UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2007 03: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:26, 9 November 2011

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

The Surgeon General

Breaking Rule #13 of the Suggestions page, twice, with this and this. Seems to be using Monty123 as cover - not sure if they're the same person. I know this isn't serious vandalism - but it's creating work for other contributers and wasting voters' time. --Funt Solo 11:15, 31 March 2007 (BST)

CheckUser shows that he's using a lot of IPs, and there is another user on one of those IPs, but the sheer volume of addresses can only mean AOL, I think. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 11:20, 31 March 2007 (BST)

Monty123 seems to in the DHPD and not particularly knowledgeabe about wiki formatting. And the "funny" stuff can be taken to adress the spam votes of the previous version. You should look into the history of the page to see what the rule was meant to adress. It most defintly wasn't meant for this sort of things.--Vista 14:06, 31 March 2007 (BST)

Discussion moved to discussion page. --Funt Solo

01:33, 1 April 2007 (BST)

Viverer

Blanking talk pages + proxy = b&--Gage 04:37, 30 March 2007 (BST)

Jokkking?

Seems to be a multi of Blutic. The way he responded to Blutic's Vandal Banning report makes a reference Blutic's comment on Vista's talkpage. Hasn't actually done anything, but I'd rather be careful than right. Can a mod IP check, please? --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 04:09, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Permabanned by Thari and Gage. --

^T 04:26, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Blutic

Blanked my talk page. Has also been vandalizing other pages as well. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 03:43, 29 March 2007 (BST)

He also vandalized, Category:Press, Talk:Suggestions and gave info on how to vandalize on User_talk:Vista's page. --Rogue 03:51, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Noticed. Bann0rized.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 03:57, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Lol, thanks for reminding me rogue, I just remembered an even more effective way of using the evil text. Jokkking? 04:01, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Prieste Dalarac

Altered the name of two locations on a suburb map here. --^T 23:42, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:07, 29 March 2007 (BST)

massive vandal fail

Call me paranoid or cynical, but there seems something slightly wrong with this picture...and this one...--Lachryma^☭ 04:08, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Permabanned. --

^T 04:36, 28 March 2007 (BST)

This jump started a string of vandalism. We are currently in the progress of banning all the alts and IPs, but there are really too many to post here. As such, none will be.--Gage 04:59, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Why is it called a "massive vandal fail"? Villas 05:04, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Because vandals always fail. This one just happened to be massive.--Gage 06:10, 28 March 2007 (BST)

All of them have been perma-ban-bitch slapped my me......and Gage.....but mostly me. ;) --^T 16:31, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Pimp power to gage and you.--Vista 17:18, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Gaybait

A minor spat between a user, Gaybait, and a survivor group, Sex Possy, over ownership of several locations has led to numerous revisions being made to several different locations wikipages, specifically clubs. I noticed that edits, made by Sexy Possy were being deleted or reworded by Gaybait, in a way that I would deem to be slanderous. I originally asked both parties to take their dispute to their individual Talk wikipages rather than fill the location wikipages with their arguments as I had hoped that this would reduce the number of edits being made. This can be clearly seen in my posts here for Gaybait and here for Sexy Possy. As I am not a moderator all of my posts to both parties were merely suggestions.

The problem is that while Sex Possy appeared at least be willing to consider my suggestions, Gaybait ignored them. Fine I thought, I'm not the boss of him. Only now he has increased the tone of slander in his edits against Sex Possy. Proof of his tampering can be seen in these edits:

Feel free to examine all the edits for these wikipages more closely. I would just like someone with more authority than myself to caution him against vandalism. --Mobius187 March 27 2007, 5:18 PM (EST)

We, the Sex Possy have appeared to have resolved the issues with Gaybait. However, it seems that Gaybait is only after attention, and regardless of what we try to do to appease him, he continues to slander us. Of course, as a member of the sex posse, my recommendation is biased, but we would please like a strong warning issued to gaybait, at the very least. Please, administrators, I appeal to you in the name of reason and all that is sacred on Wikis. -- VenetianBlind March 27, 6:32 PM

It seems to me that you've both been editing each others contributions to the locations page. I suggest you both stop contributing material to the locations pages that is group propaganda, OK? (Go wild on the talk pages, if you must, but you'd better not start editing each others posts there!). If you can't agree to that, then take it to arbitration. Any user is within their rights to step in and remove such NPOV material from locations pages. Mostly it's ignored, but if you're going to insist on creating edit wars, then don't be surprised if someone steps in -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 10:55, 28 March 2007 (BST)

