UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 01: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 03:01, 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

January 2009

Sexylegsread

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	1 week ban

Banned for a week for vandalism. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

After talking with sexy, i decided to wait for the input of another sysop in this case. Dont make me regret this decision. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 16:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my input. What the hell were you thinking? You might regret your actions. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism by the way. The only borderline offense is that it is a bit long. Maybe ask him to shorten it? You couldn't vb Iscariot for blinking and the spoiler you can't vb Read for the string of ds. Why don't you write a new sig policy?--– Nubis ^NWO 23:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, if you couldn't tell by me asking him to at least change the letters up a bit. Sure as hell pisses me off, but nothing strictly against the rules. Though I do strongly ask him to change at least his user link to where it's easier to see. Different color, maybe bold it?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 02:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is against the rules. It needs to be clear or easy to determine who signed. The way the sig was set up it obviously wasn't and that was intentional. It isn't vandalism because it hasn't been a week and he either didn't realize that the policy actually says it needs to be clear who is signing or is actually doing this in bad faith as opposed to just screwing around. For now assuming good faith seems to be the way to go, and also please read the damn policy people, there's more than the simple list of larger restrictions there. --Karek^maps?! 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It says that the handle portion must link to your user page, or a sub-page so that an editor can easily discover more about said editor. Nowhere does it say that it has to be clearly defined or identifiable, only that it must be there. Should one of those other failed sig policies have passed instead of failing, this would be vandalism. Under the current policy though, although annoying, it's not vandalism.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 03:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry what's not clear about it having to be clear? I wasn't aware there were thirty different meanings to that sentence beyond the obvious two that there needs to be a link and that it needs to be easily findable. --Karek^maps?! 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Read has been pushing the sig policy deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are off line a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:34 1 February 2009 (BST)

No, I didn't change it back to the same version that hagnat had removed, I took out about 7 or so links from it so that my userpage was easy to find. Why is that so hard to understand? I did what he said.--CyberRead240 08:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - As Boxy. Read is deliberately pushing the letter of the law in bad faith. His userpage link is not easy to find and the sig is long enough and it is long enough that it frequently forces itself onto a second line. By the letter of the law we should give him a week to change it, but by he spirit that would be ridiculous.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He has changed it to make it within the "law". Twice. This time, if you can't find his user page link, then you must be blind. It's large, bold, and it's not lowercase.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 16:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He has admitted that he is deliberately abusing the policy, which makes it bad faith and thus vandalism. He know exactly what he is and that makes it vandalism whether or not it is a breach of the exact wording of the policy.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Pretty clear cut case in my opinion. deliberate abuse=vandalism. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, now it is Vandalism for the reasons mentioned by WanYao on the talk page. --Karek^maps?! 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Five out of seven sysops says its vandalism. The week ban was issued again. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - As pointed out above, he knew he was breaking the policy and continued to do so even after being asked to bring his sig in line with it. -- C h e e s e 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm what policy? What the fuck is this? Karek's sig breaks my user talk page just as much as reads did. Bias amongst the trusted users? no wai.--x o x o 04:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

btw that's a serious question.--x o x o 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much breaking pages as it is clarity of who is signing. At least initially(and as can be shown by my comments on Read's page). The case ended up being vandalism because he was intentionally trying to disrupt the wiki to make a point, kinda like the A/D on A/D case. --Karek^maps?! 04:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't really trying to disrupt the wiki, he wanted an uglyass signature and managed to make one whilst keeping it within policy. This disruption only resulted because the ops were out to get him, see what SA said on A/M.--x o x o 05:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before I don't think it should have gotten to this point but, he did provide more than enough reason for me to view it was vandalism. If you want to see more of my view on that It's all there on my talk page where SA asked. And I think that's about all that needs to be discussed here regarding this closed case, if you wish to continue my talk page would certainly be an appropriate place. --Karek^maps?! 05:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the case is closed, I'd like to state for the record that I think this is not vandalism - at least not yet. Read wasn't given the correct amount of time to change his signature, which is stated as one week in the signature policy. --Zs L 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Kewabara1

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For this edit to a group sub-page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:00 29 January 2009 (BST)

I'll plead guilty to this for the sake of avoiding dispute. My bad. --Kewabara1 00:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is another sysop going to do anything about this? --Pestolence^(talk) 03:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:45 1 February 2009 (BST)

User:Captain_Rickety

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Made gross changes to Grayside Civil War, (which is still a public page) simply because he disliked the page. The current page is under discussion and it has already been mentioned he has no control over the page, as it's not a group page nor a talk page, yet, defying this, he has gone ahead and done it anyway. The two main edits made to the page since then were very constructive edits and added to the page itself. To remove around 3000 words from a page just because he disagrees warrants vandalism in my opinion. --Ryzak Black 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The format of the page was so fucked up in its own right you can hardly blame someone for deleting it. I suggest you each make a page regarding your 'version of events' in your groupspace.--x o x o 23:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Take it to arbies. -- C h e e s e 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:LiarsZergersCheatersUmbrella & User:Umbrellaarezergs!

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Verdict	Already Banned
Action taken	None Required

Alt accounts inflaming the situation between two groups, who are currently in the middle of an arbies case over their shared name. Edits include

this edit of a disambiguation article in the main namespace - With the intent of removing other groups from the list.
Defacement of a group page

Plenty others in their contrib lists, including reversions of reversions by people removing the vandalism. -- Rooster Dragon 15:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just reporting LiarsZergers here: Vandalising group pages, Umbrella specificly. Also edited a disambig page, removing all but one link. See his contributes (which are all vandalism) for details. Ban please. Also, Umbrellaarezergs is already been banned. --Thadeous Oakley 15:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

At least they keep leaving Whiskey Platoon's page alone. --Dark Blue Helmet 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is non sense... Ban this person (the vandal of course). I'm getting bored of this. --Li thedark angel Meth!^{The Great Meth Man} 16:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Former permabanned. The latter is already banned. -- C h e e s e 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone get his IP so I can Cross-Reference it with my forums? --Haliman - Talk 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Haliman, Cant give out that information willy nilly. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ScouterTX and User:Ryzak Black

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Made gross changes to Grayside Civil War that compeletely twist and distort the article. I asked User:Captain Rickety to avoid responding to prior provocatuions. However these acts are clearly harassment and I believe they fully constitute gross vandalism. I am submiting both for a joint act of vandalism. --Ferrum Leo 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with ScouterTX on this one, obviously. This is a public page, maybe Captain Rickety/ferrum leo, whatever he calls himself these days should learn how to make sub pages. Anyways, this isn't vandalism, there's been edits from STARS too, I believe this page involves all of East Grayside, and should be fully editable (par vandalism, of course) by all who inhabit it. Besides, if you'll also notice Captain Rickety was the one that broke the STARS redirects a little while ago and made some stupid page out of one of them? This claim is wrong, ironic, and very, very funny. --Ryzak Black 22:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

_{Other discussion moved to talk Linkthewindow Talk 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)}

