UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 01: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 03:00, 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

Prinny

Editing a group page without being a member of that group. Every edit that has been made has been since the victory over Giddings. Due to the timing, nature and language of the edits, no-one can deny that they are bad faith. I'm asking for nothing short of a perma-ban. -- Iscariot 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombies haven't won at Giddings yet, only ransacked. Don't count your hens before the eggs have hatched. Also, please use the {{vndl}} template in the future.--Karek^maps?! 05:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned - Cant perma. He made some contributive edits to some fo the suburb pages mid january. Ill give him a warning, but i cant do any more. That said, his last 15 edits have been vandalism. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fox

For making edits to three group wikipages, namely the Dulston Alliance's Black List, the Burchell Arms Regular's Deadbeat List, and Genny's Revenge Known Enemies list in order to remove a well-known criminal (Obmi) from them. Normally I would approach a user to point out these kinds of mistakes, but on closer examination I see that these were the only edits made by the user, which indicated to me that this was the sole purpose of said user's account. Also, in an effort to actually avoid mistakes of this nature, the Alliance even goes so far as to clearly state how a user/player may have their character removed from the Black List. A process which was obviously not followed. --Mobius187 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Permabanned as an account only created to vandalise blacklists, 3 edits, all vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 21:46 30 January 2008 (BST)

Kolechovski

If you look here, you'll notice he voted against his own suggestion. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any bad faith in one instance of changing your mind. Not vandalism, for mine -- boxy ^{talk • i} 21:35 30 January 2008 (BST)

I am quite surprised to find out I've been reported as a vandal. As for that suggestion, I didn't change my mind, I simply was against it from the start, which is why I voted "kill" (although I screwed up my edit and it didn't save my author kill the first time). The reason I made the suggestion though, was because many people are constantly suggesting changing infection to something "more powerful" (like the one up there on Suggestions ATM). I thought this would be a significant change that might make it powerful enough to satisfy those who believe it needs strengthened, without overdoing it on power. So, this was made as a chance to one-and-for-all put the whole thing to rest, either with such change being made, or with enough proof from the community that it is okay as it is. I simply voted kill since I believed the current way is fine, but that the suggestion was still worthy of the cummunity's input on whether or not to change it. I'm not sure if this was the place to respond on that (sorry if not). You guys can use that info however you wish. Just so you know I wasn't trying to cause trouble.--Kolechovski 00:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

CrazedDoc

Edited a group page without being a member of that group in a manner in complete opposition to the group's goals. -- Iscariot 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned. It's a newbie mistake, but he's been editing at least one other persons user pages too, so a warning -- boxy ^{talk • i} 21:34 30 January 2008 (BST)

Shieldw0lf

Edited a group page without being a member of that group. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye... Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated offences here and here. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

2nd warning -- boxy ^{talk • i} 21:17 29 January 2008 (BST)

Finis Valorum

eh - here's another one. I'm in the suburb, as far as i'm aware he isn't (well he hasn't actually posted any news he just trawls mine). The post contains lots of useful relevant information as to suburb conditions, yes, i choose to write in layman's language. As this is a ROLE PLAYING GAME, that is my prerogative. I want to restore what i wrote as it is relevant and i don't necessarily want to see Finis punished (would you believe), could you just block him from editing that page, or something?--Jed 07:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is what you really were trying to do: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Saint_Murphy&diff=prev&oldid=986559. And since the shithead won't let me fix that minor thing about "experienced groups", you'll just have to do it yourself.--Finis Valorum 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. My character Jaaam is a member of a rather arrogant group and being of a self indulgent nature considers his own group to be more, err...experienced then other local groups. Anyway i'm not saying anything more 'til someone else comes over here. I'm not here to argue with Finis, i'm here to report vandalism and attempt to restore useful news to the residents of Dakerstown, don't you think they've suffered enough at the hands of the hordes?--Jed 08:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm not up to delete useful information. I've initially tried to avoid that. It's the bias you're trying to keep that I'm having a problem with.--Finis Valorum 08:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for someone else to rule but, Jed, that's POV. Not only is the statement about groups experience levels POV, and insulting to groups of the area, which seems to have been your intent from everything provided here. It's also not something that should be dealt with here. It's a page edit conflict, you can't show bad faith without assuming it. It, probably, should have gone to Arbitration.--Karek^maps?! 08:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism - take it to arbies and get someone else to separate the two of you clowns -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:33 28 January 2008 (BST)

bah, i tried my best.--Jed 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

while an arbitration on this case (if one is ever created) is not ruled, i think it would be better to keep J3d comments in Dakerstown. If the locals are not going to enjoy his comment it's his problem, and finis has nothing to do with it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my view. I'll put them back up (unless you have already). And i don't intend to arbitrate, its a long and drawn our process and i'll save it for a real issue (like Lh778 vs Finis).--Jed 11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