SkarzxEN

For these four edits -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:20, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Hrm... does the three-bad-faith-edit-newbie permaban apply here? While, yes, there were four edits made, they were all made to the same page. Does that count? --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 13:26, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Give 'em a second chance... I guess. A strong warning might turn them away from the dark side ;) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:34, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Okey dokey. Perhaps an insta-last warning would suffice? --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 13:37, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Fine with me. A bad faith edit away from oblivion -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:42, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Done. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 13:48, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Mtecha, Pwned!!!!!!!

Proxy wielding sock puppets used to up the bureacrat votation. Gage and myself ban'd them.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 05:38, 27 March 2007 (BST)

It's interesting that both of those accounts spent one of their votes on The General's bid, and the other on a sysop who's unlikely to end up with many votes... --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 07:29, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Yes and the subtlety of it all is astounding. Nobody would suspect a user with 3 edits named Pwned!!!!!!! to be a Suckpuppet. I'm just glad we caught it.--Vista 09:52, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Not sure what you're implying there, Cyberbob. Though I would say that they could have put a bit more effort into trying to help me :P.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:22, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Pathetic BiII, Pathetic Bill, PatheticBill

I've struck their votes on Category talk:Historical Groups as they contain (not matching) but suspiciously close IP addresses. There are also (if I remember correctly) several other users in there. Some other person gets to decide what to do here, as I don't feel like being the center of the drama for once.--Gage 07:41, 25 March 2007 (BST)

It's entirely possible to have similar IP addresses if you're all on the same ISP, you know. Unless you can prove those IP addys are proxies, I'm calling this one not vandalism (or alt abuse or whatever). Now, unstrike those votes, please. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 07:46, 25 March 2007 (BST)

Like I said, I'm not touching this one at all.--Gage 07:50, 25 March 2007 (BST)

Fine. I've done it for you. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 07:52, 25 March 2007 (BST)

Hmmmm, all on the same ISP, eh? Bloody hell. Pushing the boundaries of believability there. Can't blame Gage for being suspicious -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 09:38, 25 March 2007 (BST)

No, but I can blame him for striking those votes before coming here. Kevan himself has stated that the Bills are different people. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 10:05, 25 March 2007 (BST)

Agreed (never thought i'd say that :P), unless their ips are the same, then we must assume good faith.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:52, 25 March 2007 (BST)

Gasbandit

Gasbandit (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) CheckUser shows that he's been using Captain Jack Testes as an alt, so the alt is banned and Gasbandit receives a warning. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 11:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you bother to give us links to the edits which were vandalism? --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 19:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Bother? Why am I getting this aggressiveness? The guy is a self-confessed zerger, so I checked his IPs out just out of curiosity. One of his three came up positive for Captain Jack Testes. This alt hadn't been used in vandalism, per se (not that it needed to to be banned), but it had been used to "back up" Gasbandit in conversations (Example) - essentially, he was zerging the wiki. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy that outlaws this was not passed. You might want to reconsider your decision. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 03:04, 25 March 2007 (BST)

Or I might not. This is standard practice. Alts are not allowed on the wiki, unless there is a good reason for having one. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 03:09, 25 March 2007 (BST)

I also direct your attention to this policy, more specifically this section. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 03:13, 25 March 2007 (BST)

Hannah d

b&--Gage 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Zomg its 3 page man

Selfdescriptive, altough his comment was useful and I thank him for that. If you want to contribute you should ask the Sysop team/Kevan first through some other channel than the wiki. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

b&--Gage 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares, a quick search makes me believe that he might be getting his proxies from this site. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We banned a ridiculously large amount of them some time ago. What we need is someone to go through the block log and make a note of all blocked IPs that are claimed to be proxies. We can then match them up with the proxies from proxy.org to prevent duplicated bans (which, while not strictly a major concern, do waste additional resources. While we are far from the threshold at where it becomes a serious impact on performance, it would be prudent to do our utmost to slow getting there to a crawl). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xoid (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Ok. Today it may be impossible, but I'll do that log. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 12:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As promised. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 09:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fukoff