Not vandalism - if you want a page that excludes your opposition from posting their point of view (POV), put it in your group namespace (either here or here). Pages like this one however, that are in the main namespace should be kept in a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), or at least allow for all parties to put their opinion of the matter forward (in a respectful manner). The worst thing that Ryzak and Scouter did was to label all the FURIG posts as "FURIG's original fiction" as opposed to their own versions being labeled "opinion" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:16 28 January 2009 (BST)

It should probably be moved to FURIG's (?) group subspace, or at least protected if it's going to become the subject of an edit war. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, he stated on the pages talk page he would continue to revert the changes at regular intervals, I think it should be locked in it's current form while this is all sorted. --Ryzak Black 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've got a tab open to confirm protection of the page as soon as I see any more mess on Recent Changes. -- C h e e s e 23:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24 hour Ban

While in an arbitration dispute with KotD he put in move requests for several groups (from link down) in an attempt to influence the case and harass the groups/KotD. The rightful leaders of the groups had to request to have their pages moved back because of his actions. His intent is clearly shown here from his comment. This is harassment, clearly bad faith, and abuse of the system and should not be allowed.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - abusing the red tape is bad, mmkay. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 12:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - it's a grey area of the group sub-page protocol, as evidenced by the fact that the pages were indeed moved despite a sysop review of the request. Unfortunately he was ignorant of the history of the RRF groups, and didn't realise that it was a different circumstance to the DEM pages. It's not unreasonable to demand that other pages that you believe are similar in group standing be treated the same -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:14 27 January 2009 (BST)

Ignorant of the history of the RRF groups? So what is this comment: Until such time as a member of the War Council overrules me, I am the user with the most relevant information regarding the RRF, not you.

Also did you notice this bit where he requests the move of Axes High then comes back with this comment to Cheese about how he said he contested the original move, you overruled me and went and fucking moved it. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxy, he wasn't ignorant of the difference between the two, he also wasn't ignorant of the DEM's stance vs the RRFs. He knew what he was doing, he knew and the Recruitment/Arbitration case alone make that point extremely well but, the fact that he's been in the RRF for over a year now doesn't hurt. It is unreasonable to demand groups are treated in similar manners when the circumstances aren't similar, it's more so when you are in an active dispute over that exact matter. And if you can't believe that how about you go over the case when he tried this again in reverse when the DEM finally got this undone. --Karek^maps?! 02:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Err...how on earth did Iscariot's move request ever get approved in the first place? The DEM has made it clear in a heck of a lot of places that they consider their member groups to be allied groups (ala the NMC and the DA). The NMC and the DA have not been forced to move their allied groups to sub-page status; neither should the DEM. And in either case, shouldn't the DEM be the ones to determine how they want their wiki pages grouped -- whether they want to portray those groups as subgroups, or simply as allied groups?

Can I request for those pages to be moved BACK to independent pages, or do I have to be a DEM member for that move-reversion request to count? --Jen 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be the question of the day, however rest assured in the knowledge that this already did get undone a while ago, Iscariot threw a fit then and got escalated in the process. This should have been reported when it was done and shouldn't have been served but was apparently missed and that's why Nubis reported it now. Here are the links to the other case Case(talk). There is also some on A/MR. --Karek^maps?! 03:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering whether or not a Misconduct case would be appropriate however, on investigation I don't believe Cheese had any intent whereas Iscariot clearly did.--– Nubis ^NWO 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism As Hagnat. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Conn, I would have thought you would have carried out the sentence.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jedaz

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Removed an in progress arbitration case without justifiable reason or authority. Jedaz's edit summary says that a 'resolution had occured'. This is incorrect. As the party with the grievance that required third party mediation, no resolution had been reached. Sgt Raiden had accepted the case and we were in the arbitrator selection phase when Jedaz performed his vandalism. Are we actually going to allow users that are not involved to cancel an arbitration case in progress simply because they do not like it? Is that the route we are going down?

Request appropriate escalation and full restoration of the case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If Sgt. Raiden wants this case to continue then your request may have some merit. Until he states that he wants a full Arbies case and contributes names of arbitrators then the case is where it belongs. But on the plus side, he has been properly warned about non-NPOV edits and the next batch may result in an official warning. --– Nubis ^NWO 09:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, can a user simply say "Nope, I don't want an arbitration case" and have it removed? I was under the impression that if they didn't accept the case, a representative would be selected for them. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No user can be forced into arbitration. its a process where both parties agree to reach a common ground and cease any hostilities. If one side of the case does not want that, you cant force him to accept it. I dont know from where this representative thing came from, but it wasnt there when the system was created and doesnt help mitigate drama in any way. And not vandalism, btw --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 16:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was, Iscariot removed the rule from the page and no one really bothered to challenge it because we don't tend to enforce that rule. The rule is that Sysops can force it but, aside from the fact that the case was in response to us NOT banning him we wouldn't do it in this case obviously. Technically it can be forced, practically it's pointless in most cases, archiving it due to death is often better unless there is a real issue involved. --Karek^maps?! 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - If the other party wants the case to proceed then it can be restored. Jedaz has to my knowledge breached no rules and as a result was within his right to remove the case. C h e e s e 10:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Although intentionally harassing users, threatening to drive them off the wiki, and intentionally attempting to abuse arbitration very well might be. Proceed carefully Iscariot. --Karek^maps?! 09:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism and damn it..for some reason Vandalism and Vandal Data pages are not showing up on my watched tabs. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Sgt Raiden

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Ok, I don't know if this is technically vandalism or not... But Sgt Raiden posted a "forged" External Military Report in the Shearbank news, here. Additionally, he posted this on the same page -- a blatant violation of NPOV guidelines. While the latter certainly isn't vandalism, I think it has some bearing on this case in establishing "character" and wilful intent to flout basic wiki policies and guidelines. --WanYao 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add this edit (and Moloch's reversion back to NPOV) to the evidence. Again, this isn't vandalism -- but it demonstrates a clear and consistent pattern of flouting NPOV guideines, which I believe is very relevant to this case. --WanYao 02:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet again. Just browse his contribs and you'll see he does this over and over. --WanYao 02:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your idea of "talking to him" about his edits is saying "NPOV - Learn it and use it." ? With no link to a page talking or explaining what NPOV is or any more constructive comments about it? – Nubis ^NWO 03:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems more like a case for Arbies. What he is posting is not vandalism . --– Nubis ^NWO 03:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, he's been "talked to" already about this stuff... However, considering who did the "talking to".... Anyway, if that edit isn't vandalism, fine... As I said, I wasn't sure whether the "forged" report was vandalism or not... And, yes, I've created an Arby regarding these sum total of these edits... WanYao 03:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he should know better by now. Though he was the guy who got in trouble with Iscariot for non NPOV stuff in the malls being attacked by the Mall Tour, but I don't think he got it through his head what exactly he had done wrong.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

see, if it was just a newbie thing, I'd never have brought it here. But, he's been "talked to" about this. And, the NPOV guidelines are all over the News sections... And now copied on his Talk page for good measure ;) And, I've have started an Arbitration case.... So.... meh. --WanYao 07:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at the previous case and knowing the people skills possessed by the reporter it seems reasonable to think that it was ignored as flaming. Now that you have actually given him a great explanation about NPOV and what is expected I think it would be common sense that the next "spamming" of NPOV comments could be vandalism. If he has any questions about whether or not his comments are NPOV he should either run it by a sysop or Wan. Now that it has been explained he should be able to follow the guidelines. --– Nubis ^NWO 09:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How about the forging of Military Reports? There is a possibility that could come under impersonation. Liberty 11:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

