UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 02: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:59, 24 September 2014

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

User:Finis Valorum

Is this vandalism?--_LH779 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to this (My bold):

Sig Policy said:

"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature."

...it would be.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

LeSigh... this could be called impersonation, therefore vandalism, but i am in a good mood today (i am also lazy) and am not going to warn someone for such stupid edit. Just talk with the damn troll and tell him not to do it again... you also have my blessing to change the edit and point it to the right user. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Lh can handle it. I'm busy.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

0_o. I fixed the sig and the time (i hadn't used the normal --~~~] if that's what bothers you.--Luke Skywalker 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, depends how well Finis knows hit signing. Otherwise it's assuming Bad Faith which, is pretty pointless considering that there is no User:Luke Skywalker so it's not impersonation, just violation of the policy SA mentioned. I'm inclined to be lenient on this matter so, unless someone can show evidence that he's aware of that policy or had a Bad Faith intention I'm gonna have to rule Not Vandalism. If someone can show either of those things I'll revisit my ruling.--Karek^maps?! 14:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And the little tool already changed his siggy while we were having this discussion... see, there was no need to create this case :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it wuz just a mistake. I've also gone through my contributions and removed all sig policy violations.--Finis Valorum 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to, you can sign as the name Luke, it just has to link to your user page (Or a sub page, clearly showing that you are the owner). And if you are interested, there's an entire page written for step-by-step instructions on how to do it all. Its in the help section.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jmaze

Blah blah... --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:04 28 February 2008 (BST)

User:Metal_Halide

this. It's like bloody rush hour on this page.--Seventythree^Talk 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - I reverted it back a few minutes ago and was deciding what to do with him. I think a Permaban is in order here. No constructive edits from what I can see, more than 3 edits. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me. I'll stick him on a 24 hour just to stop him till a more experienced sysop can back me up. -- C h e e s e 00:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to perma him myself, I'll up his edit in a second.--Karek^maps?! 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Laughing Man

For creating this page. I'd like to also request this page speedy deletion :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We are compiling personal opinions about recent events and DCC's talk page is the central gathering point. The page in question here was an example within that page. Not Vandalism --Gregarious Instigator 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruling struck to prevent confusion as user is not a Sysop.--Karek^maps?! 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say most people could see that, but we all know how this will end, don't we? He's in such a hurry to remove me I don't even get a User: in front of my name. --Laughing Man 23:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't rule on cases when you are not a sysop, thanks. The problem with the page creation is that it looks like that's DCC's opinion, when it may not be. He didn't look like he wanted to create the page anytime soon. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is MY OPINION. I am DCC and I approve of this message. also Not Vandalism--DCC 23:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruling struck to prevent confusion as user is not a Sysop.--Karek^maps?! 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruling also struck because it doesn't agree with your opinion and you have a history of striking votes you don't like. --DCC 23:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the decision over whether something is vandalism or not is up to the sysops. If that wasn't the case, any user reported here could just make an alt and rule themselves as Not Vandalism. Therefore Karek is right in striking the ruling. -- C h e e s e 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - I'm just contemplating what the punishment will be as, thanks to his lack of doing anything other than harassing users, I actually has choices.--Karek^maps?! 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well no surprise here! Just go ahead and make up your mind without getting the facts. It's ok - we are used to it!! --DCC 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is contributive enough, so I don't think a perma is appropriate. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. Wrong user. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, can't wait to see what it's going to be! Will it be a one day ban, followed immediately by a two day ban just because you feel like it? Or will you go straight for the permaban? This anticipation is killing me! --Laughing Man 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:00 28 February 2008 (BST)

User:Ihall4

For these two edits to the firearms page.--Karek^maps?! 02:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:40 27 February 2008 (BST)

User:OcularSucks

I have a fan! --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 01:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and warned.--Karek^maps?! 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Doctordeath99

This and this where he purposely alters the pages to provide false information, 4 edits, three vandalism(he already has a warning), one wiping his talk page. I've Permabanned him in accordance to the When a User May Be Warned or Banned portion of Administration Guidelines.--Karek^maps?! 23:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Telenti

A little late, but vandalism of Santlerville Zombie strategy page. Since when do we remove anything on this wiki because it can be used to grief? Request permission to re-add the content. -- Iscariot 17:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Content Re-added from pre-censored version. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:12 27 February 2008 (BST)

User:Buck Rogers

Seems to be an alt of Gengen, created simply to remove all the survivor groups from any suburb that is red -- boxy ^{talk • i} 08:01 26 February 2008 (BST)

Permabanned - Vandal alt, we have rules against that type of thing. Also escalating Gengen by one level(issuing second warning), he knows what he did was not going to fly from both his previous report and this discussion. --Karek^maps?! 08:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Life was pain

Wiping talk page and replacing it with an insult -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:04 26 February 2008 (BST)

Warned--Karek^maps?! 05:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zombified

This edit in which he vandalizes an image. Other edits of note would be this one in which he vandalizes a wiki page. 5 some edits, none contributive, two of them vandalism. . .--Karek^maps?! 01:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ach, would protecting the image stop from uploading? The reversions on that thing is epic. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is the kind of vandal you can ban yourself without requesting for others to do the task... go ahead, he is all yours. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought 24hrs was more appropiate, but meh. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably he's a member of The Dead Of Dunell Hills. That would vandalism only on the image uploads, wouldn't it? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:57 26 February 2008 (BST)