Banned, forgot to list it earlier.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

MR._AMZ

Banned sockpuppet. Uses the same IP of Apex and Reptileus. I left a message on APex's page asking what the precise relation between User:Apex and Reptileus is.--Vista 08:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you translate the morse code and then the resultant binary on his and Jedaz's talk page, it seems that he was trying (and failing) to depose me (specifically) and the other big bad evil sysops. Reptileus has been nothing but a liar and a troublemaker and Apex tipped me off about the conversation that Jedaz and Mr. AMZ were having. Very strange. Very strange indeed. I say we ban Apex, and give Reptileus his next level warning/ban. This is obviously some plot that is totally full of fail.--Gage 08:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. His plans aside, it's always been practice that in the case of a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet is banned (Apex is obviously another one) and the main is warned - in this case, Reptileus. Full steam ahead! --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 09:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The deed is done.--Gage 09:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well both the fact that Apex was around for quite a while and they both seemed to have a different commenting style, I was reluctant to handle the ban hamer on people whose circomstances I didn't know perhaps it was known they were family or housemates. But I just noticed the steep drop in edits by Reptileus as soon as Apex started on appearing on the wiki. That combined with the same IP-adress...--Vista 13:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well It looks like my new IP Detector/Copier works. Hoora for me. But now to the point. Congratulations, you have succeeded in banning an innocent, all thanks to me! I do thank you for ridding me of Apex. He did get in the way quite a lot. I hope you’ll all enjoy the rest of your life’s. I’m now off to destroy Wikipedia. I am indeed Reptileus, but that was not my first name here. Oh no. I would tell you all what my real name is, and where to find me. But that would ruin the fun now. To put it Clearly, I’m simply Amazing! Ta at Urban dead. Don’t forget to write. If you do let Apex back on. I hope you have a good explanation as to why you banned him. I say I've had my fun. But it's time to go. See you all soon. --Mr. 0 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

account banned for suckpuppetry.--Vista 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Already got it :P--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it after the fact. At least I got to feel useful for a minute or so... :'(--Vista 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't email notification wonderful............................--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

actually not a bad idea for this page. It used to be that you'd get spammed to death in the old days, but I'm amazed how quiet this page has become--Vista 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I get spammed to death anyway, so it makes no difference.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not an expert with IPs authentification and all those things, but there's any way to corroborate or discard this loonie's claims? I don't think he's Amazing, but it's the part where he says that he got Apex banned that worries me. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He's full ; what he says he did is effectively impossible to do across the internet (it's possible to do in a closed LAN but across multiple routers . . . nuh-uh). So his comment is basically trying to get people to unban Apex by injecting doubt as to what really happened. Reptileus = Apex != Amazing; it's as simple as that.--Jorm 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I don't know much about IPs, so I didn't know if it was feasible. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's almost impossible, as Jorm said. Certainly, no vandal would be able to do it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides that Apex fits well with some of amazings use of other alts.--Vista 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true, I've seen some differnces between Reptileus and Apex. Some might say that they are in fact, Not the same person. Apex seems to be to small and unable to comit the crimes Reptileus has done. I have also noticed in the past history Reptileu's IP has infact changed. And if it's true that he is Amazing then that means the whole time he's had a way to change his IP. I think we should un-ban Apex and give him a chance to do some good. Infact, that is another differance. Apex has done nothing but good. Reptileus is a n00b. We have to take all this into acount. --Monty Python 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what is funny, I had already indentified this account as a likely alt of you. I just didn't have enough proof to act on it. You're getting predictable.--Vista 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User is banned as sockpuppet.--Vista 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Gustav

Had a quick go at Pathetic Bill's page here. --Karloth Vois ^RR 01:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll check with xyu about the edits to Mall Tour '07. If they aren't legit (and I seriously doubt they are) this dude will receive a permaban.--Gage 05:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comrade Corpsekiller

For posting here under an assumed name - Ziggy Stardust - (which just happens to be the name of one of the group the page belongs to) here - I'm assuming it's Comrade Corpse killer, the soft parade members don't seem to sign their posts, presumably to add to the confusion.--Zombiek 08:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Warned, and the sockpuppet accounts Muadib and Ziggy Stardust banned. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually neither Muadib nor Ziggy are alts of mine, they are friends living nearby who consequently have similar IP addresses. I have explained this is detail in an email to Cyberbob 240, please unban them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comrade Corpsekiller (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