EMRP isn't an actual user as far as I know. So, that wouldn't quite count. :/ It really is an NPOV thing.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but it would count as bad faith. It's the most questionable one there and could reasonably be vandalism as he's intentionally falsely representing a game feature. That is assuming it can be shown that he knows it's a game feature. --Karek^maps?! 09:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But it doesn't seem to me that he does understand the significance, given that his "transmission" doesn't look anything like the official formatting or grammar of EMR transmissions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:42 25 January 2009 (BST)

People... How can there be any ambiguity here?? He "forged" the specific frequency and he "forged" the "*static*" thing, the ellipses, etc. He was trying to make it look like an EMRP. It's obvious he knew what he was doing. Actually, I kinda think it was a creative idea! And I don't think he was literally trying to "forge" a report. I accept that it's not vandalism, and I agree, actually. But to try to argue that it isn't a kind of semi-impersonation is bunk. It was semi-impersonation of Kevan's coding, if you want to get really nit-picky. --WanYao 18:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The "*static*" thing doesn't happen on EMRs though, "static" indicates the word censor taking out swearing by radio spammers (Keven's code doesn't swear). The biggest thing is his attribution of it to the EMR frequency, the rest of it doesn't look much like Kevans EMR coding at all. All EMRs looks like this "25.96 MHz: "... nearly two hundred in Shearbank ... a few big groups, but they're spread out ... several buildings with power ... serious collateral damage ... lights are on in Stickling Mall ... looks like the Gabe Building has fallen ..." (2 hours and 24 minutes ago)". Sgt Raiden's one doesn't start off with zombie numbers (as all EMRs do), it makes numerous references to "zeds" (never zeds in EMRs) and it references an evacuation to another suburb (movement comments are never in EMRs) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:42 26 January 2009 (BST)

Put it this way, it's not a big deal yet. If it happens again report report report, then it's a big deal, right now it's iffy but giving him the benefit of the doubt isn't the worst thing possible. Just take him aside and talk to him about some of the editing standards on the wiki, especially on suburb pages on the off chance that it takes and was an honest mistake. --Karek^maps?! 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa re the *static* :( I know the case on its own was borderline, but the whole point was the slew of non-NPOV crud he was posting... It kind of was a big deal in that contect. But he's been "spoken to" so there should be no excuses if he goes on another spree. Cool, then? --WanYao 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Umbrellaarezergs!

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2. And more, hit RC. By the way, since we all know where this will go, use the talk page... Linkthewindow Talk 10:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And even more... Linkthewindow Talk 10:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He's been reverting our edits for a little while now-look here. It should be noted that since he is reverting, he's looking like a sock :/. Linkthewindow Talk 10:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's stopped and I think we got everything reverted. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick contribs check confirms that. Linkthewindow Talk 10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Permaed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:57 22 January 2009 (BST)

Wauw. Thanks for fixing all this, Link and Midianian.--Thadeous Oakley 11:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Vasia

Verdict	Adbot
Action taken	Gorn

Adbot. Perma. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:I hump men

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

yawn.--x o x o 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak, I've made worse walls of text at the NMC forums.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus this Liberty 01:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And his group. Annoying, but not vandalism. Should he get a perma, since his three contributions weren't all vandalism (but admittedly not very constructive?) --Pestolence^(talk) 01:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, 2 vandalism edits and a borderline offensive name, but I'm not going to perma him. This doesn't bode well for his wiki career. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you fucking insane? 2 vandalism edits that consist of "PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS... etc.", and you warn the idiot? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:01 21 January 2009 (BST)

Get the to policy discussion if you don't want to ban obvious spammers -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:07 21 January 2009 (BST)

I agree. 'I Hump Men' isn't exactly an account name for a long time wiki user. Liberty 11:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Spokane

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Just a guess, but edits to a group page that he is not a member of. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Plain and simple. Concurence for Warning? Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3 edits... the vandalism above, and these two, none of them seem "constructive". Looks like he's earned himself a perma -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:29 18 January 2009 (BST)

Vandalism for the reported edit, but not worth a perma. As we have shown you can put any kind of warning statement you want on your talk page. If violating one isn't vandalism then making one isn't vandalism. Boxy, back off the trigger, man. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that the talk page posts were vandalism, Nubis, I said they weren't constructive. People who come on and vandalise in such an obvious manner need to have contributed something worthwhile to guarantee getting the benefit of the doubt. But meh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:00 19 January 2009 (BST)

User:MisterGame

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Page Deleted

Deletion workaround for creating this page. It was already decided by the community that this crap -- which is personal and libellous -- was shamefully inappropriate for our wiki and deleted. And here it is again..... Please see this deletion request for more information. --WanYao 09:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wan is correct. Just because the other guy made Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service/Umbrella/Zerg that does not make the original decision that the wiki was not the correct forum for this any less valid or the page's existence any more valid.
Please go to Undeletions like everyone else with a request and a reason why the wiki is now the right place for this. And please either ignore each other or work it out without using the wiki as a battle ground, we have enough of our own drama.
Not Vandalism, deleting the page, do it again without an undelete request and escalations may follow as necessary. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 13:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the opinion of community? It was decided it could stay, even by other syops.--Thadeous Oakley 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Because you misled them as to why it was removed from the wiki. The fact that you did it doesn't change that it got removed, it actually makes it more poignant. Frankly you re-creating the page was in bad faith and could easily be deemed vandalism, I'm being softer than I could be. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether the page fell under crit 6 was discussed there by people aswell. You keep saying it got deleted because of crit 6 but some (the majority) disagree with that. Your going to tell me your opinion weighs more then of the others?--Thadeous Oakley 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The page was already voted for deletion. Your leader is a wiki vandal. Deal with it. --WanYao 15:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't read? It was decided that it did not fell under crit 6. You have the right to disagree, but unless your some sort of super-elite-bureaucrat the majority makes the decision.--Thadeous Oakley 15:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, buddy, but it's YOU who can't read: "Deleted under Crit 6. -Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 14:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)". And one more time: the community already voted to delete this garbage.... right here. --WanYao 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not want this "voluntary deletion" (done under the auspices of community rejection, i.e. a successful deletion vote in progress) to be used as a loophole of they put the page up again. This is the second time we've had to ask for it to be deleted. I do not want there to be a third. --WanYao 15:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh, it looks like the meatpuppets were winning the day. Whatever... But did we or did we not vote to have this same content deleted some time ago, or am I hallucinating? --WanYao 15:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We did... Here is the vote. So I'm not quite sure how recreating the page isn't vandalism.... --WanYao 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Because recreations get a polite warning first time, repeated recreations are vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:21 17 January 2009 (BST)

