Revision as of 15:32, 31 December 2009

Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

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.

Spambots

Spambots are to be reported on this page. New reports should be added to the top. Reports may be purged after one week.

There were a bunch of spambit-looking account creations on the 17th, these are the live ones at present.

HaroldBeaman (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
HallieKetcham7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)
AlexanderNoyes7 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check)--C h e e s e 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Damn I legit missed these, thanks. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked a large surge of bots -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
YasminLashbrook (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV^RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
LoganDos626 (contribs | logs | block | del userpage | IP Check) --VVV^RPMBG 06:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Both done DANCEDANCEREVO LUTION 09:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

December 2009

User:Isgaru

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

Creating a user page for another user, as a means of defacing them and calling them a zerg. In case it's a newb mistake, I contacted him on his talk.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it is a case of mistaken identity caused by a zerg who I have seemed to rather pissed off. Personally, I wouldn't even worry about it, in fact I think it's pretty funny.--Agent Sandman 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

edit conflicted It's probably a case of a confused newbie. Agent Sandman is a zerg hunter, and has a couple of zergs imposing him. Isgaru probably just got confused. Linkthewindow Talk 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... Were did Agent Sandman's original page go? I swear he had one... --

09:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, never did.--Agent Sandman 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - Mistaken identity or confused newbie, doesn't matter. Making a user page for another person - especially to flame them like that - is pretty clearly bad faith. Cyberbob Talk 10:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - Basically as Bob. This would be quite different if he hadn't have made that "About Me" header- it proves he wasn't just informing users, as a newbie might, but actually trying to impersonate and defame. --

04:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - As above. -- C h e e s e 15:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Joshuamonkey

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

Advertising on the General Discussion page. Too lazy to go precedent-hunting, but I seem to recall advertising like this (not necessarily for uggs) being vandalisms. Most likely a slap-on-the-wrist, DON DO DAT sort of punishment if any. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it, leaning towards not vandalism as he doesn't know better, I believe there is a place for entries like these from the depths of the wiki. Anyone got any hints as to where? --

09:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here. Also, (and this opinion doesn't carry any weight,) he hasn't been spamming it, and sysops should assume good faith. I'll make an entry for his game on the category now, and inform him on his talk. Linkthewindow Talk 09:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Meh. Cyberbob Talk 10:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Meh. --

04:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Meh. -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Potatoes - C h e e s e 15:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Suicidalangel (2)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24Hr Ban

For breaking the arbitration ruling here by editing MisterGame's user page here. This was not an "Administration action", and ironically, the only decent administrative thing he could have done in the situation was leave Yonnua's edit in place and protect the page as per Thad's one week ban due to #User:MisterGame, as it should have been done 5 days ago as a scheduled protection. This means he directly ignored clause 1 of the ruling and should serve 24hr ban. --

04:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Nah, he was right to remove it. Whether or not it was an "administrative edit" is up in the air a bit but I'm coming down on the Yes side. Cyberbob Talk 07:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

But he didn't actually remove it, he put it back on, when he shouldn't have touched it (edit wise) and (ideally) should have protected it in the state it was in before it had been tampered with (which was the state it was in when Thad was banned). --

07:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, here be the link. --

07:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, bit of a brainfart there. Vandalism Cyberbob Talk 07:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Same here, no contest, I deserve a warning for this one. :/ -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)I have no

(Nice fishing btw DDR) Just remember to strike my Nov 6 warning when you do it CB.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? And it's a 24hr ban anyway, that's what users get when they break arbies. --

08:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, I just don't want anyone to forget the strike. :( -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ohh okay, dw I won't. --

09:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, SA's pleaded no contest so I'll get it underway. Banned for 24 hours. --

09:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Suicidalangel

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For insulting my honour here. Text pornography is fine in these parts. --

00:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

hurrr-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just warn me yourself, I don't really care.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As victim it would be irresponsible of me, otherwise I would've. --

01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - GET YOUR MIND OUT OF THE GUTTER DDR YOU PERVERT 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're joking right? Modifying the comments of other users and changing the context of what they've said has always been clear-cut as vandalism as humorous suggestions are. --

01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing, what, two or three punctuation marks of a large emoticon does not strike me as a bad faith edit. Your post was still largely legible (well, as legible as it had been). Although I've now just realised it wasn't on SA's talk page, which I had originally thought it to be (why the fuck is Haliman's in my watchlist?), I'm still not convinced it's worthy of being called 4rls vandalism. If he'd removed it entirely, I'd call vandalism, but he didn't.

01:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand. You couldn't understand because you don't know or understand the real culture of this wiki, a real folly by the community in allowing you to become a sysop cause you're a 'great guy' and 'headstrong'. You don't edit another users comment. It is Impersonation. Straight outta the page itself, UDWiki:Vandalism and backed up by several precedences and the reason SA knew this is the reason I brought this here, not because I find it a violation of my image or a desecration of human rights, or anything personal in the least. SA knows the rules and if we don't keep him in check he'll get a lot worse. I thought you would have gathered this from all his shenanigans since his return. I didn't want to have put an emoticon on Halimans talk page. If I did, then I would have put an emoticon. I put a text penis because I wanted to put a text penis there, and contrary to your argument, if he had removed all of it, that would have backed up his justification of censorship more than changing the entirety of my post's meaning and context. --

01:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Other discussion moved to Talk page.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - Comments have been edited before to remove things that break the wiki (most notably Hyperbig), and Iscariot got away with deleting one of my posts a while ago. I wouldn't have any issues with DDR's argument if he had mentioned the sort of extenuating circumstances that allow these edits to happen, but he didn't so I do. As for the edit in question... meh, I suppose it's "impersonation". Cyberbob Talk 06:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair. I figured it would be a lot more open-and-shut than it was, so I made a point of not throwing the entirety of the book at the sysops. --

08:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - Editing another user's comment is vandalism except in very specific circumstances, this isn't one of those circumstances.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 06:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll give this a couple more days and then I'll close. --

09:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should start caring a bit, SA. You changed the whole meaning of the post. Removing it would have got the two of you sent to arbies to work it out (if ddr could even be bothered), but changing the meaning of a signed comment gets a vandal escalation. ~~48hr ban~~, unfortunately -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:08 28 December 2009 (BST)

Oops, that's a warning... lol -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:12 28 December 2009 (BST)

Please read this and ban yourself for 48 hours. Oh wait, I never said that. The wiki forged this log! --

11:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgots that the one above was an arbies violation. Thank dog for A/VD... should look there before acting, every time ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:24 28 December 2009 (BST)

I WILL CARE NEVER!-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:R3D

Verdict	Vandal
Action taken	Perma

Banned for spamming and vandalising, plus suspected alt rada rada. To think that this hasn't been funny since the second one... --

22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell the first one wasn't funny either.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I for one, blame cybro. I'm not even active at the mo' who the fuck is making alts of me? x o x o 09:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

User:GasCandle

Verdict	Vandal Alt
Action taken	Permaban

Claims to be previously banned user PQN. The template was created by him so there's no chance of him accidentally putting it on his page without realising.

Therefore, attempting to circumvent a previous ban. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Permabanned, in the process of deleting his templates etc. now. --

22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Lelouch

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Soft Warning

I'm submitting Lelouch here for continued spamming of A/D/S with these with intent to either troll, confuse, annoy, or make some sort of point. I don't know which is the purpose and I don't care, he had his vote below this one struck, accepted it and is continuing to do it on another vote. It isn't up to users like Red Hawk One or ZS to have to translate them for our convenience. Besides all other perpetrators, Lelouch is by far the worst and the most persistent in said annoying garbage so I'm targeting him first. Hopefully this can go through and render the policy useless as we may rule via precedence. --

00:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, at least the rest of us were using an alphabet which allows us to generally infer the meaning of the bolded word. That, and I still don't see the point in me doing it from the start. Vandalism.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that a bad faith edit, I ask? I meant my vote. The guidelines recommend you ask someone on their talk page before you take them to A/VB, and for good reason; if I'd had known that you guys were getting this upset about it, I would have stopped. Why couldn't you just ask me there instead of automatically assuming that I was trying to damage the wiki? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You thought us having to go to A/D/S every day and pick out the 2 or 3 not-english-to-annoy votes and have to strike them out, then wait for more to come, wouldn't make us upset? --

01:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It wouldn't annoy me, anyway. I've always figured that if I started crossing the line, someone would let me know so I could back off. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to say, by the way, that I'm sorry it made trouble for any of you. Not like teary-eye sorry, mind you, just a bit unhappy that it caused so many problems. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, although being frank, imo you should have been able to see the annoyance that SA created with that one vote and had the brains not to join in with the other monkeys doing it. --

08:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're "talking it out with you" was the box and I striking (I did it more properly! :B) your initial japanese vote, and box saying something about it. You voted in the exact same way on the very next submission, entirely ignoring what box said, so you were brought here. Your talk page was ignored in the process because something was already said to you. And DDR has a point, it's generally not a good idea to follow my examples. :c -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 09:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Soft Warning Just stop it. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Can do. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with a soft warning. Unless any sysops thinks otherwise, I'll close the case in a couple of days with that result standing. --

09:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Consider this a softie ;D --

13:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Vampire Snuffleupagus

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permban

I'm not sure if I even reported this right..... someone let me know if I did it wrong.... -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 03:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