These are not mere comments. They're intended to be news and as such, this piece of shit needs to change just a word or two to eliminate the POV elemnt. It's no that hard.--Finis Valorum 11:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you really care about those one or two words, take it arbies, this case is finished. Any further discussion will be moved to the talk page (or just flat out deleted if it's of no value) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:53 28 January 2008 (BST)

ZOMZ!! Stop spamming the Recent Changes page with your "vandalism reverts" and take it arbitration already. Its not vandalism, its a conflict of opinions. What Boxy said. (Damn Edit Conflict...) -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 11:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

J3D

Replacing part of finis' talk page that he had just removed -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:25 28 January 2008 (BST)

Note that the text in contention was removed within the same minute that i made my post. When i first saw this case i was genuinely confused, however evidently what happened was i saved the page unknowing that i was adding more text. Unless of course your filing a VB case against me on the grounds of fixing a spelling error...--Jed 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So you just unfortunately ignored the warning you would have got about edit conflicts or editing old page revisions, and went ahead and made your changes anyway. With your history on this page, that's a very convenient excuse -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:45 28 January 2008 (BST)

i guess it was a simple edit conflict mistake, therefore not vandalism. And boxy, the wiki software sometimes fail at saying someone have edited the page you are trying to edit --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never come across that problem, Hagnat. Next time, J3D, only edit the section you want to modify (instead of the whole page) and you will avoid problems like this -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:56 28 January 2008 (BST)

Actually Hagnat, it only does that if you don't edit the same lines of text. It's a function to keep from constant edit conflicts every time two users edit the same page. If both edits were to the same header space or one was to the whole page it will cause an edit conflict.--Karek^maps?! 02:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had similar problems where edit conflicts have deleted comments. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So have I, but only when I'd been viewing the page history, and presumably ignored the warning on top of the page in my haste to answer. Perhaps it needs to be made more prominent. The one about large pages being split up is so common that it's easy to ignore other ones (I think) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:06 28 January 2008 (BST)

K, thanks for the understanding Hag.--Jed 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Finis Valorum

Impersonation - the wiki has no NPOV rules set in stone and even if it did thats not sufficient reason to impersonate me. --Jed 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned - it's a continuation of their running battle. Just leave each others posts and pages alone -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:25 28 January 2008 (BST)

I have clearly explained in the summary what i was trying to do, you fucking moron. The idiot admitted he was trying to start a flame with that: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Saint_Murphy&diff=prev&oldid=986559. Given the facts, I have removed that until he rewords it--Finis Valorum 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fat Albert

All edits spam, in the same trend of Mr Krabs and Al Duck. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey hey! My edits are not spam! They're eggs and ham! --Fat Albert 20:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Need I say more -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanently banned. --Z. slay3r • Talk 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb08

so far all his contributions[1] save for one appear to be vandalism[2], and the one that wasn't was a less than tactful response to my asking him not to do it again. --Bullgod 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned.

Swiers 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LegionofFail

All edits vandalism. Blocked indefinitely via the guidelines. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

TerminalFailure

Created Suggestion:Play_Fair, which is vandalism under rule 10 of the suggestions rules. --Karek^maps?! 18:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned - Rules are rules. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thekooks

Thekooks has lots of work to do and thus wants a 30 day ban imposed. I cite Hagnat as a precedent starter. Oh, and if you say that this is not allowed, then it will start up a whole lot of drama over Hagnat being able to do it and not me. --Thekooks 21:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(Is it?) -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the guidelines correctly Guideline 7.3.4 says it is, so banned for 30 days- Vantar 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the guidelines now say you can. </evilmanipulationoftherules> --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He totally didn't do that to avoid his arby case. :P -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nemesis Omega

Repeated vanderlism of Big Bash 2 wiki page. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Nemesis_Omega&action=edit

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Second_Big_Bash&diff=968929&oldid=968785

Edit: Add [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Pitneybank&diff=965946&oldid=965863 Impersonation.