Ok. I wasn't aware of that, thanks. --WanYao 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hagnat

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Harassment of a user. The fact none of you like said user shouldn't influence your opinion. Hagnat knows better and this is clear cut harassment. Yes the rules are long and complex and i doubt it's possible to post and follow them all however Iscariot's right to restrict people from editing within his user space should be respected. Hagnat did this to start a fight basically, poor form from a longstanding member of the community who usually tries to avoid such things. --x o x o 00:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - At the very least I was attempting to make a point, may have been a bit more of a sweary, pissed off sounding point that I intended, but a point nonetheless. Posting purely to ask him if he likes mudkips and then to double check you'd broken all the rules was a bit far. -- C h e e s e 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

meh... whattheheck... at least ima not the user with the stick up his ass, right izzy ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - the precedent being the dozens of times that J3D and the rest of the finis baiting crowd left similar comments on his talk page after it was clear that they weren't welcome and their posts automatically deleted. Iscariot's "rules" for his talk page have no validity here, unless they are enforce via an arbitration case against specific users. So while this edit could justify such an arbies case being brought against Hagnat, it doesn't make his post automatically vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:05 17 January 2009 (BST)

None of us were sysops, nor were we established or learned wiki users.--CyberRead240 08:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You did it for months on end... if you weren't "established or learned wiki users" in that time, well...

None of which, though, changes the fact that random "rules" that a user makes up, for their own talk page, do not have any jurisdiction here. What's next? Using the + button on Iscariots talk page will get you an official warning here? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:14 17 January 2009 (BST)

Oh I'm not condoning his bullshit. I agree with you that you can type whatever you want on someones talk page, as long as they have every right to remove it. Iscariots a dick and his rule of no Sysops is only to piss people off (and by the sounds of it, it works). All I was saying was, Hagnats a sysop, and has been for a loooooooong time. The only reason any of us came on the wiki was for finis, until ALiM popped up. Just clarifying that difference, really.--CyberRead240 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism. For it to be harassment you have to show a clear pattern of behavior. This is not a pattern nor is it harassment. Cheese, why are you giving validity to Iscariot's rules on his page? His rules only mean that he can delete whatever comments he doesn't like. It doesn't mean that commenting at all is vandalism. That is why people have a User page and a Talk page. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism Simply Contacting a user even if questionable statements cannot be Vandalism. Caveat: It would be one thing if the behavior was incessant or if the contact was intentionally insulting or demeaning. As the Mudkips request is neither and the "broken rule" comment is merely "iffy”, it cannot be Vandalism...yet. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Norm

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permanently Banned

The spammer is back. See Fat Albert, santa etc.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Links, pls? --Pestolence^(talk) 02:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The page wipe obscures the rest, but check my block log (known spammer) and see Santa, check his contributions. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And check Kevin's talk page and Cheese's talk page. He's acting like Norm from Cheers. I would post the links if I weren't so lazy.--SirArgo ^Talk 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He's been temp-banned while it all gets sorted out. Feel free to revert in cases where it's clear it's a spammer in the future. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 02:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perma issued. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 03:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Wiki Martyr

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Main Warned

Pretty obvious sockpuppet aimed at trolling Iscariot. --Cyberbob 06:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IP check brings back Conndraka. --Zs L 06:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. --Cyberbob 07:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - a sock puppet account created solely to troll another user. There is no good faith reason to create such an account, and while alt wiki accounts themselves arn't specifically barred, creating one simply to troll is the definition of bad faith. Account permbanned, and Conndraka warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:39 15 January 2009 (BST)

Umm exactly where did the account Troll anything? Other than a statement of not being involved in an Arby there is nothing said at all. I beleive this account was banned in error, as the account isn't prohibited and made no comments, nor took any actions that could honestly be considered Trolling. I therefore appeal this ruling to the entire sysop staff and ask that the account be unbanned and the warning struck until such time that said account commits some action that directly or indirectly either vandalizes this wiki or in fact attacks another user. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now who's playing the martyr? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:38 15 January 2009 (BST)

It was a sock puppet intended to troll Iscariot. That is clearly vandalism, as per numerous precedents -- including one where someone did the same thing to me. Morever, IMO such sockpuppeteering by a sysop is totally Misconductable...... --WanYao 17:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Trolling is not misconductable until it becomes bullying.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly where is the trolling? No Comment was made that in any way was derisive, demeaning or insulting towards another user. By the way...Sockpupets are not prohibited unless they are used to vote, vandalize, or violate the wiki community standard. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you were trolling. I actually think this is Not Vandalism however it isn't enough to overturn the verdict. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - As above. -- C h e e s e 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He calls himself that way in his user page, yet his sig says otherwise. I agree with karek that this is a faerie queen case, but i agree that this account serves no purpose but harassment, and that is vandalism in the new wiki book --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1)Not Vandalism, the account hasn't performed vandalism yet but should be considered on very short noticed. 2)Who it is is relevant in the case as it's a sysop and they will be prohibited from ruling on this case. 3) I'm un-permabanning the account as we can not permanently ban the account legitimately at this point., this is not User:Kevin, it's User:Faerie Queen, which, as you'll no doubt notice, isn't banned because vandalism on the account was ceased after a warning. Yes Conndraka shouldn't have made the account, no I'm not saying that actually using it to troll wouldn't be vandalism, however we do not rule preemptively with the assumption of what someone is going to do. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be the mature thing to do if Conn just banned this account.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 02:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't happen, I'm going to reinstate the sock puppet ban myself (unless the sysop vote changes) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:14 17 January 2009 (BST)

If you do that you'll force my hand, the vote is irrelevant, the policy is exceedingly clear on this matter. We can not ban the account without three edits of vandalism or the account's existence itself being vandalism. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 15:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This account isn't a "User". The User is Conndraka and Wiki Martyr is his sock account, that does not get full "User" rights. If it's used in good faith to improve the wiki, it is ignored, but given that this one was created solely to play with Iscariot, who Conndraka has been in conflict with on arbies for a while now, it is not a good faith use of alt accounts -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:11 17 January 2009 (BST)

Let me get this straight. The user name isn't offensive in of itself, it hasn't committed any vandalism, it hasn't voted or been used as a sock puppet, yet you think it is right to ban it because one user randomly decided to use that "name" as part of an insanely long ridiculous self proclaimed title? So, if my account is older and I start calling myself Nubis the Boxy One I can have you banned for being a trolling account since your user name would clearly be copying me? --– Nubis ^NWO 22:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we been here before? No, that's got nothing to do with this scenario, where an existing user creates a sock puppet with the only intention being taking the piss out of someone they're having a dispute with. Some newbie coming along and making such an account and posting in good faith wouldn't be binned unless they made it a whole hell of a lot more obvious, and had 3 edits, none constructive -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:50 18 January 2009 (BST)