No, it wouldn't, the NPOV section makes that very clear. Group pages are meant to be informational first, owned second.--Karek^maps?! 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Zombified's [version] is much more informational than the current version that you protected. A ban is out of line for this edit, which is an arbitration issue. I don't know what the image uploads were, as it's been deleted now -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:09 26 February 2008 (BST)

I protected what was requested, I'll probably end up reverting it back to the version before Zombified's edit, one that was also made by a group member, the protection was simply made to stop the constant edit wars that were happening on that page. As for a ban, I disagree, he came as part of a call on the SA boards to basically vandalize that page specifically. There are limits to page ownership.--Karek^maps?! 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye aye. Everything karek did was upon my request and/or blessing. I requested the page's protection and I gave him the right to ban the user as he see fit, even though he was the one who asked for the user to be dealt with. The image was also deleted after a speedy deletion was made. There was nothing wrong in Karek's actions here. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought AHLG was the one to do the banning, until after my first post here, and OK, I'll not be taking this to Misconduct, because I figure the intention was to mess with the wiki. But we really should have sorted this whole drama out via arbitration before it came to this point. It's their group page, and we do need to weigh their wishes along with the need for a basic page for such a high profile group (feel free to move my posts to the talk page if you want to continue this discussion) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:37 26 February 2008 (BST)

User:DCC

Just spammed up Recent changes with a bunch of new DoDH pages. Links in a sec. -- C h e e s e 00:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to link. We ain't blind. DCC was banned for a day, since i belive simply warning him to stop it would actually stop him. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. :P There's quite a lot of them now. All this over a single page? Kind of pathetic isn't it? -- C h e e s e 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am seriously insulted there wasn't a "the dunell hills of dunell hills" page.--Gregarious Instigator 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was very proud of the MP feeling better going to go for a walk now version. The next time they ban Katthew pointlessly I'll try to come up with something better. Oh wait, they have banned her. I have to wait until her stupid time out from the little power mad mod is over and do something new. --DCC 09:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Katthew

Substing this image with crap. While this image is a representation of the Dead's logo, this image is used in a page hosted by the DHCP to collect information about this group. If katthew want the right logo for her group to be hosted here, she should upload it somewhere where it wont change the image being used by the DHCP. She was already asked not to touch that image, but even then she did. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you fail to mention the fact that the page he is altering is a blatant workaround copy of a page that was voted to be deleted. You can't vandalize a page which is itself a vandalization. Vandalize the wiki by putting up a page after it's been voted for deletion and deleted, and people will change the content of that page to reflect their disapproval of that. Addison Strack 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism, it's busy enough that I'm gonna be ruling on stuff for a bit. You're escalation will be done after some Sysop discussion on the matter, you'll know before your current 24h ban is up though.--Karek^maps?! 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, since there's no discussion on the matter from other Sysops, and the image is now deleted, I'm going to apply the escalation.--Karek^maps?! 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

discussion moved to talk page

Riseabove

This edit in which he purposely breaks a redirect and this one where he blanks a redirect.--Karek^maps?! 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the group whose page is in question; --Riseabove 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Members of the group can edit the page, what the fuck is wrong with you hagnat? If I make /red_rum reirect to /DHPD/Warrants/Red_Ru m would that be acceptable?..--Thekooks 22:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem wasn't that he edited the page Kooks, it was that he was breaking the page on purpose. For example his recent edit to the page isn't vandalism, but the two listed here are a different story.--Karek^maps?! 22:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He fixed the page. It should never have been redirected in the first place.--Thekooks 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he didn't fix the page, he changed it so it would be random words. It's no better than the below edit where Katthew replaced the page with ~~COCKS~~BONERS.--Karek^maps?! 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Katthew

This, where Katthew purposely breaks a page abusing, and misusing, the ownership rights rule and the edits to this image. --Karek^maps?! 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ohmy... vandalism for the broken redirect pages... could you warn her for the image subst above ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

DanceDanceRevolution

Altering my signature in a post. Impersonation. Hardly an unintentional mistake.--Finis Valorum

Warned for impersonation, in future, make sure you timestamp your reports. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Stevetampa

How original... --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, Boxy warned him, but, since it's his third edit, second of impersonation, it might be best to just drop the 3 edit rule on him, I really doubt he's going to do anything other than impersonate and vandalise.--Karek^maps?! 05:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe he just needs a welcomenewbie template to set him straight (jokes) ;) I wont misconduct ya for doing him in -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:49 25 February 2008 (BST)

Meh, he's already been warned, but, if his next edit is vandalism I'll do it then.--Karek^maps?! 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Keven

Impersonation, overall bad faith. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should drop the bomb on this one outright, despite only two edits. The account was obviously created for the purpose of impersonation, and as such should be treated as a vandal alt -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:04 25 February 2008 (BST)

Seconded. If he really wanted to contribute positively, he shouldn't have made an impersonation account. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's gone. The whole purpose of the account was impersonation and vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dead

Deletion workarounds.

One out of many.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The Dead of Dunnel Hills is a group, and should have a page for their own. If katthew doesnt want this page, since she appears to be the leader of this group, this page can be transformed into a redirect to DHPD/the dead of Dunell Hills... which is what i am about to make it --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That page doesn't matter, I'm pretty sure the capitalization needs to match for the Stats page to hit it.--Karek^maps?! 23:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And also, Deletion Workarounds are a Speedy Deletion Criteria report it there in the future please.--Karek^maps?! 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I saw this (the bolded bit), and figured I'd put it here.