--Thekooks 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned for deleting stuff off the Big Bash 2 page. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hksmaster

[3]

undoing at the moment --~~~~ [talk ] 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned - has at least one constructive edit. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hell has arived

[4]

Adding random badly spelled words to the peer reviewed weapon page. Can't spell arrived.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

id just rolled it back. Since everyone has been such a pain in the arse about it recently, im sticking to the first notice up there and assuming he is just a newbie who didnt know better. Since ive already left a message on his talk page regarding it, i guess thats the end of that. Er, Not vandalism, he is definately guilty of N00b though. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I like the comment about talk:suggestions. Which ironically is where I posted a message on MY first day, only to see me in vandal banning.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yzzif

Blanked Hagnat's user page His only other edits were blanking LUE's page.--Karek^maps?! 15:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Permabanned as active vandal, permabanned as all edits vandalism. So Permabanned². --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

i was asking myself why meeeeee ?, then i noticed his talk page. Weee,.. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nalikill

Vanderlising the NPOV page. I think it was because he thought it would help with his vandal case Donathin. I ask that AHLG does not rule on this case as he is somewhat involved.--Thekooks 17:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize it. I simply removed what you put on there, once, and if you'd put it back on there, I would've left it be. It's been upheld in vandal banning cases, and in Arbitration cases, if I remember correctly, and you were and are free to put it back on there. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I try to tread lightly; I'll make an edit once; but if that edit is reverted, I'll leave it like that until I can get a sysop or another user to confirm for me that it's not vandalism to make the edit I made. Again, as in all the other cases on this page, I did not do this with ill intentions; if it was wrong to remove a change to an article that has been the same since it was created in July 2007, then I apologize. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 18:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sorry if I don't sound quite as humbled, or pentient as I did on the previous cases; I'm just as humbled and pentient, but it gets annoying having frivolous case after frivolous case brought against you. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating it must be, but if I see what I think is vanderlism on the wiki I report it. It doesn't matter who it is doing it.--Thekooks 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This may seem frivolous to you, Nalikill, but you clearly choose to make the edit, and that was not a frivolous choice, or at least should not have been. Can you give a good-faith reason for that edit? I'm not saying edit disputes are all vandalism, but they usually have a solid reason, and I'd like to know what it is in this case. Swiers 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What the kooks added was misleading. POV is a long standing part of the wiki style guide, just because we can't all agree on what it means for every page, does not make it not part of policy -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:24 20 January 2008 (BST)

Actually the only real dispute was what it meant on suburb pages as far as a few specific things, I think we had a pretty decent definition of NPOV aside from that.--Karek^maps?! 09:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of things Nali has taken a self-imposed break from the wiki for a month. I don't think he's going to be available to awnser any questions.--Seventythree^Talk 09:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to rule? Otherwise I will (despite what has been said here and elsewhere). -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my request for you not to rule.--Thekooks 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Logoff is still in effect; I'm coming on here one last time to answer the results of my last few edits. And Swiers, the good faith reason I had for removing his edit there was because, as Boxy and Karek, I believed it was a part of policy- by communal general assent, as well as some VB cases on here with The Surgeon General, which basically said it was OK for him to move POV comments, after someone tried to get him on it, even if NPOV had never officially gone to voting. I simply didn't think it was proper for TheKooks to make an edit to an administration page that changed the essence of a page that, as I'd said earlier, lay unchanged since it was created. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 21:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism - edit conflicts generally go to arbies -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:52 21 January 2008 (BST)

aye! we dont punish users for being bold... and nalikill contacted Thekooks about his edit... even though he didnt said WHICH edit, but he could have questioned nali about it. In the future, it would be better if people talked before reporting others as vandals. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mrsmith

All edits sourced as vandalism, therefore banned via the guidelines. --Z. slay3r • Talk 01:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Xela798

Uploaded this and has made about an edit every minute to this page for the past two hours, kind of spamming up the Changes page. Fair enough he seems new but I think this is a bit excessive. What do you reckon? -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism - just have a word with him about {{preview}}ing his posts. The image, well if you want to help out, you could reupload it for him with a more suitable name, and put it up for speedydeletion -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:03 18 January 2008 (BST)

Ok. :) Will do. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 12:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RobMax87

Repeated vandalism. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanently banned. --Z. slay3r • Talk 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Donathin