Boxy, alt accounts are always treated under the same auspices as user account except when the accounts existence is vandalism. Users are allowed to have alt accounts, that isn't limited to alt account you feel can't cause drama it's a blanket rule. We can only ban alt account when the account is used for constant vandalism or sock puppetry(rigging votes, falsifying consensus), just like what would be required to ban the user because, the rules that allows us to ban the account are the same. If an account's very existence is vandalism(name is impersonation) then we can ban it before it does anything, anything else means we have to assume good faith and wait 'til stuff happens to punish people for doing that stuff. Alt account have always gotten full user rights unless they were being used for real sockpuppetry, this isn't sockpuppetry, it's alt use, sockpuppetry would require intent to decieve. --Karek^maps?! 03:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And I believe that this sock puppet's name, who created it, and where and what they decided to post all adds up to vandalism, and 2 other sysops agreed (admittedly before this discussion). That doesn't make us wrong, it makes this a difference of opinion on the matter, which needs to be decided by a majority decision -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:46 18 January 2009 (BST)

It's not a matter of differing opinion, it's a matter of policy and precedent. My opinion is that the account shouldn't have been made but, I can't ban it based on how dumb of a move I think this was, I can't rule vandalism because there was none committed just a little tomfoolery, and we can't ban the account because it meets none of the minimum requirements set by policy and precedent. --Karek^maps?! 16:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3 is bigger than 2. Vandalism and user already warned. Case closed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold your horses Hagnat, I rule Vandalism on the grounds that this was a ban faith edit (To antagonise Iscariot) by a user who knows better.account hasn't actually done any trolling and I concur with Karek that Whether or not the edit was, in fact, vandalism there are no grounds for a perma ban because the account does not fit any of the criterion set out in the guidelines.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, you all want to rule that the puppet's edits were vandalism, but want to leave the sock puppet active, and simply warn it (and hence it's puppeteer). That goes right against precedence (in all but popular users cases), but at least we should label it as such, so that it's clear who's making the comments... but we'll need a new template, because vandal alts all have banned in the template -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:27 21 January 2009 (BST)

I'm ruling that Conndraka's actions were vandalism because he should not better (hence making the edit bad faith) but the rules do not allow us to permaban an account unless it has made 3 vandal edits or is used for impersonation.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Karek and I never said the edits were vandalism. The feeling is that it is stupid and tacky, but not that the account creation or edits were against the rules. Don't say we called the edits something we clearly did not. Only the General voted both ways.--– Nubis ^NWO 01:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia have a template that says something along the lines of "This account is a confirmed alt account of X" and it designates that it is not breaking any rules and therefore doesn't need to be banned?--SirArgo ^Talk 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We have one somewhere too, I think. I could swear I ran across something like that when I was working on the Altban template. --Karek^maps?! 11:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Sgt Raiden

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Informal message on talk page

Impersonation of a group and a user under the same name.

This user has shown through past contributions to pages and danger reports that he is aware of how to sign correctly. His report is nothing but an attempt to besmirch a group and user due to actions he disagrees with, namely moving to a suburb he is not in.

This user has previously declared Mall Tour targets when not in a position to do so and has therefore runout of second chance, reverting his shit is something I'm tired of. I want this warning and reverting. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proper link -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, there's something wrong with the links I'm getting from other people, because this is the second time this has happened. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 03:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on it right after you posted this request and it sent me to the right history comparison...--SirArgo ^Talk 03:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The url is wrong it was diff=0 instead of diff=1362921. It defaults to the most recent, I suppose. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - new users often forget to change the signature part of those templates because it's a separate variable. Only a few days ago this guy tried to make a report on an image talk page, so I'll have a talk to him on his talk page about signing (and keeping reports NPOV) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:25 15 January 2009 (BST)

The man has a history of perfect signing and a history of announcing false targets for the Mall Tour! Do I not even get my sysop revision? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 04:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can only find two cases of him signing a template like this (one where the sig is a separate variable) before, and a couple of other cases where he didn't update the sig part when updating his own signed comments days later (ie not updating the timestamp). As to him being annoying, that's a matter for arbies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:46 15 January 2009 (BST)

I would like to direct Iscariot attention to the blue box in the top of this page. Talk with users before reporting them. Most of the times a situation can be solved with a simple and polite request in the talk page. When newbies are involved, failing to follow this advice can even cause them to leave the game --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

This editWhere Iscariot is deleting edits made by others in bad faith simply to agitiate and agrivate the sysops and in the process deleting edits by other legitimate users i.e. Liberty. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean agitate and aggravate, also you need a dictionary methinks. I was removing the disputed content as per the precedent of arbitration. Although Liberty's edit may be good faith (if it is proven that the account is not an alt of a certain user) the precedent still stands that the disputed content is removed for the duration of an arbitration case. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 05:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wherever you're getting the idea that Liberty is a alt account is completely unfounded and, well, wrong. A few checkuser checks show this to not be the case. -- C h e e s e 11:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

#4. Not Vandalism although his comment here is borderline when considering his past warnings.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 05:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Very Well, but I don't see it as petty as the edit in question ties directly to the operation of a fairly well trodden administration page. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - Agreement with Karek. -- C h e e s e 11:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the hunting of the witch plz.--x o x o 12:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the shitting up of the admin pages plz. --Cyberbob 12:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Irony lol x o x o 12:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of you. Last warning. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 12:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Conndraka

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

This edit, restoring the contentious edit that is required to be reverted for the duration of the arbitration case as is the precedent. His reversion of Hagnat's edit is clearly provocative given his history of edits in relation to mine. He is well aware of the arbitration process and his precedent and has intentionally edited against this consensus driven statute. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean the one before it. Liberty 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

#4. Just because you know trying to misconduct or Vandal report Hagnat for that would fall on it's face doesn't magically give arbitration powers beyond it's limits. Arbitration can not overrule real administration pages, more to the point you are submitting a case based on pettiness to try and get your way there and then trying to use that to justify this. Not happening, Not Vandalism. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 05:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism - As Karek. -- C h e e s e 11:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Spammers

Verdict	Adbots
Action taken	Gorn

And more, hit RC.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Added the rest since they stopped. I think that's all. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Permas The lot of them. Im assuming we delete the spam pages as well? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet don't record vandal data. Hmm. Well if there not coming back. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Colonel Krauser

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Informal message on talk page

For this vandalizing edit. More Umbrella vandalism? Can we just ban them all off of the wiki? --Haliman - Talk 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Vandalism. You bait a hook, a fish is going to bite. -- C h e e s e 21:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraneous Discussion moved to talk page -- C h e e s e 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - they should all know not to edit that page by now -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:21 12 January 2009 (BST)

I've defaulted this to not vandalism since nobody else ruled. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:A Big F'ing Dog

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

I'm new to this reporting thing, so forgive me if i'm making to big a deal of nothing. But I do think that this constitutes vandalism at least needing an official warning or whatever. Deleting other users edits is considered vandalism, correct? - tylerisfat 08:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism - he removed his own suggestion from the Developing Suggestions page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:57 11 January 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism. As above. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 11:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Word. Thanks for the quick response. - tylerisfat 05:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

