm basing this more off of his shit with everyone else than with me. And even then not just these cases. Karek is the one that brought the case, calling them harassment, along with other users. Not me. Hell, I can't even make a ruling on the actual case because of how involved I am. If it was only me being harassed I wouldn't even consider this. I'd pursue arbitration, and then end up failing because no one would force him to participate in it, and I'd just have to deal with his shit. This case, Arbies is not an option, nor is it only about me. This isn't a normal case, this isn't one person having to deal with it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:51, 4 June 2009 (BST)

3. As much as I want Iscariot gone, we follow process and a perma-ban vote is called after a month ban.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:36, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   That only applies in general vandalism cases. Here we don't have policy to back up and dictate what we do. His harassment is vandalism over a long period of time, and being that we have no civility policy we must decide what to do on a case by case basis. Don't cite policy or processes when there is nothing citable (should also be a word).--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:06, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   The General isn't really a sysop. This is like his what 3rd time ever on A/VB? Don't expect him to know policy. Also, don't expect him to have a clue about the history of Iscariot. General and I went round and round about the move page ability because he didn't realize that Iscariot decided that every group tied in with DEM needed to be under DEM. (that being one of the many shit storms Izzy stirred up for no good reason other than to support his own wiki lawyering bitching). --– Nubis ^NWO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

4. I very much dislike Iscariot and think the wiki would be better off without the drama he causes, however if we want to get rid of him we do it the right way, or not at all. -- Cheese 17:37, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   The right way is to say this is fucking enough and ban him. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   1. That only applies in general vandalism cases. Here we don't have policy to back up and dictate what we do. His harassment is vandalism over a long period of time, and being that we have no civility policy we must decide what to do on a case by case basis. Don't cite policy or processes when there is nothing citable (should also be a word). So technically, this is the right way, not the only way, because as I've said there is no policy for incivility or harassment, so we do what we have to.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:06, 3 June 2009 (BST)

5. Banning people we don't like? No thank you. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   It's not banning people we don't like, it's banning disruptive users. Banning people we don't like is like getting rid of Izumi. She was also disruptive at first with Grim breathing down her neck, but she could easily have stayed on if Grim hadn't been a hardass. Now, we ban her simply because "we don't like her". Iscariot is a vandal, not in any policy defined way though.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:06, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   He's a vandal in the his edits are not good faith way. Which is the core of vandalism. Don't say that his acts are anything close to good faith. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   And here I was thinking we banned Izumi for the constant attempts to circumvent the original ban. What do I know eh? Judging from the case above Iscariot is a vandal, as defined by the policy. The policy has a permaban option after a months ban. Not a week. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:59, 3 June 2009 (BST)

   And here I was thinking you'd look further than her vandal data. If you look past that and read up on the data, he first few edits were based upon sheer ignorance of our policies. She had no idea that she wasn't allowed to edit groups at first. And by then time someone explained it to her, it was after being warned in a completely unprofessional manner "If you don't care about editting the wiki, then don't. Since you obviously DO care about UD enough to be upset that your suburb got wrecked (AHAHAHA), I doubt that you will enjoy being banned. And if you do enjoy a nice 24hr (if only that), please come back and crow about it, as its entertaining to watch you scream at the top of your lungs how much you DON'T CARE LALALALA. --Karlsbad 04:19, 11 April 2007 (BST)".

   Izumi wasn't just a vandal on her own merit, some of the community and the sysops team helped her become that way. Sometimes due process isn't needed to be followed, some times mistakes can be forgiven without banning someone for a month. Grim was just a black-white rules sort of guy. Same thing happened with Nalikill. He ended up getting banned by grim for "shitting up the admin cases" when it was really more of a case of Grim disliking Nali. And then he ended up getting banned by boxy for changing a user log out falsie. Good faith, but still technically against the rules. Yet, he wasn't liked by a few members of the Ops team, so he ended up getting a month, and then leaving because of the shit Grim kept pulling. Grim probably would have found a way to get Nali banned permanently eventually. Two users well disliked by members of the ops team, yet were still in pretty good faith over all. Nali was a pretty good editor, if not prone to some problems every once in a while. But to be fair, it's not all his fault.