After they spammed up my page, I looked through their contribs, thinking they were a bot, but this edit had me confused. —Aich on— 03:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the post they made on your talk page was the same post they made on a few other peoples talk pages as well. Considering what you had referenced... I'm even more confused. Their Namespace references New Moon, and this other post in the sandbox references a couple other outside links.... Definitly a little confused here myself... -Poodle of Doom^M! ^T 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a bot imo, but vandalism for spamming, perma imo. Thoughts? --

04:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Spammage, and b& -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:20 19 December 2009 (BST)

Permbanned under the 3 edit rule, and this report moved from the bot section -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:24 19 December 2009 (BST)

He comes by every once and a while, just look under my blocks for "known spammer". -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 07:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:MisterGame

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Week ban

[1] For posting on an administration page which is in clear violation of an arbitration ruling here. He has been warned before about posting on administrative topics that do not relate to him. Thoughts? --

Timmah!

Talk

01:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is (I was just discussing this in two convos) Misconduct is supposed to encourage community input, and knowing Boxy, this was more an oversight in the ruling than a deliberate attempt at forcing him out. However, I guess breaking the ruling is breaking the ruling... --

01:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct is the sysops only equivalent of A/VB. Community input there is more of a privilege, if people abuse it, it can be taken away. So in some ways it's like asking the community to comment there, though Thad's privs have already taken away by box, with the arbies ruling. Though, with the way some people treat the page (like it's a fucking community playground), it could be confusing to know if it's open for discussion to him. He still broke the rules imo, but maybe a soft warning this time, as reasons I stated above? Also, I'm exempt from A/M for this because I'm not ruling. :P -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For someone who dislikes me you're awfully nice.--

Thadeous Oakley

10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Boxy is in the best position to determine whether or not this is breaking his ruling; I'm leaning towards Not Vandalism myself but I don't know whether Boxy counts Misconduct as one of the exempted pages. Cyberbob Talk 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - Misconduct isn't an admin page that requires ordinary user's input (it's not a vote like A/D or A/D/S), so it's a clear violation of the arbies ruling. Given that he's repeatedly done similar here, and been let off until a week or two ago, I'm not inclined to give him any more freebies, despite the fact that this will mean a week ban -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:01 17 December 2009 (BST)

Given Boxy's confirmation on his own arbies ruling, I second the Vandalism and the ban. --

05:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

*redundantly thirds* Cyberbob Talk 05:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned for a week -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:17 17 December 2009 (BST)

Still think a soft warning would have been fine due to the nature of conversations on A/M.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're all idiots. I have been commenting on Misconduct cases since the ruling and up to this point no one has ever said I couldn't. The ruling doesn't mention Misconduct, and there is no sysops consensus on the fact whether that page requires community input or not. And there's the lovely fact that A/M doesn't even use talk pages as Izz mentioned. The ruling is unclear, and deeming this vandalism almost 6 months after the ruling (while I happily commented on previous misconduct cases during that time) is completely overkill. --Thadeous Oakley 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. We should go back to all previous misconduct cases and ban you retroactively for each edit. --

13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. You should have said so at the beginning. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance by making such a gracious petty argument. --

Thadeous Oakley

14:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Leanlark

Verdict	Sorted
Action taken	None Required

Wiped that page, and edited the group contact here. He is listed as MIA on that page. Took himself off in this edit. I thought he may be a returning member, but why whip the speech, and contact. Plus, his name is listed with this user. Thoughts? --Haliman - Talk 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

More. --Haliman - Talk 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it's an impostor, but I could just be paranoid.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I got work now, but someone ask the group leader? --

01:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Asked. --Janus ^talk 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should probably roll everything back, and if Leanlark can show that he is a member of the group, then let him do what he wants with the pages -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:20 17 December 2009 (BST)

User:Drawde

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Can this please stop? This entire vandalism for the "lulz" is getting out of control. We can't be expected to determine whether these edits are unwanted or not, or if the vandalized users mind it or not. Set a precedent please to prevent needless confusion. --Thadeous Oakley 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nanners and I asked drawde to mess with our pages in IRC.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And I'm suppose to know that how? --

Thadeous Oakley

00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You weren't, which is why I told you. :D -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And that matters how? --

00:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please get surgeon to confirm this, I guess? --

00:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright-y then, lemme see if I can get him here soon. He said he was kind of busy earlier. :/ -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

S'cool, it's not like we are in a hurry, it's just the easiest way to get closure on the case. --

00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell, yeah, please confirm. Then explain why we shouldn't escalate the lot of you for shitting up admin pages with this sort of crap. If "Nanners" wanted his page changed without this crap, he should have done it himself, FFS. Fucking circle jerk, in-joke crap, designed to "catch teh n00b" and show up the wiki bureaucracy. Meh. Vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:28 13 December 2009 (BST)

Just saying, the admin pages wouldn't be getting spammed up with this kinda stuff if Thad kept his nose out of other peoples business. Also as i understand it, he isn't allowed to post on admin pages unless the said admin action relates to him. As this edit neither was made by him or effected him, i think hes in violation of an Arby. Just saying. --

Timmah!