This is shitting up admin pages. He won't accept that someone might know more than him even though he knows that that person had access to privileged information regarding the exact thing he's arguing about, he's trying to game the system in an attempt to back up his belief of a bias by intentionally misrepresenting the facts and then arguing ad nauseum when someone knows better. He was warned about this behavior on the same page. I'm requesting another sysop rule on this issue.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 04:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Involved -> --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 04:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. You can actually back up my point that no RRF member that knows anything would believe what he is saying.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuing despite a soft warning sounds vandalish to me? Liberty 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continued on talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:41 11 January 2009 (BST)

Vandalism. Tending sysop said it wasn't going to be moved by him. No need to continue that discussion and doing so is clearly bad faith trolling. Why not go cry to another sysop to get your way like you did with the templates? Or are you running out of sysops that will give in to you? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - As Nubis. You've already been warned for shitting up admin pages, Iscariot. Please take the hint with this second one. -- C h e e s e 14:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

T's going pretty fast now. How many warnings until permaban vote?--Thadeous Oakley 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you are doing the same thing iscariot is being warned for ? Do not shit on admin pages. There is no need to kick a dead horse in the main page. If you want to, do it in the talk page. This is your last warning, thadeous. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackson

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

For this edit to MY group's sub page. --Haliman - Talk 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an open page, both our groups are on that page if I am not mistaken? I didn't know that the UBCS had exclusive control over it.-Jackson.

We have control on it seeing as it is in our namespace.--Haliman - Talk 22:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is bullshit! I demand that my name be removed! I do know better but if its just the UBCS page then they should remove our Umbrella name from it! If they want to lie about OUR war then they can, but I thought this page was open to both groups!-Jackson

Gimme the damn info, and I'll put it in, your highness.--Haliman - Talk 22:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - You should know better and we've been over this before. The page belongs to UBCS and they can put whatever they want on it. Take it to arbitration if you don't like it. -- C h e e s e 22:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ObiFireFighter

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Warning retracted

Impersonation. Similar to the J3D thing from last month. Linkthewindow Talk 21:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

~~Vandalism~~ - although he's not using the same name, he is going back and changing his sigs on messages that had already been replied to, to make the posts more insulting. Impersonation in that he is changing posts that have already been replied to in a bad faith manner -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:44 9 January 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - but rather a reversion of this edit -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 15 January 2009 (BST)

User:Beau Dece

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Making several edits to a group page that is not theirs (particularly the last one). Another Umbrella vs UBCS thing. -- C h e e s e 16:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh*. Not Vandalism, please?. He is a complete wiki newbie, and therefore unaware of any rules or regulations concerning group and community pages. I can assure that this is not a bad faith edit, he probably thought this as the real wikipedia, where anyone can edit anything. I'm sure he did not break the rules on purpose. If he were a vandal, the page would be either blanked or filled with nonsense. Not bad faith, so forgiveness?--Thadeous Oakley 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

MisterGame might not be a sysop (hint, hint, dont "rule" again), but i agree with him. Its just a wiki-newbie mistake. Not vandalism --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 21:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, he did it again! Told him to stop on his talk page. --Janus ^talk 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've expanded it a little. It looks like a confused newbie (as Thadeous said, it doesn't seem to be in bad faith.) Might want to un-bold that "Not Vandalism" too, Thadeous. Makes it look like a ruling. Linkthewindow Talk 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Sorry, I had no intention to rule on anything. I will fix it, again sorry. -1 for bad impression.--Thadeous Oakley 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Iscariot

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Shitting up admin pages, with free and unneeded attacks to members of the admin staff, in disguise of a good faith action for the community, even after being asked not to revert these comments. This behaviour can be seen in other administration pages, as most members of the community are aware of (no links needed, then). Unlike other users who work together with the admin staff to help mantain the wiki, iscariot constantly work against the admin staff. Asking for punishment on the grounds of his constant attitude towards the admin staff, not only because of these edits. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 13:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We won't even go into the wikigate-ness of wanting a user punished "on the grounds of his constant attitude towards the admin staff", was the clause that everyone has to be soopa-nice and give cookies and fluffy puppies to sysops a part of the civility policy? Because I don't remember reading that one.

Let's determine these edits correctly then, since Hagnat would mislead all of us for his own gain given the chance.

One bright sunny day, with the birds gaily singing in the trees, Iscariot was walking through the formerly lush and fertile gardens that were the administration pages (recent caretakers have unfortunately be deficient, we need a new team of gardeners) when he noticed a travesty. Speedy deletions that had received a keep had not been moved over to the main deletions queue. "Surely not!", thought Iscariot, but it was true. Iscariot consulted his Ladybird Book of UD Wiki Procedure and noticed the rules at the top of the page: "A Speedy Deletion may be circumvented by a single vote of Keep under the request. If this occurs, the system operator shall move the Speedy Deletion request to the Deletion Request Queue, where the normal rules for Deletion of the page shall apply." Iscariot lamented that this community approved process had not been followed, he checked the history to discover the culprit of this heinous act, seeing the Golden Boy of the Sysop Team, he knew that the misconduct case would be brushed aside even though a clear breach of procedure had occurred. So valiantly, with good faith brimming from his pores, he scooped up the errant cases and deposited them in the deletions queue.

Iscariot looked around the queue and saw that it had become customary for users other than sysops to leave a short message explaining to the community why these case had been moved.Trusting fully in the will of the community, he left a message on each case, explaining the situation. Along comes the arch-villain of the piece, Hagnat, and removes these comments for the dastardly purpose of leaving the community befuddled by the reasons that these cases have spontaneously appeared. Not to worry reader, for our knight of shining truth and justice, Iscariot, reappeared and explained to the arch-villain why these were needed. Good deeds done for the day he returned to his castle, for some troll had deposited a turd on his immaculate lawn.

But, lo! The Iscariot-Signal appeared in the sky again. This time the arch-villain had tried to besmirch his name by removing his signatures. This would leave no indication that the fair knight had performed these brave and selfless acts. Again the noble crusader undid the beast's work, content that all was right in Wiki-lot again.

Thwarted as he was, the arch-villain pulled out his final dishonourable weapon, a kangaroo court (well not really, there are no kangaroos in Wiki-lot, perhaps a wallaby court or a koala court?), and here fair reader doest our story pause, a cliffhanger. The deeds of the dashing knight at the will of denizens of the underworld. Is this the end for our valiant hero? Tune in next time.