   Iscariot is an entirely different matter though. We have done nothing to give him reason to hate us and treat us and our community the way he does, yet we still let him go and do just about whatever he wants. He's a troll. He's harassive. He makews frequent edits in bad faith. Why should we make ten separate cases to try and convict him when we only need one? Due process has been thrown out the window when it comes to the punishment ladder, if the situation was bad enough. Why are we hiding behind policies that don't exist for this situation and letting him go? We are well within policy to make a decision over this, why are you guys being cowardly and letting it continue? Do you think the community will look at you guys with more esteem and respect if you don't ban him? What happens later when the issue comes up again? Are we just going to let him go again because he hasn't done anything explicitly wrong? Other than, you know, making hundreds of harassive (srsly, I'm adding this to my dictionary) bad faith edits. Which is what our vandalism policy is mostly about, even if it doesn't have something covering civility or harassment. When his shit keeps up, later we're just going to look back and wish we removed him earlier.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:54, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   I particularly liked the bit where you said. "Why are we hiding behind policies that don't exist for this situation and letting him go? We are well within policy to make a decision over this, why are you guys being cowardly and letting it continue?" That made me chuckle. For the record I didn't ban Izumi, and neither did you. Grim Did it. If you don't agree with it, you're a sysop, raise that issue. In the meantime, if as you say "He makews frequent edits in bad faith." Do you really think its really going to be hard to find 2 more cases to put through vandal banning?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:55, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   Are you that dense? Have you ever noticed how even trolling edits count as edits? So if I went to your talk page and posted Ross is an asshole 250 times over the course of a month I would still earn my VD de-escalation. That's what his pattern is. Of course, even though he doesn't ask for a de-escalation his minions still raise the issue that he "deserved" one. Or did you not read any of the A?M case you couldn't be arsed to rule on when you were a sysop last time ? --– Nubis ^NWO 16:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   Im not that dense. Because, bizzarrely I read the admins guidelines. Spamming my talk page in such a way could in no way be considered good-faith edits. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:41, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   No shit? I mean the fact that we both weren't ops at the time never even crossed my mind. I never said that grim took care of the ban in my previous posts either. No, wait, I did. I also have tried to do something about Izumi's case. I even requested time to work with the user through the wiki where the only time she could comment was directly on my talk page and nothing else. You know what I got? "STFU we dun liek her", and then her subsequent banning. Would it have been hard to try and let me reform this user? No. And with our "assume good faith" policy, and "encourage vandals to reform" policy, letting a potential reformer in shouldn't be much of a problem right? Apparently it is. Would you support letting Izumi back in on the basis of good faith assumption? Especially if I was the one responsible for her actions?

   Also, I chuckled back when you put my comments out of context. "The policy has a permaban option after a months ban. Not a week.". The policy you refer to is the standard vandalism policy, which in itself does not cover harassment. Bad faith edits, yes, but as people have argued before, paraphrase-quote Harshness is allowed because people should be allowed to express their viewpoints /para-quote. Which would mean that if I were to bring a case up on harassment, we'd have to judge it on a case by case basis, and distribute a punishment if decided based upon our thoughts. We don't have a Harassment policy saying that if we find someones behavior unacceptable that we follow the vandal ladder. If we did, then I'd be all for it. And you know what? At any time if I bring up cases about his bad faith harassment in the future, half of them will be shot down on the basis that "NOES, he did nots commits actual vanderlism!", and the other half shot down because I'm "being petty". And should they by some chance be considered vandalism, why is ruling on those cases any different? Due process? Precedent's been set to give a person a harsher punishment than is actual required due to the severity of their actions. Whatever guys. The community isn't going to hate you for something you're well within your rights to do.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:25, 4 June 2009 (BST)

   I'm glad we're entertaining each other.:-) I must admit i'm curious about the whole "Sponsoring" of a formally banned user. Challenging Isc and being called petty? That in itself would be bizzarre. Want an escalation? By all means. I'd fully support a months ban. But I still think its not the right approach. Want a harrasment policy, go for it. Having a policy only applying to Developing Suggestions alone, would cut down on a lot and would apply to all. Of course if Isc was banned for a month he couldn't vote against it. Which would be sad. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:09, 4 June 2009 (BST)

6. As Cheese, General, Boxy, and to a lesser extent, Ross. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:13, 4 June 2009 (BST)

User:Beelzebub

Beelzebub (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Vandal alt of Foxtrot et al.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:50, 2 June 2009 (BST)

User:Diyaseb

Diyaseb (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Spambit
Action taken	Permaban

Spambit removed. =) -- Cheese 11:02, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Damn, edit conflicted. Anyway, a quick skim of the checkuser logs shows that he isn't related to the ones below (the Omega guys,) and his method of attack is different (ads, instead of spam, so he's more of a adbot,) but we could always be looking at a proxy.

Now, where's Axdiao gone? Linkthewindow  Talk  11:05, 1 June 2009 (BST)

He said he'd call back. He broke my heart. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (BST)

User:Suicidalangel

Suicidalangel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Editing a user's signature without reason and intentionally going against the established procedure as prescribed by policy. This case concerns only the edit to my sig page and not the subsequent contact.

The policy in question is very clear. My signature does not break any of the dictated disallowed criteria, and therefore does not break the signature policy. There is nothing destructive in my signature that required immediate action, SA's action is therefore instant vandalism. Nubis, Conn and Cheese will be through shortly to rule not vandalism shortly and save SA's ass as they have below, but every reasonable user knows that if they committed the same act it'd be vandalism. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:24, 31 May 2009 (BST)

lrn2bereadingplzn00b. Kthx. -- Cheese 16:33, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - the signature ("I") was deliberately intended to go against the spirit of our sig policy, which is basically to ensure that signatures make it easy to identify the poster, and arn't page breaking/malicious. Just because it is done in a way that can be wiki-lawyered to not break the word of the policy, doesn't mean it isn't something done in bad faith. It's entirely reasonable to revert something like this, and warn that a vandalism case may be brought if it's repeated -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:56 1 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - While I am considering the facts on the misconduct case, I don't believe this case to be vandalism because SA was simply modifying what he, and I also, deem to be a bad-faith signature edit. The signature was not constructive in identifying the poster in any way, and was most probably made for the purpose of confusing members of the community. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:19, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism because Iscariot is right.</sarcasm> Bad faith and you know it. and SA giving you a soft warning is well within his authority. If you want a real one I'm sure somebody wouldn't mind putting it up for consideration here. And by the way...the community consensus is: One should be able to ID who made a post by looking at the signature. Once again I urge a ban on all "custom" sigs (but know that will never happen) Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 00:18, 2 June 2009 (BST)

User:GSwarthout

GSwarthout (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Just a guess, but his edits to Bowring Blackwatch, namely putting members of the leadership on the KOS list, I'm guessing he shouldn't be editing that. Third contribution is NPOV on a community page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:59, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I tried something a little unorthodox and searched all profiles mentioned (plus this user) through the Profile DB database. All UD profiles being labeled as PKers do in fact belong to Bowring Blackwatch, whilst the UD character called GSwarthout is with Extinction. Because of this flimsy background check, I've only reverted the edits, so until I get a confirmation from the last main contributor on the Blackwatch page, I won't be ruling yet. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:14, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Any other s'op can jump in and rule though. I just have work now, is all. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:15, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Based off of the evidence brought and searched for, I'm ruling vandalism until notification from group. Sure, assume good faith and all, but this seems more like a petty wiki assault by one of the groups enemy.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:59, 30 May 2009 (BST)

User:An Odd Red Cup

An Odd Red Cup (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

He's editing another groups page, again -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:43 28 May 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - To be honest, I think all this guy needs now is someone to tell him exactly what he is doing wrong. He's just trying to voice his opinion and doesn't understand that the talk page is specifically used for that. It's nothing that couldn't have been said on the Black Delta talk page, which I assume is where he would have gone if he knew the rules of group page ownership, etc. Similarly, I've given him a bit of direction onto his talk page, so I'm willing to see if anything changes. I welcome any s'ops who think otherwise to pipe up though. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:23, 28 May 2009 (BST)

User:Suicidalangel

Suicidalangel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Repeated striking of an justified vote, the talk page and history demonstrates the history of this. The voting rules and basic good faith says you should justify your vote. Normal users have been escalated numerous times in the past for breaching the voting rules, let's see if it really is one rule for sysops and one for everyone else shall we?

Also, someone may want to do a check on the IP for User:Robertderks so that any alt can be linked on Vandal Data should they commit a vandalism offence in the future, I find it hard to believe a new user would come to this wiki and cycle the most contentious suggestion currently in the system perfectly on the first attempt. It'll be an alt of a current user, but we'll see if they've used a proxy or not. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:29, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Huh. Why am I not surprised that Iscariot files the vandalism case after it's been cycled, but not when he originally says he will. Meh. But this Robertderks guy? Not me. If it's another regular user I'm wondering why they didn't just do it with their main, it's not like they'd have been escalated for it.

Also, it's repeated unstriking of an unjustified vote if you're using the diff as evidence. Learn basic fucking English, amirite? Hurry up and rule, the suggestions talk page shows my arguments as well as everyone elses. Also, if this is ruled vandalism, I'm starting a jihad against all these shittily justified votes, as they're worse than votes that lack a justification altogether.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:39, 28 May 2009 (BST)

You unstruck it after the deadline, votes should not be altered after that. Otherwise I could have removed my suggestion from voting, but Boxy ruled I couldn't in a vandalism case. The voting rules template is clear, unjustified votes are invalid and may be struck by any user. You are aware of the process to change this and still have not chosen to begin to alter these rules, this is your demonstration of bad faith, demanding different treatment for yourself compared to that of every other user in history. As for when I posted this case, I was not aware there was a statute of limitations on bad faith? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:48, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Actually on my screen when I look at the suggestion I see this: Image:Suggtime.JPG

And this shows when I unstruck it at about 15:00.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:04, 28 May 2009 (BST)

If you care to check the difference I show above, you unstruck the vote at 19:01 on 27/05/09, the deadline was 18:45 on 27/05/09. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:10, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Image:Suggtime2.JPG. It shows 15:01 for me.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:15, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Last time I checked, such things in the NewSug template went off server time. Server time is based on the real world where culture, history and UD come from. Now as both of our images say 18:45, it's fair to say that 18:45 was the time in GMT that the suggestion was posted. Now of the two of us, who has identical server and local time? Me or you? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:31, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Actually I'm pretty sure neither of you have local time identical to server time, since server time is GMT and doesn't do daylight saving time (the timestamps do, though). But anyway, the easiest solution is to completely disregard the timestamp on the page and look at the damn history where the two edits are in the same timezone regardless of your preferences. And what do you know, SA's edit was made over one hour after voting should've ended. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:06, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Wandalism - the bad faith comes in at the leaving the stricken vote for 10 days (after an revert war) and then unstriking it just as voting is about to end (actually already had), and the page protected -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:54 28 May 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism My belief on the necessity of validating ones votes is on record but that is an issue entirely separate. The edit did not change the outcome nor would it have been a valid change anyway since the voting had ended. No Harm, No Foul Not Vandalism for the edit in question. Now if the self appointed lord and master of suggestions wants to make a different case on a different ground, I might consider it. Otherwise its just an edit war... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 07:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Oh, and the IP for User:Robertderks comes back as a unique IP (insofar as it has never been used by another user) and is in a range of IPs provided by an internet service. (and by the way folks that's how you reveal checkuser information without violating privacy)Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 07:18, 28 May 2009 (BST)