Repeatedly replacing POV news post despite being told otherwise. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This time, going against a sysop. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy stating that news articles must be NPOV? --Ryiis 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty selective; that entire news section is loaded with pro-survivor requests and taunts. Why is this one persons post(s) targeted as NPOV, and not any others? Swiers 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any POV in there; if you point me to it, I'll move those as well. I try to be equitable in my moving. That's the same thing I said to Donathin, and he didn't listen. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire page is a deplorable piece of junk. Donathin is right in that his comment is much less of a POV issue than others, but should still be removed. Nali, if you want to remove (delete) all POV comments and archive anything before 2008, that'd be great. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove this, but I'm just pointing out that you are wrong AHLG. It shouldn't be removed, there is no agreeable defenition of NPOV and so therefore there can't be a defenition of POV, therefore you can not call a comment POV or NPOV, these terms do not exsist on this wiki. If Nali removes the comments any revertion by a wiki citizen could be viewed as a constructive edit to this community. The proper place for this is Arbritration not V/B. Oh, and for the record you can't give this order, " Nali, if you want to remove (delete) all POV comments and archive anything before 2008," you're a janitor, nothing more. You can only rule Not Vanderlism or Vanderlism. --Thekooks 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is defined on this wiki as being the same as the Wikipedia definition refer to the article itself and the talk page Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Nali answered it there. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Have you bothered reading the wikipedia article? I have, and what you removed falls under NPOV according to the article.--Thekooks 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have, and "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." "When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." no, it don't. The bias screamed out loud to me, even in his last one. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All ~~Wikipedia~~ Urban Dead articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. It's all about the user reporting it.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That page is not a policy page, nobody voted to say "use that page as a definition for NPOV on this wiki thus it can not be used in administration pages. It has as much weight as a page I could make entitled, "Nalkil must be banned forever".--Thekooks 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not subject to A/VB, although it has been a long accepted editing standard which means that it's not meant to be kept on the page either. The proper place to dispute this is on Arbitration as it is an Edit Conflict and unless the content in dispute is bad faith it should never come here. NPOV is a policy of the wiki, just like the UDWiki:Location Style Guide is a policy of the wiki, just like every other Style Guide is a policy of the wiki, but not following them isn't vandalism, and neither is ignorance bad faith. Take it to Arbitration.--Karek^maps?! 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, fyi, SysOps have no more say in the matter than any other user Nali.--Karek^maps?! 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism - wot karek said -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:04 18 January 2008 (BST)

Shadowkain666

AHLG perma'd this guy for much repeated vandalism Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nali, if you're going to report for sysops, get it right -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:02 17 January 2008 (BST)

hagnat

Moved all relevant discussion and all dissent regarding his verdict on the Nalikill case to talk, in order to conceal such from other passing sysops. This is, quite frankly, disgusting. Sure, parts should have been moved to talk, but not everything. Such an action is clearly a deliberate attempt to conceal the dissent of others involved in the case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WHO can ignore drama such as this ? There is a whole block of edits in here noted in Recent Changes. And i believe any sysop reading this page will check the talk page for a discussion on a case against Nalikill... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes is typically only 50 edits long. Any sysop who comes along after, say, two hours have past, will not see such revisions in recent changes, nor in their watch list, which only shows the most recent edit to each page. you removed everything, including the dissent (Which should not ever be removed). The only logical reason is because you didnt like it and wanted it on a less trafficed page where it wouldnt interfere with or undermine your ruling. I do believe Legend X got one of his warns/bans for similiar conduct on the BME talk page. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism - He left a clear indication that discussion had been moved to the talk page, something that flags to sysops that some discussion went on, while I would suggest him putting a bit more effort in, to leave at least a post or two to give an indication of opposition opinion (grims opening post, even though it wasn't ruling) beyond the opening report which already outlined the case against. You, grim, have also moved people's comments, even when totally relevant to the case, so no, not vandalism, cleaning up the page, it's just annoying when it happens to you -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:17 16 January 2008 (BST)

Thank you Boxy. I have cleaned the case again, leaving some re: in this page. Cyberbob re: to swiers was not kept because it's too long. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nalikill

Edited a broken link he'd posted not once, not twice but thrice - all after I had commented specifically on its brokenness. Seems like impersonation to me. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I hadn't known that would be impersonation. I'll put it back. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mitigate it in any way, shape or form unless the reversion is performed before a report is filed. Also - you've been around here a little too long for the "I didn't know it was vandalism :'(" argument to carry any weight. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion moved to talk page

Not Cyber, you said "nice link". If you'd meant to comment on it being broken, you should have been clear, rather than hiding your meaning in irony. Really, what's next, somebody fixes their spelling after you call them a genius, and you claim THAT is vandalism?
Besides, this is looks like continuation of argument by proxy, and supporting such things on this page sets very poor precedent. Swiers 05:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion moved to talk page