Can anyone guess how the objectiveness and impartiality is going to work in this case? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR; - and quoting Nubis... thank you for your input --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 13:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh! A new active flame war! Cool, I'll watch *grabs popcorn*. Seriously though, what's up with Iscariot? I kinda get the feeling he isn't very popular.--Thadeous Oakley 15:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hagnat You beat me to the proverbial punch. I was going to post this after much consideration. I'm not sure which case we should discuss, but I seriously think this is a problem that needs to be solved. Sysops only are free to comment on the page I created under my User space. Other comments will be considered vandalism. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are adding to the current case against me I demand that all of that is brought and posted here so it can be entered into the appropriate archive. Placing a vandalism case in a userspace, particularly when the user in question has deletion rights over the page without any oversight is a recipe for historical revisionism and alteration of the case after the ruling. You want that entered? Bring it here into the appropriate domain so the community can see it as I demonstrate the massive holes in your 'case'. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems with a particular page you need to take that to Arbitration. But fair warning I will only accept a sysop as an arbitrator. TIA.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with the page at all, in fact I'm making a copy for normal users to comment on, however in order for any case to be considered, it should be placed here in the correct system. This is so that in the future users will be able to look back on the case and see everything pertinent. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you one of those people who believe that decent popularity and getting along with an average amount of people isn't needed to work properly?--Thadeous Oakley 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though i appreciated your input, thadeous, i'd like you to follow the guidelines of this page and refrain from commenting on the case unless you are a sysop or the user being reported. This case will be grounds for lots of drama, there is no need for outside involviment here. You can still use this page's talk page, though --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While that guideline you mention is probably been broken a million times in vandal history, I will try to behave myself. I see this is a sensitive case, so I will respect your nicely said words ;). *stays on the sidelines*.--Thadeous Oakley 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He wants to get banned so he can accuse the entire sysop team of lolmiscontrabitration. Ignore him.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 17:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

if thats the case, i say give him what he wants... but unfortunelly i am the reporting user and can't give it to him :( --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he's wrong, doesn't mean he should be punished for having no understanding of why rules exist anywhere or having enough foresight to see why they weren't moved. Especially since he doesn't have the ability to see how idiotic he's being.--Karek^maps?! 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Karek's link fixed. Linkthewindow Talk 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And fixed, coulda sworn I had it right.--Karek^maps?! 01:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is funny in that for almost every guideline and essay, there exists an equal and opposite guideline or essay. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Big difference there. Karek's link is a policy in progress and your link is just an opinion essay. It is in the same category as this, this, and oh this.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the difference is rather small. It's a policy proposal, not an actual accepted policy. You do realize that it (too) was an essay not long ago? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Btw, that was me ruling, or more specifically saying that it's not worth ruling on and should be dropped while not actually trying to validate bad behavior. If it needs saying; tentative ~~Not Vandalism~~ in his own demented way he was acting in good faith, ignorance isn't vandalism until it causes major problems.--Karek^maps?! 06:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent actions on his part have made it clear that he's purposely contorting the rules in bad faith, that requires me to change the ruling here to Vandalism.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 06:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ignorance isn't vandalism until it causes major problems. - all the drama he unnecessarily creates IS a major problem. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You also seem to be missing the point. Could you try reading it again, this time without assuming that I'm opposed to your very existence? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No hostility was intended in my comment. That whole thing was just about me saying that I need someone to show intent to game the system before ruling vandalism for him addressing what he seems to think are rules violations.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to see what your definition of "major problems" is. But thank you for weighing in on the case.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Whst the fuck is wrong with you guys? Has Iscariot scared you all so shitless that you can't fucking decide on a VB case? Either rule on this fucking case or move Nubis' case over and start that, but don't just let this asshole get away with his fucking temper tantrums. You assholes, grow some balls and get rid of this shithead. -- #99 ^DCC 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how I missed this case. =/ Anyway, I'm going to say my piece. Once upon a time (wasn't that long ago either) I personally found Iscariot to be a very useful contributor this community. Sure he went a little over the top here and there, but he made some very good points and what he had to say did contribute to what was going on. However, over the past few months this has changed dramatically. Instead of contributing to the community, Iscariot is doing nothing more than picking fights with the admin team, bulling other users and attempting to start flame wars over the simplest things. When he gets asked to stop, he cries foul and hides behind policy and precedent. He bans sysops from contacting him in a non-official way threatening a misconduct case if that happens (which I might add any have yet to materialise), every edit makes to an admin page attacks sysops for being stupid, lazy and nothing more than mindless idiots hiding behind their trusted user status. He brings up frivolous VB and Misconduct cases over the slightest thing, wasting both our time and the time of everyone else on the wiki having to read through them and then have them cluttering up the page.

As has been pointed out several times, we have no policy against being a dick. But we have a policy (several, actually) against vandalism. Vandalism is seen as a bad faith edit. Going by this case alone we have several bad faith attempts to stir up drama on the deletions page. This is (unless I'm very much mistaken) an Administration page. Checking the archives, we have several precedents for people receiving vandal escalations for shitting up admin pages with irrelevant and trollish comments. As a result, I'm going to take this precedent into account and, basing my decision entirely on this case, I'm going to rule Vandalism. -- C h e e s e 12:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Don't shit up pages and make edits that you know are in bad faith. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

PS it says a deletion w/ a keep vote needs to be moved, but it doesn't say that we only have 5 seconds to comply, nor does it say that it can't remain "listed" on Speedy (perhaps to serve as an example or to tell users where the case has been moved to). It just says that we can't speedy delete the page after it gets a keep vote. If we wanted to keep archives of every case that was put on the speedy page (regardless of action taken on it or not) then we can.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the pages were obviously safe from deletion by being moved to the served section. The only reason to move them over would be to vote them Delete (which would make moving them from SD pointless) or Keep (which we clearly were going to do anyway.) --– Nubis ^NWO 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Now the verdict has been taken, but aren't you forgetting warning him on his talk page for the above as is custom?--Thadeous Oakley 21:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am waiting to see how he handles the expectation of a A/M case. Liberty 08:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:8oxy

Verdict	Sockpuppet
Action taken	Permaban

Possible attempt to impersonate Boxy. IP check reveals it originates from the same location as that of this guy. Same single contribution of posting on user page to (possibly) get the account noticed. I won't ban it (yet) just in case I'm wrong, unless another sysop wants to back me up on this one. -- C h e e s e 11:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lulz. *in await of the Ce3se and A unhelpful little gnome.* --Thadeous Oakley 14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this one, but my checkuser came back blank. how did you make the link? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ran the IPs through an IP checker. Both came back to the same place in Australia. -- C h e e s e 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was checking this user ip earlier this morning, it points to a proxy site in australia... i say perma as an obvious attempt to impersonate boxy --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 15:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Permabanned. Stop this, you are not funny.--Thari^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 16:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Might as well ban the IP, surely? Also, the 2 Special crowd almost certainly had something to do with this as well but good luck getting proof. --Cyberbob 16:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be a detective! If it's a proxy then i'm sure they will ban the IP. --x o x o 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They should ban it anyway to prevent any more of these occurrences, proxy or no. I don't quite know why IP bans aren't standard for all permabans, to be honest. --Cyberbob 03:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because some people who play UD may not have access to a computer at home, so they use it at the library, or at school. Also, some users that live together and run through the same IP address would have problems with that also. I think IP bans should happen if it's a recurring problem with the one IP, but with the whole community computers things in schools, universities and libraries etc it would be impossible.--CyberRead240 03:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When banning a user, the mediawiki framework automatically bans any attempt to create an account with the same IP of the banned user. This IP ban only last for a few days, though, to avoid punishing shared computer users who had nothing to do with the case. Now, if you guys want to carry on this discussion, i suggest you to move it to the talk page, as this doesnt have any relevance - exclusive relevance - to this case --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it wasn't actually an identical ip, merely one from the same area so an ip ban would have no effect.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Rayols