You have the same IP than them. Not similar, the same. I am not an expert on this matter, but I think that this means you were using the same account in the same ISP.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 23:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeap. It's either the same account, a very unlucky asignment of a variable ip, or they're all using the same proxy.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I just ignored that email. I couldn't be bothered responding to your lies, primarily because I've heard it all before - multiple times. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 07:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Listen, we live in a backwards rural shithole, broadband has only just come here and is barely making a profit as it is, so they just assign the one IP to entire villages (and yes, not only is that possible, but common practice in low-priority areas), hence the same IP. If there is any other way to prove that we are not the same person, I would gladly oblige.--Comrade Corpsekiller 22:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dick bag

This for this Vantar 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

b&--Gage 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gilant

Made this edit to one of our group pages, first, without permission, and second, after being made aware that we don't want said edit. --Sirens^{T RR} 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Warned. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 07:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang about. He was removing Category:Department of Emergency Management... Is Red Rum actually a member, or even an ally of the DEM? That's what that category is for, presumably -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Mia why the category was there? I see an edit made without permission - as well as the fact that Gilant already knew that they desired the link to be there - so Gilant gets a warning. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 08:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see... Red Rum is adding themselves to a specific group's category, a group that seems opposed to "their work" (PKing)... hmmmm, why would they do that? That category could be seen as a sub-page of the DEM, and by repeatedly adding themselves to it, despite the group trying to remove them, Red Rum could be seen as the ones doing the vandalism. Impersonating a DEM ally -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 09:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, but I'd like to hear Mia's explanation for the category before I go and withdraw the warning. If she can't make a good case for it to stay, it goes. We can cross the impersonation bridge when we get there. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 09:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? He's trying to grief the DEM. He's added it to this page as well. This is clear cut impersonation. Of course he left it there on purpose, he's trolling. I think Sirens should get a warning and the warning for Gilant should be rescinded.--Gage 10:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we wait for Mia's comment on this before we rush to any conclusions? There could be a perfectly valid reason for the category link. You may think it may be there to be trollish, but you can't really say for sure, can you? --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't hurt to have Gilant chime in as well. If he's around that is.--Vista 11:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 11:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see Gage is still a little pissy. Poor kid. The link is there because Red Rum's Rogue Gallery has a do with the DEM, being an offshoot of it. It's also there because Gilant never bothered to talk to me about it. He simply assumed that he was allowed to remove said link. --Sirens^{T RR} 13:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And why is there one on the Red Rum page itself? What has that to do with the DEM? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Forgot about that one. That one was placed as a result of the noted situation, and as soon as Gilant swallows his pride and chats with me about it, they'll both be removed. Until then, Red Rum sees itself as a "Playful Ally" of the Department Emergency Management...specifically a division designed to create emergencies so the DEM doesn't get to bored. --Sirens^{T RR} 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pffft, nice. You're putting your PKing group onto his dedicated survivor group's category page to piss him off. I couldn't have cared less really... up until the point where you try to get him warned for removing (in good faith, you're not part of that group) the category. Hopefully bob will remove the warning, you will remove the categories, and all will be well with the world -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Someone was warned ahead of time that I would consider it vandalism and treat it as such. Oh well. --Sirens^{T RR} 13:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If the act wouldn't be considered vandalism by the rules, it doesn't really matter how you treat it. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone move this to arbitration, since there is no vandalism here beyond one trying to defend his group name while the other being a troll ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving it to arbitration won't help anything; I've already set forth my terms. --Sirens^{T RR} 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

your terms ? your terms are that your a complte jackasss... and you are just showing this to the whole wiki community. hurray for you. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

hagnat, I say we remove the category tags and give Sirens a warning. I'm tired of asking him nicely to quit trolling.--Gage 01:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

it seems i already agreed with this in the below comment :) Since i have another sysop approval on this, this is case is ruled... RULING: Sirens will be warned, and all Red Rum pages should be removed from the DEM Category. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

look... the only vandal we have here is sirens... he/she/whatever is abusing the group system mechanics and is adding information into his own group page that reflects in another (opposing) group category. this is made in complete bad faith, and should be punished with a warning, and any pages that belong to the RedRum should be removed from the DEM category. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Goldbuddha