Talk

04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

He's allowed to bring cases, so he's an involved party. And Box, it wasn't to "catch teh n00b", it was to have some fun on the wiki.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 05:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not fun for the rest of us, having to decide what's actually going on with your in-jokes... and I guess that's half the fun of it for you. So don't be surprised if admin is not amused -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:05 13 December 2009 (BST)

You wouldn't have to deal with it if people weren't so hasty. :( -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 06:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

But that is just it, as the vandalism isn't on any of Thads pages, and it isn't someone making multiple edits and trying to wreck the wiki (ie: 3 edit rule) it would seem to me that he shouldn't be allowed to bring cases like this up, if there was a problem then Banana/Surgeon General would have brought it up here himself and complained that his page had been vandalized, instead you have Thad there bringing up a vandal case on someone who made said edits "as a joke" and thus added more work to the admins. I could see Thad bringing the vandal case in good nature so Banana/Surgeon doesn't have to, however given the numerous comedic vandal actions over the past few days, I think Thad should stick his nose somewhere else and stop reporting it all, since it doesn't effect him. If the person makes more then 2-3 edits then yes he should report him, but a single edit....no. He should just keep his nose out of others business, and stay off the Admin pages. --

Timmah!

Talk

19:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's pretty clear that Nanners doesn't care about the edits. Rest in peace! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 20:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I both have no idea who this chap is, nor do I care to know him. He is a disgrace to this wiki and Urban Dead in general, and if I had my way, I'd ban him without trepidation. Alas, I can only hope that this fellow is sentenced to the full extent of Wiki law without hesitation, for, if even the own sanctity of our user page is not a safe haven, what do we have left? --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 05:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I CONCUR!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 05:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought you loved me :( -- Adward 10:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, box, WE didn't shit up the page with this. Thad brought it, not us. :( -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 05:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Easy, Vandalism --

05:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You people are all mean 'n' shit.-- Adward 10:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - Warned. -- C h e e s e 21:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Suicidalangel

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

For breaking the arbitration clause listed here, specifically point two. This happened here. The edit summary seems to be a mess due coding though so I'll explain, I changed Mark Conway, a level 6 emo to Mark Conway, a level 18 emo to reflect current reality. SA reverted that edit. This kind of nonsense is exactly what caused the arbitration case in the first place, and the ruling was deemed to prevent this. I highly, highly doubt that Orangegaf will see my edit as unwanted (or is wiki-breaking in any way). --Thadeous Oakley 14:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thad... It has been explicitly noted that User: and User talk: pages are the sole property of that particular user - Iono how this will turn out, so I'll just leave this here. --Haliman - Talk 15:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did Orangegaf undo my edit? No, he didn't. This isn't about user pages, this is about SA breaking the arb ruling by changing my edit. The fact that's happened on a user page is unimportant, because of the trivial nature of my edit. Like, recently DDR edited my userpage, he fixed a minor grammar issue; I don't expect someone to undo that edit or drag DDR to vandalism for something that minor. My edit was not bad-faith, not unwanted, and not wiki-breaking like mentioned in arb ruling. I'm not contesting the guidelines, Hal but SA is contesting my edit, which he isn't suppose to.--

Thadeous Oakley

15:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I could see arguments for both sides, to be honest. On the one hand your edit wasn't "something that seriously breaks the wiki" by any stretch, but on the other user pages are really supposed to be offlimits unless the owner has given their express permission so I can see the potential for good faith on SA's part. Your argument regarding the lack of a reversion by Orange doesn't hold up, by the way - all of 5 minutes elapsed in between your edit and SA's.
Going with Not Vandalism on this one - the "trivial nature" of the edit doesn't make it any more acceptable without permission from Orange. Cyberbob Talk 17:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You hear that, DDR? Unacceptable!--

Thadeous Oakley

18:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, SA should have known much better than this. --

Thadeous Oakley

18:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You should know better than to edit others user pages without their permission. Another rules happy user could have reverted your edit and dragged you to A/VB for the hell of it. I didn't for a reason. Because, you know, I may not like you, but I can give you a bit of a break. But fine, if you want to be a cunt be my guest. Also, in the arbies ruling, the only thing about User pages boxy says is how we can't edit anything in each others name spaces. Also, plz be not actin' liek a petulant child plz. You illiterate fuck.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

lol u mad? Really, you're cursing quite allot at me eh? I think you're the one, would should take a break. And your arguments hit no ground. The edit in question is purely trivial, and it wouldn't get me escalated. Or would you be the first one in line to rule vandalism should I drag DDR in here for this edit? I don't think so. Also in case you couldn't read;

No editing of each others comments on pages, including other people's talk pages, except something that seriously breaks the wiki.