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Circumventing a perma that was issued earlier by making this edit. Sure his 'friend' made the edits, that's why the first edit under that account to Rev's pages months ago was a vandalism edit. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's a completely understandable thing right there. Friends using each others PC's. Just like Scinfaxi and Jjames. *Snickers*-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Permaban This is is the same IP as the banned vandal below. Pro-tip: if you want to plead your buddies case don't do it from his computer.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kerkel

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Extended Ban

More editation of PK pages. Any more vandalism from him and it's a ban. -- C h e e s e 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Persistent fucking vandal. Can we have that perma now? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Already done. -- C h e e s e 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A very polite request to get an account unbanned

In a semi-related note: Lol. -- C h e e s e 23:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAOPMP... ok, ok... i never saw a user going to this extent to get his account unbanned... i have to give credit to this guy... i ask for his perma to be lifted, and three warnings to be added to his account. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not too bothered either way. It's not like we can't ban him again if he goes on a vandal spree. I'd say we've given him 2 warnings and count this as a (slightly extended) 24 hour ban since it would be his 3rd escalation. -- C h e e s e 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you. I have unbanned the account. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 12:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kerkel

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Editing the group page he is not a member of. Two contributions, two acts of vandalism. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The other one is over a month old so I'll just count this one. Vandalism and warned. -- C h e e s e 21:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrrm, didn't even notice that until Boxy reverted it. Guess he's sore about dying, what a shame he's just put himself on my radar again... >:D Thanks for that. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Janus Abernathy

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

For this edit, as mentioned below. Umbrella members are real class acts, eh? How many vandal reports in the last week from their members, hmmmmm? --WanYao 14:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

He was attempting to revert the vandalism from the case below but didn't do it right. Not Vandalism. -- C h e e s e 14:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I fail at reverting vandalism ;) --Janus ^talk 14:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry...... **goes and stands in the corner** --WanYao 14:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my summary was referring to that she didn't know how to use the undo and revert tools properly. So, yeah, I posted on her talk page. If anyone's wondering. Linkthewindow Talk 15:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraneous Discussion to talk -- C h e e s e 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hallman111

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Vandalised the UBCS Alpha page. Note that he is not Haliman111 (the UBCS leader.) Linkthewindow Talk 14:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Got him. Permaban. IP address is the same as the one used by the Umbrellaemployee dude from earlier in the week. I've done an IP block to stop them using that one. -- C h e e s e 14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That was quick. There was another example here. on the main UBCS page. Linkthewindow Talk 14:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this needs some clarifying. Janus wasn't the vandal, Hallman was. I just compared between my edit and Janus's edit as she didn't revert properly, and the diff captured most of the vandalism. Linkthewindow Talk 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraneous Discussion to talk -- C h e e s e 18:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nemesis 645

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Impersonated the MOB at the CoTR's talk page, and did the same to the CoTR on the MOB's talk page, in an attempt to get the groups to declare war on each other, it seems. There is nothing about him being member of ether group on his page (he seems rather survivor.) Linkthewindow Talk 11:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - Impersonation of two different groups is just stupid. Warned. -- C h e e s e 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Sexylegsread

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	48 hour ban

Allowing vandalism to take place without doing anything to try and prevent it. Indeed, he actively supported it. I can't be arsed linking to the various pieces of evidence, pretty much everyone knows what went down anyway. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to the talk page -- C h e e s e 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please include the relevant links next time, bob.

I can assure you it wasn't anyone I know --Sexylegsread 13:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC).
On msn with them, I said, yes, it would be lulz to do this. And so far it has lived up to my expectations.--Sexylegsread 11:45 30 December 2008 (UTC).

I think it's clear that if we even accept his story that it was some faceless neighbor, and not him doing it, he was complicit in the vandalism. He was asked, should I do this, and he said yes, it will be lulz. He then proceeded to lulz it up on the vandal talk page, A/VB and A/M, lying about it all the way, depending on what could be proven at the time -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:51 1 January 2009 (BST)

Meatpuppet vandalism is still vandalism.--Karek^maps?! 08:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm now sober and have had a chance to think. Vandalism -- C h e e s e 10:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that looks like a 48hr ban, then. Done -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:55 1 January 2009 (BST)

This is ridiculous. Vandalism is a bad-faith edit. Talking to someone in RL is not an "edit" and, thus, cannot be vandalism. Not Vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links to bad faith edits to increase the disruption caused by this vandal impersonation that he coordinated with his "friend".

It was a coordinated act of vandalism, so the next escalation is a 2 day ban. I can't help it if he's a persistent vandal who's used up all his warnings -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:16 2 January 2009 (BST)

Ok, here is the response to the "bad faith edits". 1. That isn't an act of vandalism. 2. That isn't an act of Vandalism. 3. That isnt an act of vandalism, and 4. Surprise Surprise, isn't an act of vandalism. Nice to see I was vandal banned for something you couldn't prove, isn't it? That agenda flare up again? Good timing too, getting me out of the way so that you could demote Jed under everyones noses. You are pure dirt, boxy.--CyberRead240 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He may be dirt, but you're full of shit. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Driving your buddies to make throw away accounts to make bad faith edits is as much vandalism as doing it yourself via proxy filters.--Karek^maps?! 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention it is an impersonation account of someone this user personally harasses. You can't believe that some random person made that account on their own.--– Nubis ^NWO 10:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <noinclude>
 {{VBarchivenav}}
-{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Header}}
 </noinclude>
 == [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 01|January 2009]] ==
@@ Line 35: / Line 34: @@
 :::He wasn't really trying to disrupt the wiki, he wanted an uglyass signature and managed to make one whilst keeping it within policy. This disruption only resulted because the ops were out to get him, see what SA said on A/M.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 ::::Like I said before I don't think it should have gotten to this point but, he did provide more than enough reason for me to view it was vandalism. If you want to see more of my view on ''that'' It's all there on my talk page where SA asked. And I think that's about all that needs to be discussed here regarding this closed case, if you wish to continue my talk page would certainly be an appropriate place. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
+Although the case is closed, I'd like to state for the record that I think this is '''not vandalism - at least not yet'''.  Read wasn't given the correct amount of time to change his signature, which is stated as one week in the signature policy.  --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 ===Kewabara1===

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2009 01: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 03:01, 24 September 2014

Sexylegsread

Kewabara1

User:LiarsZergersCheatersUmbrella & User:Umbrellaarezergs!

User:ScouterTX and User:Ryzak Black

User:Umbrellaarezergs!

Spammers

User:ObiFireFighter

Navigation menu

Search