How can one rule not vandalism on a case just because the action didn't have any repercussions regarding the suggestion at hand? This goes beyond the mere outcome of the suggestion; it is about discussing a breach of guidelines, and a foul attempt at sneaking the edit through the system at (or possibly after) the end of the voting period. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:38, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Because I beleive that vandalism MUST break both "faith" and "function" to be vandalism. And I also beleive not following guidelines is not an intrinsic act of bad faith. Finally complaining about "sneaking" an edit that absolutely no impact on the final outcome seems as petty and trite as bringing up someone on vandalism charges for changing a period to a question mark on a locked page. Against the guidelines, yes, necessary to bring vandalism or misconduct? hell no. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:24, 28 May 2009 (BST)

I will lay claim to editing after the voting period, but not purposefully. I looked at the suggestion page itself for the times as you can tell by my screens, and it misled me. I hadn't thought to even check the history, so on that grounds, me trying to unstrike my vote, which would have been completely valid if not for time issues, is now invalid and will promptly be re-struck.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 12:36, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - As Boxy. Waiting until the end of the period to get the 'last word' before protecting it yourself crossed the line, and the fact you accidentally did it after the closing period is a fitting result of the risk you took by doing so. Especially for something that would never have happened if you had chosen to avoid Iscariot's games in the first place. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:01, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Yes, because everyone should be on the wiki 24/7 and there should be no gaps in when they post. Using the time difference as a justification is retarded. ANd please, let's give Iscariot everything he wants because he has proven that he is a clear and reasonable contributor. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:39, 29 May 2009 (BST)

SA, like a couple of other users, is on nearly 24/7. And I don't care about Iscariot's involvement, any more than I am dissatisfied with SA persistence against him in this case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (BST)

It's not that I was looking for a fight. If you'll look through some previous suggestions, I've left votes unjustified before. Iscariot just decided that day would be fun to be a hair splitter. Though I still accept my punishment, when decided.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:27, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism Assuming good faith. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:36, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Closure please. Do I get a warning or not?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:28, 30 May 2009 (BST)

its a 2-2 split DDR and Boxy for vandalism, Nubis and myself for not. soon as a 5th sysop rules Im sure you'll get it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:50, 30 May 2009 (BST)

That was more of a call to the less drama-associated ops. Seriously guys, just rule. No one will kill you if you do, nor will I be mad. Please rule soon? I hate waiting on my own cases...:/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:51, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism SA made edits to the wiki every day during the 10 day period between the beginning of this dispute and the time the suggestion ended. This smacks of final wordishness. Plus he's admitted he edited the voting after it had closed. I would encourage SA to now start his jihad against all these shittily justified votes, as they're worse than votes that lack a justification altogether. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:08, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - As Ross, DDR and Boxy. It sucks but we follow the rules. Even if they are a bit crap. -- Cheese 16:20, 31 May 2009 (BST)

User:Gummy Bear

Gummy_Bear (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Spam attack, am entirely sure it's Bada Bing/Foxtrot back again.

I've countered his 321agemo picture, by replacing it.--Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:40, 27 May 2009 (BST)

This guy seems to have a bit much free time. =/ Round 4? -- Cheese 21:47, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Coming soon...--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 22:29, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Gummy bear:The Return of teh SPAM!--Orange Talk 22:34, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Just to confirm, Perma... SA got him. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:11, 28 May 2009 (BST)

User:Bada Bing

Bada Bing (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Check his contribs. Massive vandal spree. --  RoosterDragon  21:19, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Permabanned, almost definitely a Foxtrot alt, probably a proxy. Pages deleted, diffs reverted. Good work Team Angel! :D --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:25, 27 May 2009 (BST)

You might want to jump on his IP, like, right now. --  RoosterDragon  21:31, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Especially considering he's probably back under the new pseudonym of User:Gummy Bear --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:33, 27 May 2009 (BST)

I've already banned the ips and account creation from it. He's proxying it up. Also, no need to upload images over the vandal ones. It's just easier if you leave them.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:40, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Oh, OK. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:41, 27 May 2009 (BST)

User:Agacosta

Agacosta (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Spambit
Action taken	Terminated

Spambit/bot/bat. --Janus ^talk 16:16, 27 May 2009 (BST)

He has been Terminated -- Cheese 17:34, 27 May 2009 (BST)

User:Foxtrot

Foxtrot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permabanned

Spamming. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:37, 25 May 2009 (BST)

A Helpful Little Gnome Is A Fag and I have all the time in the world, bitch, both created by him. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Massive vandalism and spamming spree by looking at his contributions. He is still doing this as I type, just hand him a perma already.--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 21:48, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Ofcourse, he is claiming the use of proxies now.--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 21:49, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Not to mention his vandalism to this page. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]. If his other edits weren't enough to get him warned/banned, these surely put him over the top. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:51, 25 May 2009 (BST)

The entire recentchanges page is full of it now. Just give him a permanent perma ban. --Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 21:52, 25 May 2009 (BST)

OK, he seems to do it as fast as we can clean it up, so perhaps just ban him now and clean up the mess later? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:04, 25 May 2009 (BST)

I can't, sorry no sysops. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:04, 25 May 2009 (BST)

We only wait for a sysops, or until he stops.--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 22:05, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Well, I just edited the vandal template. I think him getting perma-banned is a sure thing now. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:16, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Spambit banished. Thanks for cleaning this all up. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:15, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Not a problem. Check the Speedy Del. que for a list of all the pages he made. Me and MG have been updating it. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:17, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Already done :D Linkthewindow  Talk  22:19, 25 May 2009 (BST)

The XMan

The XMan (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Edited the SARG page in bad faith.

And, yes, this is months old, and mustn't have been spotted at the time. Shame on you, RC lurkers :P. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:10, 17 May 2009 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:45 17 May 2009 (BST)

User:An Odd Red Cup

An Odd Red Cup (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Created this. Connected with the case two below this. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:58, 16 May 2009 (BST)

It actually looks like he made his own group to legitimately force the same message as his last vandalism edit... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Shameless troll material, but not vandalism. It's more a thing for arbies. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:49, 16 May 2009 (BST)

One thing that needs to be changed is the header of the page. The user needs to specify clearly that the group isn't actually Black Delta. It's a guideline somewhere in this place. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:03, 16 May 2009 (BST)

User:Happykook

Happykook (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24 hour ban

Impersonation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:41, 14 May 2009 (BST)

24 Hour Ban. -- Cheese 07:52, 14 May 2009 (BST)

User:An Odd Red Cup

An Odd Red Cup (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Vandalism --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:07, 13 May 2009 (BST)

BLACK DELTA GROUP PAGE

Somone keeps fucking with our group page, this is jhorror and i lost my fucking password (Jock Horror) and now somone is fucking with our page and we dont know who it is.... --Jhorror 19:07, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - Warned. -- Cheese 19:28, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Turkmenbashi

Turkmenbashi (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Removing most groups from the Dulston listing. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:44, 13 May 2009 (BST)

A job for arbies, if it continues. Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:42 14 May 2009 (BST)

User:Dante Sterling

Dante Sterling (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Editing another user's page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:31, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Simple newbie mistake. Again, I ask you to talk to the user before bringing stuff like that here. I also notice that you haven't bothered to revert the "vandalism". Either do it properly or not at all. Thank you. -- Cheese 12:09, 13 May 2009 (BST)

User:Omega314

Omega314 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Ban circumvention
Action taken	Permban

It would appear that someone is trying to circumvent their wiki ban. Could it be User:Omega123? Lets see. Call me paranoid but when all his edits are to User:Omega123 is seems a good bet. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:56, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Permban - IPs match -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:21 9 May 2009 (BST)

User:Omega123

Omega123 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permabanned

Seems to be involved with the incident below. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:07, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Checkuser doesn't show them up as alts, but still permabanned under the three-edit rule. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:10, 7 May 2009 (BST)

User:Dragoneternal

Dragoneternal (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permabanned

Constantly spamming both User:Sister Rita and M.E.R.C.Y. with inane rubbish and text blanking. Nothing of any use. I aked him to stop yesterbay. No helpful contributions. Perma anyone? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:07, 7 May 2009 (BST)

And is probably using User:Omega123 as an alternative account. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:41, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Wow, he went on a spree. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and maybe more that I missed. I think it's hammer time. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:06, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Good work pest. Keep this up and you could be a sysop. Talking of which, anyone? Permaban request? Hello? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:15, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Banhammered. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:59, 7 May 2009 (BST)

User:Imthatguy

Imthatguy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For these edits to another user's subpage. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:59, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - warned. He's on his last warning now. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:47, 6 May 2009 (BST)

{{Drama}}sums up my stand-point --Imthatguy 19:04, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Um, no, sorry. This isn't even close to drama. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:38, 7 May 2009 (BST)

User:Happykook

Happykook (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Impersonation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:28, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism. Warned. I notice you haven't bothered to revert it. Would you like chips with that? -- Cheese 21:04, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Woah, do they actually say would you like chips with that in crazy ol' Scotlan'? You guys need to americanise/ize...--xoxo 04:53, 7 May 2009 (BST)

User:DTangent

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None required

DTangent (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

For this edit to someone's signed comment on a suburb page. --Haliman - Talk 20:52, 4 May 2009 (BST)

You do realise that he puts his own signature on it, so he's not impersonating anyone at all?

The most you could try here is improper removal of a comment from a suburb page, but first you'd have to show that the original post was factual and his comment is not factual and/or POV. That's arbitration to you. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:23, 4 May 2009 (BST)

He has just undone your undone edit to his edit. I have now undone his edit again. Still following? On the point: He basically disagrees with what Leon wrote, however his comment's he places are pure griefing. Anyway I am fairly active tonight so I will simply keep undoing his edits until a sysops steps in.--Thadeous Oakley 21:55, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Oh yeah, just realized some people have an obsession with moving everything here to the talk page. I am actually involved here, so remove my comments and I will just put them back.--Thadeous Oakley 22:03, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Alright, thanks Thad. --Haliman - Talk 22:21, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - take it to arbies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:38 4 May 2009 (BST)

However his second contribution to the page (which you didn't link to) is getting very close. Any more insults on the page will be a warning -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:42 4 May 2009 (BST)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

Verdict	Ban request
Action taken	5 days

DanceDanceRevolution (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

I am requesting a 5 day ban. I need a small amount of time to focus on some issues. I'll be back trying my hardest soon enough. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:41, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Done. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:45, 4 May 2009 (BST)

WTF?????? --Imthatguy 20:21, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Happens quite often.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:02, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Yeah, usually when people need to break their wiki addiction for a few days and do stuff in real life. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:37, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Hey! I can quit anytime I want! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:53, 9 May 2009 (BST)

lol@u--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 12:21, 9 May 2009 (BST)

User:Gamegarro

Gamegarro (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Spambit
Action taken	Permaban

Spambitbot. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Gamegarro --Janus ^talk 00:09, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Cheese got him. Permaban. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:09, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Internet crashed halfway through clearing up as well. =/ -- Cheese 16:11, 4 May 2009 (BST)

User:Thescaryman

Thescaryman (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For these edits to the Samhain Slaughter page: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Samhain_Slaughter&diff=prev&oldid=1443747 http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Samhain_Slaughter&diff=prev&oldid=1443746

Note that Thescaryman styles himself as quite the linguist and author; I was impressed by his subtle prose and cunning wordplay.

Also, I rather hope I did this in the proper format. I would be most distressed if this suddenly broke the page or is in the worng section.

--DT^PK 04:54, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - warned. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:14, 2 May 2009 (BST)