Not Vandalism - Since when one fixing a link on one own comments is considered vandalism ? And please do not carry lenghty discussions in the main page... we have a talk page for a reason. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When it changes the meaning of the comment that succeeds it. I had commented on the brokenness of the link; when it was fixed it made my comment a little out of place. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who read your comments and has half a brain will understand that nalikill link was broken when it was initially posted, and then fixed afterwards. Anyway, now that the link was fixed, you could easily remove any comments about how it was broken, or move it to nalikill talk page, where it should have been discussed in the first place. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I question the capability of a person to render a judgement on a case when they have stated in an open channel "<hagnat> well, fuck the rules" when they have disagreed with his opinions, and then acted on them, as your vast misconduct archive shows. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And i question the capability of one to question capabilities of another when this one doesnt even bring said argument into context. I did said fuck the rules, but only to note that these rules should not be enforced all the time, or we would end in a bureaucratic mayhem like this wiki was in the past. Rules should exist only to protect and make our lives easier, not to be enforced in all occasions and by the letter. The first leads to a healthy community, while the other leads to a wiki-lawyering community, which i believe no one here wants. And carry this discussion in the talk page, please --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rules must be enforced equally across everyone, or else we have tyranny. There is a (fairly large) line between fairness and the wiki lawyering extreme you describe hagnat. Your stance of opposing the rules where they do not suit you has come back to bite you five times already, and i question your suitability as a sysop as a result. Selective application of the rules is tyranny. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion moved to talk page

Enigma7

Edited the Feral Undead group page without permission to include a fictitious and frankly annoying "news" report. Change shown here: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Feral_Undead&diff=981400&oldid=974170 I reverted it myself, but looking at his contributions i can see that he has been making comments of a similar nature to other groups as well, if something could be done about him it would be appreciated. Thank you for your time.--Bullgod 14:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

TerminalFailure

Changed orders on The Second Big Bash wiki without permission. As someone who is fighting on the other side this is dirty, underhanded, and completely uncalled for. Change shown here: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Second_Big_Bash&diff=975752&oldid=975224 I already reverted back but it was up for several days. It was in extreme bad faith and shows terrible form. I really can't describe how angry this makes me. This guy deserves a temp ban at the very least in my opinion.--DonTickles 18:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He's just done it again. Time for the arsehole to go bye-bye, surely?--The Hierophant 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you guys talked to him about the issue? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted communication though the BB2 forum and have just posted to his talk page. It is obviously bad faith editing though and I don't expect him to respond.--DonTickles 19:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don posted orders for the Bash and the guy has changed them twice in order to undermine the efforts of the Bash. What exactly is there to discuss? It's pretty much a text-book definition of bad faith editing. --The Hierophant 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism- there's pretty much no way you could do that accidentally or in an attempt at good faith editing. It seems pure meta-game driven vandalism. Even if its not, the page in question is obviously a group page, with aplicable policies. Swiers 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to warn him? Otherwise I'll do it if you're busy. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned - 'carn guys, do the biz when you rule on obvious cases like this -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:08 15 January 2008 (BST)

Nalikill

Theft of a template i designed for personal use in my userspace specifically to strip from it my signature so that he could use it to annoy me on the talk:suggestions page (Clearly made in bad faith alone given just the action, doubly so given the existing context at the time, which can be seen from the diff comparison where i had expressed my displeasure over other people using it, and added my signature to it specifically to avoid this happening). Since said template is still written from my point of view, and had my signature on it, he is effectively signing my comments with his signature after erasing my own. Which should fall under impersonation.

Example of such use: here
Page creation: link --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't words free to use by anyone just like images are? Anyway, here is the link for relevance.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. He merely copied your text because he found it to be useful. And it's not impersonation because he is not pretending to be you. Have him done this in bad faith ? Perhaps, but he didn't broke any rules of the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Last i checked, vandalism was defined as an edit not made in good faith to improve the wiki. Oh well, ill just have that stupid thing speedied under crit 1 as a duplicate. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh lookie, now he has stuck his signature on it directly: User:Nalikill/Gun_Vote. Pretending to be me, what with taking everything i have said and previously signed, removing my signature, and posting his on the end. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I happened to agree with the words, I created a subpage, and stuck my sig on the end for when I put it to my own use. And I haven't pretended to be you- show me where I stuck your signature on something you didn't say, and I'll agree its impersonation. It doesn't work the other way around. Because otherwise, I'm not impersonating you, I'm being myself by saying what I believe. And tell me how this is different than what Hagnat ruled? And just to make it clear, and try to make it more palatable, I've given credit to you. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 04:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You signed my comments as your own, after removing my signature. Do you have any idea what would happen if this were legal? I could waltz into a page and replace everyones signatures with my own. Allowing you to get off for this allows anyone to get off for this. Make your own damned reason, with your won damned words instead of pinching mine, in which i refer to personal experience. You did this specifically for the purpose of provoking a confrontation Nalikill, and now you have one. Oh, and i believe a direct quote from hagnat a few hours ago on IRC when we had this argument was "[12:31] <hagnat> well, fuck the rules" --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you removed their comments to add your signature, you're right. If you copy it and change the signature, then that's not illegal, as that happens all the time on the wiki. Check the Danger Report pages once in a while. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 04:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And the definition of impersonation, just to reiterate: "Impersonating another user. It is possible to make a comment on the wiki that does not look like it is from yourself, but instead is from another user." which I did not do. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Note:I have since changed said user subpage template, after re-analyzing the rules, and concluding that, #1, it isn't worth the drama to keep the template unaltered, and #2, it's probably more appropriate and more polite if I rewrite it. I have also since changed my vote on the deletions page, and have done my best to resolve any potential complaints of Grim's. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 05:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism. Nalikill was being a bit of an asshole for ripping off Grim's template, but it does not fall under vandalism. Not impersonation, merely a bad-faith edit. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Um. Vandalism is defined as an edit made in bad faith. So you basically are saying he was vandalising. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved to talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:26 14 January 2008 (BST)