You tampered with my edit. This while my edit is not disrupting the wiki in any shape or form. I was merely being helpful, and I am 99% certain Orangegaf wouldn't have mind, and 100% that he wouldn't drag me to A/VB for it. Also, if you didn't undo it I doubt anyone else would have. But oh no, you had to settle it differently. --

Thadeous Oakley

23:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You doubt. You don't know. Just like I didn't know if I'd get a warning out of this, but I decided to be nice and remove the edit to be sure, because out of the two of us, who is facing the harsher punishment over a ban? Sure, it's unlikely that'd you'd get banned for the edit, but I'm not always an asshole. Gaf will now notice the edit in question and still make the change, since it's been brought to his attention.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so I'm suppose to thank you now too? That's a class act you got there, SA. And forget that 0.01% doubt, I knew he didn't mind, just like DDR doesn't expect me to actually drag him to A/VB, or better yet, actually getting escalated. You're undo was completely and utterly unnecessary, and if you thought back for a sec you could have known that this undo wouldn't be appreciated because of regrettably long drama history we have. Also in case people didn't knew; I have been laughing with Orangegaf on Umbrella Corp forums since 2008.--

Thadeous Oakley

23:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a thank you specifically because of the reasons you mentioned. But I did think you would have been the bigger man and let it go. Like I said, childish.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Childish? I thought I was an illiterate fuck, a cunt, a petulant child ^^^. Want a tip? Next time you call someone else childish make sure you got your own emotions under control. I do not claim to be mature (does that word even has a single meaning?), but you're not in position to question my maturity without coming off as a hypocrite. --

Thadeous Oakley

00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My emotions are pretty in check, it's yours that look like they're going out of control. Screaming bias and wrongful rulings and all. And I've called you illiterate, yes, but I also called you a petulant child, which would also be calling you childish, only in less words. It's a known fact I communicate by cursing and name calling, so that doesn't show my emotions are running wild. But yes, keep it up, it's not helping your vendetta at all if you haven't noticed.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you're down to the level of "NO U". I haven't screamed bias nor wrongful rulings, don't make it try spin it like I did. Because that wouldn't be very honest of you SA. While I disagree with Bob, I can kinda see where he's going with this and at least understand his reasoning. Misanthropy doesn't seem to have full knowledge of the past events, and that's why I deem his ruling incomplete, not biased. And I haven't done this out a vendetta, which you just keep on implying, if you take it personal than that's your problem not mine. Now goodnight. --

Thadeous Oakley

00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - although a trivial change, it was made where it shouldn't have been. Reversion was a better move than the original edit was. 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't know what your talking about. This isn't about that, it's about the arb case. If it was someone else than SA I wouldn't have made this case.--

Thadeous Oakley

21:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Which goes to show how petty and harassive this case is.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't victimize yourself so hard, this isn't personal it's about arbitration you broke. Go bang your head a couple of times (or whatever you do to unwind) and come back when you're calmed down. --

Thadeous Oakley

23:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you're singling out the person who made the reversion and don't care about the reversion itself makes me want to vote not vandalism twice. You done a bad. Someone, who happened to be SA, undid your bad. I'd have done the same myself if I'd seen it. If you wouldn't have taken me, or anyone else, to VB for it, then damn skip I ain't voting against SA for it. Also I lean against your favour for spelling a lot wrong a whole walrus of times. Also also, I looked at the arbie, by the way. I'm not as incompetent as my fine ass makes me look. I consider unwarranted edits of others' user spaces to be "breaking the wiki", given that they go against the basic precepts of being a nice dude and not toying with others' personal areas. Don't make me draw dicks in your space. I draw BIG dicks. :P

02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As Cyberbob, Thad and SA are in the right in their respective actions, and hence this is Not Vandalism. It isn't a matter of 'which edit is more wrong' because they are both right (until Orange specifies differently) and neither is vandalism. --

23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but again, I didn't drag SA in here for undoing my edit, I dragged him in for breaking the arb ruling. I get the feeling allot of you are ruling (Misanthropy specifically) on the edit in question, rather than the arbitration ruling. --

Thadeous Oakley

23:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's see:

- No editing of each others User: pages (including talk and sub pages), excluding admin notices which should remain entirely "professional" (ie. no added, derogatory commentary).
- No editing of each others comments on pages, including other people's talk pages, except something that seriously breaks the wiki.
- No enforcing other people's talk page rules (unless specifically given such rights by the user who owns the talk page) in regard to each other.
- MisterGame is not to contribute to admin pages that don't ask for community input unless he is an involved party (the talk pages are still open to comment though). Admin pages such as A/D ask for community input (votes), while A/VB is discussed by sysops and involved parties only (reporting an A/VB case counts as being involved).