Speedy Criteria said:

Deletion Workaround: The page is a duplicate of a page that has been deleted from a previous deletion request (please note the relevant deletion request if this is so). A page that fits this criterion is immediately qualified for deletion without requiring it be nominated on the 'Speedy Deletions' page. Recreating a page that fits this criterion will get you a polite message to stop doing so. Any further infractions of this nature will qualify as vandalism and will be treated as such. Note that criterion 6 does not apply when the page has been restored through Undeletions.

Oh well.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally take offense to the fact that we asked for the page to be deleted, then had a copy and paste page put up in its place under the new heading DHPD/the dead of Dunell Hills when compliance was achieved. When one of our members put up vague pages for us, someone then saw fit to delete them and redirect them all to the DHPD stub. Are we not allowed to operate under the cloak of secrecy? We don't care if anybody thinks we're zergers or whatever asinine reason you people keep using to justify adding a page for us, we simply don't want any mention on the wiki. Period. Gregarious Instigator 06:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth that's not exactly how a wiki works, it's pretty much against the whole basic mission statement of a wiki which is, more or less, to provide what information is available in a factual and neutral manner, it's not for those who know the subject matter it's for everyone else who doesn't. Having an article on the group, I'd say, is fine, as long as they aren't crossing the line into impersonation or POV/slander that is.--Karek^maps?! 06:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If anyone want to write a NPOV description of a group that doesnt have a page in the wiki, that's fine. If the group members want to edit the page with nonsense, it's their call, but the NPOV description of the group should remain. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

i know i'm not involved in this and shouldn't be commenting, but whatever. From my perspective this is VERY clear-cut. tdoDH "own the rights" to their group page. And if that means keeping the group page non-existent, that's their right. Only group members can edit the group's page, no? That should include page creation... However, anyone can write whatever the fark they want ABOUT tdoDH on the wiki... as long as it is not masquerading as their group page. Thus the current file/folder location "DHPD/the dead, et al" is perfectly legit -- but the fact that it is masquerading (i.e. formatted) to look like an actual group page is pushing it... big time... Especially since it contains derogatory and unsubstantiated allegations and hearsay... A DHPD info page sure? A DHPD-sponsored mockup of their group page? No. Anyway... my un-asked-for 2 bits worth. --WanYao 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously ... this case is important because it will set, or reflect previous, precedent about group page ownwership and what that entails. Which is why I am commenting on the case, even if it's not technicaLLY my place to so: I believe this is important to the wiki as a whole... Stick this on the Discussion page if need be, whatever, but IMNSHO it ought to be aired out. --WanYao 13:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So then Karek, since the guiding principles of wiki are information, I'm perfectly allowed to go make a page about how user X is a pedophile, as long as I have court records and proof that they are that person, so as to negate calls of slander? If not, why? I'd merely be telling people who that person is and what they do. Just like the DHPD stub on us. It is about as relevant to the situation as us being from SA and being notorious greifers, and neither a history in pedophilia nor our affiliation is information we or the hypothetical user X want publicly known.Gregarious Instigator 16:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think anybody cares if you report our ACTIONS ingame. The fact that we've assisted with the Nichols Mall etc. Discussion about what badasses we are is encouraged, infact. But we want news, not a rap sheet. Gregarious Instigator 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As I am Dead, and from dunnel hills, and in the group, and participate in the actions, I should be able to modify our wiki, since every other group does it as well. Let's take DHPD for instance. They have "NPOV - little text - End of NPOV" and write whatever they want after that. So why don't I have access to change our page as we see fit, but other groups do? Other groups post whatever they want on the wiki, and so do we.... This also fits a lot better for the game that zombies don't have giant pages detailing every single policy, forum and news. TDoDH are zombies, not some group for the yellow pages. Others in the group weren't happy either with the current, or "pre-vandalized" page, as you can see from the picture. What we do in game is for everyone to see (and comment on?), everything that is not done in the game is not.BRAAAAIIINNSSS The Dead 16:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gregarious, if you reread what I said you'll notice I did actually exclude POV and slander, which is exactly what that would be. DHPD can have whatever information they want in their namespace, groups have kept records on other groups for personal use in the past. --Karek^maps?! 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet, as I said in my hypothetical, that information would be accompanied with court records as well as records indicating that user X was the subject of those court records. By definition, slander is the spread of false information. But, UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Karek I can understand if you're willing to blindly turn an eye. --Gregarious Instigator 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WanYao, the precedent has been set for a long while actually, the NPOV section is editable by anyone, if the group doesn't want to provide additional information of use Category:Recruitment they don't have to but, they have no control over the existence of a page they didn't create, especially when all they are doing is trying to stir up drama for the fun of it.--Karek^maps?! 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dead, You can change whatever you want about the page except the NPOV section, but you can only do that on the version in the main namespace, the DHPD subpage one is completely beyond your reach and editing it may be taken as vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what else can be taken as vandalism? Recreating a page that's already been deleted. Hell, there's even a brief definition of it further up in this thread. --Laughing Man 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You've only half answered my question, Karek. Or maybe I didn't understand the answer... dunno... So what you're saying is that anyone can create the main namespace for a group, even non-group members? And anyone can edit the short NPOV blurb at the top (that no one cares about anyway), but only group members can legitimately edit the POV parts? Which means that, for example, tdoDH can't do shit if, say, I wrote up an NPOV paragraph in the doDH namespace ... all they could do is add stuff to the POV section. Or edit the NPOV, of course, but not actually delete the page itself once created. Even thought it's THEIR group... Am I getting this right? Oh.. and while recreating a deleted page is vandalism, I didn't think it was vandalism to copy a deleted page into your personal namespace or group's space ... Am I wrong? These may seem like dumb questions, but I am certain there are many others thinking the same thing... So it's good to make this perfectly clear. --WanYao 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much yes. Anyone can edit the NPOV section but it needs to be kept neutral. As for recreating deleted pages, it's not vandalism, what that rule means is that purposely doing it in bad faith, specifically to force repetitive deletions, is vandalism, recreating the page because you don't know better or to provide Neutral and verifiable information is not. Remember we don't assume bad faith.--Karek^maps?! 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And why exactly am I not allowed to change the NPOV section, is my POV not as N as the DHPD'S NPOV with "their ability to communicate makes them an incredibly sweet, well oiled, and highly lubricated zombie-killing machine." I think I can be THAT neutral. It is quite blatant that other groups change their NPOV to fit what they want, why should we not? I fail to see how we are less neutral on our page as they are on theirs. 19:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)The Dead