Not Vanadalism Doesn't look like a bad faith edit to me; it contributed useful info to the conversation. Yes, he borrowed your words; until I saw this hissy fit, I assumed it was a case of "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". The sole basis of the complaint here seems based either on some obscure technical detail (wiki-lawering) or a claim of plagerism of a short explanatory text (which, if supported, would sets a very dangerous precedent for any wiki). Swiers 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Xela798

Again with another edit to [Channel 9] wiki.

Warned, and sign your posts. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn and I wanted to do this one right...I usually do I guess I must have been nervous.--Kristi of the Dead 13:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

MisterGame

Constantly changes suburb danger levels without giving any evidence as to why it should be changed. He been asked to stop by numerous people and was warned by Grim s who told me to reference this case when reporting him here. A recent example of this can be found at link (Sorry, I have no idea how to condense that as this is the first time I have reported someone) but if you look at the history of his contributions you can see he has done it over and over again.--Srg Shawn 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick questions. Is he reverting any suburb updates continuously and has he responded to any comments on his talk page or elsewhere? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of his work on the Pitneybank page. I'll not rule on this, given that I'm involved in moving some of the more NPOV stuff off that page, to the talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:11 13 January 2008 (BST)

He usually waits a few weeks before he changes what has been reverted by other posters. Any time someone leaves a message on his talk page about him changing the levels, he deletes it. I personally have left a message requesting that he stop changing the danger levels only to find that he deleted my message without any comment the next day. If you go to his talk page history and check you will find that he has been asked many times to stop and he has never responded other than to delete the messages.--Srg Shawn 03:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as he has been spamming misinformation around the wiki (just take a look at this contributions), has been told at least twice to stop and has not responded to those messages, I've warned him. And apparently he's reverting reverts, which I can confirm. On top of that, he's been doing stuff to group pages. Hopefully something more official will get him to stop. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Second warning. Has not aquired 250 edits. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Xela798

Putting up some horribly spelt stuff from his pages on the Channel 4 News Team Front Page. Definately not classy. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And seems to be posting a lot of stuff on sites created/used by User:Tomer. Same person? Spelling seems similar.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I came here to report User:Xela798 they have made a bad faith edit to the MPD front page as well.--Kristi of the Dead 03:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ugh.... HISTORY DIFFS people. Please. Dont make us have to dig through everything ourselves. Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry grim. Its my first time. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thewikiwatchers

Pagewiper -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:34 10 January 2008 (BST)

I warned this obvious one myself, but not the one below -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:36 10 January 2008 (BST)

User:Christo367 - Christo367 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
User:Thewikiwatchers - Thewikiwatchers (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
User:CrazedlDock - CrazedlDock (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
User:Reptilian - Reptilian (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Checkuser reveals a series of vandal alts (listed above)... all permbanned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:32 10 January 2008 (BST)

Gengen

For editing the Zombie Squad and DHPD category... somehow I doubt he's a member -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:46 10 January 2008 (BST)

Warned. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lezick

Created User:Omega9 with a rather nasty message thrown in for good measure (no diff link possible; this is the best I could do). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned. --Z. slay3r • Talk 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrista

Not sure how to link, hes spamming the emo killers page, both edits are spam.--Jakezing 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Here. Only 2 contribs, both reverted. Warned. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Surprised i beat you to it. You sure a warning is good enough?--Jakezing 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just put in a 3rd vandalism. Banned forever. (Also, you beat me only slightly). -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Urkileader

This. Leaving insulting messages on another user's main page. I'm going to get in contact with him to see whether it was "allowed" or not by the other user.--Seventythree^Talk 15:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Permabanned per A/G. At least one edit vandalism, no constructive edits. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

More than a little harsh, I think, for minor, noobish vandalism. BP's objections were moved to the talk page by Grim earlier, it is being discussed there -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:02 9 January 2008 (BST)

This was because I attacked him after he attacked me. Don't understand why he did it, since it was simply revenge - Johnny Fudge —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christo387 (talk • contribs) 18:16, January 9, 2008.