I don't see anything there that says what SA did in any way is against the Arbies ruling. --

00:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - but, my god, enough with this shit outside the normal page area. I don't know about anyone else, but it's making it near on impossible to view the diff comparisons -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:03 13 December 2009 (BST)

Agreed. It's all DDR's fault too. :/ Box, wanna make a policy about it for me?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 05:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, my fault, my dick. Everything I learned about divs outside the main page area, I learned directly from that OrangeGaf boy right there. --

05:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You made it popular you silly goose!-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 05:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I... I... made something popular?!?! Oh my gosh!!! =D --

05:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's already a policy for it. But as long as it's been causing no problems, we haven't been bothered to bring cases. It looks like it's got to change now, so get to it, and clean up your user pages. Yes, you too DDR -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:02 13 December 2009 (BST)

Tevs. --

06:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If I was going to complain about anything on that page breaking that policy, it'd be the little "achievement" box down the bottom. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Rook88

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

Changes made to Template:North Blythville Barricade Plan, seemingly without reason. Also suspicious since account had no prior contributions. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably a noob that didn't know any better... --Haliman - Talk 23:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That is my assumption, but putting it here to be on the safe side. Revert and warn? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 23:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - it is a community page, open to editing by anyone. Talk to him, and revert if you feel it necessary. If you want to enforce your, or the "accepted" barricade plan despite disagreement, take it to arbies. Extreme cases (where it's done solely for drama or griefing purposes) may be ruled vandalism, but this isn't such a case -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:12 11 December 2009 (BST)

User:Pandoras emptiness

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	Advised on talk page

Deleted the Mornington's Barricade Plan & the suburb map How do I revert these changes or do I even have that ability?--Dr Mycroft Chris 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to last good version. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he was just trying to remove them in a noob attempt at changing them and then putting them back on later? I don't think there was any malicious intent involved, just being a noob. DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism then. I've told him to be more careful in future -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:07 11 December 2009 (BST)

User:Cipherace

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Deleting large sections on the radio and historic groups page (twice).--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 04:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell whether it's just a colossal noob fuckup or vandalism, but I'm going for Vandalism D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Obvious noob mistakes. Cyberbob Talk 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - Because every time I see [this group mentioned, my mind immediately jumps to Izumi. -- C h e e s e 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

NV - Inconclusive data. Also, it's not zoomi, just another Valkyrie.-- SA 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's another Valkyrie doing what Izumi would normally be doing, but it ain't vandalism? DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a nooby Valkyrie, probably doing something FOR zoomi, but messing up because of the newbishness. It's fine if you want to think it's zoomi out of habit, but I'm pretty positive it's not her.-- SA 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I never did think it was her. But even what you explained above is still bad faith- and fucking up at it. DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not bad faith, people can edit for anyone, we have no rules against one user editing for another, with their permission of course, if we can identify that they are editing for another user. We can't identify it, so right now it looks more just like a dumb ass newbie trying to edit and failing. The only reason people are even considering it vandalism is because LV is associated with it.-- SA 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, I never cited the Valkyries. The point is, if a perma-banned user is going to be getting a friend to do 'good' things on the wiki solely for said banned user's sake, well, you might as well make sure you aren't asking help from someone who wipes pages in the process. DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't meaning you, but the guys like Cheese who knee-jerk the perma-button when anything Valkyrie related come sup. My bad. And also, on the page wiping stuff, why do you think zoomi was the one editing most of the time? She was the best wikier they had at the time, and even then she wasn't very good. :D -- SA 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - I'm going to say vandalism here, because of the repeated wiping, only minutes after Iscariot fixed the historical vote -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:03 11 December 2009 (BST)

Alrighty, so, given his latest fourth edit isn't deemed helpful to the community, this guy is looking down the road of a permaban. Thoughts? --

04:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly have to be helpful, just contributory without being vandalism. And since "We try, for the most part, to attempt to prevent the vandalism from happening, rather than punish interlopers", I think a perma ban is harsh for someone who is trying to edit, although failing. I mean hell, I just now realized no one has even let the guy know of his/her fuck ups. A warning at most.-- SA 11:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a warning will suffice, this time. If they come back doing similar, however... -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:56 11 December 2009 (BST)

To the contrary, the guidelines specify that they have to be a benefit to the majority of the community, SA. In relation to Boxy, a warning seems fine to me. I'll pop it on later. --

23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

but that's not what we actually use as a measure of contribution, as past cases will show. :/ -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't arguing to have this guy banned :3 Warned --

07:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Z3D

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Perma banned suspicious spammy user. Also, used an open proxy.-- SA 11:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Beat me by this much... one of the 3D clowns -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:55 7 December 2009 (BST)

I wonder who it might have been?!?!??!??!?!!?? Cyberbob Talk 12:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

MAYBE IT WAS ME HAHAHAHAHAAHAH x o x o 06:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you thought that post through very well. Cyberbob Talk 13:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh but i did. x o x o 04:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You should be thankful that you joined the wiki when you did. A year or so earlier and you would've been gone in a flash. Cyberbob Talk 04:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Rosslessness

Verdict	Self Request
Action taken	Week Ban

Weeks ban please, deadlines approaching and I need to shake the OCD for a couple of days.

Cheers. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 08:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cyberbob Talk 08:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:VI

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

I'm reporting myself for vandalizing Karloth Vois' user page. I'm sure he won't mind, though. CITIZEN VI 23:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism, as it's a bit of jokery between the two of you. Don't let it happen again, neh? Also, the banana is a better picture.-- SA 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to report myself for vandalizing Karloth Vois' page. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Due to a longer amount of time thinking about the cases, while a bit of fun is okay every now and then, group pages should be exempt, even if the groups and/or users are in good standing. Hell, even user pages are pushing it. And now, being that warnings are easier than hell to spam off, vandalism, warning. Though the banana will stay because I'm not sure if Karl likes it. If he doesn't he can remove it himself.-- SA 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, closing. Warned. --

04:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Silly people, you are. I had no problem with the edits! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I told everyone to let you remove it if desired. No one listens to an old man like me anymore. :( -- SA 13:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Karloth vois

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For his edits to the PK main page Here. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Karl, you silly moo. Vandalism and a slap on the arse.

22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Not vandalism~~, as it's a bit of jokery between the two of you. Don't let it happen again, neh? Also, Karl's edit was better.-- SA 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually Boxy set a precedent that joking between friendly groups doesn't alter it from being an act of vandalism. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Precedent doesn't always take precedence.-- SA 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So some people get escalated whilst others don't for the exact same thing? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is how I ruled on a case and I never ruled on that one because I didn't read the content of it? :S -- SA 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Due to a longer amount of time thinking about the cases, while a bit of fun is okay every now and then, group pages should be exempt, even if the groups and/or users are in good standing. Hell, even user pages are pushing it. And now, being that warnings are easier than hell to spam off, vandalism, warning.-- SA 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Vandalism. Fun is fun and all, but Group pages can hurt people :*( DanceDanceRevolution (Talk | Contribs) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned --

04:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyberbob240

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

Racism and 2 precedents here. x o x o 06:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

lolvandalism. Racism as sohock humour is Not Good --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What does boot strapping mean in aussieland? Just checking.-- SA 06:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Same as. Implying they should just stop using government support and become financially and culturally sustainable. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Or implying that they should just get up and keep moving on in their lives until things are better.-- SA 06:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

...You serious? He even said it was racist in his vote and? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I could easily say something was racist and then say something not racist. Keep in mind I haven't actually said how I feel this case should be ruled as, only given out counter points to yours.-- SA 07:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty clearly making an ironic joke from Sonny's comment in his vote: "If you don't vote for Rakuen then you're a racist." . You're dumb, DDR. Cyberbob Talk 07:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet so much more amazing than you. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - his vote is a sarcastic response to Sonny's "if you don't vote for Rakuen then you're a racist", just as Zombie slay3r's is -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:05 6 December 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - see that whole wall of text below Jack Nicholson? It's all fucking stupid and best ignored for these cases. 19:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism Bring forward a case about Raukens "Promotion" bid? Oh dear. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

lol this double standard is amusing. he gets off coz he was making a joke yet at the time the cases against me were clear it was clear i didn't believe that the user was black and that i was also joking (regardless of how funny/unfunny you find either mine or bobs 'jokes'). you people are stoopid. x o x o 20:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then again, you only brought one against cb, and not all the other people making racist jokes. We could easily consider this harassment you know. ;) -- SA 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Only brought it against cb because cb has made it so clear he thinks racisms even as jokes are terrible and should not be allowed on admin pages. Cept when he makes them, or anyone but me :) x o x o 06:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to get him in trouble, you should have brought others too. Shame on you for not thinking that out!-- SA 21:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Don wanna get him in trouble just want him to leave me alone :( x o x o 04:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hint: the best way to get me or anyone else to "leave you alone" is to make good edits and steer clear of the drama pages Cyberbob Talk 04:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

oh and learn that there's a difference between your posts and mine: yours are unironically racist, mine wasn't Cyberbob Talk 05:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

nah you were just saying NIGGERZ because NIGGERZ is edgy and therefore "funny". don't forget that one case where you got let off for saying negress either Cyberbob Talk 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Imthatguy