I have not read their page, nor is it my job in anyway to police page NPOV sections, that's something generally delegated to Arbitration, feel free to start a case there if you wish.--Karek^maps?! 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of events:1.Group makes page about another group, with allegations of multying which are STILL in the page 2.)The Dead changes the page as the group sees it as work around to the deletion of other pages 3.)Page is locked, POV of DHPD maintained 4.) You tell me I am not allowed to change NPOV of pages pertaining to my group 5.) Me giving example of how group shows own POV in NPOV 6.)You saying its not your job to check NPOV...

From what I've gathered ALL GROUPS have control of their ENTIRE page, why the exception for DoDH? 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)The Dead

All this stuff about the NPOV section notwithstanding -- this is new to me, but what do I know -- your group has control of your group's page. Your group has no control over another group or user's page that talks about your group. Anyone can talk about your group on their pages. If you feel the page in question is libelling you, then you could take them to Arbitration, I suppose. But you can't edit another person or group's page, not matter how insulting or annoying you consider it ... just like they can't edit yours. It's fucking simple, even an idiot like me understands it, sheeesh. --WanYao 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gengen

Gengen (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
Appears to be griefing and making exclusively bad faith edits. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 06:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

He's already been warned for the early vandalism, and this from after the last warning is treading a very fine line. Arbies is the place to work out such issues though -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:13 24 February 2008 (BST)

That is a laugh coming from you, Desk Sgt. Or is it okay to simply ignore the policies and procedures of the wiki when it suits your own agenda? Also, I am still waiting on that tl;dr. --John Fraker 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

XxCannon FodderxX

Blanked the user page of another user. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They're alt accounts of the same person, so not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:00 24 February 2008 (BST)

Ioncannon11

Vandalised a group page without being a member of that group. Multiple warnings already given. -- Iscariot 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Third strike equals a 24hr ban -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:09 23 February 2008 (BST)

Officer Lirette

He completely screwed up the Yagoton suburb page. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

73 fixed the page. No need for a revert. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to point him in the direction of project mentor and the help pages. Looks like a newbie mistake. THese things are eisily made and usualy made worse as the person digs themselves in deeper trying to fix it.--Seventythree^Talk 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. I've completely forgotten I've left a WN template on his talk some days ago... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It looks that way. He's made quite a few contributions on the suburb pages so it's possible he thought he'd done something wrong, tried to fix it, broke it more, panicked and legged it. -- C h e e s e 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that this has been going on for a good week or so, nearly giving me an eyesore in the process of constantly fixing it over and over and over again. However, I will vouch for Officer Lirette doing so under "good faith". Hopefully this madness will end. --Private Mark 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like newbie problems, as expressed above, so it's not vandalism. --Z. slay3r T 18:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Skypants

Twice vandalised the group page of the Pumpkin_Pedophiles. Noticed it on the recent changes page. Had some earlier edits that could be considered constructive, but nothing recent -- Iscariot 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:12 22 February 2008 (BST)

User:Doctordeath99

Blanking suburb page --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 00:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:12 22 February 2008 (BST)

User:TerminalFailure

Vandalized My page again after was told not to and made a case against him, see below. So far no sysop has acted on it. He claims I was told before to remove it but instead was told the person it was aimed at could remove it. TerminalFailure is not the person, he should fuck off my talk page but hasn't. He will continue to vandalize. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF MOB pr0n} 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Go to hell, you foul hypocrite. "I can't see any bad faith in not wanting someone to be insulted. " "No. You can edit other user headers when such header was created with the clear purpose to offend you and trick you into commiting vandalism. I no longer will warn people for falling in such cases of troll-baiting. " The title was clearly intended to provoke and as such changes are justified. TerminalFailure 19:16 21, Febuary 2008 (EST)

Then again, that was Haggie that said that. It's not a definite rule for all Sysops to follow, so it's up to others to decide. Let it alone for now, I'm telling you to help you. Wait for another Sysop to rule in, and see. Until then, please don't change it. That way if it is considered vandalism, the ruling won't be nearly as bad.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen to SA. If you keep changing his talk page then he just builds up more and more evidence against you. Keep a cool head and wait for the Sysops to weigh in. -- C h e e s e 00:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Saromu can make whatever header he wants on his talk page. If you do not agree with, talk with the user and if that fails, take it to A/A, which both you and Saromu has not done. If you continuously revert Saromus edits it will be vandalism, as it is his page and not yours (with the exception of impersonation, Saromu can do pretty much whatever he wants on his talk pages, sub pages and main user page). -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Talk with the user, go to A/A over it, create a voodoo doll for him... but if you change that header again it will be vandalism. If anyone has a right to change that header, is saromu and the user he is insulting, and no one else. As that might be not understood from my previous statement, i am explaining it now. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tomer

Impersonation. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Airheadoh

Posting NPOV crap on the Joachim wiki

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ADangerReport%2FJoachim_Mall&diff=1030094&oldid=1028009

And doing it again even after I tried making it more NPOV and consistent with reality.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ADangerReport%2FJoachim_Mall&diff=1032603&oldid=1030100

After I corrected his horribly biased description on the mall He reverts it and mentiones me directly on the description of the mall instead of keeping it to the talk page. Trenchie Idiots like these don't belong on the wiki. Jeez, apparently this moron thinks that a horde of nearly 300 moving away from a ransacked mall to another mall classifies as a defeat on the zombie groups behalf. The man 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not - It'd be better if you talked with the user before taking him to A/VB. He might not know about NPOV rules. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, i can't be bothered with this, I'm not as active around here as I used to be so I say let the FUers deal with this matter. Its back to Audiosurf for me. Cheers. The man 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Happykook

Wiped a location page, and after linking all neighboring buildings to his own private location page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:28 20 February 2008 (BST)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

BillOhara

Removed the suburb map from Spicer Hills: [1]. Only edit so far. -- C h e e s e 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned - although it could just be a newbie mistake, it's a worry that it's his only edit to the wiki -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:14 20 February 2008 (BST)

Novascotia

As a matter of fact, Novascotia's IP comes back as being used by, apart from the vandal alt I banned the other day, Zinker and Rrnman as well. Given the amazing similarity in their n00bishness, it seems quite likely that they are one in the same, using multiple accounts to maximise the annoyance, like the case below -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:27 19 February 2008 (BST)

So, I'd like some other sysop input. Karek seems to have confirmed it, but it's been moved to the talk page. I suggest that their vandal data be combined, and they be linked on A/VD -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:08 20 February 2008 (BST)

There is enough evidence all around the wiki in my opinion. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, all vandal data now points to Zinker -- boxy ^{talk • i} 20:42 21 February 2008 (BST)

Zinker

Spamming many users pages with this template. I couldn't assume it as good faith so I brought it here for other people too overview it.--Novascotia 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't seem him doing it in his contribs, links please.--Karek^maps?! 05:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you deliberately trying to be annoying, Novascotia? He put that template on your page, and you even congratulated him on it and told him to give it to many make it known. As to this warning you gave some poor guy, why don't you pull your head in. People don't get read the riot act for not previewing when they're new, it's good wiki-etiquette to not make heaps of minor edits to the one page, but it's understandable. Pull your head in or you're going to be the one brought here -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:19 19 February 2008 (BST)

Ioncannon11

Trying, and failing miserably, to redirect a Test page to Meatspin.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure how failing to make a redirect is vandalism. Or am I missing something? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Meatspin is where a link on a page on the internet takes you to, well, quite a disturbing pornographic page..... If you haven't encountered it from idiots emailing you the link, well then you're lucky.--Seventythree^Talk 23:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved chatter to talk. Do not engage in such banter here again, or there will be consequences. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now i have time to rule on this. When considering a case like this, what is most important is intent. The fact that there is contention between the dickwaving "hardcore toughguys" and the whining "oversensitive weaklings" is completely irrelevant (See talk page for such contention). In this case we have to ask ourselves: Was this an edit made in good faith to improve the wiki? In this case i am sad to say, after weighing the evidence, that it was not. It was instead an attempt to mine a page of this wiki to trap users and send them to a shock site, clearly a bad faith edit. That has been its use elsewhere, and that was the intent of posting it here. As such, it falls under the definition of vandalism in UDwiki:Vandalism and as a result i am issuing this user his second warning. For those who like bolded words to denote the result of cases: Warned. The page will be submitted to A/SD shortly. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

TerminalFailure

Vandalism that went unnoticed until now. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF MOB pr0n} 07:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He wording was Fixing some garbage you wrote just to insult the user. Come on, do you have nothing to do other than piss people off? which seems acceptable. Have you told him not to change the title, and has he changed it more than one time? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time someone changed it and was considered not vandalism the first time because it was used as an attack on that person. But TerminalFailure decided then to change it back. TF should be charged with vandalism for changing it after I reverted the first time. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF MOB pr0n} 23:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Someone" meaning not Terminal? This might be better for A/A, I can't see any bad faith in not wanting someone to be insulted. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Saromu, you give hypocrites a bad name. You didn't even bring it up before this, and I believe you have been told to change it before. Indeed, I might be justified in bringing you to Vandal Banning for changing it back. The evidence, a page or two below from Velo2's case: "No. You can edit other user headers when such header was created with the clear purpose to offend you and trick you into commiting vandalism. I no longer will warn people for falling in such cases of troll-baiting. " Saromu, if you're going to be an idiot, at least remove the evidence! TerminalFailure 16:06 21, Febuary 2008 (EST)

Rydenjesse

Newbie mistake? Template:Wiki News was floating around recent changes. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It probably was a newbie messup. I'd say just send him a note, explaining everything. I'd say that, but seeing as how that'd be "backseat sysoping" I'm just gonna sit here and be quiet, and not give my opinion. No siree. Definitely not giving my opinion. :D -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Usually 73 goes around people's talk pages doing that kind of stuff, but he isn't around. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Which means you should then.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure... I'll drop this. And by you meaning that I should, I shan't.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 05:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lazy bum.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, what's stopping you? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 05:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Do I look like the kind of person who helps every single newb he comes across?
Do I look like the person who feels like helping out some fool, especially when I'm tired as fuck?
You're the one with the neat help page. You do it.

-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Robots (and mudkipz) are threatening our children (and us). We wouldn't survive if I spent more than a second doing that 73 thing. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 05:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Goddmanit 73, where are you when we need you? -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm here. 'Sup? Oh, I see. I'll go point the newbie the right way.--Seventythree^Talk 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

'Bout damn time. Had to wait almost 18 hours! :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry. Been drinkin' Someone should go over to the guy's talkpage and check the spelling. Not my strong suit at the best of times!--Seventythree^Talk 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay, laziness. Want me to spell-check it? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Would ya? :) (the links work...)--Seventythree^Talk 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Stealth Assassin

Group page vandalism --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 23:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Xynbc

edit to DangerMap-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

edit to template:special danger

Another one--Seventythree^Talk 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser indicates a vandal alt. Permbanned and the main warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:41 16 February 2008 (BST)

Avatar Aang

This edit to another user's page. --Z. slay3r • Talk 18:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bar27262

More straight fwd then the Karek case, check.. I think theres more i'm about to check that out now.--J3D 08:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned. --Z. slay3r • Talk 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Karek

For incorrectly removing a suggestion from voting as a "Multi" when it was clearly a "Revision", under Rule 9.

Sequence of events:

Hhal made the suggestion Number Groups, which, as you can see, I removed (using the {{Edited}} template), because it was edited during voting, after votes had been cast. In doing so, I was following these rules on removing an edited suggestion. (There is dispensation for leaving alone suggestions with Notes, but his edits were headed as edits, and many voters don't return to reconsider, so I followed clear precedent in a good faith attempt to allow the suggestion the proper consideration by all voters.)
Hhal correctly resubmitted the suggestion as Number Groups v2. As this is different from the original, prior to the commencement of voting on the original, and called "v2", it is clearly a revison, which is allowed under Rule 9.
Karek then removed Number Groups v2 as a "multi", as can be seen from the template.
Because it was, by this time, after midnight, and, as stated clearly in Rule 9, one suggestion is allowed per calendar day (as opposed to 24 hours from the last) Hhal resubmitted the suggestion as Number Groups v2.1.
Karek used his vote to call Hhal a "whining cunt".

This was bad faith because:

The rules are not clear on what to do with a suggestion that has been pulled due to alteration during the initial vote, but the spirit of the rules are clear: one suggestion, per author, per day, with one revision allowed. Karek went against the obvious spirit of the rules, as given here in Rule 9.
It was clear that the suggestion would have to be resubmitted (a third time), thus wasting the time of all the voters involved (as they were, by now, voting on approximately the same suggestion for the third time in a single 24-hour period), and also generating antagonism towards the author.
Karek's attitude towards the author, and his actions, are those of someone desiring to do harm, and not good, for this wiki.

--Funt Solo ^QT 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did call Hhal a whining cunt, after all the grap from you and him on the talk page of Number Groups v2.1 and his vote on the suggestion, I even linked it so people could see why I did that. That doesn't make what I did vandalism, it might make my vote strikeable by a sysop but that's all. My "attitude" towards the author came after the fact as anyone, but you, can see. The only reason this is bad faith is because you want it to be.--Karek^maps?! 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It should probably also be mentioned that the Multi rule exists exactly for what it was used for, both in spirit and writing.--Karek^maps?! 17:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that a joke? The multi rule is to stop multiple suggestions from the same author on the same day. It clearly allows for a single revision to be made. Read Rule 9. It's plain as day what the intent of the rule is. --Funt Solo ^QT

18:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the intent is to prevent users repeatedly resuggesting things that were removed by the suggestions removal rules in the same day to the purpose of preventing spamming of the system. I.e. Not allow people to resubmit things removed for any reason other than submission. It make that quite clear.--Karek^maps?! 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The rule explicitly allows for a single revision. It does not explicitly state that an edit-removal may not be resubmitted. And common sense dictates that an edit-removal invites a revised suggestion. --Funt Solo ^QT

18:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, this one is a toughie. On one hand, in the manor in which the first suggestion was removed, the second can be considered a multi as rule 9 states "This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision." It was removed by someone other than the author, so Karek was right in removing the second. The thing is, the second suggestion that Hhal submitted, was done like a revision, which from what I can tell, is an improved version of the first. I can't quite see any bad faith on Karek's part, it seems like he got annoyed after the incident.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then, I ask you: what was the positive, good faith reason for removing it? What benefit was there to that action? I can see the negative outcome (forcing multiple contributers to re-cast their votes), but I can't see any positive outcome. Also, Karek was not annoyed only after the incident: read his vote prior to his removal of the suggestion, where he says "Don't resuggest things multiple times simply to get rid of all the votes against." There, he's bringing Hhals character and motives into question without bothering to check the facts first, or to give him the benefit of the doubt. --Funt Solo ^QT

18:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My vote is worded like that because the only legitimate reason for his old suggestion to have been removed was by him removing it. You incorrectly removed his suggestion, something I didn't know until well after I voted, as can be seen on the removed suggestions talk page. --Karek^maps?! 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here it is cause I have little doubt you purposely left it out to strengthen your argument of justifying assuming bad faith. Suggestion_talk:20080210_Number_Groups.--Karek^maps?! 18:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made my case - there's little point in having a long, drawn-out argument with you that won't go anywhere. It's up to a sysop to make a ruling. --Funt Solo ^QT

18:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can't reach a decision. Anyone else want to take a stab at this? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism - it's an edit conflict. I don't believe that the second suggestion should have been removed, but that doesn't make it bad faith -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:29 11 February 2008 (BST)