Created a heap of pseudo-group pages that were simply a duplication of Malton YMCA, claiming others are members of it. He then linked duplicate groups to the names of the those he claims to be members on another group page, which one of them then promptly removes. He has a history of messing with that page, but can't see that he's ever been warned for it -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a doozy. I suggest two warnings, but I'll wait for some other takes on this before I act. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 14:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about posting a vandalism report due to the replication of that one group (I put up the groups for SD; I don't want to appear to be coming out of nowhere), but after looking through the Vandalism guidelines and policy documents, I couldn't find a direct or explicit violation. Maybe this should be made as a new policy? --

16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism has always been defined simply as an edit made in bad faith. This seems to fit that description quite easily without the need for a new rule. I remember Goldbuddha so that means he's been around long enough to know better.--Vista ^WCDZ 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't take a very good look at his contributions to see how long he was around. --

21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to worry about the iffy territory of the multiple pages, there are two examples of him editing the Necronauts page in bad faith -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So, should I proceed with the double warning? --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 07:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why double? What's the precident there? One's enough AFAIC -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a double warning due to the magnitude of this vandalism, and also due to the fact that it's been stretched out over a fairly long period of time. There's no precedent; under the guidelines, there doesn't have to be. If you disagree, however, I'd be fine with a single warning. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 08:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm easy, and as I reported it, I'd better leave the decision up to you (and any other mod that wants to put their 2c in) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh. It doesn't really matter that much - I'll go with a single warning. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Akule

Can someone say, impersonation ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not impersonation: he quoted Gage in a bad form and forgot to sign too... I must confess that I was about to report him too, but it was a mistake, not bad faith. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

agreed, he just forgot to sign... noting the date of the Gage signature.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a quote mark after Gage's sig too, so it's probably not impersonation. I was confused too though.--Lachryma^☭ 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad form, but not vandalism. --Darth Sensitive

^W! 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GB

Gold Blade. Banned. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reptileus

For blanking the Mall Information Center and Talk:Main Page Vantar 17:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

banned for a week. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ooops, forgot to add the ban in vandal data. thanks gage for fixing that. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mia Kristos

Keeps deleting or striking out my perfectly valid Re comment on the suggestions page. Here, here, here, here & here. --Funt Solo 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And here's the admission of bad faith. --Funt Solo 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not an admission of bad faith. That's an admission that I'm a bitch. HUGE difference, as anyone who knows me well enough can tell you. And his Re: comment isn't valid for reasons listed on my talk page. If you want to vandal me for perceived bad faith, fine, but don't vandal me for breaking a rule thats not clear in the first place.

And before anyone says it is clear, if people can come up with perfectly valid, but different, interpretations of the same rule, it's not that clear. --Sirens^{T RR} 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

not vandalism. and i ask you two to behave like kids in your own talk pages, not in a public page like suggestions. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion, please, and/or an explanation of why deleting and striking out valid wiki content is not vandalism. --Funt Solo

19:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That is vandalism, but what I struck out wasn't valid. So Nyhh. --Sirens^{T RR} 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my second opinion: both of you need to grow the up!--Gage 20:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fgfgfgfgfg

Vandalised the Main Page, talk page in an extremely obvious manner that could in not be regarded, in any way, as being anything but "bad faith". I've reverted and permabanned... but am I justified in doing so under the current guidelines, or a subsequent policy change? If not, surely we need a change? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban away. Might as well IP block these fuckers too.--Gage 23:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Boxy, in the section "When an User May be Warned or Banned" of the Guidelines you have a Criterion (number 3) that lets you do exactly what you did, so no Misconbitration for you =). --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 23:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Only one edit from this one (and others I've seen), so no crit 3... maybe crit 4... although it sounds a bit contradictory to me... has to be reported here... but doesn't until later? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the edit count... anyways, about the reporting time, it can be before the actual banning as well as after: before you were made a Sysop there was a trend for literal interpretations of the rules and our current guidelines didn't let Sysops:

warn or ban before making the actual report or
warn or ban if they themselves have made the report.