Ioncannon11

Asshole vandal. Links coming shortly. Tries to masquerade as a n00b. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks more like a newb than a vandal. How about you point him to Project Mentor and see what happens? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever seen anyone spell that badly? Or accidentally put the sughead template on a page? Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Linkies. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but if you compare, you'll see he pretty much removed all his previous edits. And those wording fixes was the author, who hasn't appeared to have a problem with Ioncannon11's edits.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at his and my talkpages, we have been talking and he has admitted he has been making mistakes and needs help. Looks like someone who is just new to the entire thing, please don't ban him just yet!--Seventythree^Talk 00:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Newbie mistakes, and he has asked for help various times. The impersonation appears to be an accident. Almost all newbies have problems with signing.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the paranoia. My Wierd Shit-O-Meter was registering a 5 or 6, about the same level as meeting Zombie Elvis. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Syshiran

Realy not sure to make of this one. Thought it was just an adbot as per these two edits Here and here, but then I found that he had created an article on chinese antique furniture. I think it's some sort of bot maybe? Only 3 edits. I messaged them, but have yet to receive a reply.--Seventythree^Talk 09:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Permad as an adbot. Please nominate the articles for speedy under crit 2 and i can deal with them quickly. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Have just done that. I was pretty sure it was an adbot. The article on chineses antique furniture threw me though!--Seventythree^Talk 09:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Slicer

For these edits, he has a history with the NPOV rule which can be seen through a quick stroll to his user contributions if the edits themselves are not enough to rule this vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 07:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Altering a neutral page for which content has yet to be placed in such a clearly derogatory manner is obviously unneccesary and bad faith. Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

J3D

For this edit.--'BP^Tmz 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically what about thisedit?--Jed 07:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki--'BP^Tmz 07:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Banned for 24 hours - ~~The contribution was ok~~ Rereading it, it wasnt either. Such pages are not the places to be making such slurs against other groups and users, especially such crude and revolting ones. The alteration of the link for "dutch" to "retard" was also over the line. Clearly a bad faith racial slur, as well as vandalism of existing page content. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Updated due to edit conflict)

so does the entire edit get undone or just the "dutch/retard" link?--'BP^Tmz 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)EDIT: never mind,you beat me too it.--'BP^Tmz 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

St. Ethelbert Crabapple

The Pearl Arms - Note the location block. The surrounding locations are similarly changed. Its been there for the best part of the year, not sure if someone's brought it up already but definitely needs to be looked into.--Jed 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Way too old to deal with now. No point. Ill just fix it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MasticatorDeelux

Just some random content clearing. Here, here and here. Vandal has no affiliation and there isn't any permissions to randomly remove content on his talk page. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Permabanned - All edits clearing stuff. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack Neon

Wiping comments on other people's talk page. I know they were being meeeeaaan, but still -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:43 2 January 2008 (BST)

Warned. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockem

Remember that hell this little troll caused us with justifying votes? Well, after Grim struck his unjustified vote, he de-struckatated it. I know I'm not supposed to ask for punishment, but I think he deserves some sort of escalation for being such a hypocritical dick. I know that this page may or may not be the right place for this, but I also have strong reason to believe that this is about the only way to get through to the asshat.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuck you if people are allowed to make votes like WTF Centaurs I can make one with a frowning emote. P.s. GO FUCK YOURSELF Omega 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You really think that helps your case?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My attitude is irrelevent. Either way I don't want you ruling on this case. You're clearly biased. Omega 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It shows intention either towards good or bad faith. Your responses lend to the conclusion that your actions may have been bad faith. Throwing wild accusations around won't help you, either.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit if a little cussing automatically proved bad faith than Grim would be banned. kkthxbai GTFO. Omega 22:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning "If so-and-so is allowed to do such-and-such then I should be allowed to do this!" really doesn't cut the mustard and only shows as further evidence, to me, that your intentions are likely to be bad faith. It's not a deciding factor in itself, but it certainly contributes in borderline cases.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted it twice more after it was first re-struck by Suicidalangel and then by Blood Panther. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Warned and therefore banned for 48hrs - the author asked for your justification, and the only reply is this. Given that at the time you were the only kill or spam voter, justify yourself. Some suggestions are obvious spam... but this one wasn't, some explanation is required -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:52 2 January 2008 (BST)