Comrade 47

laffo – Nubis 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

yawn – Nubis 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How creative. Temporarily banned for one day to prevent further edits. – Nubis 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned - and he can keep the day ban to let him calm down a bit, given that he didn't give any indication of stopping -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:24 11 February 2008 (BST)

Nubis

This edit to the main userpage, specifically the categorization. Due to the length of time, I ask at a minimum for the DHPD category to be removed. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He was already warned for that. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye, he was, as when he had changed the page title it was deemed impersonation. I've removed the category tag though.--Karek^maps?! 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's all I desire. Thanks. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Editer

Vandalized the news section of the UD main page. --Aeon17x 03:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha this is we I use a wiki, because I can revert your edits in a single click and ban you from my ipod. Warned -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanemcc

Edited a group page without permission or membership of that group. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Children

Alt again of that guy.--Seventythree^Talk 12:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Permban v3 -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:47 9 February 2008 (BST)

The report

Blatant alt of GROKER. See below. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 12:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Permban -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:20 9 February 2008 (BST)

GROKER

Broke the DangerMap template --> [2]

And also vandalised FAQ --> [3]

-- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 11:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, jerkwad! I was about to put myself on this list, but you screwed that up for me. Oh well. I find that the time for nine is a fine time for twine. --GROKER

You were going to report yourself? O_o Dude wtf? -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 11:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was, before you RUDELY interrupted. Also, put the links first in your templates. It did look broken. Oh, and it's "What the Fuck" Swear like a man. --GROKER

Why would you want to report yourself for Vandalism? You're just going to get banned. Edjit. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 11:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Think I care about getting banned? No, dummy. --GROKER

Then the question stands as to why you joined in the first place, doesn't it? Considering that the vandalism would be reverted anyway. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 11:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You see, I'm bored. That's the long and short of it. I thought that would be obvious to you. --GROKER

Fair enough...but that means that if you want to come back as a useful editor (doubt it, but you never know), you can't. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 11:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, why is there an "m" in "Grimch?" It sounds like a moldy sandwhich.--GROKER

Also also, your FAQ isn't really a FAQ. It's a talk page. That's annoying, so please stop misnaming stuff. --GROKER

Permabanned. Entire purpose of his visit was to vandalise and pick fights with active users (Aka: Troll). More than three edits, several vandalism, and nothing even remotely contributive = out the door. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice timing Grim. :P -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 11:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. --GROKER

Oh look...its a GROKER alt. Banz it!! Banz it goodz!!! -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Woo! Yeah! C'mon! (Oh, and was I picking fights? Didn't mean to.) --GROKER

Methinks you are needing an IP ban. Stop you making more mini GROKERs. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 12:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't feed him please -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:20 9 February 2008 (BST)

Just to clear a few things up: If I ever wanted to contribute anything (although I can't for the life of me imagine what), I'm moving soon, new IP, yadda yadda. Second: I'm guessing Grimch is a mixture of grimace and Grinch. Thirdly: There's a makeup infomercial on right now, and the winds are up to 60 mph out side. Fourthly: Mr. or Mrs. Box is right, you shouldn't feed me. --GROKER

ChupaCalvin

A degrading edit to an upstanding, independent bounty hunter group page. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 03:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Xela798

He's still annoyingly uploading images with huge ass file names for no reason, despite me mentioning it to him a while ago. The thing is, the images aren't even being used. There are no pages linking to them whatsoever. I think we need a Sysop intervention on this one. Here's a few examples: [4], [5]. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 17:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

On top of this he is making pointless group pages, which are a load of rubbish and all say the same thing but with a different title. Sinclair Hotels is the main one but it's now spawned the whole ton of rubbish in here. Sinclair Power and Electricity, The Government of Sinclair, The Sinclair Police Department, The Sinclair Family, The Latell Firm, Sinclair Pharmaceutical, Altash Protection Agency, Sinclair Manufacturing and Westward Financial. Basically, he's taken the contents of the Hotels page and copied it into every single one of them. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 19:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism - just put his pages (except the original) up for deletion, and try to explain why on his talk page (if he even reads it) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:09 8 February 2008 (BST)

Ok. It's done. I've left a note on her(?) talk page if she(?) wants to contest it. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Velo2

Impersonation. Altered my signature which is a no no under impersonation rules. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually i think this is rather non-punishable, as he removed your comment and pasted it back afterwards. He prolly selected your formated text and pasted it back in his talk page. A simple newbie mistake. NOw, clearing your user page, that is something he can be punished for Vandalism, and for that i issue him a warning. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI --Funt Solo ^QT 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing the sections of my talk page. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry sonny, but Not Vandalism. You moved his comments to a silly header, and invited to edit that particular section of your user page. Of course he would get offended and change it. Troll-bait tactics shouldn't earn those who take the bait a warning for trying to defend themselves. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean I can go to another user's talk page and change with their TOL's sections? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No. You can edit other user headers when such header was created with the clear purpose to offend you and trick you into commiting vandalism. I no longer will warn people for falling in such cases of troll-baiting. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the header, depends on if anyone has commented on it, etc. It's a case by case thing.--Karek^maps?! 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Karek

Not so much as vandal report, as an official request for clarification. I was perusing the spamtastic suggestion Rapid Fire Weapons when I saw Terminal Failure's vote was incorrectly formatted. As per the rules box right next to his vote I was about to strike it when Karek fixed it. Would this be imperonation or legal? Is the responsibility of voters to format their vote or can anyone fix errors? Changes in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iscariot (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Yes. All he added was the #. The "whining hypocrite" comment was added in the obscured revision between the diff you showed by terminalfailure himself. The only reason i can think of for using those two as the comparison would be to try and get a sysop to warn karek for impersonation on what was added in the intervening diff. Be much more careful in future, and please do not hide revisions in your diff comparisons when you come here. Here is the true diff comparison, for other sysops who want to check. Not Vandalism --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, sign your posts. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the inaccurate reporting of the changes. It was never my intent to try and represent that Karek had added the "whining hypocrite" comment. I was only adding the original vote by Terminal Failure and subsequent change by Karek. -- Iscariot 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Burgundy

Humorous suggestion -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:16 6 February 2008 (BST)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ioncannon11

This edit, wiping the BB2 page.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Warned -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Lasantadevita

for wiping group pages here here also here and here--'BP^Tmz 06:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be an alt of User:Hardcore Rockabilly. Lasantadevita premabanned and User:Hardcore Rockabilly warned - Vantar 07:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Finis Valorum

He's at his suburb owning thing again. This was posted by a member of Jed's group to inform the residents of possible impersonation. However Finis reverted this citing "non-notable and confusing news. moving to talk page". What then followed was the Dribbling Beaver attempting to replace his news while Finis continued to remove it. S.A. stepped in and reverted it, Finis again reverted it back. At the moment it stands as an edited version posted by Sonny. [6] It can also be argued that this in in breech of part of the arbitration ruling: "neither of you is to contact the other, insult the other, or in any way try and stir up any kind of grief for one month to give each of you time to get over this and grow up a bit." As this is Jed's group, it could be seen as an attempt to rile him up and cause more drama. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like group specific information that should be placed on the Dribbling beavers page, it's not Suburb worthy material. They could put it on the suburb talk page if necessary. As to him trying to stir J3d up by annoying his mates, please. If you wanted this sort of stuff covered by your arby ruling, you should have said so at the time -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:14 3 February 2008 (BST)

What involvement do I have with J3D other than disliking Finis?--MichaelRead 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You were both in the BBKs, a group that ended up being pretty much a "get finis" club by the end. You've been tag teaming him since you got here -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:26 3 February 2008 (BST)

Yeah, we both don't like Finis. But what do read's remarks have to do with this case? --Jed 00:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I do agree that Finis likes to be tag-teamed by guys, I disagree with your statement. If you read our open letter to Finis, we became a "ignore the sod" group. Jed and I live in different states. We have very limited contact, so this link to something I have done, is pretty much irrelevant to the post that Krazy Monkey made. I insulted Finis for my own benefit. Nobody elses.--MichaelRead 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and to contribute something useful, I think that it is valuable information to post a link to a list of imposter's and impersonators. There was no mention of Finis, or anyone. The revert history obviously shows that more than enough people think that it is relevant information.--MichaelRead 00:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an issue for arbies, not here -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:23 3 February 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Cheeseman made a ruling on a dispute between Finis and Jed, not between Finis, Jed, and all Jed's friends and acquaintances. This isn't a violation of the arby ruling, it's a POV edit conflict on a totally different suburb page, with a different person -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:23 3 February 2008 (BST)

I'm not sure how this sort of thing works, but would there be any chance of getting a second opinion on that? --Jed 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel it needs a second opinion because i believe (evidentally as does Cheeseman) that Finis's actions breach "or in any way try and stir up any kind of grief for one month". Clearly deleting posts of a group member of mine in the suburb i am most active in is "stir(ing) up any kind of grief". So, any sysops out there?--Jed 06:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the issue in stand by till things clear up but this has nothing to do with me and J3D whatsoever.--Finis Valorum

Not vandalism Editing disputes are not the same thing as vandalism. This is a dispute happened on a different suburb with different people so it is not a violate of the arbies ruling. A user felt that the content lacked a NPOV and removed it. Then when it was reverted he removed it again and placed it on the talkpage were others could add their opinion and decide to keep it or not. The choice of section headers could have been a little less confrontational but it is still not a case of vandalism so I agree with boxy's ruling. - Vantar 11:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. thanks for your time. I just wanted to hear that from another sysop as boxy was a little too involved in the me vee finis thing.--Jed 06:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Desert AIP

All of this guy's contribs seem to be vandlism against me. I know who it is, as I killed him for being a zerger in the game.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Permabanned as an account only created to vandalize AnimeSucks' userpages, with 7 edits, and all of them vandalism. --Mobius187 23:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

VI

Created 2 suggestions on the same day. This and this. Isn't there a rule or something about only 1 suggestion a day? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I checked. It's rule 9. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but it is bad form. I'll remove it from the active suggestions and leave him a note. --Z. slay3r • Talk 20:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh...In the past, users have gotten warnings for it... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? If you could point out where, I'd like to look them over to possibly reconsider my decision. --Z. slay3r • Talk 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It was shortly after that rule was passed. That was like 2 years ago. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I could probably find it if I knew what the hell happened to all the 2006 reports. Those reports were in there somewhere... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We only started archiving (in any organised way) in 2007 -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:28 1 February 2008 (BST)

I think you'll find that a warning would only have been given if the person putting up multiple suggestions clearly knew that they were breaking the suggestions rules, and that it was annoying people. This guy is new to the suggestions page, give them a break. Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:27 1 February 2008 (BST)

Revision as of 09:10, 8 June 2010 (view source) Aichon (talk \| contribs) m (Protected "UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 02": Re-protected after being vandal deleted [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) ← Older edit	Latest revision as of 02:59, 24 September 2014 (view source) Aichon (talk \| contribs) mNo edit summary
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
(No difference)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 02: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:59, 24 September 2014

Navigation menu

Search