The text on Criterion 4 allows you to do that now. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Although of course it's still better to wait for someone else to give the warning if you submit the report - the second opinion helps guard against mistakes made in the heat of the moment. --Toejam 21:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If the vandalism is extreme (e.g. pageblanking or adding obviously badfaith messages) it doesn't matter. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 07:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Homuncubish

If you look here, he edits a post he made earlier... for at least the forth time (just follow the previous edits back) after it was already replied to. Not only is it "bad form", it's impersonation under our rules -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 12:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to act on this, even if it's technically against the rules. seems like good faith to me.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairy nuff. I'll just have an unofficial word with him then, as I'm pretty sure he's a regular at it -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cortsof4chan

For this thing. -- 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, we appear to have a serial offender. Take a look at the contributions. --

23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Permabanned, given that it's only contributions are multiple crap-spammings of the suggestions pages (sorry, did it a while ago, but had to run) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser

Messing with my user page [1] [2]. Even though he did it in good faith, its still is a user page and he should ask if he can change it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, unless it happens again now that he knows that people want those templates. It's discussed on his talk page -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pele de la calle

For amending another groups page - here/here.

These are this users only two contributions. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Warned.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that the vandal edits are quite similar to this one and this one? Is it the same person? --

22:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it just seemed a little strange. Sorry if I bothered you. --

23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Another case of an ingame stalker spilling out of game! Thanks for your speedy assistance, very much appreciated! --MK 14:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Korias

For this little number. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 08:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a permalink -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Warned, yeah, I know he's new, but it is just a warning -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Gehennanow

Look at the contribs. The guy is now on my top-3 spammers list. --Niilomaan ^GRR!•M! 08:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break, you got anything better to do with your time? I'll ask him to knock it off, but really... give me a break.--Gage 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't think that one message being sent to people would be considered spam. I had good intentions, but I won't do it again. --Gehennanow 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Zombiek

Messed with a vandal report made against him. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Warned.--Gage

Messed with how? I don't understand what I'm supposed to have done? I had my first warning and have not done anything since please explain clearly what it is I am supposed to have done. Thank you. --Zombiek 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

... Follow the link. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 00:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a possibility that he tried to make another totally unrelated report but deleted the previous one (where he was reported) accidentally. Just trying to explain why this guy thinks his second warning was unfair. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, what Matthew Fahrenheit said - it was my first report and I did it wrong. Sorry! --Zombiek 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No dice n00b. I might have believed that if you deleted a report that wasn't on you, or you reported someone other than the person who reported you in that report, but I think we both know your explanation doesn't fly in this case. Take the warning man, or vandalize again so I can ban you. Take your pick.--Gage 18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice trolling. Good think that you deleted the disclaimer, as we both know who's the only guy trolling on this page nowadays. Concerning the edit, I'm not 100% sure, but it sure looks like it was unintentional, and he deleting his own vandal report "by coincidence" looks more like it was because the report was the top one (I always edit the top report to make new ones as well) than because it was his. I'll stop defending the guy tough as I'm probably doing more harm than good, not because I'm not talking with reason, but because of the audience I have. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we take this to arbitration, please? I don't understand. I was complaining about a comment someone made. They did make the comment. --Zombiek 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Edit: I had not made a complaint before. I copied and pasted the nearest one for style - so that I did it correctly. Is that what I did wrong? If I did anything wrong I am very sorry, as I said above. I was trying to make a genuine complaint, not deface anyone else's. --Zombiek 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt this time. Gage? I can't really overrule you (not without a huge row), but I think you should do the Right Thing here. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Manbagzzz

All of his "contributions" are vandalizing group's pages. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Him and his alt are permabanned. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hell, we'll throw an IP ban in there too.--Gage 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Zombiek

For editing another users talk page comments in bad faith - here. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 11:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See report below -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Zombiek and Amiasheep

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

For editing a group of which they are not members - here for Zombiek and here for Amiasheep.

Listed both together as it's almost the same offence, and they seem to be working together. –Ray Vern phz ^•T 11:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going post the above cuplrits for editting our group page but I see Ray from Coaltion already has, thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homuncubish (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Please learn to sign properly, Homuncubish... that talk page is hard to follow, unless you're invovled I guess, because it's not clear who said what without looking back through the history -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Warned -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

@@ Line 343: / Line 343: @@
 ::Please learn to sign properly, Homuncubish... that talk page is hard to follow, unless you're invovled I guess, because it's not clear who said what without looking back through the history -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 '''Both Warned''' -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
+[[Category:Pages to Preserve]]