Harvey Levin

GDI, Phoenix Division Had sections of its member list deleted by User:Harvey Levin without Authorization. Requesting 2 week temporary ban. thank for your time and sorry about any formatting errors been months since I've edited anything here. --ORCACommander ^{GDI-P UDA | CNC Modder} 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Next time, could you post a link to the difference comparison rather than merely the page and the user? Also, 2 weeks is a rather steep reaction to a first time offense. Still, Warned.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright I'll keep that in mind for next time thanks again--

ORCACommander ^{GDI-P UDA | CNC Modder} 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Savant 231 A

Posted a link to a rather malicious site on my talk page. WARNING: Highly NSFW and will require a Ctrl-Alt-Del exit from your browser. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would call this as a defense on your actions against me.-- Savant Chit-Chat 18:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

lawl --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Provocation or not, it does not excuse your reaction. In my opinion, this constitutes vandalism but I will wait for a second opinion.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept the punishment for the vandalism, but I think that Cyberbob shouldn't post that in the first place.-- Savant Chit-Chat 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am neither condoning nor condemning Cyberbob's actions, I am merely stating that it is not acceptable to post malicious links on this wiki.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Too right it's vandalism, a malicious link that hijacks browsers. In fact I believe it warrants a double warning. This shit just isn't on -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:39 2 January 2008 (BST)

Well, we cant double warn. So Warned --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Axe27

The following two edits where he blanked two redirect pages with what seems to be the purpose of putting them up for Speedy Deletion under multiple Crits. He's been around long enough that he should know better than that by now.--Karek^maps?! 01:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was a mess up on my part. I assumed that the redirects were broken and in fact lead to deleted pages. So, my bad. Karek has already reverted the mess-up. --User:Axe27/Sig 02:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You should know better than to wipe the content from pages, Axe. Just place the speedydelete template while leaving the page intact so that the ruling sysops can easily evaluate if it meets the speedydelete criteria, and others can pick up things like this, where the broken redirect was created by a simple page move. I'll rule not vandalism this time, but if I see you wiping pages to put delete templates on them in the future, I'll be bringing you back here myself -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:19 1 January 2008 (BST)

That would be misconduct as it's assuming Bad Faith boxy, something I, Ironically, did by reporting this at all.--Karek^maps?! 08:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Filing a report is not an administrative action. Taking action on it would be. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant whoever takes the action based on it.--Karek^maps?! 08:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What? He's wiping pages, making it harder for others to evaluate their content, and giving a false impression of what the page contains. Like it says at the top of A/D, "Please make sure that the original content remains on the page, so that others can judge whether the page is worthy of deletion.". The pages never qualified for crit 1 until he wiped them. If he continues to do so, knowing that it's not the right way to go about things, why shouldn't he be reported here, for a third party to decide whether it is vandalism? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:02 1 January 2008 (BST)

@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 ::Actually the only real dispute was what it meant on suburb pages as far as a few specific things, I think we had a pretty decent definition of NPOV aside from that.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 :::From the looks of things Nali has taken a self-imposed break from the wiki for a month. I don't think he's going to be available to awnser any questions.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 09:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-Is anyone going to rule? Otherwise I will (despite what has been said here and [[UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/A Helpful Little Gnome (2)|elsewhere]]). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
+Is anyone going to rule? Otherwise I will (despite what has been said here and [[UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/A Helpful Little Gnome/2007-12-23 Promotion|elsewhere]]). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 ::::I withdraw my request for you not to rule.--[[User:Thekooks|Thekooks]] 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 Logoff is still in effect; I'm coming on here one last time to answer the results of my last few edits. And Swiers, the good faith reason I had for removing his edit there was because, as Boxy and Karek, I believed it was a part of policy- by communal general assent, as well as some VB cases on here with The Surgeon General, which basically said it was OK for him to move POV comments, after someone tried to get him on it, even if NPOV had never officially gone to voting. I simply didn't think it was proper for TheKooks to make an edit to an administration page that changed the essence of a page that, as I'd said earlier, lay unchanged since it was created. {{User:Nalikill/Sig}} 21:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 457: / Line 457: @@
 :::::I meant whoever takes the action based on it.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 ::::What? He's wiping pages, making it harder for others to evaluate their content, and giving a false impression of what the page contains. Like it says at the top of [[A/D]], "''Please make sure that the original content remains on the page, so that others can judge whether the page is worthy of deletion.''". The pages never qualified for crit 1 until he wiped them. If he continues to do so, knowing that it's not the right way to go about things, why shouldn't he be reported here, for a third party to decide whether it is vandalism? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:02 1 January 2008 (BST)</small>
-[[Category:Pages to Preserve]]

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2008 01: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 03:00, 24 September 2014

Navigation menu

Search