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For breaking signature policy by hiding his link in white coding rendering it invisible on most pages. SA already nicely asked him here (bottom) to change it. His response indicates unwillingness to work along.--Thadeous Oakley 16:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed reason to impersonation - see below. --

Thadeous Oakley

17:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Acctually that was just a smart ass remark after doing a bit of code work i now have a new one--

Imthatguy

stole some retards signature 17:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism for the above post. Warned. -- C h e e s e 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism For the above comment Specifiacally this [2]. Looks like he's been warned about the sig by SA, and has 7 days to change it as per policy. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 17:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

seven days.....seven days...! --

Thadeous Oakley

17:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Srry about that code trouble --Imthatguy stole some retards signature 17:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, he changed it when he knew it was against policy. It's an easy enough thing to forget to change the name links. I mean, it's obvious that he tried, just didn't manage to finish it up and didn't know he didn't. We talk with the users BEFORE ruling vandalism.-- SA 12:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Same thing happened to liberty, stole somebody's sig and forgot to have the actual link changed. I'm willing to believe that Imthatguy just forgot to change the actual link of the signature. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - sure, he stuffed up by missing some coding. But he was doing it to piss off someone who had just reported him for vandalism (for making an invisible sig). His stealing of that person's code was done to piss the "retard" off... tough luck, he stuffed up, and impersonated them -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:02 7 December 2009 (BST)

User:Lk7300

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

This edit. Since Hagnat and Conndraka can use it as a catch all excuse, I will; breach of the wiki's terms of use. Threats of physical harm are illegal in the UK, where I and the server are, his last sentence clearly fits under this.

As much as I'm amused by internet tough guys posturing behind disposable aliases, our admin team cannot condone the wiki being used for illegal acts can they?

I wonder if my immediate suspect was clever enough to use a proxy...? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

why am i named here like i would be against banning this vandal, when i banned Scinfaxi for a similar feat ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

w8, physical harm? relax, dude, theirs no need 2 take everything ad liberam. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lk7300 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Checkuser did indeed show up no one of any interest. Lets see, abusing a user, a spam edit and then he knows to check VB to argue his case. Do I think any of his first 3 edits are in any way constuctive? Nope, so Perma--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking bets on how quickly he returns. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:IwillPwnU

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

This edit. --Haliman - Talk 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

two and three Permaban plz. ty :) --Haliman - Talk 01:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Checking out the situation. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The user actually seems to be the creator of the page. Guess he wants to delete it. --Janus ^talk 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeming to be the creator isn't enough for us to do what he wants and have the page deleted. We have no proof that he is and I'm not taking his word for it until he can prove it somehow. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser? :/ Or it'd be overusing your sysop powers? --Janus ^talk 02:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, but Rooster has already tried and since the leader of the group hasn't edited since May, there aren't any IP's that we can compare to. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone tried actually asking this guy what's up? Cyberbob Talk 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes? Me? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good. Carry on then. Cyberbob Talk 04:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't replied to my question but I think that's because he hasn't been back to read it. As for the edits, they are rational enough for me to thing that it isn't vandalism, but obviously we will keep them reverted until he can prove that they belong to him. Thoughts? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The choice of names doesn't fit with someone coming back, in good faith, to get rid of a group that they were actually the legitimate leader of. If you're getting rid of your own group page "for the good of teh wiki", you're not Pwning anyone, you're helping out -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:54 3 December 2009 (BST)

So you're thinking we should go further than let this one go? I don't think he's a threat, and his choice of name might reflect that he only came here once to do one menial task before leaving the wiki forever (hence not bothering coming up with something propoer) but if he does come back and do some crap I'll happily admit I was wrong. --

07:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 '''Not Vandalism''' - Meh. --[[¯\(°_o)/¯|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> ¯\(°_o)/</span>]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkTurquoise">¯</span>]] 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
+'''Potatoes''' - {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 ===[[User:Suicidalangel|Suicidalangel (2)]]===

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 12: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:32, 31 December 2009

Contents

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

Before Submitting a Report

Vandalism Report Space

Spambots

December 2009

User:Isgaru

User:Joshuamonkey

Suicidalangel (2)

User:Suicidalangel

User:R3D

User:GasCandle

User:Lelouch

User:Vampire Snuffleupagus

User:MisterGame

User:Leanlark

User:Drawde

User:Suicidalangel

User:Rook88

User:Pandoras emptiness

User:Cipherace

User:Z3D

User:Rosslessness

User:VI

User:Karloth vois

User:Cyberbob240

User:Imthatguy

User:Lk7300

User:IwillPwnU

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox